Good Dog Owners

"Farm or Fenced", "Forever" Home

2011-09-06T11:47:00.003-05:00

I keep seeing advertisements for dogs that need new homes. The owners request that prospective inquirers have either a farm or a fenced yard. The new home is then described as a "forever" home. What's wrong with this picture?

First, I think it is important to recognize that the "forever" home is a myth (I've posted on this before). The myth is that when you acquire a pet, you are only a responsible owner when you keep that pet "forever".

I describe this concept as a myth because we all know it isn't true. We're only human-- we make mistakes or run into difficulties sometimes. People often get a new puppy or dog and find out that it isn't a good fit for either. Especially in a difficult economy, it can become hard for people to give their pets the kind of care they feel they deserve. And of course, as a trainer, I know that when people don't manage, lead, or train their dog well, that dog can become more of a hardship than a companion. Sometimes it's best for everyone if the dog is placed with someone who has the resources and the willingness to provide better care.

I have placed two dogs in the past couple years myself. Both came from owners who were unable to handle some new circumstances with the dog. Neither acted irresponsibly by trying to find a new home for the dog, and they needed help to do so. So we helped.

Neither dog required a fence or a farm, but both got great new homes. One had a serious behavior problem that the new owners were ready, willing, and able to manage. They love him, and he is a safe, fantastic worker and helper to them. The other had no major behavior problems, but just didn't get along with another dog in the household. The family inherited a new home in an area which limited how many dogs they could legally own, so one of them had to go. They placed the one that they felt would be adopted out readily, and which would adapt most easily to a new home. His new owners proved to be a great match, and the transition with both dogs went well. Sometimes a new home is just best.

What does it mean when someone says they want the dog to go to a farm or a fenced yard? That's easy. It means that the dog hasn't got any quality training! No training = restraining.

This dog, like most of his kind, has lots of energy and needs an outlet that the current owners are unable and/or unwilling to provide. If you do not restrain him, he will likely run away. Somehow, in the minds of city-folk, if you just let that dog run free like he wants to be, he'll be happy and well-behaved. He can run free on a farm, but no one seems to own a dog that must be tied up or walked from time to time, so he should be fenced otherwise.

Apparently, such dogs are either expendable on a farm, or somehow just manage to stay put without restraint. They just figure out some sort of job to do, and love it so much, they don't stray at all. They have no desire to chase the livestock, the barn cats, the trucks or the horses that pass by on the road, right? Because they have a new freedom, they LOVE their new owners, and would never dream of being a problem. Alternately, if you really must tie him up in the barnyard when you discover these problems, your neighbors are less likely to report you to the authorities for being cruel.

Of course, we all know that any dog needs some training before he can be trusted with off-leash, un-fenced freedom, but they all deserve to have a shot at it.

ALL dogs should be socialized and trained from puppyhood on up. If they need a new home, it is much easier to find one which is suitable, farm or fenced, or none of the above. A well-socialized and trained dog can adapt to a farm life, or any new lifestyle, much easier than an untrained dog would.

Do Dogs Decide As We Do?

2011-08-31T14:37:00.005-05:00

Will a dog always know a pet duck from a wild duck from a barnyard duck (can you?)? How discriminating can he be? How do we qualify a dog's mistakes?

How much can we rely on our trained dog's sense of "right and wrong"? Where does a dog's behavior cross the line from its responsibility to make good decisions to our responsibility to train, restrain or contain them? Is there ever an "intelligent disobedience", and what role does that play in the pet dog? What limits must we set on our expectations of a trained dog's behavior?

Before attempting to consider our questions, I feel the need to first qualify, once again, that we ARE discussing a trained dog. While a stray dog has, from time to time, saved the livestock or the baby and then made its way into the hearts and homes of new owners, we certainly do not expect them to have a sense of "right and wrong" upon the first meeting. We do expect more from a dog that has been trained.

So then, for the critics, we must answer, "What do you mean by 'trained'?" Let us suggest that for the sake of argument, our dog has a history of responding quickly and reliably to all the Novice exercises found in any major registry, such as that found in the AKC obedience competition ring, and can do so, off-leash, despite the presence of new and intriguing distractions. The dog has a sense of responsibility to its master, has learned to trust and respect the family, and has little interest in causing any harm to his neighbors or their animals. When a new and unfamiliar event develops, the dog readily looks to his master for instruction, and the master uses the dog's knowledge of basic commands to help him understand how he would like him to behave.

So we have a hypothetical trained dog. Our dog is so well-behaved that his owner leaves him alone inside the home with full access to every square foot. The family can come and go without fear that the dog will jump them at the door when they arrive, or charge out of it when they leave. Invited guests are welcomed with a little suspicion at first, but no molestation, and friends quickly learn not to fear the dog's watchful eyes.

One day, our hypothetical 12-year old daughter is left alone at home with the dog. She has picked up a cold virus and must stay home from school. As girls will sometimes do, she decides to wash her hair and practice some new styling technique. Half-way into her wash, the water runs cold. Something is wrong with the water heater. Well, this has happened before, so she takes matters into her own hands and calls in a pro.

So now we have a tired, cranky girl with cold, soapy wet hair, and a knock at the door. Our dog is instantly alert. You can guess where this is going. How does the story end?

If our hypothetical AAA Heating & Plumbing man gets bitten, should the family get sued? Should the dog be put down? How much do the circumstances matter?

Let's say the dog is trained to follow the daughter's command. She puts him at a stay and welcomes the help. The repairs get done, the dog stays, the man leaves, the daughter is happy to rinse her hair, and Mom and Dad get a surprise when they get home regardless!

Or, let's say the dog is trained to follow the daughter's command. She puts him at a stay and welcomes the help. But the man takes another look at this pretty young girl in a fuzzy pink robe and attacks her. If the dog breaks the stay to bite the man, this would qualify is "intelligent disobedience", wouldn't it? What parent would not gratefully accept the disobedience of such a dog under such circumstances? The dog easily recognized this as unwelcome human behavior on the part of a stranger, and reacted instinctively to protect a member of his family. While sometimes such criminals attempt to act against their victims (and their dogs) in court, most systems would deny him the right to sue for the bite.

Let's say that the dog has not been trained to follow the daughter's command. Once again, you have a couple of obvious scenarios possible. The dog may choose to follow her command anyway, and simply follow the man's behavior carefully until he leaves. Are we surprised by this decision on the dog's part? Do we find it acceptable?

In a last scenario, the dog breaks the stay and attacks the man as soon as he enters the home.

Would such a dog be considered "dangerous" or "vicious"? Do we hold the dog responsible, because he immediately violated a command? He understood the command. Even if not specifically trained to follow HER command, should we expect our hypothetical trained dog to?

Do we stop to wonder if the dog reacted instinctively to the man's hidden intentions when he first saw the girl as a potential victim, or do we automatically assume that he simply charged an innocent guest? Would you stop to wonder, or would you hold the dog responsible regardless? Do we hold the owner responsible, as in, he failed to train the dog adequately? As we can only guess at exactly what the dog was responding to, do we simply pay the man's medical bills and further train the dog? Or do we automatically assume the dog is dangerous and put him to death?

We must ask these questions from time to time, because it is easy to see our canine companions as intelligent, discriminating family members. We sometimes don't expect enough of them, and yet sometimes expect far too much of them. They are, after all, only dogs. Therefore, none of the above scenarios should come as a great surprise to our hypothetical family, really. He is just a dog, after all. He is a wonderful addition to the family, and he may help enrich, or even save lives. But he is just a dog.

We have taken a wild beast and tamed him enough so that we feel mostly comfortable with him in our home. But he cannot be held responsible for making decisions JUST as we do. He will sometimes make mistakes.

This is a risk that we must keep in mind, and we generally do, when we bring a dog into our homes. We also must take responsibility for the risk this animal brings to our communities. And so, the best we can do is train the dog to recognize that which is normal and "good" in our lives, and help him to respond in a way which we and our neighbors approve of. We must also recognize that he may make mistakes, and set up our management to help prevent serious ones. In many cases, the dog will then recognize that which is not normal about a situation, and do his best to behave within the expectations we hold for him.

Do Dogs Have Morals?

2011-08-28T13:03:00.002-05:00

When we train our dogs, we sometimes think of what we're doing as teaching them "right from wrong". Is this a moral concept? Or are we simply teaching a set of rules? Is there more to dog training than rules and a goal of compliance? Can our dogs decide to act in a particular way because of what they feel is "right" or "wrong", in a human sense?

The biology student in me claims that we must be objective when analyzing animal behavior. Animals are not supposed to have morals. They only act on instinct, right? We know that we can shape their likely responses through breeding, socialization, management, leadership, and training (nature and nurture, when you break it down). But how much do they really understand about our moral world? How much do we hold them accountable for, whether they can or cannot understand?

I sometimes tell stories to my clients and students when I want to help them understand my goals in obedience training. My dog Rocky Road was not the smartest dog I've owned, but he had a fantastic temperament, and he took to obedience training well. I watched him mature into a wonderfully responsible and reliable companion. I miss him dearly, as we developed a strong bond in the short 6 years I was blessed with his company. This story is one of my favorite Rocky stories.

I was teaching a Novice class, and on about Week 5 or so, one student agreed to bring a large red hen to help serve as a distraction for our sit-stays. He let the chicken go, and she slowly clucked, scratched, and pecked her way across the yard to the line-up of trembling dogs and handlers. Rocky was also on lead, and also quite tempted to break his stay.

As we moved on, so did the chicken; she moved off into our backyard, away from the class, which settled into working on other exercises with a stronger sense of attentiveness.

When class was over, I stood with Rocky, facing the chicken, which was minding her own business some distance away. I mentioned to the class that I trusted his training, and I was going to prove it. I clicked off his leash and gave him an "okay" release. Off he went, running straight at the big red bird!

I stood firm, not panicking. I let my hands fall to my sides and called, "Rocky, come!". He slowed for a few strides, then turned and came to me. I straightened his crooked front (he wanted to see the bird behind him) and then called him back around to heel position. Still off-leash, he complied readily. He sat facing the bird again, and remained quite interested in what she was doing.

Most people would be pretty pleased to be able to call their dog off of a strong distraction like this, especially if the safety of another person or animal depended on that recall. But this was only an obedient response. I called; he came. There was no moral desire expected in the dog. After all, under different circumstances, both of us would happily eat the chicken. Chasing, killing, and eating chickens is not morally wrong, but it may be quite undesirable behavior in a pet dog.

While I could have chased after him and corrected him for the chase, I chose instead to trust his training to stop the chase and thus protect the chicken. But by choosing the recall to solve the problem, I was also able to teach him a new rule: "don't chase the chicken". In another sense, what I was really saying was, "control your predatory instincts". The "right" was, "come". The "wrong" was thus "don't come"/"chase and perhaps kill".

While the latter part, the "wrong" may be a leap of concept for some dogs to master, my Rocky found it easy enough. He comprehended that the chasing behavior was not desirable; he KNEW without a doubt that the recall was desirable. But the story doesn't end there. The first part is pretty cool--Rocky was able to control his instincts and obey a simple command which was in opposition to those instincts. But the last half of the story proves the "magic" of Rocky's training.

After Rocky returned to heel position, I set him free with another "okay" release. He left me, but in no particular hurry. I kept one eye on him while I helped answer lingering questions from the students. The hen made her way back to the driveway and training barn, and Rocky chose to follow her around calmly and smell her tail feathers out of simple curiosity. I sensed no "evil thought", or in other words, I saw in his body language no intention on his part to chase or harm the big bird. His self-control was evident, so I allowed him the freedom to learn more about the interesting creature, rather than restrain him and leave him wondering. How many dogs would never get this chance?!

I don't believe that a dog has morals, in the anthropormorphic sense of the term. I do, however, recognize that dogs are intelligent domestic animals that enjoy learning how to work within the social human network that is their "pack", "family", or working unit. When they respect your authority, and when you teach them how to follow obedience commands (rules) in such a way that they will choose to do so reliably, you then have a way to teach them other, new concepts. Concepts like, "don't chase or kill the chicken".

It is hard for some people to understand how a dog can develop good character through training. Responsibility, for example, is supposed to be a human quality. Whether you want to describe it in more scientific terms or not, I choose to describe Rocky as a responsible dog. I also describe him as loyal, reliable, peaceful, loving, etc. Some of those qualities, including the self-control discussed here, were nurtured through the obedience training process (yes, we have a process), and then became evident through his decisions and behavior responses.

Rocky was an inspiration to many people who met him, because this simple-minded dog was able to prove to them how wonderful a pet dog, or a "working companin dog" can be. While he was naturally inclined to be a "good" dog (he enriched our lives and made it easy to want to keep him in our home), his training helped him to better understand and interact with the world around him. This made him a more trustworthy and trusting companion, thus making him an asset rather than a liability to our community.

While dogs can learn a few things about our perspective of "right and wrong" through the rules we teach them, I think it is most important that we remember our responsibility to teach them those rules. That is simply the "right" thing to do. When we can teach dogs our rules in such a way that they can more easily learn to make "good" decisions in new circumstances, we know we have really done the "right" thing.

The Nose Knows

2011-04-07T07:54:00.002-05:00

I've been considering the amazing powers of the canine nose lately. The dog's nose is an incredibly designed machine. I use the word "machine" lightly, since humans have spent years and millions of dollars trying to create a machine that can do what dogs to naturally and with ease. They are so valuable to us because they can do things with their noses that we can only dream about.

Have you ever thought about the variety of services dogs have provided us with, simply by using their noses? Well, it's no secret that we have long-eared hounds bred specifically to help us find lost people or wild game, and herding breeds and labradors to help us find illegal drugs and weapons, therefore helping us stay safe. But there's so much more!

There are dogs that keep our agriculture safe in a variety of ways. The Beagle Brigade sniffs out illegal fruits and vegetables in airports, which helps to prevent the spread of disease or other contagion. I remember learning about a dog that searches for a fungus that attacks bee colonies, an essential aspect of pollination for all sorts of crops. There are even dogs that look for wild animal scat with their noses, so their biologist handlers can study and protect endangered species more efficiently.

There are dogs that look for all kinds of insects and molds to help keep our homes safe. Lately, dogs have been in the news for detecting all sorts of cancer, too. All they need is a whiff of a patient's breath stored in a bottle, or just a tiny little tissue sample. They don't need to even meet the person to help them identify an illness. Even pet dogs can help people be aware of an impending seizure or diabetic event, or help find a lost child. All these dogs need to do is alert, but some also help in other ways as service dogs.

Dogs can keep our military troops and police safe by alerting to a human threat or a weapon of all sorts by detecting the evil presence with their noses, and then comfort them when they are stressed or lonely. No machine can do that.

Our pet dogs have these noses, too. We usually forget about that, since they are not often put to work for us, besides companionship or play. But when they have such a natural skill that they love to use, why don't we help them use it more often? We should tap into this large portion of the canine physique and psyche, develop it, and learn how to take advantage of it. The dogs deserve the chance to work for us, with us, and develop a deeper bond with us as a result. We can enjoy our time together even more if we give them the chance.

The canine nose is so wonderful. No machine can duplicate it. The best part about it is that it is attached to a four-legged creature we love to spend time with. So let's enjoy it!

Tools: Magic Wands, or Just Aids?

2011-03-29T10:40:00.002-05:00

I've been increasingly frustrated with common misperceptions, myths, and downright lies spread throughout the general public regarding canine management and training tools. The problem is the idea that a tool will somehow solve a problem BY ITSELF, when what is really required is a little education.

It seems that most dog owners go to a pet store (or trainer) and ask for help with XYZ problems (usually, pulling on leash is priority one). Unfortunately, rather than be guided through a training PROCESS, the hapless dog owner is instead sold the latest whimsical gadget designed to somehow steer their dog into heavenly, joyful, "pain-free" submission. The "pain-free", or "humane" moniker is usually what finally sells the product. It doesn't occur to the seller or the buyer that long-term results might require more. Or perhaps, if it does, that doesn't matter anyway.

So the dog owner puts the device on the dog. They may have gotten lucky with some instruction on the "proper" (by manufacturer claims) instructions on how to fit said tool. They then happily, hopefully clip on the leash and observe. Have you ever witnessed this? It's as if some grand transformation, for better or worse, will suddenly take place right before their eyes.

With some tools, you will see something interesting happen right away. The dog may respond as the owner hoped, and perhaps there is a slack leash (or one pulled tight by the nervous owner, regardless of the tool's instant seeming success). In come cases, the dog throws an instant tantrum, much like a bratty child in a candy store who has just been told that the candy is off-limits. At least that's what this might look like. This event may include screaming, rolling on the ground, whining, frantic attempts to get the tool off, and/or biting. And that may only be from the owner!

Either way, the hopeful dog owner moves on, determined to give this miracle tool a try. The dog might be managed well, at least while on a leash connected to a reasonable person with some common sense. In other cases, the dog may actually exhibit great signs of discomfort or displeasure the more the tool is used. The walk is, for whatever reason, no fun for anyone.

Such owners are somehow persuaded that the TOOL is what it is all about. This "miracle tool", like a magic wand, will transform your misbehaving monster into a mannerly mutt in seconds. Or maybe a few days. But there is no need for any work, right?

Well, after such an owner spends some good, hard-earned cash on a box full of later-unused tools (some of which are chewed, falling apart, frayed, or showing bits of hair sticking out everywhere), they might just start asking for some real results. All of a sudden, the management plan has failed, Fido is fierce, and something has got to be done!

Ahhh. Here comes a PLAN. A plan! Who'd a thunk it?

Whether the owner figures it out on their own, with a good book in hand, or an experienced trainer as their guide, a plan carries with it more potential to have a beginning, a middle, AND.... an END. Ooooh, an end. End results. Measurable results! A plan with measurable results? It's a MIRACLE!

Ah, no it isn't. It's just reality, and back to basics.

So an owner and a trainer, perhaps, work together to determine: 1) what the end desirable result is, and how to measure it (we start with the Novice competition standard as our test. Some start with a CGC test. Some don't have any standard, unfortunately, but our imaginary new friend does), 2) where to start (every dog and owner need a firm foundation), and 3) how to connect part 1 and part 2 (a plan!).

Part 3, the plan, is likely to require a set of tools. Regardless of what type of tools are used, they should both have some understanding of how to fit it properly and how to use it safely and effectively (meaning a "method" made up of "techniques"). The goal is to teach the dog what is expected (a rule), how to follow the rule, that the dog can choose to follow the rule or not, and that the dog can expect consistent, fair consequences of those choices throughout the remainder of the training process. One rule leads to another, buiding on the previous steps. The monster figures out how to be mannerly, the owner is happy, and the nieghborhood breathes a collective sigh of relief.

At some point, some tools may lose their effectiveness and other tools may be required to continue a lesson. That's okay. It doesn't mean that any tool is inherently GOOD or BAD. It just means that for a certain stage in a certain plan with that dog and owner, there needs to be a new tool to help the dog learn what is necessary for the safety and contentment of both dog and owner. And sometimes you just sort of "graduate" into the use of a new training tool as a part of the plan. The key is to move away from "management" tools and instead use "training" tools as part of a plan. The results should eliminate the need for fear, heavy confinement, and constant restraint.

We all know that management fails sometimes, so what are you going to be left with?

Another point worthy of note is that no person should advise others on how to use a training tool (or why they should avoid it) if they don't have a clue how to use it safely and effectively themselves, while others clearly do.

Dog Licensing- What is it Good For?

2011-03-15T13:20:00.002-05:00

Dog licenses allow for a local registry that enables lost dogs to find their way home through animal control, while also ensuring that these dogs (and thus people) are protected with rabies vaccinations. A small fee helps to pay for the paperwork required and also pay the salaries of the people who round up the stray dogs, while also helping to feed and house the dogs in the pound. Well, that's how it is supposed to work.

Dog ownership has changed, and so has the licensing system. There is much variation in how it is done. In some places, including our own county, dog owners feel vilified, highly taxed, and are suspicious of the system. They avoid contact with any form of law enforcement for dog laws. They avoid the shelter altogether. They sometimes behave irresponsibly either because they are ignorant or because they would rather simply avoid extra expenses associated with compliance. In other areas, dog owners comply with care, dogs are licensed regularly with low fees, and pets are overall better cared for as a result.

Let's look at Calgary, Alberta. They have a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate. According to this article, most North American cities are lucky to get 10-20% compliance. And they do this while charging $31-52 per year! If a dog owner gets caught not complying, they are generally be fined 10x the amount they would have paid if they had licensed their dog to begin with. Licensing is easy to apply for-- no searching for the little city/county office. Every dollar goes back to paying for animal control services.

Dog owners are always encouraged to be microchipped. But in Calgary, every AC vehicle has a scanner. They will take a dog directly home instead of to the shelter when they can. This reduces expenses and probably helps keep those dogs healthy. If a dog does get to the shelter, it is photographed and placed online within 15 minutes, and treated with veterinary care as needed. There are less tough decisions to make for strays, because there are less strays and there are funds to cover any necessary expenses. Dogs are typically only euthanized for severe illnesses or behavior issues. In other words, most true strays are adopted out, probably because people are more willing to work with such a shelter system to find new dogs there.

Calgary also focuses on educating dog owners, and children especially. They are actually included in the schools' curriculum to teach children to respect living things. They have 140--140!-- off-leash dog parks. This creates a much more positive, dog-and-people friendly community.

Over the past 18 years, they have cut the number of dog bites and chases by 50%, even though dog and human populations have doubled.

$31 may seem high when compared to our local $10 for spayed/neutered dogs. The fee for intact dogs is about the same. But how much would you be willing to pay for such a system? The system is helping dog owners find lost dogs, reducing the number of dogs in the shelter, educating children and keeping the community safe. They are working FOR the people and WITH the people instead of treating them like the enemy. This sounds like a pretty good deal. Why do we still have such high fees, but our community does not have the added benefits?

"Purebred" or "Mixed"? How are they different? Is one more valuable than the other?

2011-03-15T12:46:00.002-05:00

I and my dog were participating in a special school program for elementary students yesterday when the teacher asked if mixed breed dogs were healthier than purebred dogs. Since at least three of the dogs present were mixed, she thought she was really doing us all a favor by mentioning this "fact". Since most shelter dogs are mixed breeds of unknown heritage, and since so many people promote "adoption" of shelter pets as a heroic good deed, it makes sense for people to promote the idea that mixed breeds are somehow better than purebred dogs because they are somehow healthier.

The truth is, mutts are not necessarily healthier than purebred dogs, if you separate them into just those two classes. Anytime you mix dogs together, you compound the number of illnesses each breed carries genetically. How could this make such a dog healthier? Well, some people think that if you breed away from "line-bred" dogs-- in other words, if you breed dogs like you might marry someone other than your hillbilly cousin or your sibling, you increase your chances of being healthy. But it's more complex than that.

The reality is, if you want a dog that you can count on to be healthy into adulthood, you increase your chances by purchasing a purebred puppy from a responsible breeder. A mutt from the shelter won't have the known history. It dog from a shelter might be a great pet, and it might live a long, healthy life. But if one of your top priorities is a quality, healthy dog that will likely live a long healthy life, research a healthy, particular breed first. Then check the shelter system for that breed if you like.

An example: For my next dog, I'd like to raise a puppy again. I want an intelligent, medium to large dog that I can count on to live and serve me well for as long as possible. I have other check list aspects I'm looking for, too, but healthy is at the top of my list. When researching breeds, I came up with two I have great interest in: the Doberman and the Giant Schnauzer.

Both breeds are very intelligent, highly trainable, incredibly loyal working companions. They were bred to work closely with their owners, and to be reliable, trusting family members. Both are attractive dogs to me. Unfortunately, one has a much, much higher incidence of several debilitating illnesses than the other. For me, that's a deal-breaker. So I continue to research the Giant Schnauzer.

I will keep my eyes open in the shelter system, but I really do want to raise a puppy. So I will look for quality breeders. I will look for someone that does health testing and has proven to produce healthy dogs with longevity. The temperament of the breeding should fall into my interests, and the individual pup will be carefully selected.

But oh! What if... what if someone bred a few healthier breeds back into a Doberman line? The Doberman was made up of a number of breeds to begin with, so we could still tap into some of those breeds for the best qualities, health in particular. We might be able to eliminate, or at least reduce, the incidence of some of those terrible illnesses.

Would the resulting puppies still be "purebred"? Would it still have quality? After reviewing this blog post, I come to the personal conclusion that most of our purebred dogs actually come from mixed breeds at some point in their history. "Purebred" to me means that we have breed those dogs to a point where we can pretty much predict what the future puppies will look like, work like, and act like as adults.

If we can keep the qualities we like most while eliminating the genetically inherited illnesses, why not? I would be interested in raising a Doberman puppy without worry that it will fall down and die of a heart illness or collapse from instability in the spine at a young age. If it looks like a Doberman, acts like a Doberman, and lives a long, healthy life, I'm all for it! Who cares what names are on its registration papers? I don't, really.

Then again, maybe by the time the breeders allow for this to happen, I'll have fallen in love with a healthier breed. Perhaps my pup will be followed by others that somehow ended up in a shelter system later in their development or in adulthood. Perhaps I'll even "adopt" one that is mixed with some other breed, and love them all!

I guess the point is, we all have our own priorities and interests in dogs, but we should remain open to the possibilities, and work to find the best fit for our own families, in what ever form that comes.

Service dogs, therapy dogs, & Trainer Services

2011-03-10T09:25:00.003-05:00

Service dogs provide very important care to people with a variety of disabilities. These dogs can lead, alert, fetch, carry, and open doors (both figuritively and physically) for their owners. They have a valued place in society. Therapy dogs provide emotional support for children, the elderly, the hospitalized, the imprisoned, and more. These social, mannerly dogs provide companionship through their simple presence, or by accepting petting by strangers.

It is important, then, that these dogs have knowledgable, skilled trainers and quality training before they are released into the public to perform these duties. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

A dog should meet certain qualifications before entering service work or therapy work. "Therapy dog" is not to be construed to mean "service dog" as I discuss them, but these basic rules apply to both. Dogs in both roles should be mannerly and sociable. There should be no signs of aggression before a dog is even considered for these duties. They must be trusted in a variety of public situations, so they must be, above all, safe around people and other animals, regardless of their handler's ability to control them.

Basic training is also essential. "Basic" training should include all Novice level commands and responses (as found in the AKC standard, for example), as a dog in public should be able to demonstrate this minimum level of self-disipline and responsibility to the handler. A therapy dog may not need additional skills, depending on where and how they are expected to serve, but basic training cannot be ignored. A dog entering in any other service capacity should also have other specific skills tailored to the handler's specific needs. All of these skills should also be tested and found to be reliable.

Since these dogs need a minimum of basic training, and often more specific skills for reliable service work, someone needs to be able to train these dogs and weed out the dogs which are not able to perform reliably. This requires a quality trainer, and this is likely to require some funding.

A quality trainer or training organization providing service dogs should be somehow affiliated with or accredited by an organization such as Assistance Dogs International. A therapy dog and owner should also be tested and approved by a recognized organization, such as Therapy Dogs International.

A trainer may charge a fee for training and selling quality service dogs, or work with a non-profit organization which raises funds to produce quality dogs. All dogs should be able to pass Novice-level skills tests in addition to proving reliable for the specific skills required of their new owners. Can the trainer provide these things?

This brings me to trainer claims. Certifications are only as good as the business or organization from whence they came. What was required of the trainer in order to receive their certification? Do they have ready answers, and do those answers include more education than a simple internet course and a two-week hands-on program?

As with all products and services, the "buyer beware" concept should be in place. If you are unsure of the claims a service dog trainer (or any trainer) is making regarding certifications, awards, years of experience, and the number of quality dogs produced or students instructed, ASK. If the numbers and the evidence does not add up, spend your time and money elsewhere, especially when looking for a quality therapy or service dog.

As with any training program and any dog, much of the evidence of quality will be proven in the dogs. If a program or individual produces quality, safe dogs with reliable training responses, and any funding can be accounted for, feel free to support that program. If the trainers or handlers continually make excuses for the ill manners or lack of reliability in the dogs, and there are questions regarding how funds are handled for the care and training of the dogs, look elsewhere.

Larry the Therapy Dog? Choose Your New Dog Wisely

2011-03-09T09:55:00.002-05:00

The dog in the above picture is described as a Caucasian Shepherd Dog, and he is allegedly being "agitated"-- threatened by another person. He is guarding his handler. This dog was designed (bred for specific purpose(s)) to guard flocks and families in mountain areas. Would this breed be a good choice for someone seeking a therapy dog? Probably not. Are there large, furry dogs that would make better, more sociable choices? Absolutely. Should the above individual dog be pushed into a therapy dog mold, if the owner wanted him AND a therapy dog in the same package? No.

We are lucky that the domestic dog is genetically so plastic, or in other words, flexible and fairly easy to manipulate from generation to generation. They reproduce rapidly enough that in a relatively short amount of time, we have separated out thousands of breeds, from the tiny chihuahua to the huge Irish Wolfhound. They are strong and mighty in the mastiffs and finer and fast in the sighthound category. They can point, flush, carry, pull, find, herd and guard. They provide companionship and securty across the board. There is such variety that almost anyone who appreciates a canine can find something that suits their needs well.

So why do people so often actually seek out an animal that does NOT suit them well? Why do they try to force a round peg into a square hole?

Dog owners can have big hearts. Sometimes, we come across a dog that needs help and do our best to care for that dog, even if it isn't a good fit. When we find that our home doesn't meet "forever home" criteria, it's okay to try to find a more suitable owner-dog match. Sometimes, making that decision is imperative for safety as well as contentment on both sides.

On the other hand, sometimes we do the best we can under the circumstances. Not all dogs are suitable for therapy work, but maybe the dog we thought would make others happy can still make YOU happy. Perhaps the bred-for-herding dog you thought would be a great hunting dog might still be content in your active home, even if you have no sheep and you end up needing another, more suitable dog to fetch your ducks. Hopefully you learn from the experience, and perhaps you'll seek out a more appropriate breed first, and individual dog second.

I know someone who successfully trained two Bluetick Coon Hounds to successful obedience trial championships. They are also great search and rescue dogs. Is she crazy? No, but she liked the challenge of training those dogs, which had the smarts and the talent to do the work. The dogs enjoyed the work they did or she wouldn't have been successful. She loves those dogs, but she has since chosen a fine German Shepherd Dog to train for the same tasks. She says it's so much easier to do now.

So can you really like a certain breed which might not suit you perfectly, and successfully compromise by tailoring your careful "nurture" (socialization, leadership, management, and training) with its "nature"? Yes, you can. Can you push it too far? Yes, as you probably would if you take our "Larry" above (that isn't his real name) and attempt to make him a therapy dog. He just should not be your first choice, especially when there are so many others to choose from. So choose wisely.

Proof Michigan Shelters Should Show Better Numbers

2010-12-13T12:08:00.002-05:00

Michigan shelters should be killing less and adopting out more pets. We now have proof of this possibility, and this blog post provides some details.

Nathan Winograd's book "Redemption", and his "No Kill" philosophy are slowly working through communities all around the country, resulting in less shelter deaths in cities large and small, urban and rural. When the county of Marquette, MI started implementing changes based on his philosophy, they saw the kill rate drop from 60% to 7% over two years.

That's a 93% "save" rate for that county shelter, now renamed the Upper Peninsula Animal Welfare Shelter (UPAWS) to remove any apparent connections through the name "humane society" with HSUS.

In case you haven't heard, Michigan's economy is one of, if not THE worst in the nation. The unemployment rate is high, and many people have had to give up their animals because they can't afford them or have had to move to locations where pets are not allowed. You'd expect this to be a poor state for homeless pets. In addition, the Upper Peninsula has a lower population and fewer large cities than the lower peninsula. You'd expect it to be harder for them to find new owners for homeless pets. Yet this shelter is actually SAVING money while finding new homes for the animals and killing very few.

The mental and emotional aspects of the shelter board and staff's changes was challenging, they say. First, they had to let go of myths that they no longer had faith in. They had to place their hopes in techniques proven elsewhere, and allow the public to get back on their side rather than being seen as an enemy or complainant.

Myths they had to get rid of: "Euthanasia is necessary because of irresponsible pet owners. If people can’t meet our standards they shouldn't own a pet. Pets put up for adoption shouldn’t have any behavioral or medical problems. The best thing for an old pet was to euthanize it because they couldn’t adjust to a new home. And on and on." They stopped blaming owners and started trying to help them instead.

As a result of their changes, the UPAWS site shows that they have multiple programs helping them raise funds to keep the shelter operating and the animals well-cared for. Things are really looking up for them. I see that they still support the idea of a pet "overpopulation problem" on their site, which is a concept not supported by the No Kill Revolution. Overall, though, it is clear that they are doing a good job of educating people and helping the animals find new homes, while also connecting with their community in a positive way.

Is there any reason for other Michigan shelters to continue killing pets as frequently as they do? We now have proof that those numbers CAN lower, and this without county funds or a top-of-the-line shelter facility. Thank you to the dedicated people of Marquette for inspiring us, and for the few who spoke up and shared about your success as well as your challenges.

2010-12-02T13:26:00.002-05:00

The photo above is credited to the Gloucester Police Dept., who lost one of their own when the dog, 3 1/2 year old German Shepherd Dog Schultz, was killed while in the line of duty.

Now, I use phrases like "one of their own" and "while in the line of duty", out of respect for the human officers and their emotional connection to one of their greatest "tools", the K-9. I respect the training investment as well as the financial, time, and effort investments made with these dogs, and I recognize the value they bring to the communities they serve. I understand that the officers who rely on these dogs view them as partners, not just assets. K-9's get badges, bullet-proof vests, and funerals to rival those of their human co-workers, because they are social beings like us and we value that working and personal relationship.

But The Truth About Pet Food asks a good question with, "Should Killers of Police Dogs Be Prosecuted as Killers of Cop?"

According to this report, the criminal responsible for the dog's death faces charges of "inflicting harm on a law enforcement animal and cruelty to animals".

The question is not, "are those charges appropriate?", but rather, "are those charges enough?"

What started it all: according to the article I linked to above, the dog chased down a robbery suspect, and while in the act of targeting the suspect, the dog was grabbed and thrown into highway traffic. Schultz was killed instantly.

In case you didn't know, trained police dogs, even dogs as young as Schultz, come with an enormous price tag. This isn't just a pet dog. Many dogs in police service often come from long lines of healthy, intelligent dogs raised for this purpose, and the pup alone comes with a price worthy of his potential future. Trainers log hundreds, even thousands of hours of training with the dogs before and during their official service to mankind. This means another financial investment, in addition to the travel and training costs for the dog's handlers, plus the dogs daily care and upkeep.

Therefore, to replace a law enforcement animal (departments often use horses as well, and possibly, rarely, other animals), requires a tremendous financial and other cost to the department. This dog may be the only K-9 they had. This means that the community and the officers face greater risks and much more time and effort will be involved in police work until another dog can be brought into service. This is, of course, in addition to the emotional investment and loss a department faces, especially when an animal is lost as a result of the work they do.

So yes, absolutely, a separate and unique charge of "inflicting harm on a law enforcement animal" is appropriate. Especially if the suspect intended to harm the dog by throwing him INTO traffic (versus simply fighting the dog or intending to throw him in order to get away), the charge of cruelty is also quite appropriate.

However, it seems that the Truth About Pet Food people want to know if their readers believe there should be a charge equating the canine officer to human officers. And that is where my answer is, "no". The dog is a dog, as valuable as he is to those who know him on an emotional level, and to those who rely upon him for their safety and efficient work in their community. Human officers have a far greater value in many ways, and I can't see equating the loss of a human to the loss of a dog.

Should a canine officer be somehow classified as having EQUAL rights, privileges, and defenses with those of his human colleagues? I don't believe so, though of course K-9's do have their own special privileges and defenses according to the law.

We respect all "working", "service", and "working companion dogs" (as I like to call useful pet dogs). They all have a very valuable purpose for those who love them, and are hard to replace, any way you look at it. Police dogs are recognized by the law has having a special value to their community as a whole, but other working dogs are generally limited where legal defense for their individual owners is concerned. This is because emotional values are impossible to price, financially or otherwise, and most dogs generally serve an individual only (versus police or military dogs, which serve a larger purpose to a society).

This criminal faces charges which are unique to animal cruelty and also recognize the dog as a special animal because there is a larger community whose safety depends on his presence. When Schultz became a working police K-9, he was classified, appropriately, I believe, in a separate group which would allow prosecutors a chance to recognize the special risks he faced and the value he presented to the community. But EQUAL to human officers? I don't think so.

My heart goes out to Schult'z handler(s), training partners, fellow officers, and community. May they find comfort in a difficult time, and soon find another great partner to help them protect and serve.

2010-11-22T13:22:00.002-05:00

This is a video of Yuliya and her Kerry Blue Terrier, Brandy, otherwise known as The Beast". Brandy had a terrible aggressive desire to eliminate all small dogs from the world. Her owner went through three other trainers, none of which gave her a plan which resulted in success. One even seemed to make the problem worse. At last, through online recommendations, she found Margot Woods of Applewoods Dog Training in Maryland about a year ago and a half ago. The two made a plan that made sense, and then they went to work.

This dog was trained by her owner during wee and late hours. She was worked by Margot's assistants, as she coached them during daily boarding sessions, using small dogs carefully as distractions along the way. She was taught all the basic Novice level exercises, and then later, started working through Open level skills. These included the working retrieve (vs. play retrieve, as many teach today). This helped Brandy learn other ways to control her own behavior, and most importantly, her jaws.

Eventually, Brandy was trusted well enough to enter her into competition. This would help the team prove to the world that Brandy had learned another way of life, and with three unbiased judges scoring their ability to closely follow a standard. She scored well, earned ribbons, and also even had judges looking for her later to tell her how much of a pleasure it was to see her work.

I should add that while earning her first leg of Novice competition, I believe it was, another dog broke up the line of dogs during a stay exercise, stirring the pot by encouraging other dogs to move as well. One dog playfully bumped into Brandy, but this terrier focused on her duty and kept her rear planted. Her training had prepared her to handle such distractions.

Is this dog still aggressive? Margot reminds us that she always will be. But does this mean a life behind bars, or euthanasia? Not necessarily, because in this case, the hard work, dedication, and yes, even financial investment of her owner has provided proof that the two can find a safe place in their community. Yuliya will always have to be careful, but she gets to keep her dog. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more of her in the ring in the near future.

For more history of the "Taming of the Beast", read from the links found on this blog. Then watch this video of Yuliya and Brandy in the Novice ring. Beautiful.

Do you know someone who has an aggressive dog? Solid, results-based training can help, but it isn't for everyone. It does require hard work, time, dedication, consistency and support by the whole family, and likely, some financial investment to ensure success. But it is possible, as you can clearly see.

Put ID on Your Dog!

2010-11-18T12:45:00.002-05:00

Not long ago, I found a yellow labrador standing in the middle of the road. I made several calls, had the dog scanned for a microchip, posted a notice on our local Craigslist, and kept her safely crated in my vehicle or at home for most of the afternoon and evening. The dog had a fence collar on but no source of identification.

One person answered our Craigslist ad, hoping it was his lost dog. A reddish female with red collar, he had said over the phone, but it turned out to belong to someone else. Still, his dog had a microchip and I educated him regarding what he could do to help him find his dog.

Later that same evening, the true owner's friend made a Facebook-Craigslist connection between the owner and myself, and the dog found her way home (after another lecture on safe identification and confinement).

Just the other day, another yellow lab, this time a male, was found crouching in the ditch across from our home. Luckily, this dog was also friendly and willing to be caught and handled with a slip lead. He was not hurt, but apparently intimidated by the traffic. Again, there was a red collar, but no ID to be found. I quickly made up signs on bright paper, "FOUND-LAB" with my phone number, slapped them on each side of the garbage can, and wheeled it roadside.

I had to leave home for a little while, so I took the dog in a crate with me. I planned to have him scanned for a chip with a local veterinarian, but as it turned out, this time his owner was actively searching locally. Within an hour, he had my number and I knew where he lived--just down the road a bit. He was shocked the dog had gone that far, and ended up so close to the road.

Again, this dog did not have a microchip or any other form of ID to help bring him home.

Dog owners, especially if your dog is not trained, if you ever intend to take him from your property, if he is interested in the world around him, if he has any fears that might frighten him away, if he might be separated from you at some point in the future, and most importantly, if he might pose a threat to other animals or people, HAVE SOME ID ON YOUR DOG.

"But we have a fence", you say, or, "But we use a hidden fence", "But our dog never leaves the yard". Ask these two owners if those thoughts and wishes worked for them. It didn't.

"But his tag always comes off." Did you know you can have a collar made with your phone number printed right on it? Did you know that you can have a tag made which can be riveted right on a flat collar-- no metal rings necessary? Did you know that some local veterinarians, and most local shelters, now have microchip scanners to help find an owner of a lost dog? I don't like to take a found dog to the shelter if I can care for it myself for a day or two, so those sources can be useful to me. But oh, how I wish that the next dog I find will have a phone number that takes me right to his owner!

If your dog is lost, IMMEDIATELY put up signs near your home, or wherever he was last seen. They should be easily seen from the road by drivers--lots of detail is not necessary. "LOST 11/18- BEAGLE- 555-5555", will do. If you have a neighbor like me, they may be out looking for you! Even if someone doesn't catch your dog, if they remember seeing it, such a sign can bring you vital information from friendly strangers.

After your initial search, internet connections may also help. Of course, local Craigslist and Facebook connections might work out well. It did in our first case. Also, call your local shelter right away, as many people make that their first call or stop when they find a lost dog. Leave them with your information and a description of the dog. Local veterinarians will also post flyers and be on the lookout for you, in case your dog is injured or simply found.

If your dog is not found right away, you can create flyers with photos and more detail. Be honest about how your dog will respond to searchers: "friendly, will answer to Buddy", or "Buddy may try to run away, and might bite if frightened", or "Buddy does not like strangers and fears children. He may bite. Please call owner asap with location".

Lastly, I'd like to add that it is never the job of a finder to judge an owner because the dog is lost. Accidents happen to the best of dog owners. Even if a dog is found in poor condition, the dog's owner has a right to claim his dog. If you feel that a dog has been neglected or abused, you may record and report the dog's condition and your suspicions to your local law enforcement. If you know where the owner lives, but you feel that the dog has not been well cared for, the owner still has the right to reclaim their dog. You don't get to essentially steal it because you don't agree with the quality of care a dog receives!

In such a case, it may be best for the local shelter to take possession of the dog, as they can legally fine an owner and/or help start a legal prosecution if necessary. But you should never try to simply re-home a dog that is not yours. Would you want someone to do that with your dog? Of course not! Instead, be honest about what you know about the dog and its owner, and what you don't know about the dog and its owner, and share only those things with law enforcement. Let them take it from there. Do the right thing and give his owner a chance to do the right thing also.

Second Chance Rescue, Dan Christensen Update

2010-11-09T17:21:00.002-05:00

Rosie Quinn, who founded the organization in Sioux Falls, said Second Chance Rescue may be on its last legs. They've seen a "dramatic" drop in donations and can't afford to pay the staff. She's blaming the economy. But was it something else as well?

Perhaps it has something to do with her involvement in the County's animal cruelty charges against dog breeder Dan Christensen. The warrant against him was illegally obtained, the charges were dropped (all 172 counts!), and he has returned fire with another suit of his own. That kinda taints your record, doesn't it?

They also lost city and county animal control contracts to a lower bidder.

If they do close, the animals will have to be absorbed into the other available shelters.

The lesson here is, once again, keep your ducks in a row. Respect the animals, respect their owners (regardless of who they are or whether you like them or not), and respect the law.

Regardless of what happens next, I hope the animals do well.

Murder Hollow Bassets, an update

2010-10-14T12:24:00.002-05:00

After 14 months of legal and certainly emotional battles, dog owner Wendy Willard has succeeded in having the 22 counts of animal cruelty charges against her dropped.

Willard owns Murder Hollow Bassets, a hunt pack recognized and respected in that unique community. On July 27, 2009 the Pennsylvania SPCA investigated a noise complaint on her property. Willard said later that she had never heard about any such problems. When she first refused access by the people she certainly had a right to mistrust, they returned with a large number of vehicles, officers, and a warrant.

Willard had never been told about a new law which limited the number of dogs she could own to 12, nor was she given an opportunity to reduce her kennel numbers responsibly on her own. Because she was found to have 23, she was pressured (they threatened to take ALL the dogs) to give up 11 dogs, which she did, under great duress. Later, they charged her with the 22 counts of animal cruelty.

Before they charged her with any crime, and without her knowlege or permission, they spayed/neutered all the dogs they stole from her property, and euthanised one when something went wrong. The other ten dogs became sick while in PSPCA custody, and then were sold through an unlicensed "rescue" group before any hearing was held.

All the charges against her were defended from the start, and a circus of hearings, debates, and discussions spanned the following many months, until now. I have posted on this subject before, but I'm happy to report the latest: all the charges were dropped.

So what happens now? What kind of person is Wendy Willard? I've read that her dogs were actually very well cared for and her kennel kept in good conditin. She never bred a litter for sale, if that is a problem for you. But her reputation is still damaged, and the location of her kennel's carefully bred, raised, and trained dogs stolen by the PSCPA is uncertain.

What would you do? Well, rumor has it that she is not done fighting back. She was mistreated, her constitutional rights trampled, and she certainly has some legal costs she has a right to get back. Wendy represents all that responsible dog owners should fight for, and her case flushes up all that bad government and animal rights zealots are about.

There is an effort to help her handle her legal expenses. If you want to donate, and in the long run, help yourself and other responsible dog owners, you can go online to: www.hounddefensefund.org (note that in other locations, the website link was misspelled), or make checks and money orders out to:

Wendy Willar/Escrow Defense Account
Hound Defense fund
1229 Chestnut Street, #107
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Michigan Dog Law- SB 1503, Commercial Dog & Cat Breeder Act

2010-10-08T08:16:00.005-05:00

This is just one bills currently making its way through the MI Legislature which can affect dog owners. I think it is important to start reviewing these and would like to point out a few things about this one.

Senate Bill 1503 is called the "Commercial Dog & Cat Breeder Act". It limits the number of animals a person can own for breeding purposes, allows the Dept. of Agriculture to create rules for the minimum standards of housing, care and handling, requires inspection for licensing, and requires sold pets to have health certificates, complete with very specific vaccinations. Violations can include a suspended or revoked license, $1,000 fine per violation, and a misdemeanor, even if a person is "about to engage" in a violation but hasn't done anything wrong.

Animal rights activists have been known to pass similar bills in other states, with the pet limit varying. 25 is a lower limit than we've seen elsewhere. So how big of a problem do we have with large kennels in MI? Do we really need more government interference to protect dogs and their owners, or future owners?

First, you should recognize that the "problem" isn't with the number of dogs they have or produce, regardless of what the animal rights activists would have you believe. Why isn't the number a problem? Because there is a market for puppies and adult dogs in MI and elsewhere, and because the great state of Michigan does not really have much of a "population problem" with dogs, either. So why define this law by limiting numbers?

"WHAT?! What about the "overpopulation problem"?!", you say. You would probably define that by the numbers of dogs euthanized or in shelters in our state, right? Well, I looked at the shelter intake and output numbers from 2004. This is the latest I have access to, as a whole of MI representation. If I understand the figures correctly, my estimates are thus:

In 2004, about 5.4% of MI's dogs entered the shelter system at some point for some reason. 54% of those left the shelter system alive. Very few (4%) were euthanized (2.2% of the entire state's dog population). Dogs that generally wait in the shelter system for return, rehoming, or euthanasia account for about 2.3% of MI's canine population.

While dog lovers like myself don't like to see any dog sitting in a shelter, 2% just doesn't seem like a huge problem to me, especially considering that most of them get into a home eventually. 2% (the number euthanized) generally represents the bottom-of-the-barrel dogs-- the unwanted, aggressive, very sick kind of dogs that most people just don't want and wouldn't want to invest in. Sure, I think we can do better, but take a stroll through your local shelter and tell me how many of those dogs are purebred dogs. True, many of the purebreds go to specialized adoption groups for their specific breed. But your tax dollars aren't covering their care, for the most part. And generally speaking, kennel license holders who are breeders aren't exactly pumping our shelters full of their unwanted puppies. The dogs that end up there are usually undersocialized, un-trained, and often ill-bred. There have always been, and always will be, some unwanted dogs.

Before you get upset with me, please understand that I have acquired several gems from shelters myself. One was found as a stray pup. Two were dropped off as pups by their original owners (owners of the momma bitch). One was entirely unwanted but grew into a worthy pet, the other was quite attractive but full of energy. All of them are great pets. Still, I know nothing of their heritage, health histories, etc., so there are sacrifices and risks with shelter dog adoptions.

So how many kennels do we have in MI? HSUS has been doing some figuring, so they'd know what kind of law they can push here in our state. Of the 1,067 kennels reviewed by February this year, 450 are "breeding facilities". Only 4% of those (17) had more than 49 dogs. Only two had been involved in prior cruelty cases. Most kennels had hunting dogs and sled dogs, two types which are pretty popular in our state.

While HSUS may wish to attack our right to own and breed dogs in this state, I just don't see it as a numbers "problem". So do we really need a new law?

Consider that the number of 25 is arbitrary. There were so few kennels with over 50 dogs, they figure they can lower the target number to get this law passed and effective (for their purpose). But that doesn't stop them from lowering that number again later on. A quality breeder with much fewer (or many more) dogs could find themselves with all kinds of fees and restrictions with the "minimum standard" requirements that quickly lose common sense foundations. We have seen this happen elsewhere. Suddenly, those license fees jump to thousands of dollars when the AR inspector finds multiple violations of kibble pieces on the floor or a pile of fresh poop in the kennel. A responsible breeder could end up facing a misdemeanor nightmare, or they could quit. Lots of them already have. And that's exactly what the AR's want.

Another requirement in this bill is that the puppies must have a CPV-2, CDV, CAV-2, and rabies vaccinations prior to sale. In other words, you can't buy your new pup until he's at least 4 months of age, and the seller has to keep him well beyond what experienced breeders and trainers all over the world have recommended for years. And it doesn't matter what vaccinations your veterinarian does or does not recommend for your dog. He has to get all of these down at a young age (this list could also get worse over time). Who is the government to decide this? A dog owner and vet. should have the say in that aspect of care.

Because this and similar laws decrease the number of breeders available, what's left is the "backyard breeder", regardless of how educated, experienced, and responsible that breeder is. Those people will continue to breed their dogs as they wish, but without the numbers, their experience level will not be as high. They won't be controlled by the government standards. What quality pets will be left for us to choose from?

How many intact dogs to you know, and how many of those are quality animals? While it's great to promote spay and neuter procedures for most pet dogs, for lots of reasons, have we gone too far? Are we starting a new age of social and legal restrictions against the very people we need to supply us with quality dogs?

When was the last time you shopped around for a "responsible breeder"? I have, over the last year or two, as I investigated several breeds to suit my particular needs. It is NOT that easy! You'd want to find them on the web, but HSUS says that websites advertising puppies are a problem, and many breeders ("responsible" or not) have gone underground to protect themselves. So you go to a breed club. But even then, it isn't easy to make contact with, visit, or meet breeders who care about the form and function of their dogs. I know because I've tried.

By the time you find a quality breeder with quality dogs, it seems the price of the animal goes up tremendously. The costs of raising quality dogs gets high enough as it is, without government interference, licensing and fines. This limits many families, who then find a cheaper pet of lower quality just to fill the void. But if quality breeders are put out of business by the extra expenses of government interference, lower quality dogs will be all we have access to.

We don't need a law like this in Michigan. Low-cost spay and neuter programs, community-wide focus on education for responsible pet ownership, and quality shelter programs are becoming more and more successful every day. We're seeing less animals in the shelters and on the euthanisation table than ever before (not more). And if people are really concerned about the quality of care dogs are receiving in larger operations, basic cruelty laws cover those issues already.

We don't need to let the HSUS outsiders influence our public opinion or our laws, and put undue restrictions on quality breeders. Tell your legislator to oppose SB1503.

Dog Breeder Sues For Illegal Raid- $5 Million

2010-09-14T16:17:00.004-05:00

A dog breeder named Dan Christensen is suing a "rescue" group, HSUS and specific HSUS people, and several Turner County, SD officials. His farm was raided one year ago and he was charged with 173 counts of "inhumane treatment" of animals. His suit is grounded in the fact that a judge ruled that the search warrants were illegally obtained. The charges against him were dropped, and many of his dogs died in the care of the "rescue" group. Charges in his lawsuit include "deprivation of constitutional rights, malicious prosecution, emotional distress, criminal trespass and intentional damage to private property."

Christensen says "They took my grandchildren's pets, my daughter's house dog and our source of income. These dogs are hybrid hunting dogs, bred to hunt. We do bird hunts here and you certainly are not going to abuse your dogs and expect them to perform for you."

Christensen said his reputation as a breeder has been destroyed, and of course this type of personal and legal assault carries with it plenty of stress and economic harship. This has been harmful to his health in particular. The theft of this man's property was unacceptable, as far as he and his lawyer are concerned, and he is fighting back.

HSUS people were involved in this raid (they were ready to go before the warrant was even in hand). Their volunteers or staff had no legal right to be on his property or in any way handling, moving, examining, or caring for his dogs. Mr. Christensen's own veterinarian did not get an opportunity to examine the dogs before they were taken, but allegedly "so called veterinarians" from HSUS were there illegally. Later, his vet was allowed ten minutes to inspect 172 dogs!

The dogs had been kept in several locations, including two fairgrounds and the Second Chance Rescue Center. One website describes one of the new locations as a "storage shed instead of the kennels they were used to." They were allegedly being kept in a building with no sunlight or fresh air, and being exposed to parvo, with some of them becoming ill and some dying. In other words, rather than keeping the dogs in the secure location they were found in, under supervised care, until the legal battle was completed, the dogs were moved twice by strangers and housed in allegedly unsuitable conditions during the South Dakota winter.

Rosey Quinn, head of the "rescue" group, is one of the people this man is suing. Quinn is a "humane officer" employed by the organization she founded. She isn't happy about the suit, but she seems to think she'll be vindicated by the evidence against him. She doesn't think she did anything wrong. But in February, the court found that she purposefully misled the court in order to conduct the raid, and the charges against the dog owner were dropped.

Quinn claims that every dog obtained in the raid had giardia, coccidia, roundworms and tapeworms (none lethal in otherwise healthy animals). While that may be true, did their condition require an illegally obtained warrant, illegal trespass, and theft in order to improve their health?

Quinn asked for $10,000 to cover the costs of the animals her group had in their custody--animals she stole from him! The judge denied her request at that time, as there were only a very few puppies still at the shelter, with the rest fostered out. She also wanted him charged with fraud, as he apparently was attempting to sell pups as AKC registerable, when the AKC had temporarily cancelled his privileges. The judge denied that request also.

After the raid, Christensen made improvements on his property and was hoping to get his dogs back. As I looked for answers in this history, it appears that he was hesitant to take dogs back because of the dogs' exposure to parvo virus, which can be very difficult to destroy in the environment. At some point he was allowed to, or decided to, sell his dogs directly out of the Center's care. The best figure I could find was that all 172 adults and around 70 puppies have been sold, and for just over $100 each. It's quite possible that many of them were worth much more.

Christensens's attorney asked the County to stop using Second Chance as an animal control agency because so many dogs (more than 30) had contracted parvo and several other dogs had died from severe injuries. The county disputed those claims.

While the truth about the dogs' care before and after the raid is hard for this blog poster to know, one thing is certain: this man should fight for his constitutional rights, and I hope he prevails against HSUS, Quinn and her group, and others who violated his rights. "Rescue" people are too often swift to judge, swift to steal, and swift to call for the help of outsiders like HSUS.

This is not to say that all "rescue" groups or county officials operate the same way. There are certainly many situations which require the help of local volunteers and law enforcement agencies. But there are appropriate avenues to do those things, and there are plenty of good people capable of handling those situations with compassion and understanding.

Do Bad Dogs Really Have More Fun?

2010-08-18T11:10:00.003-05:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Vanguard Press put together a book compilation of author John Grogan's articles and published it, apparently without his consent. You might remember Grogan's name from the book (and movie) "Marley and Me".

This new compilation is titled, "Bad Dogs Have More Fun". Of course, this was not written by a dog trainer, nor was it published by people who seem to really care about dogs. But what say you? Do bad dogs really have more fun?

I disagree. I think that trained dogs have a lot more fun than untrained dogs.

A dog without training usually also has less benefits. It can't be allowed off-leash in interesting places because it wouldn't be safe, and other people and animals often wouldn't be safe, either. Being confined to your home, backyard, and a 6ft leash (or even a longer one) isn't nearly as much fun as exploring in the woods, fields, beaches, indoor public buildings and many other interesting places trained dogs can go.

Trained dogs can travel more, and thus experience more new things. Many people leave a dog behind when they go on vacation because it's simply too much hassle to take that untrained dog anywhere. Someone has to hold the leash all the time, there is a risk of messes or destruction in hotels, and with that comes extra fees. Such a dog is more likely to bark, mark, and pull on lead, making such a trip miserable.

But a trained dog can join in the fun, because a leash can be dropped without worry when your hands are busy. A trained dog can be trusted alone in a hotel room (even if crated) or the car or RV. A trained dog is quieter and more relaxing to hang out with, and can add joy to a camping or hiking trip.

Trained dogs don't get yelled at. They have better relationships with their owners because they trust and respect each other. There is less frustration between the two. Trained dogs are easier to exercise, which means they get it more, and thus feel better and more content, and therefore have fewer unwanted behaviors for their owners to worry about. An untrained dog is much more likely to be a part of a more stressful household.

Trained dogs can be entertaining, competitive, and fun to have around. You can make interesting photos or videos with them (if I find a link to a video I have in mind, I'll add it, or someone can help me). Dogs that can follow directions are generally more fun, but you can be creative and entertain others using those skills. Consider all the starts of our favorite movies, like "The Incredible Journey" (without the computer generated talking dogs, of course). Those dogs were trained. And they seem to enjoy taking part in these types of activities; they love working with people.

Oh, sure, untrained dogs can be entertaining, but only for a short term, and nobody feels really good about it. You also can't compete very far with an untrained dog, regardless of the (legal) sport. Competition requires travel and other investments, and spending lots of time with an untrained dog isn't nearly as fun as with a trained dog. Some people try it and do pretty well, but the rest of us aren't impressed. An untrained dog is more likely to be confused by the lack of consistency with such owners.

Untrained dogs can cost more, and that means that they get less goodies. There is more furniture and carpets to replace, fences to put up and mend, medical bills to cover because the dog is more likely to be unhealthy, and anyone making contact with that dog more likely to be injured. Then there is the higher risk of a lawsuit because someone was scratched, knocked down, or bitten. Trained dogs respect peoples space and respond to their owners wishes much better. They are less likely to attempt to run away or get hit by cars or hurt anyone. They end up in shelters less often, and most importantly, they get to keep their good homes rather than be hurt or killed as a result of their unwanted or unsafe behaviors.

Well, I think you get the idea. I believe that a bad dog doesn't really have more fun at all, but a trained dog surely has more fun.

By the way, the photo above is of a very good dog, but he performed a stay so I could get the photo for your entertainment.

'Buy' All Means, Shop for Your Next Dog

2010-08-01T13:54:00.002-05:00

One rallying cry for the animal rightists is "Don't Shop, Adopt!" Oh, but if it were only that simple.

That phrase is intended to prevent people from purchasing puppies directly from pet stores. All pet store puppies come from breeders, just like any other dog. I used the word "breeder" in the general sense, because that's what they are, and that's where those puppies come from. The standards of care those breeders use varies, as does the quality of care the rest of the animals at pet stores may receive. So a buyer should "shop" around, if quality of care matters to them. While I wouldn't recommend to my friends that a pet store is a good place to find a quality dog for a good price, I also don't recommend shelters as my first pick, either. There are other reasons for that statement, but I digress.

When a person "adopts" a pet, typically there is a fee involved. This means that regardless of what you call it, you are "shopping", and you will make a purchase for a piece of property, legally speaking, even when you visit a local shelter. Once you buy that animal, you have a legal responsibility to take good care of it, because you own it.

Well that just takes the wind out of your heroism-seeking sails, doesn't it? You don't necessarily "rescue" or "save" a dog from that "no-kill" shelter (or any other), where it was probably turned in after being generally well-cared for at its first home, and is now well-fed and healthy. (Nor is that dog called a "rescue", as that wouldn't make sense, as this word is supposed to be used as a verb). No, you BUY the animal, just as you would a car-- you have to fill out some forms and make some promises first, but when money changes hands, you are buying that dog.

So, if you're considering buying from a shelter, what is the difference between the dogs you would find there and the ones you would find in a pet store? Some of the dogs in both places have been poorly bred, and may have structural, medical, and behavioral issues that make them less desirable. On the other hand, there are some "gems" to be found in both places, but you may not know them at first sight.

The pet store dog is likely young and attractive, but it may have originated from an irresponsible breeder. You may have an ethical problem with that person profiting from the money leaving your hands in exchange for the animal, and the pup may cost you alot more in the long run if it isn't really healthy. The shelter pup may be a cheaper purchase, and the shelter may or may not "profit" from your choice, but the dog may still have the same problems.

Most of the dogs in shelters are there because they were unwanted by someone else. They were likely unwanted largely because they weren't top-quality dogs. (If they were of good quality, the previous owner would have kept or easily sold it themselves). If you're okay taking a chance with a dog that may not live long, may cost you in medical or training fees, and may be difficult to live with, the shelter fee may be worth it. For many of us, dogs from shelters turn out to be great, healthy pet dogs and well worth the risk (I've heard rumors of the same being true of pet store puppies). But still, you have to "shop" for that great deal that fits your home.

Or, you can go a more direct route and shop around for specific breeds and breeders, and then shop amongst them for that perfect pup or adult dog. There are some great buys around, but unfortunately, because of the animal rights' groups legal antics, there are less quality breeders around these days, and they are getting harder to find. They face too many costly legal restrictions.

A really good breeder is likely to spend a lot on the care of their dogs, testing for and caring for their health, competing to prove their structural quality and temperament, and generally spoiling them. This means that their puppies are going to cost more than a shelter is likely to charge (at least, that's how it should be). But you, as an educated buyer, would know exactly what to expect from such a breeder, and you'd likely have a good advisor for your dog's future with them as well. Purchasing from a quality breeder can be like an investment in your quality dog, and lots of people feel good about such a purchase.

Or you could find a breeder who doesn't show their dogs or compete with their dogs, and does minimal testing but may have healthy dogs, who has kept their breeding kennel hidden from the AR's long enough to make it financially feasable to breed some decent dogs, who then are able to still provide you with a good dog for a decent price.

Or they may charge you a mint for a lemon because they don't know the difference or they don't care. You have to shop around to find the breeder you want to buy from.

So regardless of your ethical standards or how much you are willing to spend on your next dog, you have to shop around. You'll shop at the shelter, for a breeder, or the at pet store, or from the newspaper, local flyers, Craigslist or other internet sources, or word of mouth.

"Adoption" may be the best, most affordable route for you to go to find what you are looking for, and you might feel really good about providing a home (buying) for a dog "in need" (for sale). You might find a great breeder and dog through a pet store if you're really lucky, but I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on that route. Or perhaps shopping around for the right puppy, from an experienced purebred dog breeder would be the best bet for you to find the dog you are looking for.

But 'buy' all means, shop for your next dog.

Muskegon County Animal Shelter Numbers, and a Change

2010-07-22T13:03:00.004-05:00

Thanks to the NAIA, there is a quick reference page to help you see how your local animal shelters are doing.

I took a look at the Muskegon County shelter (Vector Control) and adoption groups, as well as a few others. In general, there are less dogs entering the shelter system in Michigan during the last ten years, and more being placed. This is good news.

Unfortunately, I've been disappointed with the number of dogs being euthanized. Clearly, there are homes being found for dogs, and in some cases the adoption numbers increased despite an increase in the number of dogs entering a particular shelter. So why are dogs still being euthanized so often?

In Muskegon County, there are steadily less and less dogs being received by the shelter each year, and there has been an increase in adoptions from the shelter. Yet euthanasia numbers nearly doubled from 2008 to 2009, according to the NAIA page. There seems to be a problem with the reported "placed" numbers there, but I think this may reflect the Lifeline for Pound Buddies influence in the adoption process. Unfortunately, the number of returned dogs went down.

As a trainer, I have to wonder what the numbers would say if the dogs could tell us how much training they've received, if any. I'm sure they would be returned home more often if an owner had invested more in their care and training, and thus developed more of a relationship. I'd bet that most of the dogs entering the shelter are there because they don't have training. If volunteers could help them learn, they should be able to find new homes easier.

As I was pondering over the numbers, I heard that Lifeline for Pound Buddies has been granted a 5-year contract to handle all of the care of dogs in the shelter system. The Health Department can keep some of its funds to handle the things it is supposed to handle, while funding for the shelter goes to the group to help care for the dogs.

I am sure that Pound Buddies is breathing a sigh of relief, as this will present the group with more opportunities to provide for the dogs and give them a better shot at meeting the public every week. However, this will present them with some difficulties, as they'll need more volunteers and plenty of donations to make it work.

If you're interested in helping them out, visit their petfinder page or call them at 231-767-0921.

Join "Pawprints in Pink" as We are Making Strides Against Breast Cancer

2010-07-17T11:58:00.002-05:00

I decided that rather than make up excuses as to why I could remain on the sidelines of this event, I should do my part to get involved. A friend, the Event Chairperson, inspired me and informed me about the American Cancer Society's "Making Strides" events and what they accomplish for local communities. On September 11th, we are holding an event in Muskegon to help raise funds and awareness to fight breast cancer and help its victims.

I am participating in the three-mile walk, and have started a team called "Pawprints in Pink" to encourage dog owners to join me. I welcome dog walkers, walkers without dogs, and those who wish to donate, whether they can walk or not. I need team members and donations! My team goal is $2,000, and I've already got a little start.

Please visit my American Cancer Society home page for more information. I am also offering pencil drawings or wood burnings for donations through my team. Visit my website's "Pet Art" page and contact me for more on that.

Does Having an Intact Dog Make One Irresponsible?

2010-07-08T15:18:00.003-05:00

There is a rumor going around that owning an intact dog (whether one has any interest in breeding that dog in the future or has bred the dog already) makes one an irresponsible dog owner. Social pressure, animal rights activists on the internet, and even shelter groups are spreading this rumor around like the plague.

Yes, I wrote, "plague", because that word has a nice negative connotation to it, doesn't it? And I disagree with this concept. I think that whether a dog is intact or not plays little, if any, part in responsible dog ownership on its own.

The truth is, God made animals with sexual organs. That includes people. Some people reproduce who probably should not. Some dogs reproduce which probably should not. Some people get cancer in their reproductive parts, or allow their testosterone to get the better of their intellect at times. Both males and females blame their hormones on undesirable behavior. It is the same with some dogs. Yet somehow, most people manage to get along in life pretty well with their sexual organs intact, and plenty of dogs do, too. But that number is diminishing in the case of dogs.

As of yet, there hasn't been any great legislative call for people's sexual organs to be removed or restricted in America (thought I think California might have come close after "Octomom" delivered). But in many places, the government has deigned to know better than dog owners and has required them to throw their dogs under the knife, and often much too early (by some scientific studies). In the meantime, there are people who claim to know everything about dogs and dog breeding (usually with very little knowledge or experience) who claim that all pet dogs should be spayed or neutered, and if yours is not, there is something dreadfully wrong with you.

It is true that there are sometimes advantages and benefits to having your dog spayed or neutered. There are also sometimes disadvantages and risks. There are advantages and benefits to having the surgery done at a young age, say younger than six months (some have it done as young as six weeks!). There are also disadvantages and risks to that concept. Doing your own research and consulting with your own, trusted and experienced veterinarian, is well advised. You can't put the parts back in once you've made the decision, but you can take some time to think about it first. In most cases, it won't hurt your dog to wait while you think it over.

Some dog owners are more irresponsible than others when it comes to the daily care and management of their dogs. For those people, and others who don't wish to deal with the inconveniences of a bitch in heat or a dog more prone to urine-marking his territory, spaying or neutering at a reasonable age may be very much worthwhile. Especially in the case of dogs which have serious physical or behavioral problems, spaying or neutering can help ensure that such dogs will not reproduce unwanted offspring.

But there are other owners who don't mind the inconveniences, and don't have problems with management issues. These people may or may not have any interest in breeding their dog. Perhaps they want to wait at least until the dog reaches full maturity to make such a decision. Many studies show that there are advantages to this surgery when done later in life, so waiting can have its benefits. Or perhaps they never want to breed the dog, but have other reasons to leave the dog as it is.

Will it stop a dog from urine marking? Humping? Fighting? Roaming? Not necessarily, but with training it might help. On the other hand, a well-trained intact dog should not be prone to those issues either. Will it stop aggression? The same answer applies. In fact, training a dog through a solid obedience program before spaying or neutering can be more mentally and emotionally beneficial to the dogs.

There is plenty of research which supports spaying and neutering for health reasons. There is research which has shown that some dogs (of one or both sexes) may become MORE aggressive post-surgery, and that some dogs (of one or both sexes) may become LESS aggressive post-surgery. How can you know how it will affect YOUR dog? Perhaps exhausting the training route should be attempted first, and then all other factors taken into serious consideration.

We know that some dogs live healthy, long and happy lives with all their organs intact. Whether this should be my neighbor's dog or my friend's dog or someone I met on the internet's dog is really none of my business. Who am I to tell them what to do with their own animals? If they are providing reasonable care with reasonable concern for the welfare of their dog, I don't think I have any right to interfere.

There are owners of intact dogs which are irresponsible just as their are owners of spayed and neutered dogs which are irresponsible. The same goes for responsible dog owners. I just don't believe that the presence or absence of the organs should quality an owner as one or the other.

So why is this persistent rumor spreading? Well, largely because it has become too easy to "drink the kool-aid" of the animal rights groups, which have perpetuated the myth of "over-population". The argument says that since there are allegedly more dogs than there are homes, we must stop producing them. The only way to do that is to promote spay and neuter surgeries as if it were a sign of good citizenship.

However, in my state, the number of homeless dogs has been proven to be just a very small fraction of the number of dogs residing in the entire state. There is no pet over-population problem here. There is no shortage of people buying new puppies or adult dogs from all corners. Unfortunately, getting them trained and keeping them in the home when people relocate is not enough of a priority for some.

It is all too easy to get caught up emotionally for the sad state of those few homeless dogs. And it is the highly emotional person who spreads such a rumor, which actually makes it harder for dogs to find homes. I say this because some fantastic, responsible dog owners with intact dogs and bitches are refused the right to "adopt" dogs (even spayed and neutered ones, for a fee) in need of homes. What a sad state that is.

Please consider other factors before jumping on this sad surgery bandwagon. Responsible dog owners come in all shapes and sizes, as do their dogs. Organs shouldn't matter.

Summer Safety for Dog Owners

2010-07-04T18:34:00.003-05:00

It's starting to get hot in Michigan, and humidity increases the danger of heat-related problems for dogs and people. It therefore becomes important to carefully consider the safety of dogs when you travel. It starts with the decision to take a dog with you when you drive.

If you need to make a stop which takes you away from your vehicle for any length of time, you should perhaps reconsider bringing a dog. This is why: people can sweat when we get hot. We replace that sweat by drinking water (even warm water will work), and the sweat cools our bodies. We can handle sitting in a hot car longer than a dog can because of this.

A dog, on the other hand, can only sweat through the pads of the feet. This is not enough to cool them, so they lose heat by panting. Water leaves the mouth, taking heat with it, and this can be replaced by water. But if that water is warm, it will bring more heat to the dog's body as well. As the dog pants, the body is heated, and even a few minutes in a hot car is enough to cause the dog's body temperature to rise much higher than panting can compensate for.

A dog must be safely confined when in a car, which means that a crate to keep him lowers his ability to move out of the sun or reach an airflow, and a dog uncrated must be confined by keeping the windows up high enough to prevent escape. It takes only a few short minutes for an air-conditioned car to heat up excessively for a dog, whether the windows are left open or not.

At minimum, leave a dog water, park in the shade, and use window and windshield screens to help keep your car cool, even when the outside temperature doesn't seem to hot. Never leave your dog for more than a few short minutes if you are at all in doubt for his safety. And if you're unsure of that, leave him at home. Your dog's life is worth more than a test of his resistance to hot conditions.

Another danger to dogs is the fear of loud noises, a common occurrence during the summer months. Thunderstorms and fireworks often cause dogs to injure themselves trying to escape from confinement, and many dogs become lost when they do.

So you said to yourself, "My dog will be fine tonight. He's never shown any fear about loud noises." So you didn't confine him and now you realize the importance of that advice. You have your dog back and he's okay, luckily, but now you realize you have a problem when your dog hears any sort of loud noises.

This is a common problem in young adult dogs, but can arise, as it did in your case, a little unexpectedly. After that single event, things can get worse. Your veterinarian may prescribe some medications to help calm your dog during storms, but what else can you do?

Noise therapy can help, as can basic obedience training to give your dog some "tools" to help build confidence and give him something else to think about. To help you address the noise problem directly, audio discs with various noises, including thunder and/or fireworks, can help. Playing them at a very low level during training or calm, positive events can increase your dog's ability to handle those sounds. One source of good audio discs for this purpose is www.calmaudio.com. There is a link to a review there if you'd like more detail.

Please consider your dog's safety in the coming summer days. Folks will still play with fireworks, cars will backfire, heat and storms may arrive any day. Be sure to safely confine your dog in a comfortable place when you can't be with him, and observe him calmly but carefully during events which may cause him fear.

Work Ethic, Dog Owners, and Training

2010-06-29T11:59:00.002-05:00

When you were young, did your parents encourage you to work hard to complete your chores, or to earn some sort of wage from an outside source? Even when it was hard or you didn't want to finish the job, there was some satisfaction to be found in the rewards of your labors, even if it meant simply pleasing a parent or mentor. There was likely also some good character development going on.

So it is with dog training. Unfortunately, I think people tend to think of their dogs as just a source of pleasure. Dogs and the joy they bring in general don't usually cost very much to acquire or to keep, and most people like it that way. They're there for us to have fun with. Work? Work with your pet? Now, that's labor that just doesn't seem worth it.

Or does it?

If dogs are seen as pleasure toys instead of wolf cousins, it's no wonder that people want to feed them treats like coins at a slot machine and then let them be. You just feed it and it makes you feel good, right? No labor involved! But this slot machine bites back if you don't take care of it properly. It has teeth, legs, and a mind of its own, and those things need to be exercised.

So, yes, we do need to work with them. To exercise a dog's body, the best and usually easiest way is to walk a dog. But then, if your dog isn't trained, this is WORK. Work that is in no way, shape or form any sort of fun. Which cost is higher? Walking without training, or walking the dog while training for a purpose. When the scale is tipped toward training, the rewards can be surprisingly higher than expected.

So now you've learned to exercise the mind and body of the beast, but you've also found that in order to do so, you have to exercise your own. That's where the work part comes in. You might not find this an enjoyable task at first. There are definitely moments that you would rather be somewhere else, and your dog might feel the same way. But then you remember what it is like to be pulled down the street while your neighbors laugh and point, and while you wonder if the next car that comes by is going to end your struggles prematurely. No, you think, perhaps I should push through. And then you reach another point where training is actually fun for both of you, and you forget about it being laborious.

Training your dog only takes a few weeks or months. This is valuable time well spent for a dog that will bring you joy for another ten years or more. Really, you do owe it to him. You see all those people on TV and youtube, playing and competing with their dogs, doing seemingly brilliant things and having so much fun? It is all best started the same way- with basic obedience training. You can do anything after that. Walk your dog through your neighborhood without any worry, hike, teach a few tricks to show off to your friends, compete in some sport, train your dog to pull a cart, or play in all kinds of sports. It all starts with basic training.

It does mean that to be consistent, you need to get out every day, typically for six days in a row and interspersed with a day of rest. You need to travel to different locations so your dog learns to generalize what is expected of him. Otherwise, he'll only be mannerly in your backyard and you'll be terribly embarrassed to take him anywhere else. It might mean getting up early to avoid the hot sun or an expected rain shower, or even during a rain shower. But again, the rewards are worth it!

With only a few weeks of effective training, you'll find that your dog is behaving differently all of the time. It isn't just during the hour you take him out that he is attentive or pleasant. You may find that your nicknames for him change from things like, "bonehead" or "no, no bad dog" to "honey" and "precious, good boy". You know you're on to something when your walks become more of an opportunity than a dreaded chore. So you keep going.

Those who are willing to work hard enough and long enough to FINISH the job have a much deeper appreciation for the nature of their dog (and IN their dog) and their newfound relationship with their dog. They joy they once found in the playful puppy develops into a fuller sense of pride and ownership, yet the puppy-like attitude is likely still there when it is playtime. We're so lucky to have them, and they give us so much for so little. They really do deserve your time and effort!

The internal satisfaction one achieves in a well-trained dog is well worth the minor cost of training.

Top Ten Reasons to Train Your Dog in the Summertime

2010-06-12T10:09:00.003-05:00

Summertime can be lazy for some, or a flurry of activity for others. One thing is for sure- it can be a great time to train your dog! Here's why:

1. No snow! No ice! No cold, icy winds, slush, or hail!

2. The days are longer, and therefore you have more daylight hours to choose from for your training sessions.

3. The birds wake you up earlier anyway, so you can get up before it gets too hot and get exercise for yourself and your dog while you both practice your obedience training skills.

4. It FEELS better to your body to get it moving during the summer than during the winter. Choose morning and evening times for your sessions, and your dog will thank you for your time and devotion. Who knows? Perhaps you'll even lose weight!

5. Distractions! Distractions are good for training. If you have kids, they can help you provide great distractions which help your dog learn to be attentive and self-disciplined. They can also assist by watching you, encouraging or providing helpful criticism. This is a good leadership learning opportunity for them! Distractions of all kinds (sights, sounds, smells, and anything which attracts your dog's interests) are easiest to find outdoors during the summer months.

6. All winter long you fussed about how difficult your dog's behavior was because he wasn't getting enough exercise or training outdoors due to the weather. Before you know it, winter will be here again! Will you sing the same lament? Or will you have new skills to help prevent "cabin fever" in you and your dog? You know, it is alot easier to walk a dog outside in the winter when he has a reliable heel!

7. Summertime is often pleasant, but short and unforgiving to procrastinators. Don't wait for fall, as winter comes early sometimes! Use this as an opportunity to practice your self-discpline and consistency, for your dog's sake as well as your own.

8. Location, location, location. Public parks are more accessible and cared for by staff during the summer than at any other time. They also can make great places to train your dog. Take advantage of the ability to use the space your tax dollars pay for, without any concern for snow, ice, restroom access, or trash cans for those poo bags.

9. Opportunities to test your training: most of Michigan's obedience trials are held during the spring, summer, and fall. Polish up your trained dog and prove the thoroughness of your work by entering him in some trials. You can earn titles and perhaps ribbons! When your dog makes a mistake or two, you have the ability to work through the error in training sessions held outside when the weather is ideal. This is much more difficult to accomplish during the winter.

10. For many, having time off from work in order to tend to the kids means all kinds of other activities. Fit training the family dog into your schedule, and those busy times during the next school year will feel much easier. When the dog needs walking, you just leash him up and go! No hassle with him pulling you all over the neighborhood, barking at every dog or neighbor, or facing more confinement when his energy needs aren't being met.

HumaneWatch.org, HSUS, and Michigan-- Show Me the Money!

2010-06-02T18:25:00.005-05:00

HumaneWatch.org has put together a brilliant report on the use of funds by HSUS (or H$U$, and we sometimes call it). This report provides evidence of the fact that the Humane Society of the United States spent less than one half of one percent of its funds for animals in shelters across the US. Instead, much of the money given by animal lovers, intending to "help animals in need" funded restrictive legislation which harms animals and their owners.

According to this report (which covers 2006-2008), HSUS has provided funds to just three different organizations in MI: $1,000 to the Cheboygan County Humane Society and $3500 to the Knapptime Adoption Rescue in 2006, and $2,000 to the Michigan Humane Society in 2007. If you're keeping tabs, that's $6,500 total. However, HSUS spent 100 times that much to lobby for a ban on dove hunting, which many Michigan residents (including many animal lovers) opposed.

During those three years, no money went to five states, but HSUS spent "nearly $280 million on salaries, lobbying, advertising, fundraising, and other programs." HSUS gave money to shelters in only 15 states in 2007, a decrease from the year before, but their budget increased by more than $8 million.

HumaneWatch reports that in one year, HSUS gave more to one veterinary hospital in Indiana than it provided to shelters in three years in 31 different states (including MI).

Total grants found in three years: $6,892,295
Total spending: $277,009,635

It is increasingly clear that HSUS is deceiving the public with regards to their purpose, their mission, and their use of funds. Those who wish to give money to help animals would do far better to donate to local organizations they trust.

The Domestic Dog

2010-05-29T17:05:00.003-05:00

Why do we struggle sometimes these days to understand the domestic dog? Why do we try so hard to work against nature, rather than understand and accept it?

A student recently asked me about the difficulty she is having playing with her dog. She has the type of dog which is more dignified in expression and less playful in temperament. This is not a new question for me as a trainer: "Why won't my dog play with toys?"

Keep in mind that the domestic dog is of the same species as a wolf, technically speaking. They are separated in the taxonomy system man has created only by a degree of subspecies. We like them because they are a watered-down version of their wild "cousins", and usually seem to retain more of those puppy-like behaviors we adore. After all, not many of us REALLY want to live with a wild wolf in our house, but we can enjoy a dog's company. We can shape our dogs into workers, contained through training to make them safe, and thus enjoy a bit of nature in our increasingly unnatural lives.

I said we "adore" them, and I think that's quite an appropriate word for how we feel about our canine companions and co-workers. But do we respect them in their dogness? Have we lost the ability to respond to their behaviors in appropriate ways? I believe that in many cases, dog owners have forgotten about the animal, the beast in their dogs, and are treating them more like stuffed children's toys than cousins to the wolf.

I've seen dogs nagged by leash tugs or some other random ineffective equipment because the owner has lost the ability to give a single appropriate correction after first teaching the dog what it expected in a reasonable manner. I've seen dogs fattened by fancy treats and salty, artifically colored kibble from a bag leave the owner's side while they plead for "obedience" with a lure that has failed to show respect to the dog's intelligence. I've seen owners smile while their dogs attack other people, because "it's cute": "I know that I should do something, but he's so cute."

I know that owners are bitten, or other people are, because they fail to acknowledge their dog's ability to cause pain in response to unnatural conditions. Dogs die in veterinary offices, animal shelters, and roadsides because the owners failed to see reliability to command as a priority.

We need to return to the days when people thought about dogs in a more reasonable way. There was a time when a dog was held responsible for his actions, as were his owners. Dogs were socialized and trained so they didn't cause problems. They helped the owners do work around the house or the workplace (the fields or the streets), and minded their business rather than interfere with others. People respected the idea that a dog could bite but he should be trained not to, period.

We have an animal that has strong jaws and sharp teeth, no matter what size, often living in our homes. We need to respect that. While we enjoy the company they afford, the gentle side of their temperaments and the ability that most of them have to do great work for us due to their unique capabilities, we need to respect them more for it. They are more than companions to us. They bring a piece of nature into our homes. We NEED that nature so badly, but we must respect it for what it is, treasure it, and value it. We need to work to understand it and shape it into a safe part of nature in an otherwise unnatural world.

Oreo's Law and the No-Kill Survey

2010-05-19T09:26:00.004-05:00

Last year, the ASPCA killed a dog named Oreo. This abused dog had been injured and required a great deal of veterinary care, but at least one other organization offered to take the dog and provide that care, with the end goal of finding a healthy Oreo a new home. So why was Oreo killed? And how many other dogs and cats die, even though an organization receives funds to care for cases like theirs, and other organizations are willing to accept the expenses of caring for such animals?

The No-Kill Advocacy Center also wanted to know how big of a problem this is, so they conducted a survey. They found that 72% of non-profit organizations in the state of New York are denied the ability to move animals from one shelter to another in order to provide care. Only 28% reported that "all" shelters work with them. 71% said that the dogs and cats they attempted to resuce were put to death instead. In addition, many of these non-profits report that shelter staff and directors can be "hostile", and refuse to work with other organizations, even though the lives of animals depend on it. Many also refuse to report neglect or cruelty in the shelters because they expected retaliation as a result.

Oreo's law would prevent many of these problems, and help prevent the deaths of adoptable dogs as well.

If you want to learn more about Oreo's law via the No-Kill Advocacy center, visit their website or read this newsletter.

Alleged Dog Bites/Attacks and the Media

2010-05-17T09:29:00.002-05:00

The National Canine Research Council (NCRC) has been investigating the reports of dog bites and especially fatalities in the media for several years. It is important for dog owners, law enforcement, and the general public to understand the various factors involved in dog bites, so bites of all levels can be prevented and fatalities avoided. Recently, the NCRC investigated yet another reported fatality attributed to a woman's dog, and they have supplied a report of their findings.

What was reported by a number of news sources as a fatality involving the family's dog actually had little, if anything, to do with the dog.

If you visit the NCRC's site (nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com), you can read other reports of their findings. You'll find that reporters frequently do not get the story right, and rarely inform the public when they are wrong. While that may not be a surprise, it does have dire consequences for dogs and their owners, who are often vilified in the media. The public may call for more restrictive, costly, and unenforceable laws in order to solve the "problem" that may not in fact even exist.

The result of these false reports is that innocent dogs are put to death, dog owners face increased legal issues, and the public is not made safer because they aren't educated as to the true causes of dog bites.

If only the media would take some time to teach their communities how to prevent bites using common sense.

Do Pet Dog Trainers and Competitors Have Different Goals? What Does that Mean for Students?

2010-05-04T10:34:00.005-05:00

The following is a post making its rounds in the trainer industry. It was written by Bob Self, editor of Front & Finish, and it is posted here to illustrate some concerns regarding the goals of some trainers who compete in the obedience ring. Are those goals the same of people who don't compete, but want a reliable companion? How do they differ? Are there sacrifices of methodology in order to achieve points in the obedience ring?

"Hello List,

I'd like to express my opinion if you'll permit...

In judging I keep coming across frustrated exhibitors who are having a
number of problems with exercises in the ring. From my perspective most of
these issues are related to the fact that few exhibitors seem to understand
or have trained for voice control and attention. The basic objective of our
sport is to demonstrate that dogs can be trained to behave in public. If
exhibitors don't have voice control over their dogs inside a relatively
controlled environment such as the show ring, how can they ever exercise any
command over their dogs in public? In my opinion training any dog requires a
certain degree of compulsion that the trainer must exercise over the dog. In
short the dog must do what you say simply because you will demand no less.
The stories I hear from the exhibitors lead me to believe that many
instructors today are using methods of training which attempt to "encourage"
desired behaviors from dogs. While this is appropriate in some situations,
many trainers are entirely avoiding physical corrections touting that these
methods are inhumane. Showing a dog is compulsory simply because an
exhibitor decided to do so. Exhibitors are the ones requiring the dog to go
to the trial. I've yet to know of any dog who entered it's handler.

One set of obedience exercises that are certainly compulsory are the groups.
Dogs must stay in one place because they are mandated to do so. With much of
what I call "encouragement training," teaching stays is inefficient,
ineffective, and unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. I haven't seen
many dogs stay in one place because they were "inspired" to do so. If
training methods today are so superior then why is obedience diminishing in
size at such a dramatic rate? And more... why are so many exhibitors wanting
the group exercises eliminated? Simply said, handlers just can't trust that
the dog next to them has been trained to stay in a manner that mandates he
will be obedient.

In addition to ineffective training methodologies there are a number of
other issues causing a great debate about the group exercises. To name a
few... a judge's attention to, and control over dogs during the groups;
instruction regimes, handler knowledge and ethics in entering dogs
inadequately proofed to stay, and inconsistencies in the regulation of our
sport.
In the next issue of F&F Online we would like to explore exhibitor feelings
regarding the group exercises. There are certainly diverse opinions on the
subject and we want to hear from you! We will publish ALL comments received
in July/August Online issue as long as the submission demonstrates RESPECT
for the sport and is accompanied by the contributor's FIRST NAME, LAST NAME,
and the CITY and STATE where they live. Contributors are welcome to include
their email address if they wish, but it is not mandatory. Email addresses
will not be included unless it is included with the text of your message. We
have set up a special email address for everyone's submissions. Email your
comments regarding the group exercises to
stays@frontandfinish.com
.

Please pass the word! We would like to have an excellent response to this
important debate!

Respectfully,
Robert T. Self
Editor
Front & Finish"

Update on Zebedee the Bloodhound

2010-05-04T10:33:00.000-05:00

Zebedee is excelling in his training progress at about ten months of age and "a moose", as Lt. Miller reports. He looks like the same pup we knew, just bigger! In the photo above, he is sporting a brand new ballistics vest. It was donated by a local AKC club, along with a canine first aid kit which included an oxygen mask for pets. These donated tools will help keep Zeb and other K-9's safe when in the line of duty. While we hope that he is never in danger, Zeb is in a line of work which may cause him to be in risky conditions. Thanks to these donations, he can be even safer.

Zeb is not on work duty just yet, but he will be doing a demonstration for high school students, complete with a search or two. Lt. Miller says that he is one of the finest trailing dogs he has ever worked with! This makes our hearts swell with pride.

Zeb was dangerous to the people in his first home, even at just 2-4 months old, and a challenge with us due to his food aggression issues. We recognized his potential to be a working hound, but weren't sure if we could find him the right home. Luckily, there was a need in Pennsylvania, as this unit had recently lost another hound due to cancer. As they had also recently used their canine budget to purchase two new narcotics/explosive dogs, they also needed something special to happen in order to replace the trailing dog. Enter Zebedee.

They needed a good hound, and we needed a home for a working-class pup. They had raised food-aggressive bloodhounds before, and knew how to handle those issues while shaping up a dog into a life saver and street-cleaner (of bad guys). We couldn't be happier to hear that Zeb is turning out to be a top-notch man trailer. And ever handsome to boot!

We look forward to reading stories of his working success in the near future. For now, we're satisfied with his training progress. He has taught us much about what dogs are capable of doing for people, when given a chance.

Local Humane Societies Change Their Names

2010-05-03T09:19:00.002-05:00

The Klmath Falls, ID shelter, the Halifax Humane Society in Florida, and the Marquette County, Michigan shelter are chaging their names. Why? Because they want to create distance between themselves and the nationally recognized "Humane Society of the United States" (HSUS).

It is no secret anymore that HSUS has used local situations to their advantage, taking donations by concerned citizens, and then using that money to fund lobbying ventures rather than help care for the animals as donators expected. Local animal lovers all over the nation are discovering the truth, but during this process there is bound to be some confusion.

In order to provide clarity and ensure that local donations by these animal lovers are used to truly help local animals in need, local shelters are changing their names. This helps the people in their communities to understand what their intentions are, and encourages them to donate locally.

In addition, this name change also distinguishes the HSUS from real shelters which provide real care for animals. Hopefully, it also prevents them from taking people's hard-earned money and using it against them in their legislature.

HSUS Buys Stock to Make Their Point- Not REAL Stock!

2010-04-26T15:20:00.002-05:00

I don't think the vegans of HSUS could handle owning real live "stock", but they are quite comfortable owning financial investments in un-related companies. Why? Because they want to have a say in how a company operates. What a rotten way to spend money.

This could consist of pressuring a company to stop buying eggs from suppliers who don't conform to HSUS's restrictive recommendations. You get the idea.

It just seems to me that HSUS is so much more political than they are actually helpful to the animal owners of America. Well, I'm not alone, and it is no longer a secret that this AR organization does not have responsible animal ownership at the heart of their operations. They are willing (and able) to misuse the money provided from good-hearted people, who think it will go to animal care (less than 1% of it actually does!), for political and lobbying purposes. This is, of course, why the IRS is taking a closer look at how they operate.

Celebrate Your Future Canine Success

2010-04-23T21:46:00.002-05:00

For those who are working hard to try to help a dog, whether you wish to call it "rehabilitation" or training, it is important to focus on a successful, happy future. Too many people get stuck on what has happened in past events, and on the difficulties of the training in the moment. Trust in the process and focus on success, and most of all, celebrate on the better future you are creating.

This is important to remember when you bring a new dog into your home. While creating structure, consistency, and sound management and training practices, celebrate your new dog's newfound health, wellness, and happy future as you help create it for him. Not only will you enjoy the process more, he will also rise to meet you.

Don't worry about past mistakes, whether the dog had a problem or you or someone else had a problem. Focus on the future, and feel joy in a good one. Then make it happen!

Missourians Make a Stand

2010-04-19T08:24:00.003-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ettJtlmr4wM

The Missourians for Animal Care Coalition put out this new video to help educate the public with the truth about HSUS and other Animal Rights groups. Their website, www.missourifac.com, says their mission is to: "promote and protect Missouri’s vibrant and diverse agriculture, which includes livestock and domesticated animals."

Good for you, Missouri! This organization has 16 organizations, covering many different areas of farming and pet industries, to protect their rights. What a powerful statement they are making.

Be Your Dog's Advocate, and Work Together for Success

2010-04-13T11:51:00.004-05:00

I have found myself repeating this phrase often lately, "You must be your dog's advocate". With this post, I would like to discuss this phrase as it applies to management and training rather than legal issues, though it still applies to that subject.

Sometimes you need to stick up for your dog, rather than rely on him to protect you. This is especially the case with those who have fearful or aggressive dogs. If you build a trusting, respectful relationship with your dog, much of the danger you would otherwise face when in public together goes away. Of course, the best way to build a trusting, respectful relationship with your dog is through obedience training.

For example, I recently met a small dog that doesn't necessarily care to make friends with every human he meets, and has some limits when it comes to meeting other dogs. When I met him, he was cautious of me, but never aggressive. He allowed me to handle him gently without reacting with his teeth or mouth at all, which is really good. But dogs like this just don't want to make friends with everyone, and that's okay. You should never force your dog to "make friends".

This dog responds well to other dogs which are respectful of his space and that of his owners. That is good to know as well. But when approached by an excited dog, or a dog which behaves in a way he feels is "rude" (a human expression, but you understand), he shows his teeth, growls, and will snap if he feels the need. He does not go out of his way to pick fights, but is protective of that closer personal space around him. He is not alone in this expression; lots of dogs behave this way. But unfortunately, this behavior can result in a bite, and thus these types of dogs are a liability to their owners.

I explained to his owners that they can do two important things to protect their dog and the people and dogs they meet. First, obedience training will give them better "tools" to use when they face an uncertain situation, such as the approach of a strange dog. The process of training can also increase the dog's confidence in himself as well as his trust in his owners, so he will be less likely to feel the need to respond with aggression.

Secondly, the owners need to "be their dog's advocate". In the case of an approaching dog, the owners can do a number of things to protect their dog from the advancing one, so there is no need for him to feel uncomfortable or to become aggressive to defend their space. That shouldn't be his responsibility. The owners can tell the other dog's owner to remove their dog, they can step between them, they can remove their dog behind a barrier if needed, etc. If the other owner does not take them seriously, they can make their words more effective with something like, "My dog bites. Please go away." The other owner would be foolish not to comply.

I have had to intervene for my own dog's safety when an off-leash dog approached in a stiff, dominant manner. He was not behaving politely, but showed signs of interest in a fight with my dog. My dog trusted me to stay between them, and thus I was able to focus entirely on the other dog as I knew my dog was safely behind me. My firm shouts at the strange dog kept him away. The little boy who tried to help stop his dog told me he was fearful that his own dog would bite him. This got me upset, I'll admit. His parents should have been out there with leash in hand to catch this dog before someone could get hurt. Now I felt responsible for my dog AND the boy.

Nevertheless, I knew my dog was reliable off-leash, so I unclipped his lead, made a slip lead out of it, caught the dog as he got closer, and handed the lead to the boy. I then followed him, my dog heeling at my side, to his home. I spoke clearly to his mother about what happened (including what her son told me) as I got my leash back. I hope I made an effective impression and that never happened again.

Training makes everyone safer. Confidence in your dog, and his confidence in you, helps you both stay calm. By being your dog's advocate, he doesn't have to resort to a bite in order to protect himself or you. While there are situations in which having a dog protect you is worthy, we hope we never have that need or risk. Protect your dog first, and everyone can be safer as a result.

Apply to Purchase Your New Pet, Or Buy? Or Both?

2010-04-03T13:05:00.002-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that at least two counties within an easy drive of my home charge only $10 for dogs (some would call this "adoption" or "rescue", we call it "purchase"). A dog which is intact is $35, with $25 refundable after proof of spay or neuter. In Michigan, it is the state law that dogs acquired from shelters be spayed or neutered when they go to new homes. At least one of these shelters has a minimal application process, and I would guess that the other is very similar. Fill out a form, sign your name, pay the fee, and take your new dog home. It's that simple.

Meanwhile, "rescue" groups in the same state can remove adoptable dogs from the shelter, advertise their availability, and then sell them for as much as several hundred dollars, regardless of breed, mix or other measurable value. Of course, in order to purchase one of these dogs, the buyer needs to be able to jump through numerous written "hoops" in a lengthy application form, and may need to wait for reference checks and/or a home visit to prove their worth as "adopters".

Which process is best? Well, if you're a dog needing a new home, what do you care? You just want to get out of that shelter, and either way may get that done. It beats euthanasia "for space". A "rescue" group may work hard to prevent euthanasia from occurring, and possibly be able to find a better home for a dog with health or behavior problems, but a dog might need to wait a while for that to happen.

If you're someone looking for a dog, and especially if you want to keep costs down, a visit to the county shelter or a perusal through craigslist.com, petfinder.com, or other sites set up by locals can be a great way to find an inexpensive or even free dog. That dog may have problems of all sorts and may have a mystery past, and you may need to spend some money providing medical care, training, and other needs. A dog in a foster home or "rescue" kennel may come with less surprise expenses and behavior issues, but not every potential responsible owner can make the grade.

There is more than one way to acquire a dog. For those who are willing to take home an adult dog, a mystery mutt, or a problematic challenge of a dog, the options are endless. For those who want more information about a dog's past, groups with foster homes, private owners, or responsible breeders may be the best sources.

Increasingly, though, and unfortunately, "rescue" groups seem to be facing political issues from the public, which is getting tired of being treated as the enemy. Some groups have very stringent rules and restrictions for potential "adopters", and charge as much for adult mixed breeds with issues as breeders in the area may charge for healthy pure bred puppies.

Some people think that a person should have to pay a great sum for a dog, thus providing proof of their ability to care for the animal. They also believe that every potential owner must pass that stringent application process before bringing home a dog. Thus, owners who attempt to give away dogs, charge little for them, and who are content with a few verbal answers from the buyer are viewed as vile crooks. A person who is willing to pay only a little for a mystery mutt must have bad intentions, they think. Of course, you'll find good and bad buyers and sellers everywhere.

I actually find a little relief knowing that good $10 dogs are able to find good homes rather than facing euthanasia "for space". I'm sure their owners are also quite pleased with the bargain cost of their new pet, especially if they do run into some great future expenses for their care.

Owner Sues City With Breed Ban

2010-03-30T13:05:00.004-05:00

Leonard Shelton, a Lakewood, Ohio resident, is suing the city as a result of their treatment of him, via a pit bull ban. This case represents a number of problems caused by breed bans and other issues in general. The dog in the photo is not his dog, by the way, but the photo of this other mixed breed just looks cute.

Shelton was stopped by a police offer who told him his dog was a pit bull, and therefore was banned. Pit bulls and "canary dogs" were banned in the city in 2008. He would have to get the dog out of the city or face criminal charges. The owner told the officer that the dog was not a pit bull, but a Boston Terrier mix. So here we have an example of a police officer pretending to be an expert in dog breed identification, having been placed in that position by a faulty law.

Apparently other police officers continued to visit Mr. Shelton over the next several months, insisting that he get rid of his dog. Now, I don't know about your area, but around here I can think of quite a few other things our limited number of underfunded police officers can spend their time doing. Did they have a personal agenda against the guy, or other reasons they wanted to get rid of him and/or his dog? I could see how the dog owner would feel harassed over something so ridiculous otherwise. Now, if the owner's or the dog's behavior was unacceptable, the officers could surely have other ways to address the situation.

Animal Control Officer Michael Stewart, who also apparently considers himself an expert in breed identification, suggested that DNA results could show that Mr. Shelton's dog was not a pit bull, and that it would be allowed to live in the city if that was the case. So Shelton had a test done, and it "proved" the dog was not a pit bull, but the Stewart would not accept the results. Shelton claims that the harassment continued by the city, and he finally decided to move. Now he lives in Brooklyn.

Shelton is suing because he feels his constitutional rights were violated, and that he was discriminated against. He wants a minimum of $475,000 in damages. Regardless of whether he wins, it proves another point- breed bans are costly in many ways.

Allergy Alert Dogs- a new form of service dog

2010-03-25T15:45:00.003-05:00

There are people who are so allergic to peanuts that even the dust of a peanut shell floating through the air can cause a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. 150 people a year die from food allergy reactions. Medication, an epi-pen, food labels, and basic awareness are not always enough to prevent a person from coming into contact with any form of the peanut (or other food allergy, including any tree nut, shellfish, fish, milk, or eggs). Now, dogs are being used to sniff out the source of an allergy, thus preventing their handler from making contact with that threat.

These dogs can be trained to search out locations, investigate other people, carry meds and remind the handler to take them, and prevent a person from physically making contact with any source of a threat. Especially for a parent protecting a young child with a food allergy, these dogs are very precious.

A child named Ethan has a very strong allergy to peanuts and other tree nuts. His parents created a website to help raise money for their trained food allergy alert dog. A video posted there via youtube may help you understand what families like his can go through.

When he was just a toddler, he had his first reaction after picking up a peanut butter sandwich. He walked by a bulk peanut bin in the grocery store once, with a dreadful reaction. He picked up a nut in someone's yard once. These responses can include a drop in blood pressure, anaphylactic shock, red welts on his skin, eyes closing up, throat closing up, and asthma issues, even long after the initial event is over. Once, a babysitter went to a restaurant where peanuts are tossed on the floor before she arrived at Ethan's home. He ended up fighting for his life, and spent four days in the hospital. I imagine it is hard to be comfortable with any babysitter after such an experience.

Ethan wouldn't stand a chance in elementary school. His family avoids group gatherings, including church services. Peanuts, their shells, or their oils can be found in lots of things, including raw, cooked, oil, butter, dust, and even potting soil. Peanut protein is the trigger, and should it get into the bloodstream via the lungs or minute cracks in the skin, the reaction can be so severe as to cause death within a few short minutes.

I found his story via the Angel Service Dogs website. That organization's founder, Sherry Mers, had heard of the Beagle Brigade, a group of dogs used by the USDA to search for food in international airports. Since her young daughter, Riley, was allergic to peanuts like Ethan is (she once got a terrible skin burn from a peanut shell that got stuck in her sandal), she wondered if a dog might be trained to sniff out peanuts, too. As it turns out, she was right. Now her daughter is even able to go to school with her service dog, Rock'O.

There are a few trainers who now specialize, at least in part, with the training of these special detection dogs. Often, they are also experienced with narcotics detection or some other focus as well. The cost of a food detection dog may be $10-20,000, a hardship for most parents. But the results can be lifesaving. In one occurrence, Rock'O prevented young Riley from making contact with another child who had a small smear of peanut butter on his jeans. For these children and their parents, an allergy alert dog is a priceless "angel".

Dog and Human Health Go Together

2010-03-23T09:46:00.002-05:00

Perhaps you've heard of the canary in the mine, or how frogs and other amphibians are studied to evaluate toxins found in the environment. In both cases, animals are used to help measure the negative effects of environmental toxins for the benefit of people. Well, now a group of people are using dogs in a new way for the same type of purpose.

Associate professor Michael Edelbrock, Ph.D. and students at the University of Findlay are studying dog and human health at the cellular level. They plan on examining both pet dogs and strays. They want to know how health can effect future generations as well as current ones, and how the environment shapes health.

Dogs are affected by the same things we are, for the most part. If their food is not high in quality or in over- or underabundance, if they are overvaccinated, underexercised, taking in too many chemicals via drugs, and exposed to toxins through the air or water, they face some of the same common health defects as humans face as a result. Cancer is an increasingly common disease in dogs, and probably for the same reasons it is in humans as well. How much of this is genetic? How might it be prevented? This team wants to know.

In addition, they plan on studying these concepts by geographical area. They want to compare the health of dogs and humans from one area to another.

Some of these answers will be predictable of course. As dog owners, we recognize that the healthier approach we have on life, the more likely our dogs will be healthier too. If we treat them as we want to be treated, or even better (some of our dogs seem to live better than we do, right?), they can live healthier, longer, and happier lives.

A Letter From the IRS Made Me Happy

2010-03-22T13:28:00.002-05:00

Yes, that's right! I got a letter from the IRS, and it made me smile. It said, "Thank you for the information you submitted regarding HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES. The Internal Revenue Service has an ongoing examination program to ensure that exempt organizations comply with the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The information you submitted will be considered in this program..."

My letter is just one of thousands that the IRS has had to send out recently to people like me. I participated in a letter-writing campaign to "Spay and Neuter HSUS" by submitting some information regarding their many violations of the IRC. Thousands of people sent the same information I did, and it has finally got the attention of the IRS.

Now there is no room for HSUS to hide, and no excuses for their abuse of people's donated money. The IRS has begun their investigation, and in time perhaps the results will be fruitful for the responsible animal owners of the U.S. Should you not be familiar with what HSUS does with the money they solicit from unsuspecting animal lovers, a good place to start your own investigation is www.humanewatch.org.

Congrats to Lance Mackey and His Sled Dog Team!

2010-03-19T09:29:00.003-05:00

Lance Mackey has won the Iditarod sled dog race for the fourth time, setting a new record in the history of the race. His passion, energy, and sheer determination are awe-inspiring. This is especially true when you consider that the man has also fought successfully against cancer. To win this amazing race not just once or twice, but FOUR times is simply amazing.

Lance has many dogs-- many more dogs than the average person would ever consider owning and caring for, because it takes a lot of work. But these dogs are healthy and happy, well-bred and cared for working dogs. Lucky for them, they also reside in a state that still allows them to be owned, cared for, and exercised in a way which is best for them. In many other states, the number of dogs Lance owns and the manner in which he confines and cares for them would be outlawed. Remember, though, that his dogs are healthy and happy, well-bred and cared for working dogs. So why should it be different anywhere else?

How can it be acceptable to allow the government to limit the number of dogs a person owns, with no other qualifier? How is it okay to allow the government to decide how dogs can be confined by technique or tool, rather than by safety, health, and contentment of the animals?

I watched a video of Mr. Mackey and his family recently. He owns indoor pets of different breeds in addition to the many sled dogs that are kept happy outside. They love the lifestyle they keep, and they are very successful with it not just to win, but to live. Congrats again, Mr. Mackey!

Are They Our Pets or Our Children?

2010-03-18T11:55:00.004-05:00

The photo above represents a confusion of life, an artist's view of the potential results of humankind messing with nature through science. Look carefully. What do you see? Do you see a twisted human? Or do you see some kind of warped domestic animal? Do you find this scene attractive or offensive? Does it really all come down to your own perspective?

When I stumbled across this photo, which thankfully isn't of a real-life depiction, but of a sculpture, it immediately reminded me of how confused pet owners can become. We like to think of our pets as part of the family, which is a worthy perspective to some extent. However, that perspective can go too far. When we start to think of dogs as "fur-kids", we don't treat them like the animals they are.

How far is too far? The answer often lies in the results of the relationship. A dog treated like a spoiled child rather than a domestic animal finds itself in an unnatural situation. Some dogs resort to a variety of undesirable behaviors as they try desperately to find balance in their off-kilter world. Unfortunately, owners sometimes choose to see these behaviors as symptoms of former abuses they can help heal, or they can anthropomorphize even more as they try to determine how to respond. Treating a dog like a child can have terrible consequences for both species.

So what is acceptable behavior on the part of a dog owner? How much emotional investment is okay? This is a difficult concept to measure. Basically, though, I think it comes down to how much of an affect a human's behavior has on both their life and the dog's. Are both human and dog exhibiting behaviors which are natural and healthy? If the human is able to function "normally" in human society, and the dog is able to function "normally" around people and other dogs, chances are good that they have a decent balance.

When either one is not functioning as they are expected to, we usually must examine the human's behavior first. Change that into what is more healthy and balanced, and the dog will usually respond in turn. While we can appreciate the benefits that dogs bring to us emotionally as our pets or working companions, we also need to recognize and appreciate their unique "dogness", and show respect to who they are at their core.

The bottom line is that people should be treated as people, and dogs as dogs. Of course, dogs should be treated "humanely", but within reason for their kind.

Dog Owners Beware! Dog Shows and Elsewhere

2010-03-17T10:10:00.002-05:00

I have heard several reports lately of dogs in danger in various locations and various ways. It is a reminder that responsible dog owners need to be on the alert.

Here in my local area, I heard two reports of dog napping. In one, a man approached a little girl with a puppy, asking questions about its worth. While another left to get the mother's help, the stranger grabbed the puppy, stowing it away in a van and driving off. As far as I know, the puppy has not been found, nor the criminal. In the other alert, allegedly there are dog nappers posing as "rescue" people.

Another threat has become known in the dog show world, especially through conformation trials. Dog owners and show staff must be on the alert for PeTA supporters, who apparently have no limits when it comes to opposing purebred breeders. Whether the following are due exclusively to PeTA people, I don't know. I have heard of an attempt at poisoning through a water bowl with antifreeze, of shattered auto glass spread on a show ring floor (dirt, making it harder to discover and clean than a mat), a grooming area trashed the day before a show, and of crates opened and attempted dognapping. So far, no one has been hurt that I know of.

Dog owners, be very, very careful! Be watchful of your dogs and those of your friends, neighbors, and all dogs at every event. Be on the alert for strangers who may have bad intentions.

Event security (this can be volunteers) can monitor parking lots and the surrounding area of dog events for vehicles with PeTA stickers on them. This is one way to track possible offenders. All doors should be securely locked or staffed with security personnel to ensure that any dog leaving a building leaves only with an owner or permitted handler. Crates should be guarded at all times. Food and water supplies should be locked up if possible, and bowls scrutinized for cleanliness (this is what stopped a dog from being poisoned- an alert owner noticed the color and then the scent). Show grounds should be protected by knowledgeable security people, especially when dogs are present overnight (handlers would be wise to take dogs with them whenever possible).

Of course, alert dog owners can also help watch over each other. Teach your children basic safety rules regarding strangers, and include your pets in scenarios (a stranger looking for a lost pet is still a stranger too!). If you leave your pet outside, ensure that a kennel is locked securely, and do your best to protect your dog from access by strangers. Carefully inspect your fencing and the perimeter of your property for any hidden dangers. Of course, teaching your dog reliability through obedience can also help keep them safe (it did in one of the circumstances above). A dog with a good recall, down/drop on command, and leave-it can be made immediately safe in a dreadful situation.

Responsible dog owners should not have to feel threatened, and should not have to fear for their dogs' safety at every hour. Unfortunately, a healthy dose of awareness can help keep our dogs safe and secure. So please, be careful and look out for one another.

Denver and Aurora, CO vs Veteran Service Dog Owners

2010-03-13T17:07:00.002-05:00

One of the problems with Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) is that it discriminates against dog owners as well as their dogs. This is especially true where federal law protects disabled people from being discriminated against, but their rights are restricted due to state or local dog laws. This topic has been brought up front and center in both Denver and Aurora, Colorado.

Though the details I have read at this point are scant, the alleged class action lawsuit has been filed after two veterans who own service dogs have been restricted from owning those dogs due to BSL laws. The first owns a UKC-registered American Pit Bull Terrier, which the Denver Animal Control Manager, Doug Kelley, allegedly refused to license. The owner was then told to ditch the dog or leave the city.

The other veteran (that just makes it seem all the more worse, doesn't it?!) lost his dog in an Animal Control seizure because it allegedly fits the description as a banned breed. He was able to get his dog back after paying some fines and sending his dog to a friend outside of the city. Now he is unable to use the dog in its service work, and relies on others to see to the dog's care and allow him to visit it.

Both veterans have prescriptions from their VA doctors for the dogs, and I have read nothing regarding any ill behavior on either dog. They are being discriminated against strictly based on breed/type/appearance.

Unfortunately due to bad dog laws at home, these veterans are once again serving their country, but in a new way. I hope that both are able to retain their constitutional rights, and abolish these destructive, restrictive laws.

What? Pet Horses Slaughtered in Wyoming?

2010-03-11T18:04:00.002-05:00

Yep, that's right. The Wyoming Governor has signed a bill, HB 122, into law. I think he's got the right idea, actually. While I appreciate a good pet horse or good working horse and even the wild horse for all its beauty, strength, etc., they aren't always in happy times and places.

Especially when owners face hard economic times, the horses find themselves homeless and with no where to go. A sick horse, dying horse, or homeless horse has to go somewhere (unless it stays right where it's at, and simply suffers). Someone has to pay for it to be cared for, put to death, processed/buried or re-homed via a sale or some other legal process. those costs add up quick with such a large animal. What Dave Freudenthal has done is to allow, legally, for more options than horse owners have had in a while.

Thanks to laws pushed by H$U$ and other animal rights groups, there has been an explosion in the population of abandoned and neglected horses in Wyoming and elsewhere. It costs money to send a horse off to Canada or Mexico for slaughter, or to shelter, feed, and vet it within state lines. What else could they do?

One nice thing about this decision is that if a horse is slaughtered, the meat must be kept within the state, and much of it can be provided to non-profit organizations at cost. They can sell the meat for profit at market price, but if it is to be fed to people, it gets inspected by the state and stays there.

Temple Grandin, known for her interest in making the slaughter process as easy as possible for the sake of livestock, is involved in this effort. They want the process to be efficient, practical, and humane. Consider that a horse owner left with no other choice but to put a horse to death can choose to donate that horse to benefit people in need.

According to the SAOVA, horse meat is 50% higher in protein and 40% lower in fat than beef. While some Americans may have forgotten these benefits as they look to the animals as pets, taking a more realistic approach can be beneficial for all involved. As a matter of fact, horses are still eaten regularly by people all over the world.

Unfortunately, all horses die, but a humane death which can benefit humans is not a bad option. Starving and neglected sounds much worse. I visited some websites and found a photo of a horse turned loose in the desert, after its brand had been cut out of her skin, so the owner could not be responsible. A quick shot to the head and a family fed is more desirable than such treatment!

To learn more about this decision, visit www.unitedorgsofthehorse.org, www.abandonedhorses.net, and www.amillionhorses.com.

The Fall in AKC Registrations

2010-03-11T10:39:00.002-05:00

The AKC is on the way out, says a fellow blogger I admire. While we occasionally disagree on things, I have met the author in person and appreciate her opinion and manner of speaking (writing) as well.

So are mixed breeds like this Boston Terrier/Papillon the way of the future? I don't know about that! I still appreciate the "pure bred" dog very much, though what one constitutes as pure bred others may scoff at. I thought, though, since I just posted about the dog show I attended last weekend, that I might consider the AKC a little further.

So first, what has the AKC meant to me? I never had a "papered" dog. That never mattered, though. It seemed that people who had their registered dogs likely paid a lot more for them, but we seemed to enjoy our dog as much as they enjoyed theirs. I've had "pure bred" dogs that didn't look like the ones in the show ring, but I didn't really care, so long as it was a "good" dog. So the AKC didn't mean anything to me, and still doesn't, as far as the papers go. It's just paper, after all.

So what else? Well, I did have two dogs pass the Canine Good Citizen test, and I've been an evaluator as well, though I let that lapse as there just hasn't been call for it. There are so many evaluators in my area, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to continue paying the AKC for that title anymore. While I would hope my dogs and my students' dogs will always be able to pass the CGC, I encourage my students to train for an even higher standard from the start. "Why promote such a low bar?" says I. It's all good, but I want better.

Hmmm. What else? Well, I am looking to get a pure bred dog, and I might end up with one that has been registered with AKC. I think I'd be willing to get the paper with my dog's name on it, simply because I might think it's kinda cool to frame it. Nowadays, though, why else would the average dog owner want to pay for the paper? What's in it for them? The paper is a requirement for breeding, but most people have either purchased a contract with their puppy that signed its reproductive organs away, or their veterinarian will "hound" them until they have the privilege of removing the organs in exchange for more money. If a person isn't going to breed a dog, why register?

The AKC would have them consider that they may want to compete in some sport, which would require registering with them. That's true. But other registries are also an option. They may let a person register their dog for less, and compete in their favored sports for less moolah.

The AKC is now offering a "separate but equal" sort of mixed breed obedience ring, too. You have to register your dog first, and with that comes some special privileges that are supposed to be cheap and to your advantage. While that's nice, I can't get past the part where your dog must be altered from its natural form in order for you to participate. "Separate but equal" didn't work out well for people, and you won't see me jumping in line to give away my dog's organs and the AKC money just so they can tell me my dog is obedient. My political beliefs just get in the way.

I went to an AKC dog show. It was a fun and educational experience for me, as well as for many other visitors. Because it was a benched show, I had the opportunity to meet any breed that was present, and visit with breeders and handlers. There were also educational seminars on a variety of breeds and other subjects, which I'm sure was valuable to some of the spectators. There were other organizations and vendors present as well, and more opportunities to share information and goodies. I support the event for the benefit it brought to the public and the participants.

The AKC has done some good things for dogs. They are working on trying to promote genetic health and education with regards to many breeds. They work on legislative issues with affect us all. I wish they could do more, though. But the truth is, the average pet owner doesn't care about those things, and that is not reason enough to register their dog with AKC.

The NAIA says that AKC registrations are down, when compared to the human population and years past. The suggestion is that laws regulating breeders is to blame, as well as a negative reputation "dogging them" from the public eye. While it's true that animal rightists have caused many problems for breeders in the last few decades, and continue to chip away at the public view of the pure bred dog, my blogger friend has suggested that the AKC is somewhat responsible for its own fall in registration numbers. She created a "top ten list". I'll go through them briefly here, but if you want to read her more thorough perspective, check the link I put in above.

10. Televised dog shows: she suggests that people like to watch it for the same reasons they like to watch other reality shows-- it has nothing to do with education.

9. Shelter adoption: you are a "rescuer" if you purchase/acquire a dog from a shelter, don't ya know. I think shelters are full of problems, and these days I tend to have little interest in bringing someone else's problem into my home. But some people love the idea of self-sacrifice for the "underdog". I can sympathize with the sympathetic heart. More power to them., as long as they don't try to ruin it for the rest of us with negative, blaming attitudes. Anyway, these dogs aren't producing puppies to be registered, and are taking the spot of a pure bred puppy in some homes. Good for the problem puppies, not good for registrations.

8. "puppymills": Unfortunately, as we all know by now, AKC papers don't say anything about quality. The more unhealthy, unattractive dogs that are purchased with AKC papers attached, the less popular those papers become.

7. "puppymill registries": The AKC wanted to protect the pure in the pure bred registrations, so they started requiring dogs who sired X number of litters per year to be DNA typed. This action caused people who bred lots of dogs to move to other registries that made the papering process easier. In other words, other cheap registries are growing (and are even more worthless), and AKC is losing out. If you look at it from the quality standpoint, I suppose it's still a good thing for AKC.

6. The Return to Normalcy: the idea that Americans don't like to allow someone else to tell them what they can and can't do with their property, or gyp them out of their money for something of little value.

5. Michael Lemonick and Mark Derr: the idea that the AKC has promoted beauty over health, temperament, and usefulness of the breeds. Many people who want quality dogs avoid AKC dogs, or at least avoid registering their own for fear it may lose value.

4. Gen X, Y and Z: don't need papers to get a dog. That's it.

3. People Like Me, You, and This Here Lamppost: She's right. Less canine professionals encourage people to register, because they don't believe there is value in it, but on the other hand, believe that the AKC is "actually bad for dogs."

2. The Dog Wars: Breed clubs have to jump through a certain number of hoops in order to get in the show ring with a new breed. Once it's there, the AKC can make decisions about that breed's standard and future without the consent of the majority of dedicated, experienced breeders on board. Some breed clubs avoid this problem by avoiding the AKC like the plague. For the consumer, it means to get a quality puppy, you may want to go through the breed club itself rather than the AKC breed club.

1. Institutional Arrogance: the main personality types of breeders found within this organization sometimes clash, which doesn't do anybody any good. Instead, it has caused them to make poor decisions throughout their history.

Well, I think she's right-- I think AKC has made some mistakes over time, but I also agree that American culture, Animal Rights groups, and bad dog laws have also had an impact on registration numbers. What the AKC needs to concentrate on is promoting healthy, sound, work-worthy dogs in every breed. If they can't have quantity, they should at least still strive for quality.

As for me, it doesn't matter to me if the pup I purchase has AKC papers or not, but I will want a pedigree so the health, structure, and temperament of my dog's relations can be researched if desired. I will also want a breeder who is active and knowledgeable regarding that breed. Many of these people are still also active in AKC, so I won't discount them. But those papers aren't high on my list. That said, I still want a pure bred dog from a responsible breeder, so I know exactly what I'm getting into.

The Benefits of a Benched Dog Show

2010-03-09T16:02:00.003-05:00

I recently went to a dog show. By "dog show", I mean a conformation dog show, a show where dogs compete against each other, with the idea of having a judge decide which dog appears to meet its breed's standard the best. Dogs of many breeds compete, so of course there are dogs everywhere at such an event. But there is also much more to offer at such a sizable show, as the public is provided with many means of entertainment and education. I was one of "the public" this time, and I found the trip to be very much worth it.

I have attended dog shows before, but mostly I was focused on the competitive obedience ring. That "beauty" stuff was for "those other people". Of course, I know that there is more to it than that, but going to a show without a dog to compete with in a trial freed me up to observe many other things.

First, my priority was to find people who were representing the breeds I am interested in. You see, I am not interested in "rescuing" a problem dog that needs a new home this time. I've been there, done that, and had my joys and problems as a result. No, this time I am looking to have some very specific needs met. The best way to find that near-perfect dog is to go through a pure-bred dog breeder. But first, you have to select the right breed.

I have had some breeds in mind. I went looking for three specifically at this show. Two were represented only by professional handlers. One tried to quickly answer questions, but she was quite busy. The dog wasn't local, so there was no owner to help out. The other answered my questions, it seemed, more because she felt she had to (this was a benched show, so basically it is a requirement) than because she was interested in sharing with me. I did my best to be polite , respectful, and not waste her time, but clearly she was of no help anyway. What a bummer. Such a handler, by the way, doesn't do that dog's breeder any favors that way.

Luckily, I did meet someone there who happens to also be very involved in that particular breed, and we had a more thorough discussion which was helpful. Finally, some answers. Of course, to really get to know a breed, it is helpful to meet them in person and spend some time getting to know the in's and out's of their temperament and care. That's my next step, and I have a contact I can try to do that with. But in the meantime, I had yet another breed to research at the show.

Luckily, I did get to see more specimens of that breed, and I met some individuals involved both in the "rescue" and breeding of that breed. I asked some questions and got some answers from them too, and left with more research to do but more avenues to do it with. Good deal, says I.

Unfortunately, I think some dog show people get so caught up with the showing of their own dogs, they forget that the exhibition is also an essential aspect of their breed's future. The event was a wonderful opportunity for people like me to learn, and for them to educate others. Those who are rude or dismissive of visitors will lose out in the end. Luckily, I met quite a few helpful people who really wanted to share with me and who wanted me to get more involved in their passion, one way or another. To them, I say thank you.

It is important for pure bred dog owners to recognize and nurture the curiosity of the public. They are well known for criticizing each other. They'll say, those are "puppy mill" people, or "backyard breeders", and you must avoid them. The people who fail to breed responsibly still manage to sell puppies to an unwitting public, though. If they really wanted to help, they'd be passionate about educating the public rather than vilifying them so frequently. They'd also be very open to talking to people (and honestly) about their breed at every opportunity.

When I started to ask questions about various breeds at this show, some people would give me that sideways, up and down kind of look, the look that says, "what are you really after?" I don't know, maybe I'm a rare kind of person from their perspective, as I had already done quite a bit of research and knew what questions I wanted to ask. Maybe they're not used to people asking such questions.

At least some of them were genuinely open enough to let me describe what I was looking for and answer the questions I had. Unfortunately, breeders have good reason to wonder about strangers, so I try not to take offense when someone is a little unsure of me at first. But I also don't want to have to fill out a lengthy questionnaire just to have the privilege of asking a simple question. Please tell me more about your breed! It's as simple as that.

I think I'm getting closer to the selection of my next breed of choice, and for me it comes down to a few simple priorities and deciding which is at the top of my priority list. But there are many steps to take in this journey, which I think is educational as well as enjoyable at times. I recommend that anyone looking for a working companion dog (or even a dog that you think of as just a pet) consider going the purebred route. You will, if you are patient and also perhaps willing to wade through the trials as well as the fun part of dog shows, learn more about dogs and what you like or don't like about certain breeds. You'll learn what you like and don't like about breeders, too, and hopefully also find someone to help you decide upon that one very special puppy when the time comes.

Methods vs. Madness- Dog Trainers, Tools, Techniques, and Language

2010-03-03T12:09:00.004-05:00

Before I can describe the topic at hand, it is necessary to define a few terms so all readers are on the same page (pun intended). All definitions are taken from the Encarta Dictionary.

Science: "the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment; an activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method"

Art: "the set of techniques used by somebody in a particular field, or the use of those techniques; the skill or ability to do something well"

Method: "a way of doing something or carrying something out, especially according to a plan; orderly thought, action, or technique; the body of systematic techniques used by a particular discipline, especially a scientific one"

Technique: "the procedure, skill, or art used in a specific task; skill or expertise in doing a specific thing"

Tool: "something used as a means of achieving something; something used in the course of somebody's everyday work"

Trade: "a specific area of business or industry; a skilled occupation, usually one requiring manual labor"

Obedience training is a science as well as an art form. It requires careful study as well as practice and skill. A good tradesman (or woman) will share what they learn and help others in their field to continue to develop their own skills for the good of all. In addition, in the obedience training industry, the customer (student) benefits from the experience and skill set of the instructor, or on the other hand, experiences detrimental results due to the lack of experience and skills on the part of the instructor.

Trainers can help each other or hurt each other through their actions and use of language. We are finding, more and more over time, that poor use of language (intentional or not) can be very harmful to the industry as a whole, as well as to dog owners in general. Those in the field of professional dog obedience training must be careful how they use words, because the alternative can cause a range of results from minor offenses to legal charges and even the threat of undesirable legislation.

One increasingly common threat to obedience trainers is the accusation of abuse, cruelty, or inhumane practices. This charge can come from prospective students, dissatisfied students, the general public, and worse, from other trainers. These threats can be in the form of shrewd writing and verbal word usage, a slight change in the way that training terms are used or even outright slander. Sometimes, a person may not even realize that the words they choose are having a negative effect on the industry as a whole.

For example, the choke collar/chain collar/slip collar/training collar has many names. Advocates and adversaries alike usually prefer to use the term "choke collar" when they refer to this tool. Of course, no well-meaning obedience trainer wishes to choke a dog with any tool (although, realistically, there are rare times when it may be necessary for safety reasons). The term was given to the tool long ago, and the average person recognizes the tool by that name, so it is easily recognizable as a piece of common training equipment when one uses this term.

Unfortunately, some people have decided that because of the tool's traditional name, and perhaps because of some horror stories and myths perpetuated by animal rights groups and other adversaries, the collar itself is increasingly being equated with abuse. This negative connotation (tool=abuse) does not take into account the many happy, safe, and well-trained dogs who have been benefactors of a quality method used along with the collar. The negative depiction sticks, and any obedience trainer who advertises that they use this tool (regardless of method) can be associated with abuse, cruelty, or inhumane practices, regardless of the truth.

This brings us to another misuse of terminology: the interchanging of the word "method" and the word "tool", or the implication that "tool" equals "method". In our example above, a trainer could potentially use choking as a technique in part of his method, and could use a choke collar (as well as many other types of common collars) to communicate an error to the dog. This technique and method would be abusive, cruel, and inhumane, and any one of us would be right to report that trainer to the authorities. But we would be wrong to ascribe the cruelty to any collar itself. There are clearly other ways to use a choke collar to communicate safely and effectively to a dog as part of a humane obedience training method.

How many prospective students have asked trainers, "What method do you use?", when what they really mean is, "What tools do you use?" More importantly, how many of us have answered in such a way that we explain the difference? "Whatever works", may be an appropriate answer for some, but I would like to propose that more detail should follow. Educating the public is our responsibility, so there is no reason not to take that answer another step or two.

The IACP has a position statement regarding the use of training tools because there has been a need to defend each trainer's freedom of choice, art, and trade legislatively. But it begins by educating each other and those we come in contact with.

We all know that any tool can be used abusively, though we do our best to ensure that this is never the case within our circle of influence. Some tools require more skill to be used safely and effectively for management and/or training than others, and it is clearly important for obedience training instructors to first learn appropriate ways to fit and use our tools of choice and then learn appropriate ways to teach these skills to the student. Should we fall short in these two factors, we leave ourselves open to criticism from other trainers, students, and even law enforcement. Worse, we provide more fodder for our trade's fervent critics to use against us all.

How will you answer someone who asks you what method you use? Do you have a ready answer? Do you know what method you use? Do you have a method, or do you just use "whatever works" as your motto for every student? Do you have a method with a name, such as "the Koehler Method of Dog Training", or have you made up your own? If you did make up a name for your method, will the person asking you find meaning in it? How will you answer their ultimate question, which is really, "Do you use tools I fear or abhor, do you abuse dogs with those tools, or do you teach in a way I would be comfortable and my dog safe?

How many of you have answered the question, "What method do you use?" by telling the inquirer what tool or tools you choose to use? Or do you start by simply describing what tools you don't use? What does this say about your choice of method(s), if you have one? Do you instead give them an answer about your training philosophy, and thus avoid the question of "method" altogether? If you don't have a standard method, please do us all a favor and simply state that fact. "I don't have a standard method, but my philosophy is to use whatever tool I feel a dog and handler could best benefit by with a set of techniques that would help them to achieve satisfactory results safely and effectively."

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

If you use a standard method, you could say something like, "I use the Koehler Method of Dog Training. The main tools of choice in this method are a choke collar and a six-foot leather leash, because we find that they are the safest and most effective tools to help us produce reliable results. I believe in this method because it works closely with my philosophy-- it provides a step-by-step process to teach the dog the rules he must learn to live by in our human-oriented society, how to follow the rules, and that there are consequences when the rules are broken. In addition, I find that the process of obedience training with this method produces dogs with reliable, responsible, and desirable character."

What will your answer be? Will your answer educate the inquirer, help them have confidence in your approach to obedience training, and be helpful to other people this person will meet later on? Or could your answer (or lack thereof) leave the person still wondering what you are about, still confused about these terms, and perhaps even more willing to criticize trainers needlessly?

Isabel the Sled Dog

2010-03-01T17:03:00.002-05:00

As I watched a portion of the winter Olympics this past week, I had the pleasure of viewing a story about a sled dog named Isabel. Isabel is a husky that had become blind. Many people told the owners that they should probably put the dog down. After all, anyone who knows these working dogs really well knows that a sled dog that can't be allowed to pull a sled can be a very unhappy creature (and an unpleasant one to live with).

The owners tried to make a house pet out of Isabel, but she wasn't satisfied. Wanting to give the dog a chance to be fulfilled, they hitched her up to a sled with other dogs and gave her a try. As it turns out, she is quite comfortable in the traces. The other dogs serve as her guide, and she bravely, happily pulls her share along with the rest of them. She's been doing it for years.

While not every disabled dog gets this opportunity, it is heart-warming to hear about a dog that continues to work, and to be a dog, dispite a physical challenge. Through all of this, her owners were responsible, considering all options and doing what they thought best.

The Circus Fights Back Against HSUS, ASPCA, and More

2010-02-24T10:54:00.003-05:00

Ringling Bros was recently exonerated of charges of animal cruelty against the elephants in their care. Much of the reason the case was thrown out was due to the star witness of the HSUS and other AR groups who had been threatening the circus for years. The judge didn't like the fact that this witness was paid nearly $200,000 for his testimony (he used to be a caretaker of the elephants).

This new suit by the Circus against the organizations and individuals who paid this guy and gave the Circus a major headache for years is under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The other groups being sued include the Fund for Animals (which merged with HSUS), Animal Protection Institute (Born Free USA), the Animal Welfare Institute, the ASPCA, and the Wildlife Advocacy Project.

HSUS has a staff of over two dozen attorneys (that's lots of donated funds going out). They'll pick a few talented ones which will drag this one out for a while I'm sure. But I just found out that the Circus can, if they succeed, collect three times as much as this cost them in the first place.

Ringling Bros. has done a lot of good for elephants, and the suit against them was not built on credible information, but on the rocky testimony of one fat cow bird nesting on an unstable ledge. The Circus has every right to fight back and find justice, while in the meantime helping to destroy the faux credibility of Animal Rights groups. As usual, they were willing to fore go reasoned ethics in order to meet their agenda requirements.

While I would rather see elephants in the wild (another place where they unfortunately face hardship caused by humans) than in a circus, I think the next time they come my way I may just stop by and check it out. I doubt I'll see any signs of abuse, but I will expect I'll see elephants enjoying their work while they serve a purpose larger than simple entertainment.

For more on this story and its progress, visit www.humanewatch.org.

Update on the Murder Hollow Basset Case

2010-02-18T10:57:00.002-05:00

As I have posted on the Murder Hollow Bassets case before, it seems right to post an update. But someone else has already done that, and better than I could. So I'll send you a link there: http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=14666631&queueid=[capwiz:queue_id

Now I would like to point out some imporant aspects of the case, whether they be allegations or facts.

1. Ms. Williard had to defend herself from the PSPCA for violation of the Philly limit law. Many people (including myself) oppose limit laws because they do not account for the quality of care provided by responsible owners, but rather limits the number of animals a person can own.

2. Ms. Willard says she was coerced into signing over her dogs to the PSPCA because they threatened to take all her dogs. This is not a rare thing, and no one should ever feel pressured to give up property based on threats. It is not fair, and that sort of exchange is often illegal.

3. The Philly limit law does not provide authority for a seizure of animals. It also didn't apply to her case because the dogs were housed in a barn, not in her house. Thus, she claims that they had no right to threaten her or take her animals.

4. The PSPCA brought charges against her later, but she says the warrant was illegally obtained and the seizure violated her constitutional rights. Based on the above, I would guess that she's right.

5. Ms. Willard immediately contested the surrender, and there were no cruelty charges filed. But that didn't stop the PSPCA from giving her dogs to a rescue group, which then placed 10 dogs for adoption. This would be theft, plain and simple.

6. This rescue group was unlicenced and therefore should not have been an option for the PSPCA legally.

7. Before her trial, the city issued violations that she was operating a kennel as an illegal business, without a license, and without a zoning use permit. But she doesn't have a kennel and has never operated a business on her property. So that would be wrong.

8. There was an attempt to negotiate some things, including that Ms. Willard would have input on the placement of her dogs, and she could get her house dog back. Unfortunately, the PSPCA had already let the rescue group adopt out dogs. They also said she would need to pay $3000 to reimburse them for alleged medical expenses, related to cruelty, before she could get her house dog back. But since the medical expenses were just a few hundred dollars and actually unrelated to cruelty and that it happened four months after the raid, they then said it would cover BOARDING expenses. This sounds more like ransom to me.

9. There are allegations that the PSPCA has failed to disclose information in an open and timely manner, even with a court order. This doesn't help her right to due process, nor does it help her get her dogs back.

10. Apparently a photo of one of the seized dogs was released in order to cause Ms. Willard social problems, as it was misleading when compared to other photos of healthy hounds. None of those photos have been publicly released, this article says.

The main lesson here is that responsible dog owners need to be very careful regarding the possession of their pets and the encroachment of law enforcement, welfare, or animal rights groups or agencies, and law enforcement people need to really have their ducks in a row before they take people's dogs.

Get Ready for "HumaneWatch"!

2010-02-03T09:28:00.002-05:00

We're watching you, baby, and you're not going to like it!

The Center for Consumer Freedom has announced that it will be re-launching a site called HumaneWatch.org. This will be a "blog, a document library, a rougues' gallery, a historical resource, and more." The site will be a true exercise in the freedom of speech, as they want to share information of all types regarding the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

In addition, they are asking everyone to send them everything they've got on HSUS-- EVERYTHING. Chances are good that much of the stuff you have on file, they've got already, but they're looking to grow their library.

To learn more, visit this page: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4094-get-ready-for-humanewatch, and to share info. with them, "e-mail information about HSUS to info@HumaneWatch.org (a robustly virus-protected address), or send postal mail to “HumaneWatch,” P.O. Box 34555, Washington DC 20043."

Now, if this all seems new to you, it might benefit you to peruse the rest of the site linked above, view my blog posts, or the infinite store of information available elsewhere on the web. H$U$ has taken advantage of dog owners, domestic animal owners, and the public at large for far too long. Learn more, share more, and "Get 50" more people to stop donating to this mega baby on a money-feeding frenzy.

Judge Says Toledo's Dog Law is Unconstitutional

2010-01-22T10:11:00.003-05:00

In Ohio, dogs "commonly known as a pit bull" are automatically determined to be vicious-- not by behavior, but by breed type or appearance. Bad law! Bad law! But that's another conversation.

Recently a Toledo Municipal Court judge, Michael Goulding, ruled that some aspects of Toledo's CITY law are unconstitutional. The city has prohibited a person from owning more than one dog described as "pit bull", in addition to certain restrictions. "Pit bull" mixed dogs are also deemed "vicious".

This case started when a man named Hugh Smith took his three Cane Corsos for a walk (who does that?!), and one of them got into trouble with another dog. The dog warden took all three dogs, deeming them "pit bulls", and because they were not muzzled, insured, or confined, and he had too many in his possession. That made a total of 13 violations.

Judge Goulding dismissed ten of the charges because he said the one-dog limit was unconstitutional. He said the state law doesn't really prohibit ownership of more than one "pit bull", even though it doesn't permit it either. That's legalese for ya. He also said that putting "mixed breeds" into that group was unconstitutional, besides very problematic for the warden and his staff, who have to kill all adult "pit bulls" AND their mixes rather than adopt them out. That makes for a lot of killing, you know, when they can't identify dogs as anything BUT "pit bulls" and their mixes.

Remember the other three charges? Mr. Smith had failed to vaccinate his dogs for rabies. Shame, Mr. Smith! Why did you walk your three powerful, unvaccinated dogs together? This is a pretty tricky business for a dog owner to attempt.

Other good news related to Toledo: Tom Skeldon, the old dog warden, is leaving office on Jan. 31. He has a history of causing complaints and killing too many animals. And on Tuesday, county commissioners voted in favor of adopting out "pit bull" puppies to the Toledo Area Humane Society. They used to have to kill them, but now they have an option of giving them another chance to find responsible dog owners. Yeah!

Egg Farming- Just Another Branch in our Animal Resources Tree

2010-01-19T12:13:00.002-05:00

For dog owners interested in protecting our rights to ownership, breeding, and other "humane" practices, what happens in other areas of animal industry should also be important.

We tend to forget that much of our food, clothing, medicine, and other basic essentials come from animal resources. The owners of those domestic animals are also fighting to protect their rights. They care about the health and welfare of the animals in their care, just as we do. Sick and dead animals don't make money, and they don't make one feel good about oneself. But happy animals make good money, happy owners, and content consumers.

Most of us eat eggs or use eggs and chickens in a variety of other ways. A debate continues about what makes a good egg or a happy, healthy chicken. Some people say that "organic" or "free-range" chickens are happier and healthier and produce better eggs. Some say that chickens kept in cages indoors are healthier and produce better and less costly eggs.

It would be easy to say, "natural is best" and vote for measures which would restrict chicken farmers to one way of doing things. But dog owners should know by now, you can't just hear one side of the story and vote. You need to educate yourself, explore the options, listen to balanced research and the people at the core of these things (farmers, in this case, for one). You can't just listen to the lobbyists. That's like following the carrot dangling from the stick. They'll lead you down whatever road they wish, and you don't want to go that way.

There is a video found online which calmly leads you through this discussion and asks you to consider these things for yourself. Perhaps you should do just that. Then consider what role you might play as a voter in your own locality. It is, as I said, too easy to follow the lobbyist and vote for what sounds good on the surface. Do a little digging and make your vote count as an educated one. Isn't that what we want as dog owners, too?

Visit Mike Rowe's site and video on egg farming here: http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2010/01/mike-rowe-egg-farming-its-a-tough-job/

What lessons can we learn from the Ringling Bros. victory?

2010-01-05T19:43:00.004-05:00

Late last month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Ringling Bros. Circus. This suit was started by various animal rights (AR) groups, including the HSUS and the Fund for Animals (FFA- more on that later). What can be learned from this situation?

1. The lawsuit was filed waaay back in 2000, thus taking about nine years, and I'm sure costing a fortune, for the circus to fight. The lesson: should the AR's so much as look in your direction, plan to spend some serious greenbacks to defend yourself.

2. Know thy enemy. The FFA's name sounds innocuous enough, but it merged with HSUS (never a good sign) in '05 to become the "Humane Society Legislative Fund" (HSLF). Of course, H$U$, as we often call it, is not supposed to be spending much money or other resources on legislative efforts, but hasn't stopped them. In addition, the ASPCA and the Animal Welfare Institute (AFI), along with HSUS, held a fundraiser in 2005, "for the elephants". That money went to pay off the witness in #3, which doesn't make those other two organizations look very good.

3. Know thy friends. The whole lawsuit was the result of a turncoat elephant trainer named Tom Rider. Rider left his job in 2000 and then took money from the AR's in exchange for testimony against his employer and other circuses. He testified that elephants were being mistreated.

4. Know who's in charge of the enemy. A guy named Michael Markarian was, at one time, at the head of the FFA. He then became the leader of the HSLF, as well as the Executive VP of HSUS. He's just dabbling in all that fun money, isn't he?

5. Money talks? Well, it can when a judge is on the ball. He found out what Markarian was doing with all his money (giving it to a guy who could cause damage to the animal entertainment industry, to start). The judge figured that Rider's testimony wasn't worth his fee, and put a stop to the nonsense.

6. Money walks. When you mess with the IRS, you can expect the people, and the IRS, to respond. Since this tax-exempt charity money was used to pay off a witness in federal court, those organizations responsible for the effort may want to ready themselves for an audit, in the least. As for Markarian, he might want to start looking for a new job.

BSL and a look in the "Mirror"

2009-12-31T09:57:00.005-05:00

According to an article released by the UK's "Mirror" (the first of two links below), dog attacks on children aged ten and under, requiring hospital treatment, rose by 14% in the last year. Author James Lyons included in his article a quote: "Police need to be able to get tough with reckless owners of out-of-control dogs regardless of breed." The Mirror is touted as having a campaign to "rip up the Dangerous Dogs Act which covers only four breeds..."

That sounds really good for those of us who are against BSL. We'd like to see dogs AND their owners being restricted only on the basis of behavior, versus breed identity. So at first, one might support this paper's efforts to do away with the current law and provide adequate punishments for irresponsible owners.

But you must investigate a little further. First, explore the language found in this article. Then, read others written by this same author (the second link is one of a few available on this topic). You'll find that this person, and the Mirror, want to ban "all vicious cross-breeds". Well, that's strange. So instead of outlawing certain breeds, we'll ban all of them. That's what I'm starting to read.

Let's take a closer look at some of the language Mr. Lyons and Mr. Paul Byrne use to describe dogs, their actions and their supposed emotions in these articles: "horrendous injuries", "ferocious", "raging", "savaged", "danger dogs", "maulings", "menace of out-of-control dogs", "vicious beasts", "violent", compared to blades and firearms, "snarling beast" that "savaged", Of course, it is not my intention to play down the victim's injuries, deaths, or the emotional scars left after a dog attack. However, I do call upon journalists to be a little more objective and a little less dramatic.

Of course, there is always a motive when a journalist tries to encourage drama in their writings.

On the surface, the articles appear at first to be in support of removing BSL as ineffective. Great! But what they call for instead, however, is an extreme reaction that could threaten the rights of responsible owners as well as irresponsible ones, all the while being ineffective in preventing attacks. Among their list of demands is a call for mandatory microchipping (yeah, the "thugs" will line up for it), and an outlawing of "all vicious cross-breeds currently being used to get around the Act". So how often does the law have to change to keep the outlawed cross-breed list up to date? And how do you determine that a dog fits into those parameters, or doesn't?

This is ridiculous.

The Mirror blames "thugs who see their vicious beasts as a status symbol" for "fueling a thriving black market" of dangerous, violent offenders. Oh yeah, wait. I forgot, they meant dogs. So I mean, "fueling a black market" of "vicious beasts". It is a wonder there are any whole and living children in the UK nowadays, with all the monsters on a rampage.

They do say something right, in my opinion: "We would like to see breed specific legislation scrapped and the emphasis put on owner responsibility." Oh, wait now. That was RSPCA's Andy Robbins who said that. Good on you, Andy.

Labour MP Angela Smith claims in the second article that "yobs with violent dogs [again, using the term, "violent", usually restricted to describe human criminals] should be forced to muzzle them and have proper training in how to handle them". I bet the "yobs" and "thugs" will line up for muzzle fittings and dog obedience classes! "Train me, train me!", they'll cry, "I want to know how to handle my violent, vicious beast!"

The second article then goes on to say that urgent action is needed, and includes more information about the shock, fear, and scars found in a few victims. Circumstances surrounding the attacks mentioned in the article are vague at best. When I see this happening in a report, I have to wonder where the true responsibilities lie, what the real circumstances were, what breeds or types of dogs were involved, and why those details are left out.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/31/vicious-dog-attacks-on-kids-up-14-115875-21932953/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/14/muzzle-these-beasts-115875-21895871/

But that's not all! If you continue to go back in the reporting, you'll find more. In another, previous article for the Mirror written by Tony Parsons, he starts by describing victims of attacks by pit bulls. Thereafter, he refers to only "these dogs", and then you find this statement: "Anyone who tolerates one of these dogs in their home is a moron who elects to live - and let the children around them live - with an unexploded bomb." And then, "These dogs are not pets. They are killers. But this blight is caused by inadequate young men who want to look hard. The real monsters all have two legs."

Really? It sounds to me like Mr. Parsons really, really wanted the reader to think of "these dogs", i.e. pit bulls, as monsters. So this "regardless of breed" stuff is only written in when the writers find it handy, I guess. Otherwise, dogs are unexploded bombs. Like I said, it is a wonder that there is anyone alive in the UK, with such a high population of pit bulls and other dogs making contact with people all over the place on a daily basis.

Or perhaps someone's trying to make something look worse than it truly is, to accomplish their own agenda?

I continued looking at other, previous articles on the issue of dog attacks. It seems they only have one good photo of a dog to use, so they use that same, snarling brown dog in most of them. But hey, I did find this: "Millions of owners, the overwhelming majority of people with dogs, are responsible and enjoy their pets, taking great pride in keeping friendly animals." But because there was a rise in attacks, especially against children (who are often victims due to a lack of supervision and education on the part of parents and dog owners), the call to action listed later on goes to far.

In one article written by Mr. Lyons, he prints a quote from a grandfather of one young victim, "All dogs should be muzzled when they are outside and when anyone under 18 is in the house." Whatever happened to loving Lassie?

By the way, I'm sure that if you do a google or youtube search, you'll find many, many images of children who are or were raised happily and safely, in the same home with unmuzzled bully breeds and other powerful dogs.

Apparently the Mirror went from defending certain breeds to fearing and despising ALL dogs.

If the current law is ineffective, perhaps the Mirror can explain in more detail exactly how its simple list of demands is supposed to work. Can they take their journalistic drama and turn it into real, workable solutions? I don't see their current list as realistic at all. But I have a feeling that's not important to them, really.

After all, I suppose articles about the proper rearing of dogs and children, supervision of both, and dog bite prevention techniques would not be dramatic enough.

Spay and Neuter H$U$

2009-12-23T11:25:00.004-05:00

The link below will take you to the Sportsmens' and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance website, where you will find information and instructions on how you can help defeat H$U$ in their money game.

If you don't like the idea of someone taking money from good-hearted citizens and using it illegally to fund legislation which removes the rights of animal owners nationwide, click on the link. Click on the other links, follow the instructions, and play your part in asking the IRS to do their job. Ask them to investigate H$U$'s practices and punish them appropriately.

Then share the same links with your friends. At least 50 of them.

Don't want to spend money on postage? You can decrease the font of the letters to save a few pages. You can just send a cover letter, or edit the one provided to say what you want it to say. You don't have to send all of the pages. You could print them on both sides of the paper to save weight on postage. You don't have to send it certified, though that would help more. If you don't want to take a trip to the post office, you could just send an email to your own legislators, letting them know of your concerns. Send them the information provided, by email, to let them know you are taking this seriously. Do these things, share them with your friends, and together we can help shut down the piggy-bank thief.

http://www.saova.org/SpayNeuterHSUS.html

Is H$U$ Carrying off Your Piggy Bank and/or Your Pigs?

2009-12-22T11:34:00.003-05:00

The word is getting out. Perhaps it isn't getting out fast enough, but it is getting out. H$U$ does not have the interests of animal owners at heart. It doesn't have the interests of the animals at heart. Does it have a heart? Well, we do know for sure what it has plenty of- MONEY. And it gets it by deceiving ordinary animal-loving people of America. Shame, shame on H$U$!

One recent story is once again about the rampant deceit of H$U$. Apparently it is fond of using badges and other types of identification which appear to give its staff more authority than they have (they have none, really). This is illegal, by the way. So when these invaders come to take your animals, and they look like some policing authority, you are supposed to stand aside as steal your rights and your pets. Meanwhile, they gloat about it behind the scenes and put their videos of "rescues" (i.e. thievery and often other illegal activities) online and in their TV commercials, along with sweet, sad music for the unsuspecting bleeding hearts and wallets. (For more on this subject, check out this blog post: http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/hu-pretends-to-be-police-expose-by-carrol-cox-show/

Where does all this money go? Well, what is clear is that much of it (ALOT of it) goes to lobbying. This organization which is supposed to be sheltering animals, caring for them, and finding them homes when they lose them is really much more interested in funding legislation which would take them away from their owners altogether. Of course, the average bleeding heart donator doesn't realize that their money isn't helping the sad creatures on the telly, but instead it is lining the pockets of some activist, legislator, or lobbyist.

I am the type of person that feels that we need less government encroachment in our daily lives rather than more. I similarly don't want some stranger telling me what is best for my animals. I am capable of figuring that out, thank you very much. H$U$ would rather put itself or some other party it is closely aligned with in the position of authority, and then assign itself power through the government. It can then make the rules and enforce them as it pleases.

What types of laws does this money then create and attempt to enforce?

Well, it is no secret that H$U$ has backed, and continues to create and encourage, legislation which does all sorts of terrible things. It has worked to ban, restrict, or control major aspects of hunting, agriculture, zoology, entertainment, sport, and many other areas of wild animal ownership and care as well as domestic animal ownership and care.

Does it have a right to do this? The short answer is, "no". H$U$ is not an authority in, for example, the art and science of dog breeding. But it would have you believe it is, and therefore encourage you to donate $$ so it can fund legislation to control the ownership, breeding, care practices of ALL dog owners. Again, this is clear interference in the private lives of people, and often such laws are in violation of our constitutional rights.

Does it have the right to use that money that way? The short answer again is, "no". The government needs to crack down on this, as the list of evidence against this organization is very long. It is clear that H$U$ has taken people's money and used it illegally. Who wants to fund such an operation? Well, they won't be carrying off MY piggy bank. My hope is that other people will secure both the piggy bank AND the pig, which is also in jeopardy of being carried off by H$U$.

Zebedee the Bloodhound Starts His Training

2009-12-16T16:32:00.003-05:00

Zebedee is shown above with the K-9 officers who are training him. In just a matter of months, they will take him out on calls when they need an accurate "man trailer". He will help find lost children and adults as well as bad guys. These fine officers will follow his lead while offering him protection from anyone who might try to harm him. They are all highly trained, and continually work with the K-9's in their care to ensure that their training is "up to sniff", you might say.

We look forward to more photos and news of his success in the future, and will continue to report on his progress here for those who are interested. In the meantime, for those of you who feel grateful for the protection and security these officers provide their communities, send them a card, care package, or donation this holiday season.

More on Responsible Dog Breeders

2009-12-13T08:20:00.002-05:00

It must be said that there are many, many responsible breeders in this world. There are also a few, okay, plenty, who fail their breed of choice for a number of reasons, and like any sport, a few bad "apples" can spoil the barrel.

Responsible breeders are outraged by the BBC documentary, which they feel has left the public with a very one-sided view of breeders, especially those of certain breeds. By focusing on the worst apples they dug out from the bottom of the barrel, the producers were successful in creating a sort of applesauce for their viewing audience.

As I've said before, health in breeding must of course be important to responsible breeders. Function and health are closely related. Good breeders ask themselves how well their dogs could do the work they were designed for, and shape the future of their breed through the answer.

Unfortunately, some breeds are so infiltrated with various diseases, breeders are forced to knowingly pass on such genes in an effort to pass on stronger ones in other areas. This is, as breeders will tell you, a science as well as an art. Those who lose the science of breeding do a disservice to their dogs, but those who neglect the knowledge that experience brings also miss out on a better understanding of the artform.

This is not a realm for legislators to interfere with. Experience plus advances in science (most notably, in genetics), plus open registry information can help breeders weed out the weaker, less healthy individuals from the gene pool. But only those knowledgable breeders at the forefront of their own battle need to be involved in this. The rest of us frankly need to butt out.

That said, we as consumers do have the ability to help shape the future of purebred dogs. Consumers need to be knowledgable about what they expect in a good and healthy dog, and insist on nothing less. We do, however, also have the right to insist that legislators leave this craftwork to the experienced people who know it best.

Which Comes First, Human Emotions and Desires or an Animal's Welfare?

2009-12-10T17:08:00.005-05:00

The hips in this photo are dysplastic. Many dogs which suffer from hip dysplasia live relatively healthy and pain-free lives. Some unfortunately suffer from arthritis and other associated problems, and some are euthanized as a result of this illness.

Hip dysplasia is just one of many illnesses which befall dogs, whether from "purebred" stock or of mixed origins. Some illnesses are found only within certain breeds, or are commonly found in certain breeds. When responsible dog owners find their dogs to be ill or diseased as a result of genetic conditions, they are forced to make serious decisions regarding their care. How far should an owner go to keep their pet alive? And who is at fault, if anyone, for the lack of their dog's health?

Oooh, that's a tough one. Let's not go there.

One veterinarian has challenged his profession publicly, stating essentially that veterinarians see pets, especially purebred dogs, as a "gold mine" source of income. Pet owners are often willing to pay large sums of money in desperate attempts to save their animals' lives. Matthew Watkinson says that too often, a veterinarian is willing to take a dog owner's money even though they know the animal is likely to suffer greatly as a result.

"My ethical training was limited to one afternoon in five years", Watkinson says. "We're not really taught to think; we're taught to do all these procedures. And they get more complicated each year so we have more options to keep all these animals alive. We fight the powers of nature, really, and what we've ended up with is a lot of diseased dog breeds that couldn't survive without us."

Watkinson admits that of course, not all veterinarians have such ethical issues, and hopes that most will work with pet owners to ensure that the animals' welfare as well at the interests of the owner are considered. One clear concern, though, is that people will often take things too far, and that the animals suffer the consequences of their owners' emotional needs. You can read more about his perspectives in his book, "On the Destiny of Species".

Another subject reaching the open ears of the internet explorer these days is the Crufts scandal. Was the BBC unfair to the Crufts organizers and dog breeders? Their program airs tonight, I heard, but you can also view it at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/09/bbc-unfair-crufts-organiser-pedigree-dogs.

One portion of the program attacks breeders of the Rhodesian Ridgeback. For those of you unfamiliar with this breed, the brief is that this is a large sighthound hailing from Africa. It had originally been used to hunt large game (notably, lions). The dogs are a rusty red color and are required by the breed standard to have a certain type of ridge down their back. This ridge is made of backwards-growing hair.

Unfortunately, this ridge sometimes comes with a major health risk, as it leaves the spinal cord open to infection. So who would want to breed this inherent health risk into their dogs? Apparently most of the Rhodesian people think it should be there. In fact, they usually cull (kill) puppies born without a ridge, even though those pups may be the healthiest of the litter. You'd think that the breeders might want to drop the ridge altogether and perhaps just call them "Rhodesians". But no, they are most interested in the funny strip of hair, and are now being criticized for it.

Does this make sense? What has become of the purebred dog? How far will we go to create the "perfect pet", and how far will we go to keep an ill one alive?

Another fine example is the show vs. working stock of German Shepherd Dogs. Even the top-winning dogs shown in the BBC video are clearly deficient in the hindquarters, and I doubt they could spend even one day herding any animals or guarding any posts without collapse. Why are they still breeding them and showing them like this? On the other hand, there are some breeders who continue to breed for health and temperament first, and those dogs continue to fit in with human society in a variety of working and companion positions. Should breeders be forced to pass some type of fitness test in order to assure that this happens?

Perhaps we shouldn't attempt to answer that question either.

You can't legislate "stupid", they say. But the public is starting to demand that dogs be bred with health in mind. If buyers continue to find equal, if not more than, value in the health, temperament, and working ability of their dogs over appearance, perhaps we'll see an overall improvement in the health of our dogs. While veterinarians may make less money in surgical suites, I expect that most of them would be quite happy to see a few more healthy dogs.

It all starts with public expectations. Dog owners need to be more reasonable with their expectations and their spending habits, and insist that breeders do their best to produce healthy and able dogs.

The Myth of the "Forever Home"

2009-12-08T10:24:00.005-05:00

The dog in the photo went through several homes. There were no villains, only responsible dog owners. He is now in the right place, but for a while, he was searching.

I read a new perspective on the "forever home" on another blog: http://sanityshome.blogspot.com. After leaving a comment there, I decided to post on the subject here as well.

The "forever home" is the concept that once a person decides to own a dog, they are responsible for keeping that dog in their possession for the rest of that dog's life. This is said to be part of responsible dog ownership. As such, a person who decides to part with their dog becomes a villain.

I have decided that the forever home concept is a dream, but not reality, and it can cause more problems that it will prevent. You see, new dog owners are preached at with the idea, and then they are fraught with guilt when it just doesn't work out. Well, perhaps they did make an awful big mistake in some cases. But we should just learn from our mistakes, do what we can to correct them, and move on. Why should other people be allowed to continue to vilify people who are being responsible dog owners by trying to find the right home for their dog?

Some dogs end up in harm's way, or place their owners' family or community in harm's way, when they are in the wrong home. Why must they be forced to suffer? Many dogs have found better lives, and made other people quite happy, by making a move. I don't think there is a thing wrong with that.

Even when a person does everything they can to find the right dog for them, they can make a mistake and end up with a dog that doesn't fit. It happens. Sometimes they are able to make changes in their environment and lifestyle as a suitable compromise, but sometimes that work just isn't enough.

Sometimes people refuse to admit that a certain breed or type of dog isn't right for them. They give it their best shot, and find out the hard way that they were very wrong. Sometimes you have to look deeper into yourself and admit that it just isn't meant to be/wouldn't work out.

People make mistakes. Does that make them terrible people? No, of course not. But as with all mistakes, we should all be allowed to do what we can to correct them and ensure that we don't make the same mistake again, and then just move on with life. In this case, it means finding the dog a new home.

Oh, the horror! "They must be evil to place that dog at someone else's feet!" That's what we've been taught to think. What we should do instead is to help these responsible dog owners take the right steps to find the dog an appropriate home. I believe it is a good idea that they do this themselves, rather than foist the dog on someone else to do the work. This is one reason we have this blame game problem in the first place-- people just give up because they don't know what else to do, and they drop the dog off with a "rescue" or shelter. Instead of blaming people, we should give them tools to help them manage the dog while they have it and find the dog the right home in the end.

This can be work, of course. An owner may have to make some new connections, and learn a few things throughout the process. They may have to make calls, answer emails, make home visits, and perhaps travel a bit to find the right home. It can also mean an emotional investment, as even problems caused by the wrong dog in the wrong home can result in an emotional attachment to that dog. Tears dropped during this process are proof that these owners are human and not villains, by the way.

Re-homing can work out really well. In our case, we took on a dog which was in the wrong home and worked to find him the right place. We were more than lucky, and he is already thriving there. He will make his community safer as a working dog. In his former home, he risked euthanasia as an end result of the poor match. Does that make his first owner a bad person? Absolutely not! That person was, in fact, quite responsible and made the right decision, even though it was very hard to do.

It is important to recognize that people should always come first. Dogs come second. When safety for people is at risk, manage and train, re-home or euthanize that dog. When you realize that it is not in your power to compromise any further with a poor fit of dog and home, take the time and effort find the right home. And insist that your friends and acquaintances support you rather than vilify you. Sometimes re-homing is an important part of responsible dog ownership.

Responsible Dog Ownership is a Lifestyle

2009-12-01T17:26:00.007-05:00

There are people who are looking to acquire a new dog this month as part of the holiday season. Whether the animal is a gift to someone else or to oneself, that first day is certain to be joyful and entertaining. A red ribbon on the collar and puppy breath snuggles brings warmth to any dog-loving family home. It also brings a new lifestyle, and that must be understood before any acquisition is made.

That fuzzy new puppy is going to need frequent potty breaks, including in the middle of the night. He's going to need confinement and a great deal of attention so he learns what is expected of him and what behaviors aren't allowed. He's going to need some veterinary care and grooming (cha-ching!), quality food to help him grow (cha-ching!), a crate, bedding, toys, and other accessories (cha-ching!), training classes (cha-ching!), time and energy (cha-ching!).

"Wait a minute. Time and energy cost money?" Well, at minimum time and energy are other valuable resources, and ones which are harder to come by in many homes these days. Owning a dog responsibly, or adding another one to already hairy home, changes things.

If you haven't thought all of this through, chances are good that you haven't put enough thought into what type or breed of dog to choose either. Once you've got that dog in your home, it can be a chore to get rid of if things don't work out. So if you've got a new dog already, I hope you are prepared to put all the time, energy, and financial resources into ensuring that you are successful as a responsible dog owner. If you haven't chosen and acquired (it's an easier word than "purchased" or "adopted", but they mean the same thing) a dog, you still have time for a reality check.

Even I, a dog trainer, had moved along the wrong path for a while as I considered my next working companion. I had ideas about what breeds might work best for my family, and was in the process of researching those breeds. I find it a fun process and I learn a lot about during this process. Understand that I don't expect to get another dog for a few years now. I am responsible enough to think ahead, and I find it well worth my time (and a lot of fun) to do so.

I got a reality check in the form of a puppy. Yes, we did OWN a puppy for a short time. You might call it "fostering", because in a sense that was the intention and the purpose of having him in our home. We were a go-between for that dog on his journey through life. But he taught us a few things along the way.

I learned that it is essential not to bring a new puppy or adult dog into your home when you are stressed by other factors, or when you are in the process of undergoing physical, financial, and/or emotional changes in your life. Of course I knew this before, and if it were not for that pup's desperate situation, we would certainly not have made the choice we did (we won't be doing it again any time soon). But having experienced this helped to solidify this lesson for me.

I also learned that there are certain things about raising a puppy of that caliber that I might not want to endure in the future, even if circumstances were to be better. For example, perhaps I would not want to raise a dog of that size or energy level from puppyhood. This causes me to examine other breeds I did not consider before.

When you consider what you are looking for in a dog, consider both the requirements of puppyhood, if you are expecting a puppy, as well as owning an adult dog of that type, breed, size, energy level, age, etc. You can easily convince yourself that "we can work that part out; I really like this other part!" In reality, the part you thought you might be able to compromise on might not be worth it for you. And then what? Then you have to suffer the consequences of your choice and possibly end up trying to re-home a dog you can no longer live with (as if that is easy).

Sometimes responsible dog owners do all the right research and make the right choices and things still don't work out perfectly. But the responsible dog owner will work hard to shape their lifestyle to fit the needs of the 1. family first and 2. the dog second.

Dog ownership is more involved than goldfish (or betta fish, or hamster or parakeet...) ownership. If you aren't sure that you are ready to commit, don't. Consider all of the lifestyle changes that are required first. If you aren't sure what is required, consider fostering a dog for a while. This is one way to help a dog and a shelter while also exploring your family's wants and needs before you are ready for a full commitment. Most importantly, use your head before you let your heart control your decisions. Dogs have a way of cuddling up to the very pulse of your being. Be sure you are responsible for your 1. family first and 2. the dog second.

If you are considering dog ownership and would like some help determining what would work best for you, check out this article, "So, You Think You Want a Dog?" at: http://balancedcaninetraining.com/SoYouThinkYouWantADog.PDF or find a professional dog trainer near you to help walk you through the process responsibly.

Zebby went to prison- the state (of) Penn!

2009-11-22T19:14:00.004-05:00

I have an update today regarding the Bloodhound puppy we named Zebedee. I shall start from the beginning...

At about the time that our precious Rocky Road "went down", meaning he couldn't walk anymore on his own, I got a call from this puppy's desperate owner. He was in over his head with the pup's aggression and needed to re-home him immediately. The sooner the better, like a band-aid, seemed to be his thought process. I recommended a friend who helps re-home dogs. That afternoon, she called to say the puppy was there and could I take him?

I saw his little Jeckyll and Hyde personality that day. At under 4 months of age and about 25 pounds, this little guy was a monster with shark teeth when it came to feeding time. Several days later, we took him on. There was almost no choice when it came to giving him another chance, as she couldn't keep him there for long.

So began a difficult journey. When Rocky was gone, I tried to focus more on Zeb's needs. What we found out pretty quickly was that this dog was not destined to be a pet dog by any means. He was a working dog that had no business growing up long-term in a pet dog home (including mine). I needed to find him a working handler as soon as possible. He was growing by the minute, and was only going to be more of a challenge as each day passed by.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to several national police dog organizations, one of them being the National Police Bloodhound Association. We had started to lose hope of finding Zeb a new home any time soon. One week and a day after my email to the NPBA, I got an email from Lt. John Miller of Deleware County, Pennsylvania. My email had been forwarded to him, and he couldn't believe the timing. I called him that afternoon, and from that day I knew we had found a great place for Zeb. I still can't believe how blessed we all are!

The short story from here on is that we shipped him out yesterday and he's doing well so far. For more fun, read on.

Thornton, PA is the hub of training for region #6 (all of PA) of 26 in the country for the NPBA. There is a 2,000 inmate facility on this 1100 acre property. The enclosed kennels house about 30 dogs in that unit, and all the K-9's of the area train on that property. Zeb will be surrounded by the best handlers around.

This unit recently lost their ten-year old beloved veteran Bloodhound, Dolly Madison, to cancer. They had no budget to replace her in 2010, so a donated puppy of Zeb's caliber was a perfect solution for them. As it turns out, they are experienced in handling Bloodhounds with food aggression. These handlers are not afraid of our little guy, but his 11 "new fathers" are so excited about him, they are already vying to be his primary handler! He is working his charming and handsome qualities on them, I'm sure.

Zeb already has a six-month training program layed out for him, with marked goals for a tactical training event in March. He will be their new "man trailer", and will be on call 24/7 with an whole team to back him as he searches for lost people of all ages, from bad guys to good guys. All he has to do is locate them. The other dogs and human K-9 officers will do the rest. Unlike the other K-9's, he will not ship out to be trained, but all his training will take place at his new home. That property has a sampling of all the topographies he will come across. So he will train all his life there, and retire either in a handler's home or in the kennels they call "Fair Acres".

His veterinary care is to be handled by the U of Penn., which is just minutes away. His handlers, I can assure you, have great leadership and training and I have every confidence that he is in the very best of hands.

We shipped him out of Detroit yesterday and Lt. Miller said Zebby faired very well in his crate, was a "perfect little gentleman", and walked into the kennels without any hesitation or shyness. He is sure he will fit in and adjust without any difficulty, and as I said the men who have met him are already enjoying having him around. He also said that mealtime is going pretty well so far .

As an aside, a fellow K-9 from PA was shot last week in the line of duty. The dog took two bullets from the bad guy but still hung on. Last I heard, the dog had a shattered leg and will have to retire, but was expected to live. This was not a man trailing hound, of course, but all of these dogs and handlers risk their lives to protect their communities, and I have a newfound respect and appreciation for what it is they do.

Zeb was a challenge for our household, and a great source of stress. Yet we love what we have learned, we appreciate the humor he brought here, and we are so proud of what we know he will become. We are so immensely pleased that he is where he really belongs. And yet there was that dreaded absent feeling you get the morning after you lose a beloved dog, because it was the first time we woke to having only two dogs in the house. It was strange to feel that so long after we actually lost Rocky, even though I kind of expected to feel it.

I will continue to post updates to my blog as I hear about his training progress and his work success. We're so happy this pup has this great new chance at a life he deserves.

Continue to Support Working Dogs and Their Handlers

2009-11-18T09:54:00.002-05:00

My last post was with regards to Veteran K-9's and their handlers. In this post, I would like to extend that thought. There are a number of ways that people can support service dogs (there are many "branches" of service that dogs perform), and if you are thinking about helping dogs somehow this holiday season, perhaps we can give you a few ideas.

I recently had a young woman call me regarding a dog with a behavior problem. Through our conversation, I found that she had recently married and had to say goodbye to her new husband as he went overseas for military service. She told me how a "rescue" person in her area had treated her poorly because she was trying to find the pup a new home. Instead of taking the time to understand her position, this person was disrespectful to her. No couple who offers such service to our country deserves to be treated in this way!

I ended up providing some counsel to her that day free of charge, acknowledged her and her husband for their sacrifices, and treated her as a friend. Especially as she was new to the area, this friendly assistance provided a welcome sense of relief for her, and that is exactly what she needed at that time. It wasn't just financial, but emotional help and some guidance for her dog ownership situation that she needed. She also needed someone to treat her respectfully.

Emotional support for military families is a start. Some of them also need foster families or help placing their pets into new homes when their leave duration is longer than expected. Financial support for spouses and children, and for pets, is also sometimes needed.

But they aren't the only ones falling on hard times. Dogs provide service to average citizens in many ways, including: hearing assistance, seizure alert, diabetic alert, leaders for the blind, support for the feeble, psychiatric assistance, and more. Some of these trained dogs are owned by people who have limited incomes. They may need financial support this winter, too. They may also appreciate their sidewalks shoveled, a warm meal and some company, or something special to show appreciation for the work their dogs do.

In addition, there are handlers of police K-9's of all types, and search and rescue dog handlers who are often not provided with any funding for their volunteer work. They all deserve some simple thanks from time to time for the work they do, but there may be something else they need this winter.

If you own a business which provides a service dog owners can benefit by, consider how you might help these special dog handlers and owners. Clearing driveways could be a big help if you own a plow. Taking some photographs of the dog and handler for use in Christmas cards would be a great way for a photographer to put their skills to use. An auto mechanic could provide a tune-up or a discount on some snow tires.

The point is, if you wish to recognize the people who share a special working relationship with their dogs, and you wish to help them through some hard times, please use your imagination. Ask them how you might help. Be respectful of dogs wearing service vests whenever you meet them (never pet a dog wearing a vest- they need to concentrate on their work), and most importantly, be respectful of their handlers and of others who sacrifice their way of life, if not their lives, for our sake.

Remember Our Veteran K-9's

2009-11-09T14:51:00.003-05:00

As we once again approach another day set aside to remember those who make such great sacrifices for our country, let us not forget those K-9's and their handlers. These dogs make a special contribution, both to the people of their units, the innocent whose lives they make better, and the public who benefit from their achievements. They may never truly understand what brought them to their work and why people do the things they do, but they are valuable to us.

Remember the special working dogs of the past, the present, and the future. And if you are able and willing to contribute to their care and comfort while they work or in their retirement, find a way to do so.

Is it "Animal Care & Control", or Just "Animal Control (Kill)"?

2009-11-08T11:53:00.003-05:00

The Shelby County Sheriff's Office raided the City of Memphis Animal Shelter in August after reports of animal abuse came to light. Unfortunately for some of the animals in that "shelter", there was a lot of darkness there.

To read more from an article on this subject, visit the link I'll put at the end of my post.

This post is about why and how shelter workers sometimes choose to neglect, or even worse, abuse the animals that come under their care. Actually, "care" doesn't seem to be an adequate term to describe those folks.

I must pause here and recognize the many shelter staff and volunteers who work tirelessly around the world, doing their best to provide everything they can for the present and future lives of animals. It is not always easy or pleasant work. This post is not meant to criticize their work, but to highlight the fact that we must be sure that "shelter" means just that.

What went wrong in this case? I'll let the locals determine that. Perhaps it was poor leadership. That would be my first guess. And likely a lack of accountability. It seems to have been a system that didn't allow the voices of the good people (who stood up and cried out to defend the animals) to be truly heard soon enough, and punish effectively the criminals. At last, they were heard, though, and an outside source (the Sheriff's department) did their work. Now we can hope that justice will be found in the courts, but it is too late for the neglected and abused who suffered and died.

Shelter workers can be very good at pointing fingers at dog owners (and other animal owners) for putting animals under their care. However, for every pointed finger there are a few pointing back. We are all, in a way, responsible for the animals our society produces, and for every person who volunteers and especially for those who are paid to care for them, it becomes a more direct responsibility to be sure they provide the best quality care possible. When that doesn't happen, those who notice some vast shortcomings have the responsibility to speak up.

Luckily that did happen in Memphis, and hopefully there will be some changes made there so the abuse and neglect becomes a thing of the past. Perhaps this story will inspire others who work in similar locations to speak up when they witness abuse and neglect, and perhaps prevent the needless suffering and death of the innocent.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/nov/03/3-animal-shelter-dogs-died-lack-care-and-feeding/

More on cats- San Francisco has outlawed declawing!

2009-11-05T11:06:00.002-05:00

Some people have decided to declare that declawing cats, a common procedure by pet-owners for years, is cruel. As a result, San Francisco (of course, it would be California) has become the first major US city to make it an illegal procedure.

The CA VMA (Veterinary Medical Association) has opposed the legislation, primarily because they feel the decision should be left to the experts (veterinarians), not politicians (this is how I feel about all medical procedures for pets).

What's the punishment for a veterinarian and/or a pet owner who approves of a declawing? Up to six months in jail or a fine up to $1,000.

I am not a cat owner, but I am aware that there are millions of responsible cat owners in the world who feel they have worthy reasons to declaw their cats, and their veterinarians often approve of their decision (I am also aware that some practices avoid it whenever possible).

I have seen the operation done myself, and it was a very simple and quick procedure. Cats generally heal pretty quickly from the operation and are able to get around just fine afterwards. I suppose there are people who disagree with it for a number of reasons, too, and they are entitled to their opinion. Nevertheless, I don't believe that this is territory meant only for pet owners and veterinarians.

Dudley Massachusetts has some expensive cats!

2009-11-05T10:46:00.002-05:00

This week in Dudley, Massachusetts, it became illegal to own more than three cats without a $50 residential kennel license.

I don't think they know what "kennel" means, really. Perhaps they should give it another name when the government decides what people do in their own homes with their personal property.

Mary Ellen Richards had 15 cats, and she says they are all well-cared for. She says they get all the veterinary care they need. In fact, she knows a thing or two about cats, as she helps an organization which traps feral cats for spaying/neutering and release (this is known as TNR- Trap, Neuter, Release). Many communities have such efforts as a method of keeping cat numbers under control.

But because she has more than three cats at her home, the city began fining her $100 per day. She has decided to move to "a more cat-friendly community."

I do not know if Ms. Richards keeps her cats confined inside or if they are all spayed/neutered so they do not multiply beyond her ability to care for them. But if she is providing adequate care for her cats and herself, why should it matter to the local government how many she has? This person spends her own time trying to keep the feral cat numbers down, and now she's leaving town because of these excessive fines. It could be more detrimental to that community than helpful in the long run.

If the people living in her neighborhood felt that she was not caring properly for her cats or that the animals were becoming a nuisance due to fecal matter, noise, etc., perhaps they should have reviewed their ordinances for basic cruelty/neglect and nuisance regulations and their enforcement. What they have with a pet limit law is detrimental to responsible animal owners as well.

"My dog knows commands, but he doesn't listen!"

2009-11-04T20:43:00.002-05:00

Many times dog trainers hear this type of comment from frustrated dog owners: "My dog knows commands, but he doesn't listen!" I hate to break it to them, but it has less to do with the dog listening and more to do with the relationship between the two, the owner's efforts to train the dog, and the dog's reliability (with regards to an accurate response to commands). And remember, commands are not only verbal in nature; commands/cues can come in many different forms.

Many people teach their dogs some basics as puppies, when they are fun and cute and easy to work with. Pups are taught to sit, down, stay and come, typically, in the living room or the yard, for food or a toy, for one second or two. Then the pups jump up from the sit or down, leave the stay location, and run away from the recall, but the owners find this acceptable because "he's a puppy" (by the way, I hear that phrase well into the dog's second year, but I find it a completely unacceptable excuse for a lack of manners). "My dog knows commands..." means little to me as a trainer unless I see the dog responding reliably in a new location and with multiple distractions around. Until then, the dog has some room to learn more about obedience, and most likely the owner has room to learn, too.

Training must be done past the six-month mark, and in most dogs, training should be taken fairly seriously at that point. Especially with large and powerful dogs, it is essential to give them some tools to help them learn a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. Without these and other important aspects of good character, large dogs can become a terrible nuisance (or worse, dangerous) to everyone they meet.

Puppy training and Novice/basic obedience training differ in a number of ways. A puppy is simply learning to learn, enjoying the process, and getting down some of the basics as they learn how to communicate and get around in a people-oriented society. The adolescent and adult dog should be taught to respect and trust the handler and to respond to commands quickly and reliably. This is where most people, at least in America, seem to forget their sense of responsibility and drop their training goals altogether. And this is precisely why so many people give up their dogs, get bitten by their own dogs, or kill dogs-- they don't train them properly and thoroughly beyond puppyhood.

It is often when the dog reaches adolescence or adulthood (about 6 months to three years or so) that some owners starts to blame the dog for not "listening". They need to take responsibility for the dog's instruction so he knows, first of all, exactly what is expected of him. He needs to know how to comply, when to comply, and that it is in his best interest to do so, even when he would really rather not. Unless an owner is responsible for the dog's training in this way, the dog cannot be blamed for his behavior.

It is when a dog owner becomes responsible for completing the dog's training that the blame game stops and the dog becomes easier to live with. It is much easier for a dog to "listen" to an owner who is actually providing some information, isn't it?

Dog Owners Sue After Illegal Seizure

2009-10-31T08:27:00.002-05:00

We've heard rumors and stories of animal seizures taking place without warrants, but this one has become very real. A Louisville couple has filed a federal lawsuit against the Louisville Metro Government and certain officials who were in charge of what they claim to be an illegal entry into their home and illegal seizure of two adult dogs and a litter of puppies.

The attorney for Mr. and Mrs. James O'Neill, Jon Fleischaker, said that more lawsuits could be filed in the future, as he is aware of similar instances. This couple is suing to cover their losses, punitive damages, and for attorney's fees.

At least in this location, if the lawsuit proves that animal control officers and Animal Services acted illegally, responsible dog owners would have triumphed over this terrible violation of our basic rights, and hopefully prevent it from happening to others.

A Tax Break for Pet Owners?

2009-10-31T08:07:00.002-05:00

HR3501 is a bill which would provide certain pet owners with as much as $3,500 in a tax break. If you spend a lot of money to care for your animals as a responsible pet owner, this might sound like a great way to save money, but does it really help you as a pet owner in the long run?

Animal owners should be very, very skeptical of this bill, and personally I feel we should all oppose it. Why? because this bill brings animals one step closer to being held legally under "guardian" status rather than personal property. As long as animals are considered property, responsible animal owners are able to make decisions regarding their care without government interference.

There are definitions in this bill as to what a "qualified animal" is, but it is not written well, says the ADOA. While you might want to support a bill that saves you money, it doesn't sound like there would be many people who would actually receive that tax relief. Would you be one of them? Why support something that probably wouldn't help you, but could hurt?

Would you support a bill which would lead the IRS to insist that you microchip your pets and give them the number? Would you like the IRS to follow your pet's history as they do your child's social security? Would you like the government to know how many animals you have and what kind, and how much you spend on them? Would you like the government to know how much veterinary care you provide, to whom, and how much you do or don't spend on each animal for veterinary care? How far can this go?

How far do you think HSUS and PeTA would have it go?

The Loyalty of a Pitbull

2009-10-20T08:05:00.002-05:00

I viewed this youtube video when someone sent me a link, and I found it very touching. I wanted to share it with my readers, who need to understand how misunderstood bully dogs can be, and how valuable they can be as family pets. They should not be banned from society, but embraced as the loving family dogs they can be. Punish the bad owners, not the good ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7IwdFwIhv0&feature=related

Meet Zebedee, a Bloodhound with Baby Teeth

2009-10-13T11:08:00.005-05:00

Zebeedee is the newest member of our canine pack. He is four months old, and yes, still has most of his baby teeth. He is growing like a weed, and surprises us with how much good food he can pack away in a day and still be lean (which is a good thing).

Zeb came to us after his owner gave him up due to his aggression issues. "A puppy with aggression?", you say, and the answer is yes, puppies can sometimes exhibit the same types of behavior problems we face with adult dogs at times. Zeb was fierce around his food bowl and other objects he prized. He would snarl, bark, lunge, and even bite if given the opportunity.

How did it start? We are not sure, but Zeb is reported to be the runt of his litter. He may have had to fight for his share of resources early on. His first owner could not handle the difficulties this posed in managing and training him. He gave him up in the hopes that someone else might be able to put in the time the little pup needed, and have the skills to address the problem before the puppy got too big to handle safely.

So the puppy came to live with us. We gave him a new name, Zebedee, and the fun began. Now, when I say, "fun", understand that I mean that in more than one way. He is not a typical puppy; he came with certain challenges that must be addressed, but in other ways he is most certainly fun to be with.

The first step was to teach him to be calm and polite during feeding time. This is, of course, an ongoing process with a dog that had his level of aggression at the sight, sound, or smell of food or a bowl or anything remotely similar. But quickly he learned to sit still and quiet (while on leash) until his bowl was placed on the floor and he is released to eat. Meal times are much better this way!

Zeb is learning to relax while eating, to eat quietly, and to allow movement in the area where he eats. Food is never taken away while he eats. He may be taken away from food if he misbehaves, or food can be added to his bowl when he is eating quietly or sitting quietly. Feet can also be a source of new food, rather than a challenge to his bowl (that can be tricky, but fun!).

Zeb will allow for some items to be taken calmly from him, but we must be careful to manage him every moment he is out of his crate so he cannot get items that are unsafe for him. When he prizes an item, he can be quite a handful. But he is learning to self-discipline, to calm when asked to settle, and we are making progress in building good character in him in this way.

In addition, Zeb is great in the car and gets plenty of opportunities to meet other dogs and people and new environments. He is slowly learning to respect a lead (a challenge for a nose on four legs). He plays with another dog in our pack on a daily basis, and is learning to respect other animals he meets. He has plenty of things to learn yet, but he is enjoying it all!

Schwarzenneggar vetoed AB 241!

2009-10-13T10:57:00.001-05:00

This bill would have made it illegal for anyone to own 50 or more intact dogs or cats. This was his brief veto message:

To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature. This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.

Flea Product Can Melt Plastic!

2009-10-10T08:32:00.002-05:00

I read today about a dog owner who put a common flea product on their dog before bedtime. The dog apparently rolled on its back in the crate while the liquid was still wet. When it came into contact with the plastic of the crate, a certain chemical reaction occured which melted the plastic and then stuck to the hair on the belly of the dog!

When the owner got up the next day, they could not understand why the dog wouldn't come out of the crate, and ended up befuddling their veterinarian for a while as well. Eventually they figured out the cause and found a solution that helped them free the dog.

The company is aware of the possibility of this problem, but claims that this is the first time a dog has suffered any such consequences. Of course, they will continue to manufacture this product, and it will simply be left to the consumer to be aware of this and other dangers flea products pose to their pets.

For one reader

2009-10-10T08:30:00.002-05:00

Someone had written a comment regarding my blog, and as I deleted a bunch of spammed comments in a foreign language, it just caught my eye. It was unfortunately included in that bunch of deleted comments.

I just wanted to apologize to that person, and if you wish a supportive comment to be posted, please try again.

The Rabies Challenge Fund is Challenged

2009-10-10T08:28:00.001-05:00

What follows is a guest post in regards to the Rabies Challenge, which I support. They still need help.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greetings:

The goal of The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust is to extend the legally required interval for rabies boosters to 5 and then 7 years, based on the findings of the rabies challenge studies currently underway at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine. If the studies’ results demonstrate that the rabies vaccine confers 5, and possibly 7, years of immunity, there would be a significant impact on controlling rabies and reducing adverse reactions associated with the vaccine.

Today I am writing to ask for your help. The Rabies Challenge Fund relies on donations to finance the multi-year challenge studies that began in November 2007. Due to the economic downturn, the Fund has a $68,000 shortfall for the third year of the studies, scheduled for this fall. This deficit threatens the future of the research.

Costs for the studies’ third year are $175,000. Since January, we have raised nearly $107,000 of that amount. We need to have eighty percent of the total funding for the year’s budget in hand to begin the third year of the studies. Please contribute what you can, as soon as you can. All donations received will be used to finance the direct research costs of the rabies challenge studies.

With your help, we can raise the $68,000 necessary to complete the third year of the 5 and 7-year rabies challenge studies. Tax-exempt donations can be mailed to The Rabies Challenge Fund, c/o Hemopet, 11561 Salinaz Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843. Credit card donations can be phoned in to Hemopet (specify they are for The Rabies Challenge Fund) by calling (714) 891-2022, ext. 13.

Thank you for your support of this important work.

Sincerely,

Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/The-Rabies-Challenge-Fund/119106981159?ref=mf
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com

Successful efforts by The Rabies Challenge Fund over the past year leading to changes in state rabies laws/municipal ordinances to the 3 year national standard:

Cheyenne, Wyoming
Wichita, Kansas
State of Alabama
State of Arkansas
State of Rhode Island

The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization [Fed. EIN # 84-6390682].

The Loss of a Great Dog, and What Dog Ownership Means in the End

2009-10-08T09:18:00.002-05:00

I haven't been posting to my blog lately because I've been rather preoccupied. Rocky "the Good Dog" had become very ill with some mysterious neurological disorder or malfunction that paralyzed most of his voluntary functions from the neck down. So you can perhaps understand why writing on my blog was the least of my priorities. I was too busy caring for my dog and making other, more important decisions.

The other day that last, final decision took place. By the wonderful grace of God, things went smoothly and easily as possible, and all of the beautiful qualities that my dog shared with us in life he shared with us in his death. He made it all easier and we take comfort in that.

The fact that I remain my dogs' owner allows me to make such decisions. It allowed me to end this dog's suffering when I could do nothing else for him. We can't do that with people, but we do have the option to help our pets in this way. It is about many things, and may be different for all individuals: sharing of love, comfort, a release from pain and suffering, financial and other limitations, convenience, dignity, peace, and more.

In my case, I was able to free my dog from suffering, be there in those last moments to share my love for him in a relaxed setting, and know that he was comfortable in the end. Not everyone has these blessings. But for us, that is what it was, as painful as the end of a great dog can be in many ways.

If I was his "guardian" rather than his owner, would I be granted the ability to make this decision? I would not want someone else to make it for me, or to decide on the type and quality of his care. Who else knows my dog better than I do? Who else can provide for him better than I? I don't want someone else making those judgement calls for my family of people or my pack of dogs. I am therefore grateful that I legally owned my dog and all the final decisions regarding his medical care. He got the best care, I can assure you of that. And he shared a peaceful, comforting passing.

There is a part of a great dog that dies, and a part that always lives. It is that part we can cling to, remember, treasure and continue to share. No one person owns that alone; it is simply borrowed from above. This makes it all the more powerful and beautiful.

The Loss of John Yates

2009-09-18T16:33:00.002-05:00

Regardless of how you feel about his writings, no one can mistake John Yate's passion for responsible dog owners and the dogs themselves. Below is a guest post regarding Mr. Yates, who died recently while in surgery.
++++++++++++++++

We lost John Yates yesterday, September 15, 2009 (American Sporting Dogs Alliance) at the age of 60 years young. He passed while in surgery to remove a cancerous lung. Recently he confided in friends that he did not want to be debilitated by just having one lung, and had a premonition that he might not be returning home from the hospital. He leaves behind Donna, his wife of 24 years. John was a newspaper reporter and an editor for many years and excelled in investigative reporting. He lived in an unpopulated area of Pennsylvania with his wife Donna, where he worked his dogs (he had a special breeding program for field trial English Setters under the Eaglerock Kennels name).

He also maintained a hybridizing program for fancy day lilies, and had over 15,000 of them planted in his fields. John once told a friend that he bred both day lilies and dogs to make the world a more beautiful place. A man truly talented in diverse ways, he was a published poet and author, and during his youth even played in a touring blues band. He relished life in the out-of-doors, spending two years before his marriage in a remote region in Alaska, and then, just after his marriage, several years on a ranch in a wild corner of Montana. John loved dogs, loved the people who were willing to understand how bad government regulations and animal radicals stances were and are...and was a voice which at times was loud and abrasive but always spoke for the same end, the safekeeping of animal ownership. No one loved his dogs more, or could understand any dog better than he; and there did not exist a dog in the world that would not be his best friend upon first meeting. His great love for dogs - and the people who owned them - were the impetus for his founding of the American Sporting Dog Alliance, a proud voice for the dog owning community. John was always willing to answer questions and gave his advice generously.

A friend of John's said when hearing of his death said that she realized 'how many questions she had yet to ask him that will always now remain unspoken.' I think we will all sadly realize just that in the coming months and years. Loosing Walter Bebout on Saturday (he retired in November from 2 1/2 years as the AKC Director of Canine Legislation) in a traffic accident on his way to judge the BIS at a Kansas show, John Yates's passing is a double blow for the dog world.

Karen Perry Ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net
Margo Milde mrm1206@yahoo.com
Michele Smith msmith@cmscrescue.com
Alyson Posner ILCockerRescue@aol.com

The Catch-22 of Fear

2009-09-15T13:17:00.002-05:00

This is just something I've been thinking about lately. Dog owners have been placed in a sort of "catch twenty-two", and are increasingly fearful of both blatant and hidden enemies.

The AR agenda is blatant, and some of its followers are very outspoken and easy to find. Others hide amongst us in the form of neighbors, co-workers, professionals, and even sometimes as supposed allies in the fight to keep or retain rights as responsible animal owners. While the surface tactics may be different, the base agenda is the same and that causes, at least with some (and for good reason), a great amount of fear.

Let's look at the case of an imagined hobby breeder for example. This person breeds a particular well-known breed, and has done so for years. All of the dogs produced are well cared-for and are generally of a healthy stock, as that has always been the goal. The dogs are proven to live long, healthy lives and do the work that they were bred for well. This breeder has thus earned a positive reputation amongst canine professionals, other breeders, and those who fancy that breed.

Unfortunately, this notoriety also comes with a cost. This breeder now fears every potential puppy buyer, every person who questions any aspect of the care they provide, every inquiry into their experience, their location, or their personal dogs, etc. They fear that someone may not only challenge their way of life, but attempt to steal it away from them. This is not an unfound fear. It has become a true story for some.

This person cares about their own dogs as well as all other animals. So they would like to take a stand publicly to defend their way of life, and to help those responsible dog breeders (and other animal owners) in their community and country. But to become vocal puts a target on one's back, when the AR agenda says one should not breed, should not do this or that. So this person now struggles to decide whether to protect their own livelihood and the welfare of their own property from the risk of an unfound attack, or to attempt to protect the greater good.

This concept is not new, but has taken various forms throughout history.

I am not a breeder, but I sympathize with those who are, and with those responsible animal breeders who find themselves in this terrible predicament. May they fight back and win, and protect their own in the process. And the rest of us need to help them in whatever way we can.

It is important to protect the traditions that have nourished our country's past, and will need to feed us in the future. It is important to protect our constitutional rights and our livelihoods, as well as the general health of our planet.

Beware of "Astroturfers"

2009-09-10T09:40:00.003-05:00

No, this is not a new sport. It has nothing to do with the Jetson's or with soil, as one might suspect based on the term's structure. This post is with regards to the use of words, however.

"Astroturfing" is a term used to describe a certain form of trickery taking place in email groups and message boards. It occurs when a person appears to be something or someone they are not, in order to seem a part of the group they have infiltrated ("infiltrated" is an example of a word carefully chosen in order to create a certain emotion in the reader).

The example used in the article I found involved a hunting forum. A person might post as a hunter, and use language that other hunters might use so they fit in and are welcomed within the group. When debate about a law introduced by AR's or their ilk pops up, this person will post on the subject. They post as if their opinion should weigh heavier because they are a part of the group, whereas if the readers recognized them as an AR, they would adamantly oppose their posting based on their agenda. The agenda remains hidden as they attempt to sway the opinions of their "peers". Persons riding on the fence or uneducated on the subject may give more thought to this person's opinion than they would if they knew the truth about who the poster truly is.

There are, unfortunately, a few crafty people who side with the AR perspective, and they have and will continue to attempt to infiltrate a variety of groups in order to "divide and conquer". It is important to keep an eye out for these types, to research poster's names and locations and backgrounds, and smoke them out where they hide. When a post just doesn't seem right, notify moderators or publicly question the poster. Beware of half-truth's and lies. Beware the astroturfer.

How a Breeder's Life Can Be Held at Ransom

2009-09-08T10:24:00.005-05:00

What follows is a guest post, with permission to cross-post by the author. It points out many critical issues with regards to the current systematic attacks on dog breeders and owners by the animal rights movement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is an email to me from a breeder in Florida. I think it describes her predicament very well and should be a wake-up call for all breeders who think the ARs won't affect them.
Dorothea Penizek
http://www.claremorris-parson-russells.at/

Dorothea, I don't want to stop breeding, but outsiders have no idea what is happening here in Florida, for instance with the AR's in some areas conspiring with animal control go suddenly pull all breeder licenses and give breeders who have had commercial breeding licenses for decades only 30 days to get their dog numbers down to some absurd number. For instance just four counties down from us in Pasco County this was done to over 100 breeders over a year ago, most of whom had had legal kennel licenses for up to 50 dogs for many decades.

["Give us some of your dogs, or we'll take them all!

The police are not on your side."]

And one long time breeder that I know down there was crying on the phone to me as she had kept quite a few of her older dogs as pets, and there was no way that anyone would take an 11 year old dog with major health problems into a pet home. And some of her dogs had mental problems--it happens--so she had never tried to place them at all. But if she didn't get down to under ten dogs in under 30 days then the county was going to come in and round them all of her dogs over nine in number and kill them all!

The Pasco County breeders hurriedly organized and sued and whole mess still hasn't been resolved. But these breeders are mostly older people who had counted on having kennel income into their retirement. Some are show/hobby and some are more commercial, but all were USDA inspected and never had an inkling that this could happen to them in so short of a time. And I suspect that this was all over real estate values, as that area was experiencing rapid expansion of suburban housing from the Tampa Bay area, with lots of higher priced subdivisions coming into to what had previously been rural agricultural land. But now that the Florida land boom has gone bust perhaps we won't be seeing as much of this type of thing happening.

But in the next quite rural county over from us--just across the river--there is a so called "rescue" that is answering ads for puppies, coming onto the kennel prremises pretending to be a buyer, and then the "rescue" comes back a few days later with a county sheriff's deputy car sitting out on the road--not on the property itself--and the woman from the "rescue" then tells the breeder--who is usually an older, rural woman who does not know her legal rights as a breeder in Florida--that the breeder has broken the Florida pet lemon law by advertising puppies for sale under 8 weeks old who do not have their health certificates yet. And the breeder is then threatened that if she does not immediately sign over the whole litter to the "rescue," then the sheriff's deputy will arrest her for breaking the pet lemon law!

[KNOW ALL your local laws!]

Now my vet says that this is NOT Florida's pet lemon law at all, as it's in the best interest of the puppy to try to line up a buyer as soon as possible. But now many newspapers will suddenly not take ads for puppies that are not 8 weeks old and who don't have their health certificates yet, as apparently these newspapers have become convinced by someone in the rescue/shelter industry that this is the legal interpretation of the pet lemon law. And why that county's sheriff's office is going along with this "theft by taking" I have no idea. But this "rescue" has gotten quite a few purebred litters to sell this way, and this is only a few miles away from me, but fortunately in another county.

And we never allow buyers to come to the kennel anymore, but meet at a local fast food place instead, with lots of shady parking, good food, clean bathrooms and great cell phone reception. This is mainly to keep disease out of the kennel, as well as to keep AR's away.

[Brazen stealing of dogs]

And we have had a lot of just plain old purebred dog thefts around here, and the thieves will just shoot the guard dogs at the gate and come in and take what they want--anything of value including purebred puppies and even their dams. And it doesn't seem to matter if you are home or not, so we are seeing more and more armed robberies that are called "home invasions" here. So we rarely leave the property without someone being here--and we are lifelong NRA members.

And someone is going to get killed over all of this very soon around here, and I'm sure that it will be the breeders who will be made to look like the bad guy, no matter who is at fault. But I do not want to spend my retirement in fear of either being robbed, getting shot at, or being threatened with jail over breeding dogs. [emphasis always added]

And my advice to the dog fancy--WAKE UP! These types of things are already happening to show/hobby kennels around here too--not just the commercial breeders.

Of course here in Florida every breeder is suppose to a commercial breeder due to the requirement to collect sales tax on anything that you sell over your two allowed "garage sales" per year. So the state can come after you for not collecting sales tax on your puppy sales--which is a felony. But once you do start collecting sales tax the Florida Dept of Revenue contacts either your city or county gov't and lets them know that you are selling puppies, so you have to get a local occupational license too--and to do that you have to be correctly zoned for a kennel--and most of the small residential lots here in Florida are not corectly zoned for dog kennels.

And we have six acres here and can barely legally fit the kennels into our county's 100 foot "set backs" from our property lines that are required for any and all animal shelters, whether chickens, horses or cows or dogs. And another county two counties south of us tried to restrict kennel licensing to only properties of ten acres or more--but that got squelched after a lot of breeder protesting. And we are currently correctly zoned and legally licensed as a kennel, and we do collect and report sales tax quarterly. But you cannot afford to do this with just a few dogs lying around on the couch!

[Shelter dogs are too often dogs stolen from good breeders for resale]

The AR attack is relentless, helped by all of the "do-gooders" who feel that no dogs should be bred at all until all shelter dogs are "adopted." I was told this by one of the volunteers at the thrift store of one of our local humane societies, and I could not make her believe that many "rescues" are now just money making scams, and that there are over 200 "rescues" operating in the State of Massacuhsetts alone, with one in the Boston areaa making well over a million and a half dollars so far, with no physical facilities and all volunteers. This particular rescue gets all of their dogs for free from Southern shelters, and of course they do have costs to transport them to Massachusetts. But this could not possibly cost what they take in in revenue, and they sell their shelter dogs for more than I get for my carefully bred little companion dogs.

And I was asked to be on the board of this particular local humane society, but finally declined, as the attitude toward me as a breeder by most of the people who volunteer there was just too negative for me to deal with. I still do shop there at the thrift store, and I have made friends with the director, who has never had any animal experience before at all, but has had lots of retail experience, and she has made a great success of the thrift store. And I'm trying to educate the director at least, as to what's what in the dog and cat world. But it's difficult.

[What the AR's want- all breeding to stop]

It's all becoming a bit much, and when fighting to retain my right to breed dogs begins to totally consume my retirement--and I am almost to that point now--then that will be the time to stop.

HSUS- Making a Contest out of Laws

2009-09-04T14:01:00.003-05:00

As if the HSUS needed any more money, they have a separate "Legislative Fund" to help drive their lobbying efforts (they're doing pretty well without it, but they're good at squeezing out every drop from unsuspecting animal lovers).

Now they are going one step further: they are having a contest to get the public to help them create new laws to further restrict the lives of animal owners. This is called a "There Oughta Be a Law" contest. There is a panel of judges who will decide which new idea they will try to make into federal law.

This is just crazy and sick. They don't need any more ideas to make the lives of animal owners miserable, they don't need any more legislative power, and they certainly don't need any more of our money!

p.s. Only comments written in English will be approved on this blog. No offense, but if I don't know what you're writing, I'm not approving it.

Richmond, VA SPCA CEO's Dog Dies After Being Left in Car: No Charges?

2009-08-27T08:56:00.003-05:00

Robin Starr's husband, Ed, put their elderly, deaf and blind dog in her car as she was getting ready to go to work. Apparently, she often took her dog to work with her, but had no plans to do so on that particular day. He forgot to tell her, he said, until he got a "frantic" phone call from his wife in the afternoon.

She had gone to the car on her lunch hour and found the dog, named "Louie", inside. It was over 90 degrees outside by that time, and must certainly have been deadly inside the car. She immediately rushed the dog into the clinic, and then to an emergency vet. clinic in Carytown. The dog died that night of kidney failure.

A week later, the event was outed by local reporters, and only then did she or the SPCA have anything to say. The delay has caused some suspicions from the public.

The Directors of the SPCA are supporting her, and she doesn't plan to resign. But has this event destroyed, at least in part, her credibility and qualifications for holding that position? Apparently, no charges have been filed against her and her husband for their neglect.

Of course, this is almost certainly a tragic accident. Most of us would give her the benefit of the doubt on that. However, the irony of the event is that people are questioning her ability to be viewed as innocent in the public eye, when she has been apparently so vindictive against others who were charged with animal neglect. So did she treat them with the same respect, dignity, and fairness that she herself seems to have been treated?

A quick internet search can drum up multiple cases where people were charged for leaving pets (or children) in a hot car while simply being distracted. Yet she was not charged. This raises some questions, again, about where ignorance and innocence part ways in the eyes of the law and of the public.

She and her husband both have extensive experience in law. Does this, or their status in the community, give them some level of immunity that others haven't had? Is she getting some degree of preferential treatment? Is there a double standard at work? Why is it that some people get excused of this type of tragedy, but others are villified? Where does the line of sympathy end in the public eye?

I am not suggesting that she should be charged or should resign or that she should not be. But it should give us pause to consider where you or I might end up if the circumstances were the same.

In researching this topic, I did find some worthy advice: when you travel with a pet, set aside some visual reminder for yourself that will prevent you from being distracted or forgetting your responsibilities. A leash in the dashboard or in the hand might do it. Whatever works for you is what is important.

How Should a Court Decide the Monetary Value of Pets?

2009-08-17T12:54:00.002-05:00

This question is not new, but has been brought to the forefront of our minds with the media attention drawn to a case in Virginia.

Jeffrey Nanni is suing his former boyfriend, Maurice Smith, for allegedly killing their chihuahua two years ago. Smith had been charged with cruelty to animals for allegedly hitting the dog with a wooden board (the dog was held while it and the owner were being beaten, so assault charges were also involved).

Nanni says he is still suffering from "severe emotional distress", and figures that somehow money will make him feel better, I guess. His suit is an effort to recover what his attorney says is the "actual value" of the dog, versus the "replacement value". I appreciate Maryland's law, in which the owner is entitled to "fair market value", but this still poses problems.

How much was that 12-year old chihuahua worth? You can't start by asking what the current cost of a chihuahua puppy is. First of all, it doesn't have anything to do with that adult dog. Secondly, the price has a large range, as it would with any purebred dog. This owner may not want a puppy, but if his 12-year old chi was to be replaced financially, you'd need to price a 12-year old chi. You might start by finding out how much the dog cost its current owner, and then determine what its value was to the market at the time of death. You would start that way with any other piece of property.

And that is what the dog is, really, a piece of property. Of course there is an emotional investment. But emotions can't be measured or priced, legally or otherwise. That is the reality of the issue. You can only price property. So what did they pay for the dog?

Then, I suppose you have to ask what the owners invested in the dog. Did the dog have any special training that would raise the financial value should they have decided to sell it? Then, you have to consider the current condition of the dog. Was it healthy? What type of condition did the dog have, and what was the prospect of his future life? A 12-year old dog that was never truly housetrained, had bad knees and teeth, no obedience training, bit strangers, and had developed a strange growth somewhere is not as valuable as a 12-year old dog that is sociable, mannerly and healthy.

Other than that, was is a jury to go by? This guy might have hated the dog, for all we really know. Maybe he loved him like you or I love our pets, and he is really suffering. But can we put a price on that?

Pet ownership comes with life and death. We all know this. The manner and timing of a pet's death can make an impact on how harsh it feels to us, but we all know that it comes to all of us and to our pets. Yet those of us who acquire and keep pets are willing to make that emotional investment and sacrifice. We don't expect anybody to pay us to replace them when they die (although I've heard of a few exceptional breeders that give new dogs free of charge to people who raise a former pup of theirs successfully).

So what makes this case different? Someone else made an impact in how and when the dog died, and it was "wrong", legally and ethically, by the standards most of us would hold to. Perhaps he was directly responsible. He was charged accordingly under the law for it. It is time to move on and do your best to deal with it, Nanni. I don't see how money should make you feel any more relieved or happy.

Of course, legally, forcing someone to pay a defined amount of money ascribed to an emotional debt comes with all kinds of legal and financial problems for all of our futures. Should Mr. Nanni consider these ramifications, he might find it a more appropriate solution for society as a whole if he just did his best to grieve as nature intended. Nature doesn't care about money.

Responsible Breeder or "Puppy Mill"?

2009-08-13T08:39:00.003-05:00

The above photo comes from a person I define as a responsible breeder. The dog is CH Corwyn's Cezanne JH CD RN VA AKA "Z", and you can find out more about her and her owner here: www.corwynpointers.com.

How can I define this person as a "responsible breeder", and would you agree with my definition? Well, I hope you would agree, but the truth is, there is someone somewhere in the world that won't. In fact, according to PeTA, my friend is personally responsible for puppies dying in shelters because people buy pups from her instead of from a shelter.

That's just not reasonable. It's a whole lot of other things, but I'll be polite.

PeTA would call my friend a "puppy mill" because they say there is "no excuse for breeding or for supporting breeders." I have a few excuses, though.

My friend produces dogs that are able to perform a job they were bred for. They are reliable in health, structure, temperament, and of course come with the knowledge and support that the breeder's experience brings to new responsible dog owners. People buy the dogs because they want them. There is a demand for them, and so there is a supply. They get exactly what they want with the breed and the breeder, and there is a known history to the genetics and the home they come from. They make good pets and working companions, which is what these dogs are meant to do.

Dogs in shelters aren't there because they were born. They aren't there because someone bred them irresponsibly. They are there because someone decided not to keep them. Most of them are there because someone realized they were not providing the dog with adequate care and training, and the dog developed problem symptoms as a result. They stay there too long sometimes because people don't want them because they have problems, and people don't like to buy dogs with unknown histories and problems when they can get what they want from breeders.

I don't like using the term "puppy mill", because it has become so widely used with a variety of definitions. PeTA says that ALL breeders are "puppy mills". Some people say it is defined by how many dogs are owned or produced or how large the property where they are raised is. Some say it is defined by the amount of profit, others by the conditions the dogs are kept. I've heard that it is sometimes used against people who have only a few spoiled, happy and healthy pet dogs, none of which are even intact, simply because someone disagreed with the owner about something.

The truth is, what may work well with one breed and one area and one experienced, responsible breeder may seem shocking to someone else. A disagreement simply isn't enough to make it "wrong". Breeders and owners and animal lovers really ought to be more open in considering other's perspectives, rather than throwing stones around at each other all the time.

If you throw around the term "puppy mill" at everyone who disagrees with you, you soon lose any ability to separate the "wheat from the chaff". Then any legislation which uses this term suddenly seems to apply to nearly every dog owner. Hmmm. Isn't that exactly what PeTA and HSUS seem to be after? Don't fall into that trap. Just don't use the phrase.

When it comes to controlling breeding, I believe that we must first protect our basic constitutional rights. I don't believe that the government needs to be more involved than they already are in most cases. More restrictive laws will not make breeders and owners more responsible. Enforcing laws that are already in place can help ensure that dogs are cared for properly and punish those people who do make mistakes. I also feel strongly that AR groups such as PeTA and HSUS need not be involved in local matters.

Z is a great dog and a great mother. She is reliable off-lead anywhere, with or without dogs. She runs the house, keeps her pack in order, won multiple honors in the breed ring and in obedience, as well as serving as an exceptional hunting dog. She produced 8 champions, 5 CD's, 2 CDX's, 5 JH's, 3 therapy dogs and counting. Because of her obedience training, she was able to be handled easily during a veterinarian emergency, impressing her doctors and helping her survive and recover. She is the product of a responsible breeder.

You can expect breeders of this caliber to produce more of the same quality in their dogs. I will freely use the term "responsible breeder" to describe people like her, and I will support those people.

I refuse to use the term "puppy mill" except to refute it.

HSUS, Indiana Government, a Seizure, and All Sorts of Problems

2009-08-12T08:27:00.008-05:00

There was a warrant. It ordered a "seize and hold" on more than 200 dogs from a property in Indiana. It was to be followed by more court decisions. The warrant was the result of a "jeopardy tax assessment", meaning the dogs were being seized as collateral for a tax debt, of all things (as if the government should be doing business with live animals). Oh, and this tax debt was supposed to be more than $132,000.

But the dogs were promptly SOLD to HSUS for a total of $300.

So now the HSUS is very clearly purchasing animals (through a clear violation of due process) for a very low fee, and turning them over to shelters to re-home/re-sell (the HSUS runs no shelters, remember). If the dogs were in good condition, they should not have been seized to begin with. If they were in terrible conditions, we wouldn't even mention taxes-- we would just be talking about responsible dog ownership basics. Of course, if they were in terrible conditions, that would mean that HSUS, a political lobbying group, got involved in a local issue that was none of their business, and then bought dogs in terrible shape from the Attorney General of Indiana, while in violation of a warrant. This is not sounding good.

It gets worse. Linda Lawson is a House Rep. in Indiana. She does not represent the county where all this took place. She should have been working hard on more important things back in her own jurisdiction, but instead, she was several hours away on the dog owner's property when the seizure took place. She was also wearing a HSUS t-shirt during the raid!

How can a government official take time off from a special session (during a budget crisis) to get involved in a seizure, while representing a political lobbying group which then participated in violating the seizure warrant?

This government official also happens to be a formal law enforcement officer. Shouldn't she know better?

There are more unanswered questions in this case, but I just can't get past the above. If I were a constituent of this person, I would surely be more vocal in asking for answers from a number of sources. I would also be wondering how safe dog owners and their dogs are in Indiana.

We are in big trouble when the government fails to protect our rights, allows a powerful political lobbying organization to get involved in government actions, promotes those actions through the involvement of government officials, and sells live animals (personal property) to political lobbying organizations.

No Hushing for These Puppies!

2009-08-06T12:14:00.003-05:00

Every now and then I hear or read of a case where the government seems to allow for an incredible, inexcusable bypassing of a dog owner's property rights. This post is regarding one of those cases. I think it is important to point these events out and talk about them, so we can avoid pretending it doesn't happen. Ignorance is no excuse. Locals especially need to act when such things occur, but the rest of us need to take notice, and to do our part to ensure it won't happen in our areas.

This story is about a responsible dog owner and her valuable pack of Basset Hounds residing (or, used to reside) in Philadelphia. Wendy Willard and her pack (called "Murder Hollow Bassets") hunt on private land, and operate privately.

Unfortunately, Ms. Willard's property was raided by her local SPCA after a neighbor allegedly complained about noise (note, she says that no one has ever complained to her in the 22 years she has been there). Seven trucks and two police cars arrived, took 13 dogs, and turned the dogs over to a private animal rights organization which has a history of being hostile to hunting.

Philadelphia County had recently passed an ordinace in which it is illegal to own more than 12 animals on any property. She had 23 dogs being kept there at the time, some of which were not owned by her. That number is more than the ordinances' limit, but less than the USDA's kennel license limit.

So the local SPCA seized her dogs without warning at night, took them away, and spread them out to various locations without any accountability as to their location or care. The other dog's owner also has no idea where her dogs are or if she will be able to get them back. There is also the threat that there will be a forced spaying/neutering of these dogs, which are part of a long-term quality breeding program.

What is this?! What ever happened to a neighbor, or the local AC officer stopping by for a pleasant chat? What ever happened to a ticket for noise, or a warning regarding the new law? Who could possibly find better homes for the dogs, if they must be rehomed, than the dog's current, experienced owner? What ever happened to common sense and grace periods?

Unfortunately, as mentioned on this blog before, some local spca people seem to be over-zealous about their own ideals, and they are given too much authority by local legislators and law enforcement. Come on, folks, be reasonable. Give this woman her dogs back.

Detriments to this case may include: likely undue fines for the owner while somebody else takes care of her dogs (probably not as well as she would be doing herself), loss of breeding stock, resale of the dogs by people who don't know them best to other people who won't know them best, and of course, we can't forget the violation of reasonable, basic property rights. What a shame.

To read a bit more on this case, check out another blog here, as this poster is closer on the trail: http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/#comment-140915

German Shepherd Dogs Under Fire In England

2009-08-05T11:40:00.005-05:00

We all know that the health of certain breeds has been a topic of debate amongst canine professionals, dog owners, and responsible dog breeders for some time. Good breeders should want to produce dogs who are built to handle the work for which they are made: "form follows function". Somehow, however, many breeds have seen changes for certain desirable traits in appearance for the conformation ring, and these often contrast the structural needs.

A short list of breeds in which this is quite apparent: the American Cocker Spaniel (no longer able to hunt with that thick, soft show coat), the Irish Setter (so tall and narrow, the American dogs can't keep up with their Irish cousins in field work), the Bulldog (originally used in baiting bulls, now you'll find them lying about at shows. They have terrible structural issues which limit their health and breeding capabilities. Though they are kept almost exclusively as pets- no more bull baiting-- their poor health as a breed is tragic), and of course the German Shepherd Dog (which should have "drive from the rear" for herding and other work, but the hips of these dogs are often terribly deficient).

The latter breed (the GSD) is now under official fire by the Kennel Club (this is not to be confused with the American KC; this one is in England). The KC has threatened to drop the breed from showing in conformation competitions unless the breed clubs do something to improve their health standards. The country's 33 breed clubs are not happy.

The KC is tired of seeing crouching legs and roached backs. They're tired of the high incidence of hip dysplasia. The breed clubs are upset about the tone and threat of the letters they received. The future of their breed and the value of their lines are at risk.

The BBC showed a documentary about a year ago called "Pedigree Dogs Exposed", and this caused a bit of a problem amongst the breeders, dog clubs, and the public, who all want all dogs to be healthy and happy of course. As a result of the attention, the BBC decided to make a stand and stopped coverage of the Crufts Show (a famous televised show, like Westminster), after 42 years.

GSD breeders have wanted the KC to force the screening of dogs and bitches used in breeding practices as a requirement for puppy registrations, to help eliminate the breeding of dogs with poor health and structure. Apparently the KC has not followed this desire, so the breed clubs feel "victimised".

Although we Americans get pretty uppity when it comes to anyone telling us what we can and cannot do with out own property, I think it is a good thing for breeders to be required to meet solid standards of health in their breeds in order to belong to a desired club. This can help improve the overall health of a breed.

However, I feel it is very important that the experienced breeders of healthy dogs be the ones to make those decisions-- NOT some outside governing body or organization. Only the breeders know best.

Medical Issues and Dog Training Responsibilities

2009-07-27T14:19:00.002-05:00

As a main aspect of responsible dog ownership, we are expected to train and socialize our dogs. This helps us to maintain a dog which is safe for the general public and our families, while also producing a reliable companion and/or working dog, mannerly and obedient regardless of the environment.

Training can be made more difficult or impossible, however, when medical issues arise. Unfortunately, this has been made even more pronounced for me recently. While I've got my own physical limitations to deal with, I must always be on the lookout for problems which my students and their dogs face, and they seem to have been plagued with common issues (not related to training) lately.

I teach that it is important to train a dog when the handler is emotionally and physically prepared. Otherwise, the training session can become sloppy and discouraging, the dog and the handler can be easily frustrated, or at the worst, one or the other (or both) can be hurt.

Of course, it is also important that the dog be in good health. It is easy for even devoted dog owners to miss simple problems, especially with dogs that disguise their pain well. I encourage my students to be on the lookout for tense muscles, tender joints, or sudden changes in diet, digestive health, coat condition, or temperament. Those things can signal anything from vertebral subluxation (which a chiropractic veterinarian can help remedy) to arthritis, food allergies, and thyroid malfunction.

Large breeds can sometimes show signs of hip dysplasia or back or joint issues through repetitive sit/down placements and agility training, especially if they are put to too much work at too young of an age. Daily massages and careful handling during training can help a dog owner find tender spots, muscle spasms, and pain before they become too problematic. At that point, careful handling can help a dog owner communicate to the dog that they understand what is happening and that they care. This can help build trust and respect rather than resulting in a dog that bites which certain types of touch. I've met dogs that resorted to biting because no one seemed to "listen" to what they were trying to communicate. With just a few minutes of careful handling, an experienced eye or hand can diagnose a problem and help to create a plan for healing. Of course, this is what veterinarians do.

A dog with a medical condition may show a variety of symptoms, but these must be dealt with before training can commence with fairness to the dog. Work with your veterinarian and continue with training when the dog is able to handle the physical, mental, and emotional challenges.

Now, back to humans for a moment... I've had students come to class with a variety of common injuries that delay their ability to train, but their minds are still quite able to take in some information as they plan ahead. The dogs may have to take a break from training, but it usually works out. Expecting mothers who need to get a dog trained should either have their spouse do the daily sessions first, or do the best they can with the time they have before their physical limitations put a halt to training. It is most important, however, that mothers put themselves and their children first!

Forcible Entry allowed for misdeanor charge against Dog Owner

2009-07-14T09:43:00.003-05:00

http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/forcible-entry-granted-orange-county-ca-dog-owner/

Posted here with permission from the original blogger, from link above:

SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.

It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.

IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:
“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”

What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?

Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.

This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!

It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.

SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.

TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!

And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!

Please post and forward this to everyone you know and ask your friends to pass it forward to everyone they know!!!!! We need this to be shown far and wide—pet owners who know of similar incidents are urged to contact Petdefense ASAP.

A Dog's Senses and Obedience Training

2009-06-29T13:24:00.003-05:00

A student recently gave me a copy of Temple Grandin's book, "Animals in Translation". Grandin has autism, and has helped many animals, which she seems to understand in a different way due to her unique perspective.

Grandin, according to the first chapter as I read, believes that cattle especially are visual thinkers. Because she also considers herself a visual thinker, she has been able to help cattle ranchers and slaughter house managers to make life (and death) events for cattle easier and more humane for the animals.

But what about dogs? I haven't read very far into her book, and perhaps Grandin says more about the domestic dog in her writings, but I'm speculating now anyhow. How do dogs view the world? Are they visual too?

Well, because I am a dog trainer I am expected to know a few things about how dogs think. I do know that some dogs use their eyes more readily than others. This is why we tend to classify some dogs as "sighthounds" and others "scenthounds", and I believe I have both in my own household. They do think about things in a different way.

Cesar Millan uses the developmental pathway phrase, "nose, eyes, ears". Puppies are born with eyes and ears closed, but with their nose ready to find their mother for comfort and safety and her nipples for nourishment. Later the eyes and the ears open. Millan contends that they use their senses with that same priority throughout life: nose, eyes, then ears-- scent, sight, and sound.

Recently, I visited my chiropracter as I do at least once every week, and have been for several years. I have a special relationship with his dog, as she attended my puppy classes and I helped her through daycare and some private training, as well as visiting with her in his office almost every week for most of her life.

I should add that sometime last year, I realized that she recognized me upon my arrival to his office by sound. I had a certain sunglasses case, and also a set of keys, that I would snap shut or fiddle with as I sat in the waiting area. She would often ignore other patients but come running when she heard either of those sounds. She had come to associate them with my arrival.

But this most recent event surprised me. I went to sit down at the end of the hallway, and saw her at the other end. She moseyed on up the hallway very casually, all the way to me. Then, as soon as her nose approached my hand, she leaped in surprise and joy, licking and mouthing gently as she usually does.

I was surprised because I expected her to recognize me by sight, but she didn't appear to do so until her nose caught my familiar scent. Nose, eyes, ears?

What does this mean to dog training?

Well, I know that when puppies are very young, it is important to start teaching them to come to their name when you are quite close to them, as their eyesight doesn't develop as fast as you may think.

With adult dogs, we depend on them to recognize our body language, especially hand signals, to respond to obedience training cues. We also use verbal commands to help them learn, but I have learned that dogs seem to be more attunded to body language than verbal cues. For the blind or deaf dog, training is still quite possible because the other senses can be used to teach and train. And of course, the working scent dog has brought many lost children home, many criminals to justice, prevented many crimes, and accomplished much, much more than we could do alone.

Trainers commonly use treats to lure dogs and add extra scent to articles for retrieving and other purposes. But we must be careful not to underestimate the power of every dog's nose, and thus disrespect his abilities.

I believe it is important to recognize that dogs do have better senses, at least in most circumstances, than we do. We must trust their nature, respect their talents, and use their natural abilities to help them learn what we want them to know. After all, we are trying our best to bring that special part of nature into a human-oriented enviroment. If we respect them for what they are, the reward for us can be a unique and rewarding relationship.

How Costly is BSL? New Study Claims to Know

2009-06-25T08:15:00.003-05:00

Best Friends Animal Society did some of their own calculations and determined that King County, WA could spend more than $2.5 million to enforce the law, as well as perform DNA testing, euthanasia, veterinary care, and of course handle litigations that would arise if it passed breed-specific legislation (BSL).

An article by Brenda F. Barnette, as a Special to the Times, mentions Denver as a good example of the negative numbers. In 1989, Denver banned pit bulls, but according to the Canine Research Council, there has been no difference in the number or severity of dog attacks, when compared to cities without breed bans.

Ms. Barnette writes that over the last 40 years, only 5-10% of all reported bites have been classified as "serious" regardless of whether that area had passed or enforced BSL. She goes on to promote enforcement of basic "dangerous dog" laws, which tackle the behavior of a dog rather than its breed, as well as to educate the public in basic dog bite prevention methods.

I think I like her.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2009370296&zsection_id=268883724&slug=guest23barnette&date=20090622

Ohio Dog Owners Should Be Concerned

2009-06-24T11:24:00.003-05:00

The following is a cross-posted (by permission) post by John Yates. If it looks too long to read, read the bullet points and consider the harm this would do. The date in question is Wed., June 24th (today).

Legislation Would Destroy Almost Every Ohio Kennel
Hearing Tomorrow - Act Now Or Lose It All
by JOHN YATES
American sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org asda@csonline.net

This report is archived at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=47

COLUMBUS, OH – A critical committee hearing is scheduled for tomorrow (June 24, 2009) on legislation that we believe would make it impossible for anyone to raise dogs in Ohio. The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee will take testimony on House Bill 124 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 018 of the State Capitol Building. We have heard unofficial reports that testimony on another bill may push back the hearing on HB 124 until after Noon, but this cannot be confirmed officially.

We cannot be too emphatic about the devastating nature of HB 124 and its impact on people who raise dogs in Ohio. It is very radical animal rights legislation straight from the heart of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is the political mouthpiece for this movement to gradually eliminate all animal ownership in America.

If dog owners do not act decisively and in large numbers, they will have only themselves to blame if this terrible legislation is passed into law. Immediate action is required to save the dogs that you love. No excuse is good enough for failing to act now.

Some people may think we are exaggerating and using scare tactics. We are not, and we will prove it in this report. First, we will summarize the major provisions in HB 124, and then we will provide a direct link to the actual text of this legislation so that people can read it for themselves and prove that everything we are saying is true.

Ohio dog owners have every reason to be scared – very scared! And they have every reason to be very angry because this legislation denies innocent dog owners the basic rights and legal processes that are guaranteed to someone charged with murder or rape.

You will no longer truly own your dogs if this legislation passes. They will become, in essence, wards of the state.

Here are some of the major provisions of HB 124 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 95:

· A Kennel Authority would be created to write regulations, administer the law and control virtually everything done by dog owners. The Authority's politically appointed Board of Directors would be heavily weighted toward animal rights activists. Only one person who raises dogs and one person representing pet stores would be on the Board. There is no legislative or judicial oversight over the decisions of this board.

· This committee would be given a free hand to design and implement all of the rules for kennel licensing, inspections and paperwork, as well as all construction, maintenance and management requirements.

· The board will require every kennel owner and "any other person" who sells even one dog to obtain a tax vendor number. You must pay sales tax for selling even one dog or puppy.

· Each applicant for any kind of kennel license will be subjected to a criminal background check by the state Attorney General.

· Every license applicant must post insurance or a bond to cover the state's cost of enforcing the law at the kennel.

· The Board is given a completely blank check to write "any other requirements and procedures" to define and enforce the law. People with animal rights beliefs will have total control over the lives of dog owners.

· Anyone who buys, offers to sell, sells or gives away nine or more dogs a year is intensely regulated and licensed as a dealer, which is called a "dog intermediary" in the legislation. Anyone who sells even one dog or puppy to a pet store also is considered a dealer.

· Anyone who raises more than nine litters of puppies a year, or has 40 puppies a year, must be licensed as a "breeding kennel" and subject to extremely intense regulation. For some breeds, only four litters a year could produce 40 puppies. A "breeding dog" is defined as any dog that is not spayed or neutered, regardless of the dog's actual purpose in a kennel.

· Anyone from out of state who sells a dog or puppy to an Ohio resident must document the entire history of the dog, and provide a veterinary health certificate. This will make it very difficult for Ohioans to obtain a dog from another state.

· Tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal (or the removal of any other claw) can be done only by a veterinarian. Owners no longer could dock tails of newborn puppies, as has been standard practice for centuries. Owners also could be prosecuted if a dog accidentally rips off a claw, such as when hunting.

· Kennel owners would no longer be allowed to treat even minor ailments or injuries, possibly even including parasites, which are now defined as a disease. All treatments must be done by a veterinarian.

· No one can sell a dog at any public place, which would include field trials, dog shows and other canine gatherings. All sales must be at the kennel facility.

· The state is required to inspect "any facility…upon request of a member of the public" or a public or quasi-public official. That means that animal rights activists can demand and get state inspections of the home and property of anyone who has dogs, without making or proving any allegation of a violation, and without producing proof of any kind. This will lead to continual and frightening harassment of law-abiding dogs owners by animal rights groups, and the state must respond to all requests for inspections, even if they are obviously bogus.

· Inspectors are given absolute and incontestable power to enter and inspect "any public or private property" to see if a violation of the law has occurred. There is no requirement for a search warrant or probable cause (a warrant is an option method, but is not required). Anyone who refuses to allow an inspection, or hinders it, can be assessed for the entire cost to the state to investigate and prosecute, including wages and expenses for an unlimited number of state officials.

· Any dog may be impounded if the state has probable cause to believe any violation of the law has occurred, but probable cause is not required to presented before a court, as is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. A hearing before the state agency is set within five days, and the dogs could be permanently forfeited to face adoption or euthanasia. A dog owner cannot appeal to a local court, but can appeal only to the Environmental Division of the Franklin County Municipal Court, and the kennel owner must post a bond. The state agency thus becomes the cop, prosecutor, judge and jury.

· Civil penalties ranging up to $15,000 can be imposed administratively (with no appeal) for violations, and separate penalties can be assigned for every dog in violation for every day it is in violation. Thus, a dog owner can be destroyed financially without ever getting his or her day in court, even for minor or accidental infractions.

· The state "shall deny" a license to any person who has violated any part of the law or any rule, and that includes paperwork deficiencies, accidental mistakes and minor technical errors.

· The state "shall deny" a license to anyone who "does not have the expertise or capacity to comply" with the law or regulations. That gives the state absolute power to judge the qualifications of anyone to own a dog, and no objective standards are defined. The decision is entirely subjective. There is no appeal. This also means that most poor and working class people could be denied licensure simply because they don't have enough money to meet all of the state's insatiable demands. This is a very real issue in today's troubled economy, and Ohio is among the states hardest hit by the current deep recession.

· No puppy under 12 weeks of age can be sold unless the litter is registered with the state. This essentially creates a database of every dog in Ohio, which many dog owners think will be used someday to mandate pet sterilization or ban certain breeds of dogs.

· The law provides exacting specifications for kennel sizes, construction and temperature control, and allows the Board to create even more stringent regulations. These rules effectively prohibit a dog owner from raising puppies inside his or her own home, and also effectively ban outdoor housing in the winter for most breeds of dogs (it may exclude hunting and sled dogs, but there is some ambiguity in the language) if the water cannot be kept unfrozen 24 hours a day. The use of crates to train dogs kept in a home also is effectively banned.

· Except for dogs that are continuously confined to a kennel, any dog that is found without a collar and license tag (even inside the owner's home) can be seized, sold or killed. This would appear to include puppies, as the word "dog" is not defined.

· No person or group who is licensed as a dog rescue would be allowed to breed any dogs or raise any puppies. This would destroy the breed rescue network in Ohio, as most of the participants actually raise the breed they are helping to rescue.

· And reams of time-consuming paperwork and compliance documentations would be required, and minor omissions or errors could cause a license to be denied or revoked.

It is the belief of the American Sporting Dog Alliance that the terms of HB 124 that are outlined above will combine to force almost every kennel in Ohio to close its doors. The combination of stringent rules, unreasonable liabilities and draconian enforcement measures will either result in kennels being closed by the state, or kennel owners being scared and intimidated into quitting to avoid the probability that the state would destroy their lives.

Please do not take our word for it. We want you to read this legislation yourself and form your own conclusions.

Here is a direct link to the actual text of HB 124: http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_124 . Please read it.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance regards this bill as an unconscionable perversion of the American concept of justice that shows utter disdain for the Bill of Rights, individual privacy or the concept of private property.

What You Can Do About It

Ohio dog owners are up against an array of powerful forces from the animal rights movement. They are well organized and well funded, and have been preparing for this legislation for many years.

To stop this legislation will require an outpouring of clear opposition from several thousand Ohio dog owners, and the time for it to happen is now.

If dog owners do not act in large numbers, there is a high probability that this terrible and destructive legislation will be passed into law.

Please be scared. Please be angry. Please be scared and angry enough to fight back as if your life depends on it – and it does.

Here is what you can do:

Contact the chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Rep. John Domenick (D-95) and the Minority Chair, Rep. Jeff Wagner (R-81). Faxes and written letters are the best, but this should also include a phone call or email immediately, because the hearing is tomorrow. Emails alone probably are less effective, but far better than nothing.

Here is contact information for Rep. Domenick:
Address:77 S. High St12th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6111 Phone: (614) 466-3735 Fax: (614) 719-6995 Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us

Here is contact information for Rep. Wegner:Address:77 S. High St10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-6111 Phone: (614) 466-1374 Fax: (614) 719-6981 Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us

In addition, please contact as many members of the committee that you can. Here is a link to a list of all representatives on the committee: http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=93 . Click on the name, and a page with contact information on the left side will appear.

If your own legislator is on the committee, it is urgent to contact him or her as well as the chairmen.

Even if your own representative is not on the committee, please make an effort to contact him or her as well. Most of them care deeply about your views, and need to know that large numbers of their constituents oppose HB 124.

It also would be very prudent and effective to speak directly to your representative. A group of dog owners would be very effective at meetings with legislators. Please ask your friends to help. Many legislators will be back in their own home districts at least weekly this time of the year.

Here is a list for contact information for all Ohio legislators: http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&Itemid=57 .It also would be very helpful to write letters to the editor of local newspapers, and to make sure that all of the people you know are aware of this legislation. Ask your friends to help by contacting their legislators, even if they do not own dogs. Most Ohioans will respect your right to own dogs, even if they do not own dogs themselves.If you are able to attend the hearing, please do. You can sign up to testify as well.

Also, please email this report to everyone you know. We need their help.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS