Coeur d'Lion K9's Dog News and Views

Super special report

2010-02-10T01:47:00.001-05:00

Since Facebook has deemed my personal page inaccessible from my mobile device and my mobile device is not updating; I have worked tirelessly to bring updates from "Snow-mageddon, son of Snow-pocalypse". About 9 inches has already fallen, everyone is snug in their respective beds exceptin' me and tomorrow looks like a lot of strong winds and snow. Routes 97 and 30 have been closed since around dusk. It would seem that Carroll County is getting hammered pretty bad. Hopefully I can resolve my website AND FaceBook when I wake up. Clearer heads shall prevail, clearer driveways and roads shall too. Eventually!!

The Odyssey of a Simple Task

2009-10-01T12:17:00.014-04:00

I received a call in March of this last spring from a man who lived in Tennessee. He was a War Vet who had sustained an injury while being deployed during the first Gulf War which left him without the use of his legs. He had had two previous service dogs, each assisting him for several years before each being diagnosed with illnesses that rendered them unable to continue as Assistance dogs.

He called me because of a video clip I had posted on YouTube about the Trained Retrieve, and a comment I had made on the narration about its importance in the roles of service and assistance dogs.

Occasionally, I have been known to dispense advice to Service Dog owners on how to train a specific skill, to assist in the polishing of already trained skills and to uncover potential applications of known skills to new tasks.

I do this for free.

I am particularly fond of our defenders, since our own Government does not seem willing, able or inclined to help them; I feel it is the least I can do to thank them for their service to me, my country and the sacrifices they made on my behalf. Your behalf. On the behalf of every citizen in this nation.

This caller had a problem. He needed another Service Dog, trained to assist with his particular needs and the wait through one of the recognized agencies was longer than he had time for by about two years. He wanted to know if I could help.

I took a long, deep breath. Just completing a project of trying to procure dogs for single scent detection work through a myriad of breed rescues unwilling to indenture their dogs to a life of servitude; shelters unwilling to place potential candidates in homes that did not support their version of ideal; and breeders wanting exorbitant dollars for candidates yet unproven, I, like a fool, said OK.

It is important to note that there is precious little if any financial assistance available for the procurement of Service/Assistance dogs for anyone, citizen or War Vet alike. The dogs are primarily supplied free of charge to their owners through non-profit organizations like Canine Companions for Independence and others. These organizations sustain their programs through the generous donations of the public and other private funding, but are restricted in the numbers of assistance animals they can provide by virtue of the demand far outstripping the supply of ready-trained animals.

The logistics of creating a Service/Assistance dog are incredible. First one has to find one. Most of the larger organizations breed their own, but the success rate is mitigated by health, trainability and temperament issues that change the dynamic throughout the development of any working dog. The actual training is a long and arduous process that can take many months and then finally, hopefully, successful placement of the trained dog with the right person.

Senator Al Frankin of Minnesota proposed legislation that will help make it more affordable for injured vets to obtain service dogs and will also be a part of a scientific study to measure the therapeutic effect of these animals on returning soldiers with injuries, either seen or unseen.

So, my task was made more difficult by pre-selecting a dog that not only matched my caller’s criterion, but would be suitable for the tasks she/he was intended for.

My caller wanted a Lab, preferably black, preferably female and as soon as possible.

At an age where training could start immediately.

‘As soon as possible’ ended up being over 4 months of rigorous searching and testing, climbing the same obstacles from my last barely successful search and being turned down time and time again.

She happened into my lap after an inquiry about a litter of puppies advertised through an acquaintance of mine on FaceBook, which further assures for me at least, the relevancy of Social Media.

‘She’ turned out to be a young Lab originally named Jenny, bred by Al and Margo Penke of Boundary Waters Labradors in Minnesota. Appropriately, the home of Senator Frankin.

Her first birthday was September 29^th, 2009.

Through the generosity of Al and Margo, I had a dog.

Over the course of the future, I will be updating the odyssey of “Diamond”, aka Jenny as she transforms from a marvelous, funny puppy into a mature and functional Assistance Dog.

The Hierarchy of Need

2009-10-01T10:36:00.003-04:00

For me, right NOW; it’s internet access. My business runs on it, I depend on it to stay in contact with friends, relatives and clients and I write. Not for a living, but let’s just say that the internet is at the apex of my personal needs at this very moment.

Comcast, in its infinite wisdom, shut off the internet instead of the cable.

I mean, who needs TeeVee?

I need internet and I need it now.

It’s funny how that need vacillates between things daily. Some days it’s gas, some days it’s groceries, some days it’s that unexpected visit to the vet or the doctor.

Today, it’s the stupid internet.

I have often gone DAYS without it. Weeks even. My husband and my son and the dogs all take up the best parts of my time, the internet is more often seen as a chore; an obligation that must be met. Answer that correspondence, email those contracts; mess with the website, play with the blog, research parts for my aging, decrepit truck, Rocky.

In the drudgery of the evening hours after the feeding of the dogs and the boy’s bedtime, when I can usually be caught watching “Biggest Loser”, I’m feeling like one sitting in front of the computer answering the lifeblood of my business.

And I forgot to pay the damn bill.

What an IDIOT!!!

But Comcast shut off the internet. They wanted to do something remotely, so they didn’t have to make a trip out to the house to shut it off. They were sneaky. They sent an error message to the computer so I would have to call them and find out what was wrong with my internet service.

They couldn’t even do it in person. They let their automated minions do it for them.

I innocently wait to speak to a service tech when this insidious voice crackles into my ear that my service has been terminated for non payment and if I wanted my precious internet back, then I can make a payment with a credit card blah blAH BLAHH.

Sigh, so I have to call yet another number, be charged an additional 6.00 for a telephone transaction and it will be restored. Tomorrow.

TOMORROW???

I am jonesing now.

Adventures behind the dashboard of a Ford Expedition

2009-09-28T11:33:00.011-04:00

We had grand plans for last weekend. I had purchased Motorcycle Safety Training for my husband's birthday so that we could ride together occasionally and relieve some of the monotony of being the sole employees of a small business.

Our objective was to finish the course together (I had previously gone through the training when I bought my bike several years ago) so that we could license Peter on Monday and hopefully, be looking for that second bike by the week's end.

We have friends and co-workers that ride and done safely, riding is an entertaining way to spend the precious few discretionary hours we have available, relieve a little stress and provide an alternative means of transport for at least one of us in case our only operating vehicle breaks down.

Simultaneously, my truck Rocky (our only operating vehicle), began to show some 'issues'. A ten year old Expedition with well over 200,000 hard earned miles; he was aging less than gracefully and I figured I was facing some eventual repairs.

I believe in running vehicles until their wheels fall off, reattaching them and running them some more, like until my feet fall through the floorboards.

Yes, I am cheap.

In the past, I had done much of the repairs myself as the lack of money prompted me to learn a few things about cars.

If desperation is the mother of invention, I am The Mother.

Many years have passed since the days of tuning or rebuilding my little six bangers, installing mufflers, thermostats, water pumps and changing brakes. Cars have gotten more complex and well, I have gotten a little older, occasionally have much more discretionary income to hire a trained mechanic to do it for me and (up until recently) always had an alternative means of transportation.

And since you cannot carry a dog on a motorcycle, and since my business is dog concentric, it is important to have at least one fully covered, operating vehicle that will fit at least one human and one dog, preferably in a crate.

The Rock had been problem free up until about 1oo thousand miles when some of the cylinders started to miss and a novel-to-Ford-Trucks-and-SUV's-issue with shallow spark plug holes prompted a top engine rebuild (to the tune of over 4 grand) about 3 years ago.

He got a lot of new stuff. The one thing he never recovered was adequate controlled heat. The thermostat was new, the engine was new (the top portion anyway), everything was just fine otherwise.

From a truck that had cab heat capable of initiating climate change entirely on his own, Rocky developed a small problem. From little, to absolutely no heat. The colder the weather, the less heat he had. Defroster worked. Somewhat...

Since the truck ran fine otherwise, I couldn't have cared less. Passengers in my truck were advised to dress warmly in the cooler months, and since there eventually was enough heat thrown through the firewall once you got up to speed, controlled heat became a non-issue.

Until last week, before the Motorcycle Safety Training.

On occasion, I drive to Frederick Maryland to train at Lily Pons with my friend, colleague, occasional employer and mentor, Pat No lan of Ponderosa Kennels.

On one particular occasion, I had stopped at the Starbucks Coffee on the way to the Pons when the temperature gauge spiked to ungodly levels and I pulled off to park, calling Pat as I wanted to inform him that I was going to be a little late.

He was kind enough to meet me at the Starbucks and offer his assistance; a trip across busy route 85 to the BP station for a gallon of coolant.

By the time we got back, the truck had cooled sufficiently for the gauge to read normal.

I added the coolant, looking for leaks (none, anywhere) and went my merry way.

Drive home; no problem. Several hundred miles later, no problem. Four days later, the same thing happens again.

Added coolant (still no leaks) and off I went. Like a fool trusting faith, I went to the Pons several more times without issue. Almost a hundred miles, round trip from my home each time.

I went to the grocery store last Monday and realized that I had a problem. A BIG one.

Still no leaks, but now the cab was pervaded by the stench of coolant burning off the block. The sickly sweet odor was accompanied by the powerful heat coming off the firewall when none of the vents were open. When the vents were open, I got bupkus for heat or defrost and the temperature indicator skyrocketed into the red zone.

Ugh. Heat Core. The only thing not replaced be either of the mechanics when I got the compression issues from the spark plug debacle three years ago.

I had been warned, which is why it came to mind immediately. My realtor's husband, also a mechanic; suggested it to me when I had complained about all that money spent on fixing the truck and now I had a vehicle with no heat. Since the coolant blowback had circulated throughout the engine, the likelihood was that the heat core that regulates and controls the heat for the cab was probably affected, or would be, all other things being equal (or all other things being new).

I stopped off at Schnauble's Automotive in Westminster to ask what it would cost to fix it. Several dated transmissions on news groups and list-servs had quoted some prices as cheaply as 300 or 400 dollars.

Louis Schnauble is a wonderful and honest man. When I can afford him, he is the only guy I will let touch my vehicles. He is a prince amongst mechanics, a rarity and a blessing.

Knowing that the damn thing was located next to the firewall, I doubted that it would come in at any of the prices I saw, so I asked.

A minimum of $1200.00.

For a part that costs around $50.00.

We now, officially, had a dilemma.

Right before the Safety Training, which I had planned, plotted and saved for as a present to my husband.

I could milk it for the two classroom sessions, held at night and only a few miles from home. But the Saturday and Sunday Range time on actual motorcycles was in jeopardy. I was tempting fate each and every time I drove Rocky. Anywhere.

And no other vehicles to drive. It would have been fine if I had a passenger pillion on my bike, but it is a solo seat, made for just one rider.

I told Louis I would let him know. I thought to myself that there is no way in HELL I could cough up that kind of jingle on such short notice, that it would take more than two days and I would be totally without transportation (unacceptable to a person like me, who sweats at the very prospect of not being allowed to drive) for more than a day or two and that this particular price quote was simply outrageous. Over a grand to replace a fifty dollar part?

My husband and I sat in the truck and looked at each other for a second and decided then and there that we would do it ourselves. We went to the local NAPA store for our heater core and determined that we could get it done on our own. My dilemma remained, would we do it in time for the training?

Friday is the interim break between the classroom training and the range training that started on Saturday morning. If you are late or miss any of the training, you cannot continue at all. If you go to the classroom portion, you can neither be late or miss the range portion of the training. You lose your money.

I was already in for almost 600 dollars. I would lose it if we did not complete. No excuses, no second chances.

On the other hand, if we did not get Rocky fixed, we would be without transportation, to the store, to work, to get cigarettes, anything.

We chose survival.

I had found some on-line resources for DIY'ers here and here.

Friday morning, I ran all the errands we would need to start our task except for the most important ones. I didn't get an adequate supply of either cigarettes or beer. Additional incentive to get this job done and right the first time.

Dunno about you non-smokers, but for you smokers, you know what I'm talking about. The beer was celebratory for the successful completion of our task. The cigarettes were not only to keep us sane, but to prevent us from killing each other.

So we started.

We disconnected the positive battery cable so the airbags would not accidentally deploy while we were dislodging the dashboard from the firewall. We drained the radiator and started to rip Rocky's guts out.

I had a client stop by Friday afternoon (about 6 hours into the project) who doubted our sanity, let alone our ability to actually get the job done.

The offending part is in the black box on the right of the image. It sits on the cab side of the firewall, the connectors and hoses sit on the engine side. The vast majority of our time and effort went to the installation of the heater core itself. The aspect of removing the dash and reinstalling it correctly, although time consuming, was not difficult. Wrestling that stupid core was. It took two people 14 hours with no prior mechanical training or experience beyond little DIY projects to get the whole job done. The largest chunk of time was figuring out how to get that heater core connected to the other side.

Everything is almost back together here, minus the interior console and the glove box. Total time to this point was about 13 hours.

Yes, we ran out of cigarettes. We were reduced to smoking butts until we got a reprieve from a neighbor looking to buy 8 dozen eggs just as we were finishing up. Thank God! We would have certainly perished without him! He probably would have perished had he not been bearing cigarettes!

I did lose the money I spent on the Motorcycle Safety Training, but we learned some valuable lessons and gained an immeasurable sense of pride and accomplishment.

Not that it is my intention to deprive my mechanic of an income, one which he richly deserves. I am just a dog trainer, fraught with all of the concerns a weak economy threatens. I need to conserve. So in the spirit of becoming more self sufficient, my husband and myself have decided that we will do much of these auto repairs ourselves. Next is the air ride suspension springs and bags on the rear end.

The Safety Training will just have to wait til spring!

The rains started just about the time we finished up. We didn't kill ourselves or each other and we did manage to get those celebratory beers, along with our own supply of cigarettes. I took my guys to Five Guys for dinner.

And Sunday, we returned to Valhalla where we slept and feasted.

More Chikin Tales

2009-09-28T10:55:00.005-04:00

The girls are in full production now. We are getting on the average, about 2 dozen eggs a day. Occasionally we will get two yolkers, a variety of sizes from very small;

To GARGANTUAN;

They have even been paying for their upkeep, with 8 to 10 dozen eggs a week going to friends, neighbors and co-workers for donations of a few dollars or egg cartons.

They roam the property eating bugs and grass, help with training dogs not to be rude to fowl and fertilize ground that was otherwise barren and wasted. They fertilize a lot of other places, often discovered too late by the pedestrian as they enter the house and look at the bottoms of their shoes!!

Alas, alas. My kingdom for an egg.

2009-08-16T08:46:00.002-04:00

So, it's finally happened. Our 4 month wait for the fruit of our labors.

We had our false starts. A week ago we came upon an empty shell and began combing the grounds for eggs ever since.

So here it is, our little pearl; found nestled atop the straw bales behind the pen.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Foist by my own Petard or, does this look broken to you?

2009-07-13T09:27:00.001-04:00

Countless people will snicker and laugh at my current dilemma.

For decades I extol the virtues of wearing the proper clothing for dog training, comfortable, weather appropriate clothing, closed shoes...

Yeah, about the closed shoes.

Well there really IS a reason, of which I in my arrogance clearly needed a reminder of.

Working a young, relatively weighty dog on a drag line, I was casting him to a training table and in his effort to avoid the request I smartly stood on the line with my left foot and scooped the slack with my right to urge him with a bit of leash pressure to go to the table from a distance of about 8 feet.

Super-cool maneuver as the purpose of the task was to remind the dog that my hands were free but correction can come from any source.

Having done this thousands of times before ( in appropriate shoes, of course) I was wholly unprepared for any problems for my sandaled feet.

Lo and behold, the line runs across my right toe, down below the second toe and along the tops of the remaining toes and as I pop the line to the left to take out the slack and redirect the dog; I feel a sickening snap as my toe is bent awkwardly into a position I am sure that toes are neither accustomed to, nor designed for.

Ouch. Is about all I can say.

That, and please wear appropriate shoes.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Dear Blog, Please forgive my absence...

2009-06-01T20:00:00.004-04:00

No, I am not dead, although for a few days I either thought I was going to die or actually wished for it.

I do not believe I have ever been that sick in the entirety of my life.

I also hope that I am never that sick again. Now I am left with the remnants of a sinus infection and the copious nose blowing that accompanies this time of year for me.

My chickens have grown up without me, the coop is still not built but they have grazing opportunities during the day where I can keep a watchful eye on the nest of red tails just adjacent to the property.

My girls are not dull birds, they see the shadows overhead and squawk in alarm as they run frantically to the cover of the big Alder behind the house.

The dogs are starting to settle in to the presence of the noisy, fragrant intruders with only the mildest of curiosity; my eldest, Cotton, was accosted by my largest hen when he became to curious for her liking.

He apologized humbly and distanced himself from her chicken rage.

My pup, not so much.

She thinks the birds are of the most entertaining of sorts, passing up the opportunity for a run in the long, overgrown pasture and the stream for a deliberate study of the funny looking not-ducks and how to access them.

No pictures this day, but I am sure more opportunities will avail themselves in the future.

Don't Feel Much Like Dancin'

2009-04-20T16:04:00.005-04:00

FWIW, the weather sucks here today, even after the glorious weekend and the MAJOR accomplishment of finally getting the main garden bed tilled and in the final stages of Ready. As in, for planting.

Not like it mattered much though in the long run, I'm on my fourth day of flu, my first day upright and mobile and clean past the essentials soldiers learn about in field hygiene.

But it is raining like crazy here. My freshly tilled garden looks more and more like a mud wrestling pit and my back is achin' just looking at all the goodly sized rocks that will need to be husked out of that mess before any real planting can occur.

I thank Larry for the use of his tractor and tiller. I know what's first on my Christmas list this year.

That and all the time in the world to play on it.

But I digress.

Before my fatal collapse into physical turpitude on Thursday night, I had the pleasure of working with a young lab student and was able to introduce her to her first bird work.

She really didn't want to put that in her mouth. Cute-n-fuzzy or not...

The pup's a good egg though. Clearly the hatchling is too.

Chicken Adventures

2009-04-14T11:54:00.006-04:00

Well, I finally did it. I am now the proud owner of 15 baby peeps. Five Black Australorp and ten Buff Orpington pullets.

My son likes them, my dogs wonder if they would be better served on toast or with au jus. My husband is just rolling his eyes at my most recent hair brained scheme...

The dogs slather over the stock tank with the funny noises coming out of it, my Pointer is correct in his assumption that there are birds in there, but doesn't seem to understand that I do not need them pointed out to me.

The Pug has taken a deep interest in them, not so much as a potential snack as a genuine affinity for their cuteness.

The Lab thought the stock tank was for swimming in, not raising day-old peeps. She is decidedly unimpressed. Although she thinks they look like they could be much fun.

My son has already started naming them. Omelet is the name of the biggest Buff, and Gloria is the name of the smallest Australorp. She is easily identifiable by the quantity of white on her little flight feathers and around her eyes.

The Buffs are gregarious birds, the Australorps are rather shy and reserved, although they are warming up to the physical handling they recieve daily.

For such little things, they sure do eat a lot. And poop a lot. Fellow blogger Heather Houlihan alerted me to the consequences of paste and how to remedy it's appearance, so I was cleaning peep poos instead of supervising dog poo for their first few days here.

All are well now, eating, drinking and pooping merrily.

They will be living in their new digs as soon as construction is complete. More pictures to follow.

Eventually, they will be joined by about 25 Cornish rocks for the freezer.

More Poo Chronicles... or "Don't You Die on MY WATCH!"

2009-04-08T10:07:00.011-04:00

It's not that I am overly fascinated by poo. As a matter of course, I am pretty repulsed by it.

I have become a wizard of the poop scoop 'flick' that can get even the most difficult or sticky poo off the ground and into the scoop shovel. Long grass and putty poo? No problem. Syrupy straining from stressed pups? Gotcha. I wholeheartedly prefer the easy, firm little turds of healthy, happy dogs, but occasionally, well... I don't get my way.

More disgusting yet; I scrutinize poop. I look at it closely. It is a harbinger of physical condition for it's donor and a quick screening can determine a lot about it's donor's health.

Although poop is good, no poop can also be a sign of trouble too. Especially if your poopee is a 'regular'.

In a previous blog I had written about the 'stuff' that dogs eat and the anguish that accompanies the 'passage' of said stuff.

I had 4 Residency Training dogs here at one time for being consummate consumers of stuff. For days, I leash walked these critters many times a day, each and every outing so I could do two things:

A) Be assured that they didn't eat more stuff

B) Be assured that what remaining stuff they had consumed prior to their residency was passed successfully.

I am not surprised at neither the quality or quantity of stuff I retrieve with my sooper pooper scooper the first few days of a dog's residency.

Most recent in the news is a dog who consumed about $400.00 and successfully passed it, much to his owners dubious delight.

I was not willing to determine the denomination of the pale green bills that were excreted by one of my recent guests. I guess I would have if I saw a few zeroes on what remained of the corners.
It may have been worth my while. But, then again....

One of my charges, the second half of a team of Labradors (like no-one saw THAT coming) came for his residency once he was released from the vet after his obstruction surgery over 3 weeks ago.

His owner was concerned that four days after his surgery, he was allowed to access a squeaky toy and yup, you guessed it; was able to eviscerate the toy and ingest the plastic bladder that makes the noise.

The owner was away at the time of the incident and the pet-sitter who was in charge of the dog dutifully took him to his surgeon over the weekend to x-ray the abdomen and see if they could find it.

They saw a staple from his most recent surgery but it looked like the plastic squeaky bladder was at the mouth of the small intestine and it was anticipated that the plastic bladder would 'pass' without assistance.

The sitter took that as a good-enough-for-her answer and returned the dog to his home.

The owner relayed this story to me when she dropped him off for his training with assurances (to the best of her knowledge) that the dog had in fact, passed the plastic bladder. She could not be positive however, as she was not there the weekend of the incident.

Goat Belly II (GBII) came in on the day his house mate, Goat Belly I, left. That will be 14 days ago tomorrow.

GBII settled in nicely, ate well, relieved himself with great regularity with nice healthy little ploops that you could have used as golf balls; grass free, debris free, money free, tylenol bottle bits free. Honest-to-goodness nice poop.

He settled into the training well, learned to "leave it!" and "out!" as well as the requisite obedience training that occurs here. His bowels remained tight and regular.

That is until Sunday night.

My husband took him out for his last ex of the evening and commented frustratedly on his spirited attempts at eating large clumps of the new grass that dot our landscape. "Leave it", "Out" and "DAMN YOU, STOP IT"!! were unsuccessful. He ended up hauling the dog back to the house, all the while trying to control his sudden voracious appetite for our grass.

I offered him water, put him in his crate and within minutes, he proceeded to demonstrate exactly how far an adult male Lab can spew his dinner across my dining room floor. He was fine otherwise. I cleaned him up, mopped my floor and kept a close eye, but his posture was normal, he was comfortably curled up in his crate, alert and fine. He has passed a normal stool earlier which I made my husband point out for me to scrutinize.

I was concerned, but not alarmed.

Monday morning, our routine remained much the same. I took out the small dogs, fed the breakfast eaters and watered them as they all returned from their morning constitutionals.

GBII had a nonproductive outing (odd, I thought. He always goes in the AM) refused his breakfast (Labs on their death beds still eat) and with only a tiny bit of water made available to him, proceeded to repeat the events of the night before. Resplendent plumes of gritty bile across my hardwood floors, only about 6 feet this time as opposed to the entirety of it's 15 foot length.

I called the owner, I called the vet, we were on our way within 30 minutes.

An exray revealed a vaguely familiar shape in the colon, well on it's way to the rectum.

Finally.

After 18 days, Goat Belly II finally passed his last artifact.

Of Interest to Anyone who Eats Food

2009-04-07T09:38:00.007-04:00

I was cruising my favorite blogs and came across this from the VIN News Service.

I am in direct opposition to H$U$ and think they are the Devil's Spawn but at the same time, I have some pressing concerns about the Nation's food supply.

Other blogs have addressed this better, addressing the discussion to pet food products with a caveat that the food supply in this country feeds us all. Human and animal alike. A Google search for pet food recall or contaminated food conjures up list after list, page after page, of food products that are additives or whole source foods for humans too.

Agri-business has much to atone for with the recent outbreaks of salmonella in the human food supply, from greens to nuts, including my absolute fave, pistachios.

Aw, nuts!

Who can forget the huge expose' on the pet food industry only a few years ago? Some news services considered the public outcry an "overreaction". You know, like, it's just pets and all... So a few people died. Who cares!!

My concern is that it is beginning to appear with a sinister regularity in our headlines. What people are simply failing to understand is that the affected foodstuff is impacting the consumer supply for every domestic animal and human in the nation.

So where does this alarming and remarkable article from VIN fit?

Lifted directly from the article:

"Veterinarians spend their lives promoting the well-being of animals. Yet at the same time, activists appear to be guiding America’s attitudes on animal welfare, experts say, working to erode veterinary medicine’s authority on the topic and divide the profession."

With a correction to it's authors; H$U$ and PeTA have no interest in 'animal welfare'. It is all about animal rights.

An example of this from the article:

"While the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) carefully weighs scientific evidence to establish opinions on what’s in the best interest of animals, HSUS and its cohorts are preening their message, using emotion to drown out the more moderate voice of organized veterinary medicine."

There is not a lot of consensus over this or any topic that has more than one set of "experts". Large animal vets are accused of being deep in the pockets of agri-business while small animal vets endorse more humane practices for animals raised as food.

I am on two sides of this argument:

I could give a rat's arse about agri-business; they have done more to destroy the fabric of the family owned and operated farms and homesteads (of which I am a product) in favor of mass producing a food supply whose very existence endorses dubious practices in husbandry and safety for the consumers of their products.

So. Does the H$U$ have a point? Sure it does. But should they be the ones dictating the practices of agri-farms and food producers?

H$U$ suggests that animals raised for food should be kept in a more 'natural state', enabling them to pasture in open areas, be able to move about freely without restraint. Opposition contends that "...such mandates merely trade one set of welfare concerns for another. Animals housed in open systems are more vulnerable to disease, parasite infestation and injury due to aggressive pen-mates. The system also makes it more difficult track an animal’s medical health and care, AVMA officials contend."

So, who's right?

The real fear is the ultimate agenda: "... those who liken HSUS to “PETA-light extremism” fear the organization’s fingerprints on agriculture housing bans are a precursor to the group’s ultimate agenda — to end animal ownership and remove meat from the diets of Americans."

Jack Advent, OVMA executive director stated, “What we do know is that if there is no dialogue, HSUS has stated that they will simply collect the signatures they need to go to the ballot where the electorate will decide on the issues. We don’t want to close the door to something like legislation, which could be far more palatable than what might be on a ballot initiative.”

H$U$'s strategy has clearly demonstrated superiority in the devious department. They have successfully created strategies by targeting communities with a small agricultural footprint where opposition would not be significant, coupled with their appeals directly to the public instead of through introducing legislation which would have likely been opposed by lawmakers and/or lobbyists.

The article states "In 2002, voters in Florida — one of 24 states that allow for citizen referendum — became the nation’s first to enact a ban on swine gestation stalls after HSUS waged a two-year publicity campaign and gathered more than 600,000 signatures to get the issue on the ballot. Five years later, Arizona voters outlawed gestation stalls by 2012. It reportedly cost Arizona's agriculture groups roughly $1.6 million in a failed bid to combat the HSUS message. Both states have very little in terms of swine operations."

Wow, huh?

California's Prop 2 passed in November with over 63% of the vote, which analysts say will devastate "... the future of the state’s egg industry, and many hope that a bill currently playing out in the state Legislature will level the playing field for California’s producers by imposing free-range requirements on eggs imported from other states."

Peter Weber, executive director of the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association is relieved that similar legislation proposed in Illinois failed in February, stating that "It was abundantly clear that this bill plays to people’s emotions. There just isn’t the science to back the need for it.”

The veterinary community's decidedly neutral stance is pretty ominous. Their inability to come up with a plan of their own allows for H$U$ to intervene where they truly have no business. That the system needs to be changed is not really the issue. It has been clear for years that it does.

The USDA's inability to adequately police agri-business lends itself to reform. A more proactive role in the safety of our food supply is necessary to assure it "fit for consumption".

Food is big business, for ourselves and our animals. The two are related. There is not a lot of oversight in the pet food market and precious little effective oversight in the human consumer markets.

Legislation is becoming increasingly restrictive in the production of low-cost food for consumers allowing the slow food and locavore movements to gain momentum. By providing attractive alternatives to agri-business and the food/animal controversy, a locally produced food source encourages consumers to take a more proactive role in policing their own food supply.

It has a far healthier impact on local economies as well and promotes a broader concern for the welfare and safety of our consumer goods.

Sometimes the old ways are best. Supporting the production of locally raised food products has been a cultural icon of the United States since the beginning of our country's history. Only since the return of the soldiers from WWII has agri-business forced small family owned farms to surrender to a greater demand for goods and monopolized the production of food for the nation.

The government subsidizing of growing 'more, faster' has had a profound impact on our safety, our health and the sustainability of our food supply. With the depletion of the aquifers in the Midwest, we face a far greater danger as the agri-businesses loose their ability to maintain high volume production for a teeming nation of fast food consumers.

It is within our ability to make a statement about our concern for the food we feed not only our animals, but ourselves and our children. At the same time, the dictatorial practices of H$U$ is clearly not the way. In order to preserve our rights as consumers and suppliers we must take a more active role in the production of our food supply.

There has got to be a better way.

Trolling for Puppies: The TRUTH??? To be filed under Gimme a $%^& Break

2009-03-19T12:23:00.007-04:00

Grand Opening of Woof Worx in Los Angeles features animal shelter rescued pups. Purebreds no less.....

In their sincerest belief that they are providing assistance to "puppy mill dogs" and shelters purportedly overrun with unwanted pets, they are offering purebred puppies for sale, er 'adoption' through a sanctioned pet store.

A Puppy-Store-Free LA's tag-line "...is to end the sale of puppies at pet stores in L.A."

But it's OK if they do it, right?
___________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from the article follow, anything within the parentheses are mine.

"Eight months ago, Best Friends LA launched A-Puppy-Store-Free LA to stop pet stores from selling puppies because, sadly, that doggie in the window comes from a puppy mill. Not only is this a heartbreaking situation for the dogs being forced to breed in deplorable conditions, but for the new pet parents, as well."

(Sadly, there is still a doggie in the window, but this one is BETTER because you are SAVING it from the horrors of being sold in a pet store. Do you honestly think that the source is any different or any better for these pups? What is THEIR source for dogs? Have they started their own captive breeding program???)

"A puppy purchased from a pet store can cost up to $1,500. More often than not, these sweet new additions have congenital disorders and may die with in the first two years of life due to inbreeding and unhealthy living situations. Few families can afford the thousands of dollars on unexpected vet bills and many puppies are surrendered to shelters, where they are euthanized or wait in vain for a new home. Most never get that second chance."

(But a puppy purchased, er 'adopted' through us is an endorsement of our belief that all breeders are bad and that our pet shop is different and somehow better than other pet shops. Cuz we sell designer pet clothes and green products, and and and, puppies!!! Yeah. Ok. Uh Huh? But few families can afford the undisclosed vet costs for unforseen events from your puppies either, can they? Or have you specifically selected for genetic defects in your shelter dogs and screen for congenital defects in your neonates and follow the most astringent health conscious protocols available? I want to see a guarantee that the buyers, uh, 'adopters' of your pound pups are contractually bound to return the dog to YOU if something goes wrong. What't that? As an agent of the shelter who provides your product, you can't make such a guarantee? Indeed. And you are better than the Hunte Corp and PetLand how?)

"Best Friends has been hard at work to find an alternative, and collaborated with Woof Worx (formerly Pets of Bel Air) on the idea to sell wonderful, healthy, purebred puppies that come from local shelters. For a mere fraction of what it would cost at a traditional pet store, people can adopt one (or more) of these dogs, support a business that’s doing the right thing, and save a life."

(An ALTERNATIVE? Are you nutz? Wonderful, healthy purebred puppies from WHERE? Where are the local 'shelters' getting them from? Oh, oh Sorry I forgot! From the confiscation of animals by the new ordinances being passed like wildfire in your state and others thanks to our pals at H$US. For a 'mere fraction' of the cost at a traditional pet store! YOU ARE A TRADITIONAL PET STORE!!! Adopt my ass. Buy. Face it. You offer a commodity and people are paying you MONEY for that commodity. But of course, under the protection of the law that should come as caveats for anyone falling for this bunk. What is your guarantee that these pups will not fall victim to congenital defect, hereditary defect, communicable disease or die by the age of two? Are you going to take them back? Are you going to pay for their vet care when it is discovered that your product is as defective as PetLand's? What is the recourse for the consumer, er, 'pet parent'? Adopt one or more? What happens if one gets returned at say, 4 or 5 months old because it is a behavior issue or the owners are 'moving' or whatever the lamest excuses that shelters usually get. What then? Where do the puppies go? Hold on a minute there Nelly, in a community that is endorsing the limitation of pets owned by it's citizens, are you actually telling me that your employees are going to do 'home visits' and all that? Riiiiiiiiight..... And the save-a-life thingy. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me.....)

"Jamie Katz, owner of Woof Worx, proudly opened the doors last weekend to over 150 supporters of this new concept. Veggie hors d’oeuvres and wine were served at the beautiful, high-end pet store in the heart of Bel Air."

(I bet she was proud. Came up with a really good way to make money, uh, stay in business, er help the plight of puppy mills being sold in pet stores and make it look like she was doing something good for the community. To 150 supporters no less. At the beautiful, high end PET STORE in the heart of Bel Air!!! Who is buying this crap? Are the people of this Nation so indoctrinated that they can no longer see the forest for the trees?)

"Available dogs were there to celebrate their new lives, as well. This is not a typical store where puppies are kept in cramped confinement on newspaper or plastic flooring. Think of it as an indoor dog park. The puppies had toys, individual soft beds, even an indoor pet potty. A comfy couch is in the puppy room for anyone who wants to get acquainted with their potential new family member or just be covered with puppy kisses."

(Available dogs are everywhere, like at traditional shelters who could really benefit from this kind of BS PR. This is not a typical store. OK, then mandate that all pet stores, just like your pet store, are as wonderfully equipped. Tell me. After operating hours, where are all the dogs housed and how are they cared for? Is there someone there to clean up after the potential family members overnight and on days where the shelter, uh, non puppymill supplied pet store is closed? Lemme guess, they are 'free range' in the indoor dog park.)

“We are so thrilled to be partnering with Jamie Katz, the owner of this beautiful store, and to support her in her efforts,” says Elizabeth Oreck, BFLA manager. “We truly believe that traditional pet stores that sell dogs from puppy mills will soon be a thing of the past, and that a store like Woof Worx will become a national model for cities all across the country."

(Oh I bet! Especially that part about traditional pet stores being a thing of the past, since yours will represent a new age income stream because instead of your product coming from puppy mills or from unscrupulous dealers who will find a way to continue to supply the new niche you have just created, it will be stocked with purebred puppies born...where? Are shelters going to start their own breeding program for purebred dogs? Gonna have to if HSUS has it's way and effectively shuts down hobby breeders who actually care about the quality, health and longevity of the animals they create.)

“This is not only a great way to showcase rescued animals who need homes, and to help lower the number of dogs and cats in our drastically overcrowded shelters, but an opportunity to educate the public about animal welfare issues. And we are so grateful to Jamie for taking that leap and being willing to show the rest of the country that a successful pet store can be modeled on compassion rather than cruelty.”

(A better way would be to stop offering purebred puppies and bring adult shelter dogs of ANY breed or mix of breeds and sell, uh, adopt them instead!! Drastically overcrowded shelters? C'monnnnn! Stop importing dogs from the islands, overseas and focus on the ones in your own back yard!!! And besides we all know that shelter population numbers are an amalgam of both cat and dog numbers when in fact the cat populations outstrip dog populations in shelters 3 to 1.*
Thanks for making a cunning business decision and finding a way to keep the doors open and showing the rest of the country how to game the system and still make a profit!! Sure the store is nice, with all of the high-end Californication trappings of wealth and do-goodery, but thanks for admitting that it's still a pet store.)

Katz was an employee of Pets of Bel Air when BFLA began its peaceful protests.

“I always knew in my heart that selling puppies this way was wrong,” she says. “I’m a huge animal lover and advocate of animal welfare.”

(And probably had really good grades at business school)

Katz acquired the store when the original owner of Pets of Bel Air lost his lease, due in part to Best Friends’ protests.

(Whalp, waddya know? And this was on her own capital or through funding of BFLA?)

"Jennifer Krause, puppy mill campaign coordinator, thanked all the volunteers, supporters and Jamie. “This is a huge victory, and we couldn’t have done without them. Jamie just gets it.”"

(Why Shore it is, for all of the MBA's in business, let this be your model.)

____________________________________________________________________

Here's the thing. I hate pet stores that sell pets, and I hate the suppliers who provide them with product at such considerable cost and sacrifice to living, breathing animals.

I also hate duplicity and being wanked by the absolute bullshit that surrounds a campaign by those who allegedly (new favorite word) are in it for the animals.

I hate that the gubmint is trying to dictate to me the number of animals I am allowed to own, that they have bits and pieces that are their birthright and that this movement is being endorsed by people who claim to have the best interests of animals at heart.

Many questions emerge:

1) Who is supplying this new demand for purebred dogs if all of the breeders are put out of business and shelters are advocating spay and neuter for every animal that crosses their doorsteps?

2) Dogs are going to be the new crack cocaine if this comes to pass. How can this organization reconcile the belief in an overpopulation problem and turn around and endorse the continued sale of purebred dogs in pet stores? I would LOOOOOOOOOVE to have seen THIS business model!!!

3) Why can't they make this believable, even palpable, by just creating a storefront in affluent areas to elevate the consciousness of the wealthy elite to the plight of dogs of every stripe, not just purebreds, not just puppies?

4) What do you think is going to emerge from this new business model?

*Statistically, this figure bears out across the nation. Stray cats comprise the largest single number in shelter populations for both animals housed and animals euthanized. But we are dealing with California here, so I am using a California statistic. More info can be had here.

The question arises about the actual accuracy of supplied numbers from a variety of recognized sources. Usually the number of animals in a shelter is defined as dogs AND cats as opposed to dogs, then cats. Statistics can be parsed to say anything and should be viewed with concern for their accuracy in accounting for the segregation of the total numbers.

Defining Dogs

2009-03-19T11:23:00.016-04:00

Here goes a tongue-in-cheek look at definitions created by the culture of dogs:

There is a Great Divide in dogs today. The interpretations below are based on the context of their use through the ages, dating back many decades wherever dogs and humans found themselves together.

In his book 'Fetch and Carry; A Treatise on Retrieving' by Bernard Waters (circa 1894) the argument was much the same. I can remember these discussions way back in the late '60's and 70's when I acquired my very first dog; an Irish Setter from a renowned breeder in my area. My brother and I hunted over this dog and his successors for years, something that would not be thought of today, with all that hair, with none of those brains...

Working Dog: a dog that has a job, like hunting, retrieving, scent detection, protection, stock work (more commonly called herding), Service and Assistance dogs, Search and Rescue, even diagnosing human ailments. Working dogs are traditionally bred to a purpose-specific task; their parents were Working dogs as were 90% or more of the animals represented in their pedigree.

They are genetically endowed with qualities that make it easier to teach them their life tasks since they have a genetic predisposition to do so. Working dogs can be but may not be purebred. They are often recognized by performance registries where the emphasis is not on racial purity, but in the ability to perform a specific task well.

Show Dog: a dog that may or may not originally have been bred for a task-specific purpose, is the product of breeding practices that are more focused on looks than performance to a specific task, may be attractive in the way Paris Hilton is attractive (pleasant to look at but vacuous and not a serious contributor to anything of real value), but are considered useless by Working Dog standards.

An occasional Show Dog may in fact be a Working Dog, but it does not occur with the regularity that it had in previous, even recent, generations. Some Show Dog breeders think that their Show Dogs are as competitive in working dog venues as intentionally bred Working Dogs, but they are truly not. Show Dog breeders adhere to a principal of function following form where Working Dog breeders adhere to the principal of function above all.

Show Dog people thing Working Dogs are ugly. Working Dog people thing Show Dogs are genetic cesspools and stupid. Show Dogs are always purebred, are recognized by purebred dog registries, are judged on the merit of their looks as conforming to a written standard overseen by parent breed clubs and giant registries like the American Kennel Club.

Pet Dog: can be a Working Dog, can also be a Show Dog, but is often heard as a term of derision from Show Dog communities who consider a 'pet dog' to be of little value and of less genetic quality. The Pet Dog is often a dog acquired for the purpose of 'being a pet' or companion to humans in a human environment, like a home.

Pet dogs can serve many purposes, are often recognized for incredible acts of heroism and bravery and there are approximately 70 million of them throughout the United States. (based on a census where the collected statistics were generated through the tracking of license purchases and subsequent registrations of individual ownership from reporting communities across the nation. It is not an accurate number of owned dogs, it is simply a numeric sampling of licensed dogs). Pet dogs outnumber Working or Show dogs, since most people just want A Dog, not a specialty dog.

Purebred pet dogs are the byproduct of what Author Donald McCaig calls "Victorian Excess".

Either way, there has grown a colossal market for the production of purebred dogs for a consumer market and most recently for 'designer breeds' of dogs who have been successfully marketed as somehow superior to purebreds.

Pet Dogs can come from many sources; Show Dog breeders really don't breed as many litters as some people would have you believe, but they supply more pets to the Pet Dog buying market than they do Show Dogs to the show dog buying market. Since it is not that easy to breed a Champion Show Dog, many breeders breed for years in pursuit of anatomical perfection with limited success.

Historically, there are very few multi-Champion litters of any breed, so the numbers of pet dogs produced from Show Dog litters is proportionately higher than pet dogs from Working Dog litters, which are known to produce proportionately higher numbers of Working Dog prospects than Show Dog litters are for producing Champion Show Dog prospects.

Got that?

A pet pup from a Show Dog litter is no guarantee of soundness, smarts or working ability, and the only thing you can be assured of is that they look like the breed they are supposed to represent. That is not to say that there are not good, versatile Show Dog breeders; there are. I have had several successful working dogs from Show Dog breeders who were judicious in their selection process of sires and dams, genetically screened all of their breeding stock and had a variety of genetic wells from which to dip from, either domestically or from overseas; preventing the genetic bottleneck that occurs with a lot of dog breeds that are over-bred (through popularity, which is the death knell for all breeds) and heavily used individuals (Popular Sire syndrome). There is a number of Sporting dogs who can still successfully fulfill the task of their original conception and purpose over other traditional working breeds, but these numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Although a pup acquired from Working Dog blood is no guarantee that he has what it takes to fulfill his original intent, Working Dogs produce working pups with high energy levels and a keen desire to work. Not all working bred pups will end up as working adults, but the percentages of carefully planned Working Dog litters yield more working capable dogs than the most carefully bred Show Dog litter yields Show Dog Champions.

A pup from a Working Dog litter is a better guarantee of soundness, smarts and working ability, and the one thing you can be assured of is that they perform like the breed they are supposed to represent. There is a disproportionate number of 'Working' and 'Herding' breeds of Show Dogs who are incapable of fulfilling the task of their original conception and purpose over individuals bred exclusively to purpose, and these numbers are growing rapidly.

True Working Dog breeders produce the lowest average numbers of puppies overall, breeding only to incorporate new blood into already successful breeding programs and to replace their aged working dog with a new pup. They are careful how they breed and how they place their puppies.

So where does one get a 'pet'?

There are a variety of places to get a dog, but first one must define what (s)he wants in a dog.

If you absolutely must get a 'Designer Dog', please be careful that you are selecting a pup from a breeder who has seen past the dollar and is selecting sires and dams that are genetically clean of the diseases that are inherent for their respective breed(s). Junk bred to junk will produce more junk, no less so than in purebred dog populations. Just because it has a hefty price tag, it is no guarantee of quality or soundness.

If you must have a purebred dog, the same rules apply. Research the breed and look for breeders who certify their breeding stock against the diseases that each and every breed is predisposed to. It is not so much that there are Champions in the pedigree, it is more important that the breeder is conscientious enough to carefully select good breeding partners who are genetically 'clean'. Expect to pay more. Careful breeders are more concerned with where their pups end up and maintain a responsibility for the pups long after they leave the whelping box.

If you have decided to graze a couple hundred head of sheep, are a policeman looking for your next K-9 partner or an avid hunter looking for the premier hunting companion to take afield, look to breeders who's breeding programs reflect excellence in performance in those events. Purposefully bred working dogs are not easy to breed, nor are they easy to come by. Increase your success rate of getting the dog you want by looking in the right place to begin with.

Thoughtful breeding always produces good dogs, whether they are Show Dogs, Working Dogs or just pets.

You increase your likelihood of finding a good dog if you research before you buy. Talk to professionals, like Groomers, Pro Trainers, kennel boarding facilities for input on what the 'easy keeper' breeds are.

Stay away from breeders who sell on the internet. Although an internet presence is often a means to view many of the dogs a breeder has produced, good sites don't offer dogs for sale through the site and will require you to contact them directly before any purchase is possible. Visit a couple of breeders in your area. Although many breeders do have stud dogs, most conscientious breeders will more often opt to breed their bitches to dogs from other breeding programs to enhance bloodlines they already have.

You should ALWAYS be able to see the dam of the litter and although she may be protective of her brood, look to see that she is well cared for and in good weight. If the sire is from another area, ask to see pictures, look online for awards he may have received or if possible, view video clips of him at work or in the ring. Through the popularity of the internet, much can be learned from databases created by many breed or performance dog clubs and as a result, massive online resources are available.

There are always shelters and breed rescues local to you as well. If you are looking for a pet, but are not interested in the commitment a puppy requires, there are always local alternatives for older dogs and even purebred dogs through these sources. Every dog is entitled to a good home and if you are willing to acquire a pet through a shelter or breed rescue, you would be amazed at the variety of animals available through these alternatives.

Extreme Sheep Herding

2009-03-19T08:23:00.003-04:00

Stole the idea from a colleague and hijacked it from YouTube to bring it here.

This is a laugh riot!

Superfluous Act of Reconciliation

2009-03-18T11:30:00.011-04:00

I played a little, teeny tiny role in the success of National Geographic Channel's Dog Whisperer show.

It's time I atone.

Although many, in fact whole organizations, may lay claim to first allegiance, it was in fact I and a little correspondance I intercepted that started a whole chain of events that led to the eventual airing of the show, and it's continued success on the air.

Some people will hate me for this.

Some people will thank me for this.

Most people will go on blissfully unaware or unwilling, to acknowledge my role in the success of the Dog Whisperer show.

But it's all there. Any current member of the International Association of Canine Professionals on or about August 2004 should remember or anyone with access to their Yahoo Groups archives can look up a post by me directed to the SafeHands list on the 26th of August under my ALCOEUR email address. (message 19801)

I'm not a gold digger, nor do I care that the success of the show has marched largely on without me; I was a successful, full time Professional Dog Trainer prior to my involvement with either the IACP or the subsequent association of Cesar Millan and the IACP, and will continue to be so long after my association with either party is at an end. One hopes anyway.

But in the interest of the genesis (my new favorite word besides 'ostensibly') of this post and the last five years of angst over the Dog Whisperer show and Cesar Millan specifically, here is the post I sent to National Geographic's website after intercepting a rather threatening consortium who had tasked themselves with the mission of not having the show air at all.

(My outrage was not from their allegiance to any one method or dog training philosophy, but their unadulterated willingness to eviscerate our constitutional right to free speech and the freedom of expression.)

Here it goes, before it is lost forever:

"I applaud your efforts to provide a demonstration of dog training on the National Geographic channel. I am sure that by the time you read this post, you have already been inundated with posts from around the globe from a faction of people alleging that what you will be televising is 'old fashioned', 'unscientific', 'cruel' and possibly even potentially dangerous to both dogs and
humans. Although I myself have neither seen the teasers for this show nor excerpts, I assure you that after almost 30 years of working with dogs, including dangerous ones, and using a variety of methods, I doubt that you would display something over the airwaves that poses a threat to canines or humans.

In an oversimplified view of their world, where most of their practical dog training experience comes from working with perhaps their own pet dog and a lot of books, they have limited scope on the reality of dog training, and what it may take to achieve success with a non compliant, difficult dog. 'They' being the collective 'Positive only' dog training camp who utilize only two of the four learning quadrants all animals employ. Although science is a convenient way to attach nomenclature to an activity or behavior, what it fails to do successfully is to take out of the laboratory or the book and successfully apply that nomenclature to a practical, real life experience.

Positive dog training should mean successful dog training, but the very term has acquired a life of it's own, demeaning the application of methods that are both ageless and timely. Ageless, since no living thing can survive successfully without consequence, as your specials on animals living both domestically and in the wild have shown us, and timely because by the time a professional
trainer gets a call for someone's wayward pet, that dog has achieved inappropriate levels of disobedience that the owner wants resolutions to immediately.

For the numbers of pet dogs in the world today, there are infinite ways to train them, all depending on the nature of the dog, the behavior one is trying to extinguish, age of onset, and a whole host of other variables that need be taken into consideration.

Traditional training methods are traditional because they work. The methodology invoked requires skill and are often misaligned by the Positive only camp as cruel because they have never seen them demonstrated correctly, if at all. To intimate that they are potentially harmful is an excuse for this inappropriate use or demonstration. Take for example the words "choke collar". It's proper use is slip or training collar. It has one application, is worn by the dog in one specific fashion, and is the most maligned article of equipment in the dog training trade today. How it acquired it's malicious use as a 'choke collar' is simple. When applied incorrectly, it does not release automatically, nor would it if it is fitted incorrectly.

By virtue of it's simplicity, it can only be used one way successfully. So, instead of the trainer invoking it's usage incorrectly being the target for education, all training collars are 'bad' and should never be used.

A 'correction' is another term that is not only misunderstood, but horribly misapplied in the context of the new vernacular. To 'correct' a dog physically is harmful, causing stress and emotional trauma. In nature, consequences drive survival. if a wild animal cannot learn from it's failures, it is doomed.

Take for example some of the wild canidae.

As a collective unit, known as a pack; they seek, drive and bring down large game.

The social hierarchy determines who eats first, who mates first, who sleeps where. If a wolf is driven from the pack, as is often the case of adolescent males, they must learn to survive without benefit of the assistance of the pack. Their own unsuccessful attempts either make them better hunters, or drive them to starvation. Discomfort is a part of natural life, for humans and animals.

What better correction to a toddler who accidentally touches something very hot. The parent may have reprimanded the toddler verbally to stay away from a hot surface or item, but curiosity is often the best teacher as the toddler equates the words "don't touch, it's HOT!" to the burning sensation on his fingertips as he reached for the iron or stove top.

Much is the same with dogs. A correction can be as simple as a verbal reminder, "NO!", or a snap on a correctly applied training collar. It is an attention getting aide to assist in communication between two species. Teaching "human" to a dog is far more time consuming than teaching "dog" to a human.

With the advent of electronic training devices, this communication occurs even more readily between the two, and has even wider applications for the training of dogs previously determined to be "beyond training".

I am sure there are dozens of "trainers" who have no skill in the correct application of either traditional training equipment or methods who have done more harm than good. They have besmirched an honorable profession that is still in it's infancy. There are precious few of us who support ourselves exclusively as "Dog Trainers".

We could only do that continuously if we provided a product (training) that was both successful and satisfactory to both dog and owner. I seriously doubt that if we, the collective Professionals who actually sustain ourselves as trainers to the pet owning public, were to beat, choke, kick or otherwise abuse dogs, would survive successfully as trainers.

In a society where the 'management' of dogs is preferable to the training of dogs is a horrible injustice to both dogs and their owners. What a person wants in a pet is the nostalgia of a 'boy and his dog" from years gone by. The comfort of a family pet, protector and friend who is a pleasure and a joy to live with. It is a blatant disservice to so noble a relationship as the one we
share with our first friend, the dog.

National Geographic enjoys a storied history of worthy publications, information and photographs that have enlightened generations of people from around the world. Although as I watch this program, I may not agree with everything applied by Mr. Milan, I am certain you will reach millions of people who would otherwise not seek professional help when they witness what training their pet can accomplish.

Thank you, and many more successful years of education and entertainment to you.

_________________

What really surprised me whas when I got a response from one of their Executives, Michael Beller later that afternoon:

Dear Linda,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this series. We appreciate your support. You will be hearing more from us soon, but in the meantime I wanted to ask how you heard about the series and the controversy. Are there websites where this is being discussed? For a program that has not even aired yet, it certainly is generating some heated debate. We hope you'll watch and continue to support the series.

Please do not share my e-mail address with anyone, I would prefer all comments to continue come in through the comment site. But I wanted to give you my address if you would be so kind as to respond to my questions about the source of the debate Thank you.

Regards,

Michael Beller

_____________________

So I responded.

The original email is lost, however I distinctly recall activities on one of those inane listservs that populate the internet on pets and behavior. I was also party to some indiscreet conversation amongst some 'trainers' regarding the series, the star and the messages it may convey to an unsuspecting public.

My email was then forwarded by Mr Beller to a gentleman named Russell Howard who contacted me via phone later that same afternoon.

__________________________

Here is my report to the IACP SafeHands list:

"Mr. Beller forwarded my email to Russell Howard, Executive VP of
Communications in Washington, DC.

He called me yesterday evening and we spoke at length about the training industry and the complicated issues surrounding the "positive only" factions and those of us who consider themselves "balanced trainers".

I had provided both Mr Beller and Mr Howard for the websites of IACP and NADOI so they could read the Position Statements of both organizations. I also provided a bit of background information on the formation of IACP and APDT, and where a lot of the difficulty between the two lie. I also provided the web address for the APDT, in all fairness.

It IS an issue of censorship, amongst other things, but the primary hope of the National Geographic executives, in defense of their program choice and subject matter follows in Mr. Howard's email to me as follow up of our conversation."

_______________________

And here THAT is:

"Hello Linda,

It was good talking with you earlier.

We very much appreciate your support for our upcoming series "The Dog Whisperer" and your insight on the balanced vs "positive-only" dog training debate.

I wanted to let you know that we have forwarded your contact info to Randy Rylander, one of our senior researchers, who has been working with us on this series.

Randy will follow up with you on some of the questions that you and I discussed. Specifically, we were hoping you might be able to help direct us to individuals you feel would be receptive to reviewing this show without a prejudiced point-of-view against all dog training techniques other than a "positive-only" method. We also would like to identify someone in a senior role from NADOI and/or IACP who would be willing to speak with press on the topic.

Thank you again.

Best,
Russell
RUSSELL A. HOWARD
VP COMMUNICATIONS

And the rest, as they say, is history.

_____________________________

I contacted stewards to both the IACP and NADOI for input and comments and sought the pillars of the dog training community to assist with the review that the executives of the show had requested.

Cap Haggerty was one, Margot Woods was another. Tony Ancheta, Heather Houlihan and myself were the first possibly ever, to see the show before it even aired.

I still have the first four or five episodes from that very first season on tape and unedited.

_________________

Why now, after all this time you may be asking, do I really think anyone actually gives a rats patootie?

I don't really, exceptin' about every 5 months or so, the topic raises it's insidious head like the Spectre of Death and the townsfolk shake their pitchforks and melt their silver to make shivs and bullets.

Because even all these years later, Millan and his show are still a hot topic. Bloggers, pseudo science, and average Joes are all still talking about him; Professional dog trainers are either maligning him or capitalizing on their vague association with him.

And besides, I just wanna stir the pot.

Do I regret my involvement? Naaaaah. Not at all. I think a little discourse is healthy and competition is always a good thing.

Have I benefited in any way from my association with the IACP and their resultant association with Cesar Millan through my actions? I can honestly say; Nope. What others do is none of my concern. My feeling is that the cream will rise to the top, regardless of who they know or how they know them.

I am secure enough in my ability as a trainer, a Professional Dog Trainer to not be overwhelmed by gimics and fads, nor be intimidated by populist opinion.

I just wanna train dogs.

NewsWorthy for a Lot of Reasons

2009-03-13T08:57:00.003-04:00

Oh, man. Where to begin with this...

On it's face it's a good thing. Stem Cell research has been curtailed due to the limited visions of the previous administration and now it has hopefully been loosed unto the world to catch up with the rest of the global scientific community and to pioneer life saving and life enriching new discoveries for humans and animals alike.

I loved this story for a lot of reasons:

Stem cell research is already being practiced in animals since it is less regulated than in human research
The risk of rejection by the body is mitigated since the recipient is also the donor as the stem cells are harvested from fat deposits
Less surgical intervention, time saving and cost saving retrieval/delivery techniques for the stem cells

But then after reviewing some of the underlying story of this wonderful procedure I had a few questions that tie in quite nicely with a few articles from the blogosphere regarding dogs, purebred dogs, veterinary medicine and genetics.

The dog in question is a purebred Golden Retriever, suffering from Hip Dysplasia, long known to be influenced genetically in purebred dogs populations.

The dog in question is obese. Also long attributed to complications in dogs affected with hip dysplasia.

I am going to leave the remainder of this post undeveloped for now with the intent of coming back to it in the near future.

In my quest for answers, it seems that all I ended up with was more questions...

Under the heading of "What were they THINKING?"

2009-03-13T08:52:00.008-04:00

"Dogs love them," Wuebker (President of Flexi USA) said. "They enjoy a little bit of freedom, but the pet parent still has them leashed. Pet parents love them because they allow their dog a little extra space to be a dog. They can sniff around and do their business."

Uh, OK. I'm not a 'Pet Parent'.

But I am a dog trainer, who sees the ramifications of the imprudent use of these retractable leashes and has experienced first hand the damages they can cause from the negligent application or inappropriate supervision of a dog on such a devise. As a management tool, they suck, as a training device they suck.

As a pathetic excuse of a device to ease owner responsibility to the correct management and appropriate training of their dogs, it excels.

As a tool that causes serious bodily harm to either it's user or the victi..., er people and/or animals in close proximity to it's user, it's stellar.

There are people who have lost fingers, required extensive reconstructive surgeries on ankles, wrists and knees from these things and I am all for their being pulled off of the shelves and destroyed in giant kilns with flames hotter than Hades for evermore.

We won't even venture into the injuries sustained by the dogs.

But for doG's sake people, Don't put a behaviorally challenged dog on one of these contraptions and expect to be able to manipulate the little lock mechanism in times of stress or this may happen:

"Heather Todd lost a portion of her left index finger in a Flexi retractable leash accident in 2005. Her yellow Labrador retriever, Penny, was hooked to a friend's retractable leash when the dog became excited. The 90-pound dog bolted after something and Todd said she lost control of the handle, which caused to cord to burn her arm. When she instinctively tried to brush the cord off her arm, Todd said her finger got caught and she was pulled to the ground and dragged for four or five feet.

"I look up and there's a finger tip right in front of me," she said, adding that she was in such shock she at first thought the finger was a child's Halloween-type toy. "I didn't comprehend, 'Oh, Heather, there's your fingertip laying there in the sand.'"

Wuebker intimated that this woman 'borrowed' the leash from a friend and didn't have the benefit of being able to read the 'warnings' on the directions that come with it. He also said that Todd's dog had 'behavior problems'.

But they settled for an undisclosed amount.

Tell me please, why would you purchase something as simple as a leash that comes with a waiver and directions for use?

There is a running joke about "Fluffy on a Flexi" in dog training circles and how friendly she really isn't.

But this story takes the cake.

It begins with common sense, for both the manufacturers of these things, the distributors of these things or the foolish users of these things.

Use a real leash, or better yet, train the dog.

Competing Interests, One Solution

2009-03-11T17:32:00.012-04:00

As with all stories, there are two sides to everything:

Service-Assistance dogs enable their disabled owners to function productively in society, helping them with tasks that are outside the physical scope of many; opening doors, turning on lights, assisting them with a variety of tasks that able-bodied people take for granted.

These dogs require a high degree of training in order to prepare them for their lives as Service-assistance dogs, enabling their handicapped owners to lead relatively normal lives and alleviating the need for human caretakers for many day-to-day tasks.

What's come under fire is the proposed definition of Service Assistance dogs and the conundrum that is created by their use as Psychiatric Service Dogs. These individuals might not quite look like they are in need of the assistance a Service dog provides and even more, the tasks that the dogs provide to 'mitigate the disability of the owner" are unclear.

Here's a thought, make access available to all dogs that achieve a level of training that clearly demonstrates they are controllable in public and capable of minding their manners on planes, trains and in automobiles, in Wal-Mart, at the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker's.

That way you leave human dignity intact and the ADA properly interpreted and complied with.

But there's a caveat.

Or two.

The first: the new language makes the identification of a Service Dog by the ADA pretty vague, since an individual cannot ask the nature of the disability a person my have and second; due to this loophole, people are getting away with faux Service Dogs that are causing a world of hurt for the people who really need the assistance.

What to do?

Like I said, allow access to all dogs who can clearly demonstrate appropriate behavior in public. The general public can be assured that the animals they see out with their owners at least have achieved a measurable standard of control and the individuals whose animals cannot demonstrate these skills will be excluded from public access. If an individual has managed to actually get certification indicating their animal has passed an access test and the animal is later determined to be in violation, their permit gets revoked until it is demonstrated that the dog can either re-certify; or after a minimal number of re-certification attempts have been made, it is revoked permanently.

It eliminates the fakirs and the cheats. The people who are blatantly using the loopholes in the ADA Policy can still have an opportunity for redemption if their dogs can pass the access test. It will also help to foster a greater understanding and acceptance of dogs in public, help to enforce current dog leash laws and increase the revenues for localities across the Nation who struggle with funding for pet specific policies.

There are several cities in the United States that have such laws already on the books and there is currently a grassroots movement to introduce similar access tests publicly.

What's the harm? It can potentially generate revenue for communities and quite possibly elevate the ageless place of dog as help-mate as opposed to the harbinger of death and destruction so vividly portrayed by a contemporary media that is no more objective about animals than they are in their pursuit of any other truth.

Dilettante Dog Training or Worse Yet, Idiot Dog Trainers

2009-03-08T09:59:00.010-04:00

There are a lot of things that really twist me up these days; politics, taxes, the cost of food, the cost of fuel, the increasing frequency of unemployment and the corpulent gasbags in Washington not seeing the bigger picture of the immediate needs of a suffering Nation, but painting one of their own with my tax dollars.

But this is a dog blog.

What has really been scorching my noggin are the number of calls I have been getting recently from people who are looking for help after having been failed by other "trainers". The quotation marks are on purpose. They indicate my derision directed at someone who takes peoples' money and cannot complete the job they were contracted for.

Now, don't get me wrong, I know the ratio of owners who are non-compliant from my own dog training students over the last 30 years and I know how 'life' gets in the way and certain events supersede the need or time for pet concerns. Priorities change and that is reflected in drop -out rates from both group classes and private training.

I am also fully aware of the owner who seeks absolution as opposed to putting forth any real effort and is more than willing to blame anyone other than themselves for their personal failure with any attempt at training, regardless of method or trainer.

But I'm talking about the deeply committed owners who have painstakingly sought the advice of a Professional Dog Trainer to help them with real problems. The kind of problems that prevent them from enjoying their pet reasonably and without concern. The kind of problem that can manifest itself as a serious risk to the owners or even the public.

I am speaking specifically of two types of dog "trainers".

The Dilettante "trainer" (referred to as a 'trainerette' by my colleagues) is often a second-career trainer, often coming to the trade as a mid-lifer looking for a change, may or may not even own a dog, has seen the exponential growth of the industry and figures that 'playing with dogs all day' would be a fun way to make a living or supplement an existing one. They are deluded into thinking that dog training is fun (it can be, but it is more often very hard work) and easy (richly rewarding when done well, which takes a degree of commitment that can never be called 'easy').

The Dilettante "trainer" is often educated by reading a few books written by popular* authors, maybe goes to a dog training 'school' for a week or so, belongs to one of the larger trade organizations and spends a few weekends out of the year at seminars by popular* speakers. Or takes a test drive through the newest fad in "Become a dog trainer TODAY" schemes popping up all over the country.

The Dilettante "trainer" usually finds employment at the local chain Box Store, where they must adhere to a one-size-fits-all training methodology passed down by corporate officers to mitigate risk, or bad press. They are often well-intended, but are most often sorely lacking in sufficient experience whether with the dogs themselves or with the dogs' owners, who know even less.

The Dilettante "trainer" can also be identified by their incomprehensible adherence to a philosophy that rejects any and all methods but their own as "dangerous", "inhumane", "cruel" or "ineffective/outdated/outmoded or otherwise disproved by 'science". Mostly through the indoctrination of their mentors; always offered as third hand accounts are the tales of cruelty at the hands of trainers; the kicking, hanging, beating or shocking of dogs.

I have a colleague who has a suspicion about these folks, but we won't go there....

The current rising popularity of "dog trainer" TV shows is another mitigant in the pervading fantasy that "anyone" can train a dog, any dog.

None of these things are inherently bad. Everyone has to start somewhere, but the risk comes in these people actually thinking that they have enough experience, that they are sufficiently prepared to handle anything beyond the socialization of puppies.

Nor is continuing education a bad idea, as long as the mind is not closed to the possibilities of learning from many different teachers. Remember the experiments in perception using an apple. We may all look at the exact same object, but our perspective will not allow us to get the whole picture, until we perceive it from every angle.

So these Dilettantes have a few successes with a few easy dogs, consider themselves fit for public consumption and hang out a shingle as a Professional Dog Trainer.

And then there is the Idiot.

The Idiot dog "trainer" may have similar roots. They can be from military backgrounds or fancy themselves as such, may or may not have attended a school for dog training for any length of time; from the weekend fares offered by many successful trainers or the actual brick-and-mortar variety from a few weeks to a few months, read a variety of books on the topic, or just simply had a dog that they took through some other trainer's course and fancied that they could do that and how much easy money it would be.

The Idiot perceives the answer to every problem in one dimension and tends to think that dog training is a battle of subjugation and 'dominance'. Just as inept as the Dilettante, these Idiots are wholly responsible for the bad press and current legislation that injures the reputations of Professional Dog Trainers who ultimately are stigmatized by tool use or training methodologies.

The Idiot "trainer" can also be identified by their incomprehensible adherence to a philosophy that rejects any and all methods but their own as "ineffective". Mostly through the indoctrination of their mentors; always offered as third hand accounts are the tales..... You should know by now where I am going with this....

The Idiot "trainer" is the antithesis of the Dilettante and from where the Dilettante gets most of the fodder for their smear campaigns against tools or methods that in an of themselves are not harmful to dogs.

Idiot dog "trainers" are not always easy to identify until they have been hired by an unsuspecting public; and specifically relating to me; the troubling, worrisome accounts I receive from their victims....er... unsatisfied students. Their reputations usually get them in the end, or the lawsuits do...

I answered a call from a woman yesterday who had employed the services of a local Idiot and after several months of no progress decided that her dog getting traumatized by this bully was enough for her to realize that there was something profoundly wrong.

In another call, a young lady contacted me out of desperation for her large mix breed dog that had started showing aggression towards her infant. The dog had also displayed leash aggression towards other dogs and even humans and had a protracted history of aggression towards house-guests and even other family members.

The owner had engaged the services of a "trainer" previously to address these concerns prior to the birth of her youngest child with group classes. She had judiciously applied all of the training methods recommended for her dog, attended all of the classes offered and still was without resolution to her problem.

It was clearly obvious to me that this poor woman's needs were not only not met, but that the "trainer" in question had absolutely no problems with taking her money while offering no substantive solution to her problems.

I asked her if she had contacted the other "trainer" to allow them an opportunity to follow up with their training and was told that she was advised "...that she could continue to come for more group classes at a reduced rate." Needless to say, she declined.

Dilettante and Idiot dog "trainers" are a dime a dozen. A Dilettante "trainer" may be an Idiot too. It would seem that they are both being mass produced in record numbers these days.

Dog Training as a service is one of the last recognizable trades to be wholly unregulated.

It is easy to disguise any income from it.

It is easy to profess expertise since it is not regulated or licensed beyond 'certification' offered by different membership supported organizations. Each with their own Mission, Vision and Agenda.

And owners in the search for potential trainers have little if any information, expertise or guidance with which to draw upon in their selection process.

In an attempt to help with what should be a decision with as much importance as the next movie you want to see, the next new restaurant you want to try or what color your new iPod should be, here's some sound advice:

A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor will permit and encourage you to audit classes already in session or view dogs in training before you make a commitment to enroll.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor will protect the health and well being of the dogs in their care by requiring all participants to provide a verifiable veterinary record of all immunizations to date.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor will protect the safety of all participants by maintaining control over the class and the students in an effort to avoid conflicts that could result in injuries to either owners or animals.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor is approachable and willing to answer questions from the students and interacts confidently with the participants.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor will provide clear instructions and demonstrations of the behaviors being taught, either in written, oral or demonstration form.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor will aide students during training time to execute proper techniques in the teaching of behaviors to their dogs.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor is never abusive to their human or canine students.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor is familiar with and is capable of demonstrating the correct application and use of a variety of training equipment and avoids the practice of adhering solely to one training principal, as one size does NOT fit all.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor practices humane training principals, with their ultimate goal being the willing work and companionship of a well trained dog.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor welcomes interaction and participation of family members, and encourages exchanges of information to the benefit of all the participants.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor is committed to providing a positive experience for their students in a dynamic, interactive learning environment.
A Competent Dog Trainer or Training Instructor should be prepared to provide additional assistance to struggling students to ensure a satisfactory experience that is both productive and worthwhile.

As an aside, if you become uncomfortable with something your trainer suggests, or something you see your trainer do, do not be afraid to question it, interfere with it or take your dog and leave.

*Popular: 1: of or relating to the general public 2: suitable to the majority: as a: adapted to or indicative of the understanding and taste of the majority popular history of the war> b: suited to the means of the majority : inexpensive popular prices> 3: frequently encountered or widely accepted popular theory>4: commonly liked or approved popular girl>

Just thought I'd let ya know...

Foreign Bodies and Colorful Poop

2009-03-06T08:13:00.011-05:00

I have been getting a rash of desperation calls lately and I recently fielded a call from a potential client with two neutered male dogs aged 2 and 4.

She had previously lost a middle-aged dog to an emergency bowel resection that turned septic and had already experienced a few late-night emergency vet visits with both of her current dogs after they had ingested foreign objects that they were having difficulty 'passing'.

She regaled me with tales of their exploits with 'stealing' and the melee that usually followed pursuing the dogs and wresting the objects from them, or watching in dismay as they sucked socks like kids with their first bowl of spaghetti, consumed a half-pound of rich fudge brownies like a vacuum cleaner consumes a dust bunny and other articles as if they hadn't eaten in ages.

Or worse, growling from under the dining room table as the humans gathered around them in some sort of reenactment of a prehistoric fight for the last piece of edible mammoth meat for miles.

There are a bazillion hazards associated with a dogs' ability to acquire and consume articles not meant for digestion and of their owners trying desperately to reclaim these articles before they are destroyed or consumed.

I cannot count the calls I have received from owners who have lost objects as small as diamond earrings to cell phones, television remote controls, articles of clothing, whole baseballs, golf balls, pocket knives both open and closed, lighters, hats, you-name-it; gobbled whole by their pets in the blink of an eye with the appetites of garbage disposals. I cannot recount the number of owners who have vigilantly observed their dogs bowel movements for signs of the article's return to them and I cannot imagine the number who have waited hopelessly, vainly for the obstruction to pass unassisted.

Unfortunately I DO know the numbers of dogs who have died. I also know the number of dogs who have had the life saving intervention from conscientious veterinarians who open them up and fish out the erstwhile contents of their gullets, stomachs or intestines, patch them up and send them packing; back to their homes and the 'special diets' that await them as they recover from their surgeries.

To turn around and have to do it again. And again. And again. I can count those dogs too.

YouTube is resplendent with comical images of dogs with cone-heads that still manage to acquire articles unfit for canine consumption.

Which leads me to the point of this topic.

There are a lot of places I can start with this; but I'm going to start at the beginning.

Put your stuff away, as in where the dog can't get it. That includes making your kids be responsible for their own stuff and put it away too.
Supervise the dog appropriately (on a leash, with you, IN THE SAME ROOM AS YOU) so you can prevent him from getting your stuff, or your kids' stuff.
If you cannot supervise your dog, confine him in a crate so he cannot get anything but his own stuff.
If you are lax in your supervision and forget to confine your dog so he does manage to get your stuff, DON'T RUN AFTER HIM AND WRESTLE HIM TO GET IT BACK! To do so sets you up for any portion of the first part of this article, including the creation of resource guarding and the associated growling and biting and even faster consumption of stuff you would rather not have to fish through poo for in order to get back, or pay exorbitant fees for surgery you probably could have prevented if you paid attention to the first point and/or the second point.
Provide appropriate toys! My rule is: man-made toys (you know, the ones you pay top dollar for made of stuff that your house and it's contents are made of) are considered interactive toys and are to be played with under the supervision and with the cooperation of the owner. This way the dog learns appropriate self control as far as acquisition, possession and relinquishment of toys in a controlled and fun way; gets interaction with his owner and equally important, exercise which will mitigate both attention seeking behavior and the boredom that leads to attention seeking behavior.
Toys of a more organic nature can be used as pacifier toys and can be enjoyed by the dog either in his crate or during 'quiet times' (under supervision, of course). Pacifier toys are pretty limited to bones. Big bones. Hard-baked are best, the entire shank if possible, knuckle to knuckle. They disintegrate as opposed to splinter, are digestible and offer HOURS of fascination for most dogs. They can be used effectively for crate training and to help avert resource guarding behaviors if the dog is allowed controlled access either in his crate or while at large (under supervision, of course). Bleached shank bones are good too. You can stuff them with stuff. Stuff that you approve of, like peanut butter (out of a jar from a manufacturer that is not affected by the most recent recall) or pate' de foie gras if you want. It's up to you. Not the dog.
Did I mention adequate exercise? They need to exercise their bodies, they need to exercise their minds. They need this routinely, as in every day, to some degree. For any dogs, young and old alike or any derivatives thereof; a walk around the block once a day or the expectation that he will 'self exercise' if his owners turn him out, unattended, in the back yard is just not going to satisfy the dogs' desire to chase, frolic, run, jump, wrestle, dig or otherwise act like a dog. Leave him to his own devices and he'll find things to do on his own, like strip the siding off your walls, or break teeth chewing the cinder-blocks or bricks that comprise your foundation.

Not lastly, more like firstly, or anytime you forget any of the other important stuff here, never EVER run your dog down to get something back. You invite disaster. Maybe not that time, or even the next time, but I assure you; you are teaching your dog several important things:
To defend articles with avoidance, escape or aggression
To run from the bigger, scarier predator. YOU!
To hide in the cubby under the bed, chair, couch, corner, closet, crate or anywhere the dog feels he is defensible from at least three sides, so he can consume his prize and drive you off more efficiently
To chew harder and swallow faster so the bigger predator can't get it.

Don't set yourself up for failure by trying to wrest away that sock, or cramming your hand forcibly down a dogs throat after the other half of your sandwich or your kid's iPod. You invite disaster by thinking you will be successful. You may be once or twice, but try calling that dog to you after a few sessions like this and see what happens, or better yet, when you REALLY NEED him to drop something, and you move toward him, watch what happens. It ain't purdy, the things people inadvertently teach their dogs....

They say it is far easier to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission. In the case of dogs who ingest foreign objects, it is far easier to mitigate access and teach them to respond to some basic commands than it is to have to suffer the consequences and often heartbreak of having allowed them unadulterated access to your stuff.

Vote for Moe

2009-03-03T20:15:00.002-05:00

Do your part to help out! Click HERE for where, click HERE for why.

Good cause, easy to do, no commitments required, honest!

Nifty new gadgets and a test...

2009-03-03T11:33:00.000-05:00

Thought I'd test this thingy out to see if I can actually blog remotely.

How cool is that?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Gratuitous Self Promotion

2009-03-02T07:16:00.010-05:00

I was featured in a small portion of the Baltimore Sun newspaper on Sunday, March 1st, 2009 and by that evening the novelty of being a (very minor) celebrity had already chafed.

Odd stares at the grocery store from people I have never met, eyes questioning with that "do I KNOW YOU?" look and the occasional opportunist greeting me like an old friend for that little tidbit of info that will help make their own dog stop biting or stop pooping in the house or stealing their morning breakfast.

The "Hey, weren't you in the PAPER today!" at the top of one's lungs as I scurried to my truck launched more than a few head turns. Unnerving, that... No Paris Hilton, I.

There isn't a sound byte that covers the information they would need without observation and some serious questioning. Like I said in the interview "Don't wait until you're over your head. Seek help before you need it, as opposed to after the damage is done."

And don't think the answers will come at the check-out line of the grocers in the evening of what could amount to the biggest snow of the season.

I'm not being rude, really, but it's 7 pm and my son is at home and hungry and I have been training dogs all day and I would like to see my family at least for a little while. It's Movie Night at the ole' hacienda and there's pizza and sodas and fun family fare.... I would be more than happy to help you, here's my number, I am usually available after 6 pm most evenings and we can set something up to discuss your dogs' problem(s) further.

But that's not the answer they want to hear.

They want cocktail chatter about dogs and want to worship the problems they are having with them as 'charming' or worse yet, for me to wave my majik wand and chant an invocation that absolves them of their problem(s) as if miraculously, what I utter will release their hound from it's terrors and make the world right again.

It just ain't so.

I practice Forensic Dog Training. I have to sift through the interpretations, the conjecture, the 'evidence' in order to get a clear picture of what happens and why. I have to plot a meaningful course from the past to the present and take into account the owners, the home, the dog and the goals.

I have to denude owners of what they think they know in order to create a pathway to learning and understanding.

Then I have to marry the image of the dog in their minds to the actual dog at their feet.

This is not a job for dilettantes.

This is not a job for the faint of heart.

A few clarifications about the article:

When I stated that I "save dogs' lives", I meant that. Not that I am mystical, but that I prevent dogs from losing their homes and often prevent them from losing their lives. Any accomplished trainer does.

I have worked with shelters and breed rescues for years and I see firsthand the dogs that come in due to behavior problems that are wholly the making of their owners' inability, indifference or lack of information to prevent or resolve. I routinely field calls and correspondence that clearly state that the owner is on the precipice of surrendering his dog for XYZ behavior problem.

The job is physically demanding. It is not for the faint of heart. Dog training requires a level of physical fitness and stamina not really needed for an 'indoor' job. It requires that you be prepared to work in inclement weather, in less than ideal conditions, often with animals that are afraid, angry, physically more adept and not readily or profoundly affected by your majikal "whispering" skills. You get dirty, are often cold and wet and you will not ever be considered the font of fashion. You work in cities, on streets and sidewalks, on farm roads and in mud, blazing heat, driving snows and torrential rain. You come home smelling like your charges and often as hairy.

If you are crazy however, you will enjoy this.

If you are lucky, you will be able to do this with the best of the best; people who got their chops doing it the same way, through the same things and can share with you the benefits of their knowledge.

See, dogs don't get vacations. They still have to go outside, whether it's raining, snowing, storming or in blazing heat. Good dog trainers know that and they are well prepared.

I have been bitten more than two times. Real dog trainers have a tendency to forget the grips and the grabs and the nips and the tugs and any other euphemism for a bite that although may draw blood or leave a mark, does not require medical attention. Or if it does require medical attention, it does not require stitches.

I have had two serious bites that required initial medical attention and a bit of follow up. Not bad for three decades. If I had to enumerate each and every time I have been grabbed by a dog in a meaningful way, I would be lost.

Caveat: The first bite was entirely my fault. Almost every bite sustained by a professional trainer is from lack of preparedness. Really.

The second bite was from an owner who "wanted me to get the full effect" of his dogs' behavior firsthand. Even after I requested that the dog be confined when I arrived. That one pissed me off. Really pissed me off. I sustained a full mouth bite to the inside of my left thigh. It could have been uglier; I prevented it from being uglier. It was bad enough.

So please when your trainer requests that you confine your dog upon initial or subsequent visits, don't think for a minute that we are any more immune to bites than your neighbor, children or guests. We may be able to identify when and where and how, but our flesh is still as soft and malleable, our skin still scars, and yes, we too have lawyers.

When you are ready to find a Professional Dog Trainer, don't get muddled in the quagmire of the current political catch phrases. Successful Professional dog trainers do not "Hit, Kick, Shock or Hang" dogs. They wouldn't be in business for long if they did.

My colleague Heather Houlihan at "Raised by Wolves" offers the very best commentary on this topic that shames any attempt I could conceivably make. You would do well to read it.

As for what to look for in a trainer, don't buy into platitudes about what you should or should not do to your dog; it is usually presumptions offered by adherents to a mythological treatise regarding the applications of flawed "science" and other proselytizing balderdash.

Look for a trainer that can get the job done. Look for a trainer that can and routinely applies an appropriate method that fits each dog, not tries to fit the dog to any one method.

As with any "trade" like electricians, plumbers or contractors; the assumption that no guarantee should be offered for dog training is ludicrous. If your trainer cannot offer a guarantee that you can achieve certain skill sets within a reasonable time frame, or accomplish the resolution to specific behavior problems, run, do not walk, to a Professional that can not only safely assure you of reasonable results within a reasonable time frame, but can demonstrate the necessary skills in achieving these goals.

Finally, my philosophy: All paths do not lead to Rome. As an owner it is your obligation to at least look at the map. As a trainer it is my obligation to construct the bridge if you should happen to lose your way.

Toxic Asset Mikey Vick to be released to Home Detention Soon

2009-02-28T11:09:00.005-05:00

It's just dogs, folks. No-one cares. So he beat up a few pit bulls and forced them to suffer in horrible, painful ways.

So he tormented them, brutalized them, made money off of their pain, what's the big deal?

Surely you must see the greater good in allowing this loser to play ball again?

Surely you must know that the fine institution of football is infinitely more important than a bunch of stupid dogs, right?

They have to make their money back off of him somehow.

And our demented friends at PETA seem to think that subjecting this sociopath to a 'brain scan' will somehow absolve him of his sins and make it all better again, because "science" will have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will never do it again?

Really, they have suggested this.

They are hitching their wagon to Vick to capitalize not so much on the crimes he has perpetuated against other living things, but to align themselves with yet another cash cow to fill their coffers when they themselves are responsible for the mass euthanization of animals. A litany of charges follow PETA, stemming from the activities of several of their members transporting dogs and cats from the Carolinas to Virginia ostensibly for "placement" in homes, but instead turned up dead in dumpsters by their collective hand, with their endorsement.

PETA even admits this.

What about what Vick did? He should be forgiven for these insidious acts? He should be allowed to play football again?

On what planet and in what solar system is it OK for a person to do this?

Have we as a culture been so imbued with the importance of "celebrity" that we will consciously forgive this?

The significance of celebrity has so outnumbered, outweighed our moral obligation to punish wrongdoers of these vicious crimes? We scream about steroids but care nothing about the pain he inflicted on unsuspecting animals? On other living things?

Without a conscience, some football team will allow this deviant to play again. The short memory of the public will soon forget the nature of his crimes.

I don't buy for a minute his claims of remorse.

I don't buy for a minute his concern over what kind of image he has portrayed to his fans.

I don't buy for a minute his worthiness to leave prison and join the ranks of law abiding citizens anywhere, let alone fully expect to be paid to play a game where somehow his life is considered worth more than those animals. Or mine.

Like what he does really matters.

Since they don't have adequate space in the halfway house he was purportedly assigned to, post a stake out to an old 55 gallon barrel or better yet, tie his selfish ass to a logging chain attached to a rusted old car bumper and toss him some stagnant water and a few crumbs of bread every other day.

If there were ever a hope of me becoming a football fan, it has been forever lost with the haunting prospect of that slime-ball rejoining any team.

His early release from prison is a powerful message to people everywhere.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have forgotten. They were just dogs. And he's a football player.

What was I thinking?

My Tiny World

2009-02-24T18:59:00.013-05:00

I really have to make an effort to write stuff down. I mean as it occurs, not try to shred my feeble brain from the remembering of what I THOUGHT and subsequently FORGOT.

I do that a lot. I am out of practice from the days when it was important for me to remember to the days that my mind is crammed with scenarios, questions and the occasional answer; no time to inflict with acerbic casualty on the indifference or stupidity of others.

Catch me in my car however and my retinas transmit to my brain with a searing intensity that makes... certain things.... hard to forget.

So if I am ever cursed with the sight of you in the future, remember this...

I hope to haunt your every second of your every day with my considerable yet impotent anger at your selfish BS excuse for driving as I watch powerlessly as you endanger everyone including yourself with your reckless disregard for the RULES.

Put the GOD DAMNED PHONE DOWN!

You took out a woman getting ready to drop her daughter off at daycare and the driver of a delivery truck because it was more important to you to chatter with your insipid friends about your homeroom teacher, or your date last night, or what you are wearing to school today.

Didn't your parents teach you any better?

You almost took me out too, even as I honked my horn to TELL YOU TO PAY ATTENTION, but you flipped me the bird with your vacuous stare as you turned into oncoming traffic.

I told you.

It's not like you weren't warned.

SO I had to tell it to the Po-leese. How you weaved through two lanes of traffic across a double yellow line back across to the left turn lane and across the nose of a woman turning right and a truck driver turning left and you did what you always wanted to do.

You stopped traffic.

So they cart the truck driver off on a stretcher and upright his panel van, clear at least ONE of the lanes you obstructed with your eagerness to make a statement about your driving prowess and move on to the remnants of the little Cooper and it's wholly unprotected contents.

You are what seems to be, relatively unscathed. You at least, are walking under your own steam.

Meanwhile the microcosm of my tiny world gets to witness the benefit of your handiwork.

See, you made the news too.

And hours later I am home. My son got on the bus without the benefit of me there to see him off. I can count on ONE HAND the times that this has occurred. All of them but this time were of my own design.

So the next time you are behind the wheel and driving like Speed Racer and someone honks at you nearby, do endeavor to remember what happened the last time you flipped them the bird.

Prized Hound Dies in Shelter Dispute

2009-02-24T12:18:00.005-05:00

Decision to euthanize Big Hitter could be symbol of troubles that imperil the sport

On a clear and frosty morning in late December, Big Hitter, a 5-year-old foxhound who hadn’t been in the woods for weeks, caught a scent and took off running.

He was fast.

His owner, Arnold Jones of St. George, had arrived for a dog drive at the Kingville Hunt Club in Lower Richland near 6 a.m. that Saturday, meeting up with about 35 guys and 50 hunting dogs.

Trevor Bedell poses with one of his hunting dogs, Rider

When Hitter hadn’t returned by 10 a.m., it was clear he had gotten into the Congaree Swamp.

The 6,000-acre hunt club is adjacent to the expansive national park, so it’s not unusual for dogs to chase deer into the swamp and keep on going.

What Jones couldn’t know then was that Hitter — who he’d bought for $750 and expected to produce a line of valuable offspring — would walk for four days and 20 miles, looking for his master, before ending up at the Columbia Animal Shelter.

There, he would die in a dispute over a city law requiring that dogs be neutered before being returned to their owners.

The death of this tricolor foxhound — something that probably would have been unheard of not long ago — has created a stir among hunters.

“There’s rules, surely,” said Trevor Bedell of West Columbia, who helped Jones try to retrieve Hitter, since his hunting buddy lives out of town. “But the animal shelter’s mission should be to protect the dog, when we were making efforts to get the dog.”

Interim city manager Steve Gantt said Hitter’s owners didn’t get to the shelter within the timeline spelled out to them.

“It’s a bad situation all the way around,” said Gantt, who hunted with hounds as a kid in Chester.

CHANGING CULTURE

Hitter could be a symbol for a Southern tradition that’s fading — hunters using dogs to flush deer from the woods, starting a fast and furious chase into the sights of waiting hunters.

It’s a way of hunting passed down in South Carolina families for generations.

But in recent years, the tradition has created bad blood among dog hunters, the more common “still” hunters and landowners.

Large tracts of property required for dog drives are being cut up and developed. The number of hunt clubs is dwindling, too, creating more situations where hunters clash.

Sometimes, dogs tracking a deer will run beyond the boundaries of a hunt club and onto private property, passing a hunter silently waiting in a deer stand.

Jones, who owns 35 to 40 dogs that he uses to hunt big bucks as trophies, can’t imagine hunting any other way.

“There is nothing more exciting than 25 hounds running the deer right at you,” said Jones, 46. “Your heart goes pounding in your chest. It’s an adrenaline rush, to have game coming at you that fast, and you have a matter of seconds to even try to shoot.”

Frank A. Boysia hunts on 3,000 acres he and his father own in Lee and Sumter counties. They farm and participate in wildlife programs that provide habitat for deer and quail.

But Boysia said trespassing dogs disrupt the “good and natural experience” he pursues outdoors.

“I’m sitting there in a peaceful situation with my son on a deer stand, in a food plot that I’ve planted — with my money, with my labor and my love,” said Boysia, 40. “It ruins your whole reason for even having property like that.

“So for me, it’s a property rights issue.”

HUNTING FOR HITTER

Hunters usually look for lost dogs along roads.

That’s because foxhounds know to wait there, said Charles Ruth, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources.

“They’re going to be out standing by the road, looking for their owner. A lot of time, they’ll start walking the road because they can relate the road to the truck to the man.”

That’s how Hitter would have ended up in Columbia.

The Saturday of the hunt, Jones went home to Dorchester County. Bedell, 31, said he drove down Bluff Road and through Lower Richland on each of the next three days, looking for Hitter.

The next day, Christmas Eve, Hitter wandered into Columbia’s Granby Park, his tracking collar and I.D. tag still fastened around his neck.

A city park ranger called the phone number on the tag and left a message for Jones, then called the Columbia Animal Shelter.

RURAL CULTURE, URBAN LAWS

Animal control laws in Columbia don’t acknowledge the tradition of hunting with dogs.

In Columbia, lost pets must be neutered before they can be returned to the owners with three exceptions — if they are sick dogs, show dogs, or guide dogs for the blind.

The spay-neuter program is the foundation of the shelter’s efforts to reduce the number of unwanted animals.

If a hunting dog steps outside the city limits into unincorporated Richland County, the law is different.

In more rural Richland County, owners of hunting dogs can take their dogs home without sterilization if they have a valid hunting license.

Richland County administrator Milton Pope said the dual policies make sense. People are allowed to hunt in the county, not in the city.

Years ago, a debate over whether to require hunting dogs to be spayed or neutered was among the sticking points in efforts to merge city and county animal control operations.

It was no longer an issue when the two jurisdictions decided last year to join programs under one roof — at the Columbia shelter.

The merger will occur in coming weeks. Gantt, the assistant city manager, said this might be a good time to compare policies and see whether they should fall more closely in line.

Still, Marli Drum, the shelter director, doesn’t anticipate problems keeping track of which animals are picked up in the city and which are picked up in the county.

Addresses are logged and city limits lines checked with care, she said, in part to ensure the city doesn’t foot the bill for any animal not in its jurisdiction.

‘A WELL-KNOWN HOUND’

The city’s neutering requirement was a big bone of contention once Jones and Bedell discovered the dog had been taken to the city shelter.

They did not want the dog neutered.

While Bedell had sold the dog to Jones, he said he retained breeding rights.

Jones said Drum first told him the dog had to be neutered, then agreed to accept proof that he had placed in four national trials — documentation that was hard to find during the holidays surrounding Christmas and New Year’s.

“A lot of people knew the dog,” Jones said. “He was a well-known hound. He came from champions.”

Jones collected what proof he could and faxed it to Bedell. Bedell acknowledged he never turned the paperwork over to Drum, saying the documents weren’t what she wanted.

In an interview, Drum said she didn’t have permission to discuss the case but would talk generally about procedures. The city also provided a Jan. 6 memo outlining her recollection of events, under the subject line, “EUTHANIZED DOG.”

Under city policy, lost or stray dogs are held for five days, Drum said. If they have tags, they are kept for two weeks. Once the owner is reached, however, the five-day hold begins.

Bedell said he went by the shelter once and called twice, trying to bring Hitter home.

The last time he called Drum was on Friday, Jan. 2, nine days after Hitter was picked up.

Bedell said he told Drum he planned to adopt the dog once Hitter became available to the public for adoption.

Drum’s memo said she explained he couldn’t adopt the dog just to get around paying the redemption fees, and that she reiterated the dog would have to be neutered.

The following Monday, Bedell went to the shelter only to find that Hitter had been put down, one of 43 dogs to be euthanized Jan. 5.

Drum’s memo said Hitter had developed kennel cough, a contagious infection. “Because of this, the dog could not be held any longer,” she wrote. “To do so would have put many other dogs at risk.”

Just last week, Bedell showed up at the shelter looking to help a friend, Lee Gross, retrieve his lost hunting dog.

The dog had been picked up in Richland County, around Hopkins, and was released to his owner after he produced a hunting license.

“There’s got to be some consistency,” Bedell complained.

“I don’t see how they can be executioner on one and let the other go with a ... hunting license.”

END OF THE HUNT?

Hunting with dogs is part of the culture of the Southeast, from Virginia to Arkansas, said the DNR’s Ruth.

In South Carolina, dog drives are allowed only in the 28 counties where it has the foothold of history, from Richland, Lexington and Kershaw counties south and east toward the coast.

But deer hunting with dogs has declined over the past 20 to 30 years, part of an overall change in the number of people who hunt, according to DNR figures.

After peaking in 1980 at 203,170, the number of South Carolinians who took out hunting licenses bottomed out in 2006 at 154,078.

With tensions rising among hunters, legislators, led by Sen. Yancey McGill, D-Williamsburg, are trying to mediate.

Calhoun County Sheriff Thomas Summers said two or three hunting dogs were shot to death in the woods a couple of years ago in a sign of the growing rift among hunters.

And a couple of “nuisance” lawsuits have been filed against dog owners in the absence of laws to regulate dog drives.

The Legislature stepped in last year, asking DNR to arrange a series of meetings in hopes of reaching agreement among hunters. “We did not come to a consensus,” Ruth said.

Hal Goodwin, whose family started the Kingville Hunt Club in 1962, expects his generation will be the last to hold deer drives — social events that start at daylight and usually include a dinner of game, like venison or catfish stew.

Oftentimes, the men stay overnight, sleeping in campers.

“You may call it a Southern thing, but it’s been going on hundreds of years,” said Goodwin, 59.

“I’ll probably see it go away in my lifetime. ... There’s a big move in South Carolina from a lot of people to do away with dog driving totally.”

But Boysia said he doesn’t want to see an end to the tradition of dog drives.

“I don’t think we’re like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I really do not,” he said. “Ultimately, we’re all hunters.

“We don’t want to drive people out of the sport.”

Reach Hinshaw at (803) 771-8641.

BLOGGER'S NOTE: Regardless of how you feel about the sport of tracking game with dogs, regardless of how you feel about hunting at all; this is an issue that speaks to the heart of the matter regarding rights. This is a direct violation of personal rights regardless of how you view the substance of the article.

I am not opposed to hunting. If it weren't for the fortitude of my ancestors to provide for my bloodline, I would have never existed. These folk would do well to remember that and keep their city ways in the city. There is a compromise and there must be a means to achieve it before all our rights are vanished and all we have are the tattered remnants of our Constitution as it is interpreted by fools and self righteous charlatans.

Legislators tell Feds to "Back Off"

2009-02-07T08:18:00.005-05:00

New speech, press, gun or ammunition limits 'altogether void'

Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in New Hampshire are telling the federal government to back off because plans for a federal handgun license, "hate crimes" laws to regulate Christians' speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama's youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to "balance" talk radio are none of them constitutional.

Such plans by the bureaucrats and administrators in Washington, D.C., are "altogether void" and if mandated, "shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States," the lawmakers are warning.

The terse alarm is contained in House Concurrent Resolution 6, which has been introduced for debate. It affirms states' rights "based on Jeffersonian principles."

It's not the first such move in the United States. WND reported last year when state representatives in Oklahoma, steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, approved Joint House Resolution 1089 on a 92-3 vote to reassert the state's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and serve "notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

According to DailyPaul.com, a website assembled in support of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Missouri, Washington and Arizona also have moved in the direction of reasserting states' rights.

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," and also is being cited in the New Hampshire plan.

It states that New Hampshire people "have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America…"

That means, the resolution states, any "Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of American or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government … and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America."

It lists as actions that the federal government would be prohibited from doing:

Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
New Hampshire Rep. Dan Itse, a sponsor of the resolution, said he wants New Hampshire to be among the states "standing up to the federal government, enforcing the Constitution."

He called the current status in the United States, with federal rules and regulations reaching into virtually every facet of a state citizen's life, "a usurpation by the federal judiciary of the people's right of self-government."

"What I see happening is a growing disregard for the rights of individuals and the rights of the states. At some point you have to draw the line," he told WND.

The resolution then, he said, is a warning.

"If you're in a marriage, and things are going rotten, it's not right just to all of a sudden hand the other party divorce papers. The right thing to do is say, 'there's a problem. Let's go to counseling.' This is in essence telling the general government if you continue down this road – you will have nullified the Constitution," he told WND.

He said New Hampshire lawmakers already have defied the federal government in approving a ban on the Real ID, a government program to stiffen identity procedures.

The New Hampshire resolution points out that New Hampshire was set up as "a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State" and when its residents ratified the U.S. Constitution they recommended: "That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised."

In a direct attack on federal authority the resolution states: "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

It cites the specific powers given the federal government in the Constitution: to deal with treason, counterfeiting and piracy.

At American Thinker, commentator Larrey Anderson wrote that the plan is pending in the legislature's State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, and also is supported by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Tim Comerford, and Sen. William Denley.

"Interestingly, the authors of the New Hampshire Resolution took most of the language from the document commonly known as 'Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,'" he wrote. "The New Hampshire Resolution boldly defends the state's (and it citizen's) rights preserved under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution."

He noted a concurrent resolution lacks legal authority as a non-binding expression of the intentions of the legislature.

"Nevertheless, these four New Hampshire state legislators have shown much courage by introducing (or reintroducing) these precious principles that have been the bedrock of our republic," Anderson wrote. "Maybe HCR 6, the shot heard round little old New Hampshire, will inspire more Americans to realize the desperate need to free ourselves from an overreaching federal government. In which case, the shot heard round New Hampshire might become the next shot heard round the world."

Participants in the site's forum page said they were sending information on the resolution to lawmakers in Virginia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Michigan and other states. Several other participants said they wished their own lawmakers had such fortitude.

"At least one state gets it," said one forum participant. "We must free ourselves of that which I firmly believe wants to enslave us, our own government."

BLOGGER'S NOTE:

Maybe there is hope after all, perhaps people will begin to identify with the principal that it is not the people that work for the Government, but the Government that works for the people.

If thine eye deceives thee....

And Now, the Rest of the Story, or Rub Your Nose in this $%#

2009-02-05T10:28:00.007-05:00

This article appeared in a list serv that I share with many of my colleagues.

I will not give credence to it's title or it's content

It highlights the reports of "abuse" by a trainer in New Jersey and similar complaints that have surfaced in New York City, all with incidents that predate either the Minnesota or the New York State bills' attempts to regulate dog trainers.

What I find difficult to believe is that if these reports are true, where is the proof? We insulate ourselves with the trust that these reports are accurate when it is clearly suggested in the case of the New York dog walker/trainer that there may be a hidden agenda, and of the 300 alleged THIRD PARTY reports, no clear evidence exists. Oh, I get it, GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Gee, what was I thinking....

Huh?

As for the guy in New Jersey, I remember the stink over this a few months ago. A cattle prod was found. A slingshot and a PVC pipe were also found. Early reports suggest that one of these items were found at a colleague's home, not on the property of the target of these charges. If there were concerns 14 years ago as one of the charges suggests, and six since then, why was something not done sooner?

Oh, that's right, it was only important when it suited the proper agenda, like Daschle's taxes or the new head of the Federal Treasury Department and others of the 'New Administration". It only serves a purpose NOW. Not in 1995 when the first alleged crime was perpetrated.

His guilt is assumed, and if he is found so through DUE PROCESS and not the court of public opinion, then we as trainers in our secular community will be justly served as he and his ilk deserve proper punishment for their crimes. Or will we?

Will it be that we are no longer able to practice our craft unless we are supervised by the government to assure that "no harm was done"? Who will be the judge of what constitutes "harm", "inhumane" practices or "abuse"?

What about the owners deeply committed to their dogs who are not served by the government's proposals to endorse certain types of trainers and not others? Will they be forced to give up their dogs because they could not be trained with methods beyond the scope of their definition of approved? How full are the shelters in this country now? How full do you think they will get in the near future if it should come to pass that only "government approved" methods are used?

This is not an endorsement of "punching, hitting, kicking or hanging" dogs by any means. I think such tactics do constitute abuse and I do not personally know of a trainer in my acquaintance who would use such tactics.

It is not the METHOD that defines TRAINED, it is the END RESULT of the training itself. Physically abusing an animal does not constitute a method and defining abuse is the dichotomy. Collars don't abuse dogs, PEOPLE DO. TOOLS are not the issue, who wields the tool is. The banning of tools is the lowest common denominator in all of this and will only serve to be as effective as New York City's current gun control policy.

I see this as a personal vendetta mounted as a political agenda and offered up in a time and place where the controversy can be utilized to it's greatest effect.

The importance of knowing all the facts seems to escape most reporters these days; they are too wrapped up in currying favor amongst their own breed of lobbyists in the political hotbed that surrounds pets and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR their ownership generates in income for hundreds of thousands of people, businesses and, yup, you guessed it, politicians.

It is inconceivable to me how a party or parties can be so deluded by the fervent scree of a few individuals without the basis of FACT, only the emotion laden mutterings of a few misguided, uneducated bleeding hearts who think they know "inhumane" or "abusive" practices based solely on weak evidence and lots of speculation. And, as I said, perhaps a hidden agenda or two.

Tell me, who is more "abusive"?

Linda Kaim
www.lionheartk9.com

Minnesota Prepared to Enact New Dangerous Dog Act

2009-02-04T11:33:00.001-05:00

On January 14th of the current year, District 66A Representative John Lesch ( rep.john.lesch@house.mn ) and Representative of District 64B Michael Paymar ( rep.michael.paymar@house.mn ) introduced a bill that would require owners or those individuals identified as owners of 'dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs" to participate in responsible dog ownership classes. Additional information on this bill indicates that yet again the government is insinuating itself into the affairs of the people without truly addressing the needs of the community at large.

Read more here: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0115.0.html&session=ls86

You may have to copy and paste the above link.

I have taken the liberty of posting the whole sordid mess here:

H.F. No. 115, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010) Posted on Jan 14, 2009

1.1A bill for an act
1.2relating to dogs; requiring certain dog owners to take responsible dog owner
1.3classes and pass certain tests; requiring maintenance of a database; proposing
1.4coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. [347.57] DEFINITIONS.
1.7 Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in this section apply to sections
1.8347.57 to 347.67.
1.9 Subd. 2. Animal control authority. "Animal control authority" means an agency of
1.10the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is
1.11responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction.
1.12 Subd. 3. Class training manual. "Class training manual" means the materials used
1.13to train the facilitator and the materials used by facilitators to train the dog owner.
1.14 Subd. 4. Dog owner. "Dog owner" means the owner of a dog that has been declared
1.15dangerous or potentially dangerous.
1.16 Subd. 5. Facilitator. "Facilitator" means a person who teaches the responsible dog
1.17owner class and administers the test to the dog owner.
1.18 Subd. 6. Program manager. "Program manager" means the person who oversees
1.19and coordinates the responsible dog owner class, trains the facilitators, and handles
1.20recordkeeping of the classes.
1.21 Subd. 7. Responsible dog owner class. "Responsible dog owner class" means a
1.22class for owners of dogs that have been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
1.23under section 347.50.

2.1 Sec. 2. [347.58] RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER CLASS.
2.2(a) The owner of a dog that has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous
2.3under section 347.50 must take and pass the responsible dog owner class lasting
2.4approximately four hours. A photo identification of the dog owner is required at the time
2.5of the class to confirm ownership of the dog. The dog owner must enroll in a class within
2.630 days of the dog being declared potentially dangerous or dangerous. The dog owner
2.7must attend the class at the next scheduled class date. The class is for the owner of the
2.8dog only; dogs are not allowed in the class.
2.9(b) Dog owners who own dogs that were previously declared dangerous must
2.10take the responsible dog owner class. The dog owner must attend the class at the next
2.11scheduled class date after the effective date of this section.
2.12(c) The Department of Public Safety must charge the dog owner a reasonable fee for
2.13attending the class.

2.14 Sec. 3. [347.59] PROGRAM MANAGER.
2.15(a) The program manager must be:
2.16(1) a veterinarian in good standing in Minnesota with a minimum of three years
2.17experience; or
2.18(2) a person with a minimum of five years experience working in an animal-related
2.19field, including knowledge and training of dog behavior and education of the public on
2.20dog behavior.
2.21(b) A background check must be performed on a person applying to be a program
2.22manager. The applicant must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.23being appointed. No person who has been convicted of animal cruelty under Minnesota
2.24law or any other state law may be a program manager.
2.25(c) The Department of Public Safety shall employ the program manager and
2.26determine how much the program manager shall be paid for providing program manager
2.27services.

2.28 Sec. 4. [347.60] FACILITATOR.
2.29A facilitator must have a minimum of five years experience in dog training or in
2.30educating the public on dog behavior. A background check must be performed on a
2.31facilitator and a facilitator must pass the background check without any violations prior to
2.32that person being appointed and trained. No person who has been convicted of animal
2.33cruelty under Minnesota law or any other state law may be a facilitator. A facilitator must
2.34receive retraining by the program manager every three years to remain a facilitator.

3.1 Sec. 5. [347.61] TRAINING.
3.2Ongoing training must be provided by the program manager to facilitators, including
3.3updating the class training manual and teaching facilitators current information.

3.4 Sec. 6. [347.62] ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY DUTIES.
3.5The animal control authority that declares a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous
3.6must provide the following information to the program manager and the Department of
3.7Public Safety:
3.8(1) name, address, and telephone number of the dog owner;
3.9(2) description of the dog;
3.10(3) a tracking number to identify the case; and
3.11(4) any other pertinent information.

3.12 Sec. 7. [347.63] NOTIFICATION.
3.13The program manager must send a written notification to the owners of dogs
3.14declared dangerous or potentially dangerous that they must register for a class within 30
3.15days, how to register for the class, and any other pertinent information.

3.16 Sec. 8. [347.64] CLASS TRAINING MANUAL; FORMS; CURRICULUM; TEST.
3.17(a) The class training manual and curriculum must address the basic needs of the
3.18dog, both behavioral and physical, and include education on dog care and dog behavior.
3.19The class training manual, forms, test, and curriculum must be prepared in consultation
3.20with a study commission and printed by the Department of Public Safety.
3.21(b) Upon completion of the responsible dog owner class, a facilitator must administer
3.22a multiple choice test to the dog owner and grade the test. A dog owner who fails the
3.23test must retake the test within two weeks.
3.24(c) If the owner of a dog declared dangerous fails the test twice, the animal control
3.25authority must seize the animal and provide for disposition of the animal pursuant to
3.26sections 347.54 and 347.541.
3.27(d) If the owner of a dog declared potentially dangerous fails the test twice, the
3.28animal control authority must make the determination as to disposition of the dog.
3.29(e) If a dog owner fails to register for a responsible dog owner class or fails to appear
3.30for the class and take the test, the dog owner must be considered as having failed the test.
3.31(f) A facilitator must provide a certificate of class completion to a dog owner upon
3.32successfully passing the test. A facilitator must forward a verification of completion or
3.33non-completion form and the tests to the program manager. The program manager must
4.1verify the information and forward it to the animal control authority and the Department
4.2of Public Safety.

4.3 Sec. 9. [347.65] LOCATION OF CLASS.
4.4Responsible dog owner classes must be offered to dog owners at locations
4.5determined by the program manager on a quarterly basis, as needed.

4.6 Sec. 10. [347.66] TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
4.7If ownership of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog is transferred to another
4.8person, the new owner must take a responsible dog owner class and pass the test.

4.9 Sec. 11. [347.67] STATEWIDE RECORDS; REPORTING; DATABASE.
4.10A database must be maintained by the Department of Public Safety containing
4.11records of all dogs in Minnesota declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, and
4.12owner information, including any convictions for violations of section 347.51; 347.515;
4.13347.56; 609.205, subdivision 4; or 609.226, subdivision 1 or 2; and any dogs owned
4.14by that person that have been ordered destroyed under section 347.56, as well as other
4.15information pertinent to enforcement of sections 347.50 to 347.565. The database must
4.16also contain information regarding the test results of the responsible dog owner class.
4.17The commissioner of public safety, in consultation with animal control professionals,
4.18must determine what information will be kept in this database. This database must be
4.19accessible, only for purposes of law enforcement, to all police and sheriff departments
4.20and other local government departments responsible for conducting or overseeing animal
4.21control operations in their jurisdictions, with the exception that private animal control
4.22authorities contracted to local government agencies may only access these records
4.23through, and with the permission of, those local government agencies. All Minnesota law
4.24enforcement agencies and animal control authorities must report in a timely manner to the
4.25Department of Public Safety any information required under this section.

4.26 Sec. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.
4.27Sections 1, 3 to 6, 9, and 11 are effective the day following final enactment. Sections
4.282, 7, 8, and 10 are effective six months after that day.

*AUTHOR'S NOTE*

This bill was introduced one week prior to the State of New York bill that I had addressed last week.

It would seem to me that the lawmakers might want to consider enforcing their existing laws as opposed to this dreck which has absolutely no provisions for what constitutes responsible ownership, who makes that determination and who is responsible for the selection criterion for "Program Managers", "Facilitators" or what constitutes appropriate curricula?

A state pronouncement does not extol one with the necessary virtues of either the actual training of a dog, nor the skills necessary for the instruction of a dog's training.

What are these people smoking?

New York Dog Owners/Trainers Soon to be Howling at Albany

2009-01-30T19:36:00.003-05:00

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New York Dog Owners/Trainers Soon to be Howling at Albany
January 7th, 2009
Albany, New York

New York District 39’s Assemblyman Jose Peralta has initiated a bill (A01540) into the New York State legislature to compel dog owners to comply with new licensing requirements, including a provision requiring them to attend and complete dog obedience training.

The Bill will also have a profound effect on Professional Dog Trainers conducting commerce in New York State; including those who participate in a wide variety of dog training disciplines from training hunting dogs, competitive obedience dogs and protection dogs as well as those who make their livelihood on the misbehaviors of man’s best friend.

This Bill is attached to the New York State Department of Agriculture and Marketing and the provisions within it rely heavily on “...the Commissioner to establish requirements for basic obedience courses for dogs and their owners that must be completed successfully...”, all without mentioning the consequences should they (owners) be found not in compliance. In addition, the provision in 113-A requires that “...the Commissioner shall establish requirements for Dog Obedience Schools which are ‘authorized’ to provide the basic dog obedience courses for dogs and their owners...”, again all without clarifying the language that will address that authorization.

Upon contacting the Assemblyman’s office, it was implied that those “authorization prerequisites” could possibly come in the form of ‘certification’ for dog trainers in order to meet this criterion and continue to conduct commerce by offering training help to dogs and their owners in the state of New York.

Certification has long been a ‘bone’ of contention amongst the dog training community with disagreements from what qualifies a dog trainer to what would constitute a trained dog, by any standards. It has been long established that dog training has been largely unregulated and it has historically been identified as a diverse group of individuals who practice a variety of dog training disciplines.

With the recent growth of schools for Dog Trainers, professional organizations and other dog training communities, many long-time Professional Dog Trainers are feeling the heat of this pending legislation.

Up until only a few short years ago, there was no such thing as ‘certification’ for dog trainers and today its value depends largely on the certifying body, and the organization that endorses the certification.

Many Professional Dog Trainers have practiced their craft for decades, through the traditional institutions of apprenticeship and practical hands-on training, where even the most well known organization that recognizes Professional Dog Trainers (Association of Pet Dog Trainers) established in the mid ‘90’s offers only a multiple choice questionnaire and a minimal number of hands-on hours before granting a certification. The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors established in 1965, requires an essay examination of practical skill sets and video portions to identify these skill sets in order to be endorsed; the International Association of Canine Professionals established in the late ‘90’s affords a voluntary process for it’s members to elect a certification program that contains not only an essay portion, but a video portion as well as endorsements written by students of the applicant, something neither of the other organizations require.

With an inability to determine what constitutes “basic obedience” in a meaningful way, logic suggest those already in place, a certification determining the safe behavior of the dog is a far better alternative to regulating dog owners and Dog Trainers. Such an option to amend a community’s licensing requirements with “Good Dog” tests such as Rockville Maryland’s Section 3-23 “Animal Off-Leash with Permission” offers a meaningful alternative to New York’s proposed difficult to implement, difficult to enforce legislation.

Reasonable legislation can be drafted to promote responsible dog ownership without forcing impositions on already responsible men and women who own dogs and Professional Dog Trainers who offer training services without the benefit of questionable ‘certification’.

Responsible New York State dog owners cannot help but be failed by this proposal and the Professional Dog Trainers who currently serve them should not be restricted from conducting their trade by a state mandate that can only be damaging to dog owners and their dogs.

Coeur d’Lion K9 Behavior Management
Linda I Kaim
1443 Old Taneytown Rd
Westminster,Maryland 21158
410-857-0555
717-880-4751
coeurdlionk9@gmail.com
www.lionheartk9.com

Puppy update

2008-12-16T08:44:00.003-05:00

Here's a clip of the new Lab pup retrieving a ball peen hammer and bringing it to me. This was shot on December 12th. The pup is 8 weeks old.

I will continue to develop her retrieve and obedience and share those videos here.

And now something about DOGS...

2008-12-03T09:28:00.003-05:00

This Friday heralds the arrival of the newest addition to the homestead, the long awaited Labrador puppy I almost couldn't get due to the horrid economy.

She is coming anyway!

I plan on documenting her arrival both here and on YouTube and chronicle her training from the moment she arrives to the the completion of her training.

I simply can't wait! It has been at least 16 years since I have had the dubious pleasure of raising a pup taken at an optimum age from the litter and raising it to adulthood.

Oh wait! What am I thinking! It's winter time!

We'll see how committed my son is to getting her out when she needs to pee in the middle of the night and it's frigid outside!!

Anyway, I am really looking forward to it!

Rescues Rescues Everywhere.....

2008-11-11T12:50:00.004-05:00

My personal thanks to my colleague Roger for allowing me the privilege of posting this. Be assured that his open letter mirrors the sentiment of many dog trainers who are actively involved in rescue, breed specific rescue and dog concentric activities.

Some comments that appear in parenthesis are mine and will be addressed as such.

Rescues, Rescues Everywhere Till Not A Dog In Sight

In considering how to approach a subject like dog rescue, it is
important to recognize the potential for controversy as it relates to
the facts and the conclusions one might arrive at. It is with this in
mind that I write; acknowledging the risk that the points I am trying
to make might be misinterpreted. Therefore, let me state clearly that
I admire and respect those who dedicate time and effort to dog rescue.
When addressing any topic where passions are high, one can be sure the
feelings that are touched lie just below the surface. In fact, as I
will discuss later in this article, it is these very passions that are
sometimes played with, manipulated and preyed upon in driving an
agenda that is very much anti-dog.

While I generally support the work of many rescue organizations, I do
have concerns with how some operate. A list of those concerns might
look something like this:
- An attitude of save 'em all at any cost
- Poor utilization of scarce resources
- Bad matches resulting in wrong dog placed with wrong family
- Agendas driven by idealism interfering with effective and efficient
operation
- Animal Rights proponents infiltrating, taking over the cause,
re-framing the issue and driving the agenda. Many, if not most, of the
issues on that list are connected to some degree though they manifest
in different ways.

(BLOGGER COMMENT:My only addition to the above mentioned concerns is the OPPOSITE of bullet point one, the faction of people who condemn perfectly good dogs to die for some arbitrary testing criterion that in no way can accurately measure a dog's temperament)

Those who participate in rescue are understandably passionate about
saving dogs. Some would say "All Dogs" - even those dogs that are
un-salvageable and cannot safely be re-homed. With the growing move
toward "no kill" shelters and rescues, some dogs are simply being
locked away indefinitely at a very high cost and sometimes already
tight budgets get stretched to a breaking point. The fact is, you
cannot save them all and in trying to do so, pressure is being allowed
to build up within the rescue/welfare system that helps fuel the
concept of crisis…a concept that is then being used to fuel the
support of some anti-dog agendas.

For some unscrupulous folks, people's concern for animals is something
that can be exploited and the rescue concept can be used as a
political and/or a business opportunity. Not long ago a couple dog
owners contacted me to help train their dog Nikki. Nikki is a handsome
medium sized dog of unknown mixed parentage. His owners, a young
professional couple, report, "Nikki is a wonderful dog, he just has a
few issues we must get under control."

As it turns out, Nikki has a propensity to get into fights with other
dogs, runs off any chance he gets, steals stuff, can be very
destructive and is almost impossible to walk. His owners inform me
that they got Nikki through a rescue organization in the mid-west USA
and that he got there from someplace in Mexico. Noting my puzzled
expression, they explain that even though they know there are dogs
available locally, they wanted to contribute to a larger cause and
help a dog from more difficult circumstances.

Nikki is not unique in my experience. I've had clients tell me of the
hundreds of dollars they paid for the Bouvier that was "rescued" from
a puppy farm in Quebec – they got him by arranging to meet some guy on
the side of the highway. The dog was transferred from his van to their
car and the deal was sealed by them handing over a considerable sum of
money "to help defray expenses." Or how about the Chihuahua obtained
from someone's basement in Toronto for several hundred dollars. They
were told the place was a foster residence and the money helped cover
costs – they were also told they could pick any kind of small dog they
liked and the foster residence could get it for them. They believed
the story that all the dogs were rescues and therefore they were doing
a good thing. From the dogs reportedly rescued from the puppy mill in
northern Quebec to the side street operations in Toronto, it is
becoming more and more common to see
'rescue' dogs being shipped far and wide…sometimes with exorbitant
price tags attached to boot.

Every year millions of concerned citizens mistakenly believe they are
helping, to take care of pets in need, by donating millions of dollars
to Animal Rights organizations (some posing as animal welfare groups).
Fact is that while most front line rescue groups have almost no money,
very few resources and rely on donations from patrons within the
community to survive, outfits like HSUS have their coffers full and
very little ever finds it's way back to actually helping the animals.
What do such groups use the money for? While I don't have access to
their budgets and can't give a full accounting, there seems to be
plenty of evidence that a good portion of it goes to fund political
activities in line with promoting the AR agenda. Some of the money
goes directly into funding unreasonable restrictions on dog ownership,
dog care, reproduction and various other anti-dog type laws – all with
a view to first restrict and ultimately eliminate the
ability to own and enjoy the company of a dog.

When considering the very limited resources that some rescues are
faced with, it always amazes me to see some of the spending choices
that are made. Excessive numbers of man-hours and finances will
sometimes be dedicated to single projects resulting in even less to go
around to those other equally worthy dogs that remain. It's not just a
case of poor financial choices either. I've seen many cases where
rescues, crying they are overcrowded, because of some questionable
idealistic criteria, refuse perfectly good homes. Multi page
questionnaires complete with reference requirements, home-visits,
contracts limiting ownership, requirements and restrictions concerning
training that are permitted and even the physical structure of the
home are often cited as reasons an adoption was turned down. Some
rescues criteria would rival that of any child-adoption process.

Earlier, I gave an example of a "long-distance" rescue that happened
to be a problem dog. Of course not all long distance rescues are
problem dogs – many are just "normal" dogs with nothing to distinguish
them from any other dog found in any other place. Many, if not most of
the problem rescue dogs ending up in people's homes come from local
rescues.

It has been my experience that some rescues are much better than
others at screening out dogs which should be placed very carefully or
not be placed at all. For example, one rescue that comes to mind has
repeatedly placed dangerous dogs in the homes of unsuspecting
families. Zealously operating from a viewpoint that suggests all dogs
must be saved, they will place dogs with serious bite histories in a
succession of homes (taking it back after every incident and then
re-homing in a different unsuspecting household).

All the concerns I've noted so far represent challenges that can be
overcome by knowledgeable individuals that are committed to
strengthening the dog-owner relationship and are dedicated to this
cause. Unfortunately, these difficulties are also proving to be
fertile ground for the much more sinister agenda of the Animal Rights
movement.

"When an enemy tells you he is going to kill you believe him." This
quote, attributed to Congressman Lungren, is based on a holocaust
survivor that, when asked the one thing he learned, reportedly said,
"When your enemy says he will exterminate you, believe him." When
exploring the efforts of those that would see us loose our right to
own and train our dogs, it is worth keeping this thought in mind and
not minimize the intention and efforts invested by such individuals.

The Animal Rights movement has been both insidious and relentless in
their efforts to successfully infiltrate and distort the principles of
animal welfare. Rescues, shelters and pounds have not been immune from
this onslaught. Indeed, many of the initiatives and legislative pushes
(behind restricting/eliminating dog ownership) can be found in the way
these well meaning groups have been vulnerable to exploitation and
manipulation by the Animal Rights agenda.

It would be impossible to fully discuss the Animal Rights agenda in an
article such as this – indeed whole books have been written on the
subject that I'd encourage each person (reading this) to seek out and
read for them self. Briefly stated, however, the AR movement seeks to
end all use of animals and/or ownership in any form. They'd like to
see the extinction of any animal that is domesticated or "man made,"
and with respect to our pets and companion animals…they would sever
that relationship entirely.

If this is indeed their agenda, what factors (within the shelter
movement) might they distort and exploit? The most obvious is the
"overcrowded" conditions and lay the blame for it at the feet of the
dog fancy. They also use their own peculiar take on this to push for
the mandatory sterilization of dogs. Their hope is to slowly drain the
gene pool until it is dry. Recently they have become emboldened in
their attacks against those breeding and showing their dogs – painting
all with the image of "puppy millers." All "man made" breeds are at
risk as they push for creative ways to limit/prevent breeding. They
use everything from pushing mandatory spay/neuter laws, to laws that
outright ban or at least unreasonably restrict breeding and they
couple this with the liberal use of the puppy mill label. In their use
of these initiatives, they use every opportunity to pit those involved
in rescue against those who participate in the dog fancy.

The fact is however, that of the millions of dogs that end up in the
shelter/rescue system, very few are purebred dogs produced by
responsible breeders within the dog fancy. Indeed, among the main
reasons that dogs are given up to shelters or rescues are behavioural
issues.

The following is quoted from the "Dog Owners Guide" an online magazine
for pet and show dog owners
(http://www.canismajor.com/dog/surrend1.html). A bit of research
reveals that numerous articles support these same conclusions. To
illustrate the point, here then is the quote:

"Several years ago, the Humane Society of the US initiated a
"voluntary breeding moratorium" to urge dog breeders to stop producing
puppies until all dogs in shelters were adopted to new homes.

"Until there are none, adopt one," the slogan said.

"Thoughtful and caring dog breeders were put on the defensive, pet
stores were vilified, and all commercial kennels were lumped together
as "puppy mills" no matter how they provided for their animals.

"A new study that examined the reasons dogs — about two million each
year — are surrendered to animal shelters has shed new light on the
problem. The main reasons dogs are surrendered is that owners fail to
obedience train or have unrealistic expectations of their pet; the
dogs at highest risk of surrender are those acquired at low or no
cost, especially those that do not visit a veterinarian regularly.

"Gary Patronek VMD, PhD, one of the principle investigators on the
study, presented the results at the NAIA Purebred Rescue Symposium
last March. The work was published in the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association on August 1, and is corroborated in
another study reported in the August 15 issue of the Journal.

"Patronek and his Purdue University colleagues concluded that dog
owners who pay more than $100 for a dog, take him to a veterinarian
more than once a year, and participate in obedience classes are more
likely to provide a long-term home for the animal.

"Veterinary care and obedience classes may reinforce the bonding of
pet and owner, the researchers wrote ". . . by allowing the owner to
experience and appreciate the positive aspects of pet ownership such
as companionship, affection, entertainment, and security without
overreacting to or being distracted by disruptive or unwanted behavior."

"Their conclusions challenge the assertions of activists that breeders
directly and indirectly produce an "overpopulation" of pets and
provide testimony for early intervention through education, a solution
that breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and the American Kennel Club
have promoted for years."
*******

If well trained, mannerly dogs are way more likely to remain happily
in their homes and out of the shelter system, why is so much emphasis
placed on neutering and very little on training? I can think of a few
possible reasons:
1. The AR movement is not likely to promote strategies that are more
likely to succeed and are at odds with their agenda and basic views.
2. Poorly mannered dogs help create an overall negative view of ALL
dogs in the eyes of the public. This negative image can then be used
to support and promote all sorts of anti-dog legislation.
3. Related to number 2 is the concept of "Untrainability." In
researching what (if any) training various AR groups might support, I
found the sorts of training declared "acceptable" are among the least
effective. The kinds of training that the most difficult and the most
dangerous are unlikely to respond favourably to. If they can "show"
training to be unreliable (and/or cruel) they can maintain the overall
negative view of keeping dogs.

If we are to maintain our relationship with "man's best friend," a
relationship that has survived for thousands of years, we must do
something to effectively address the problems of unwanted and
abandoned dogs. We must not allow ourselves to be sucked into the
emotionally laden arguments of the AR zealots – arguments that are
designed to ultimately see the end of this valued relationship – but
instead, we must be prepared to offer a wide array of solutions that
work. Education and training top such a list of solutions. This factor
alone should be viewed as both an alarming challenge and an
opportunity to effective dog trainers everywhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger Hild, CDT
Port Hope, ON, Canada
Professional member IACP #1185
Founding member and past Chairman of the CAPPDT

"A Mutt Like Me"

2008-11-07T15:20:00.009-05:00

Kudos Mr President Elect Obama.

I just watched your first address to the American public regarding your briefing on the economic conditions of our country.

Invariably the question had to be asked regarding the puppy soon to grace your home and entertain your family.

I do not envy you your choices: the pressure to succumb to the desire to appease a segment of this society to 'adopt' a shelter pet when they themselves fail to tell you that there is no assurance associated with such an acquisition. Although it would be nice to order a pup from a shelter ala carte free of the allergens associated with dogs it is simply not possible. The likelihood of finding a hypo-allergenic dog at a shelter, although possible is not without the associated risks of temperament, the reasons it was surrendered to a shelter; compatible disposition for two young daughters? Housebroken? It would be a tragedy to have a new pet come to the most prestigious address in the world to use it as a toilet. I know you are well intentioned, I have to say you handled the conference with grace and dignity.

I liked the comment "a mutt like me" for a couple of reasons. One, we share a similar heritage, of mixed parents, dubious beginnings and a vision for a better future for our families. Although I cannot comment that I agree with all of your policies, I can share the view that as my new President, I must give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to lead before I pass judgment.

Your selection of a pure bred dog is not without pitfalls as well. Although you can achieve the predictability that you cannot with a shelter dog or a mutt like a Golden-doodle or any of the designer crosses, at least you have options that will enable you to determine the best suited pet for your household.

My personal recommendations in descending order and reasons for such:

Irish Water Spaniel Traditionally used as a gun dog, they are not a popular breed. They are medium to large, have wonderful temperaments and usually love children. They do require coat care, but not so much as a Bichon or the Poodle, from which it is said that these dogs are derived. They require exercise that I imagine two little girls would certainly be able to provide, love to play and are not known to be aggressive. They can be stubborn, but are intelligent and loyal companions.

American Water Spaniel Also used as a hunting dog, they are delightful little dogs, averaging in height around a foot at the shoulder. They carry two distinct coat types, the marcel, which is a wavy, hairlike texture and a curly coat much like the Irish Water Spaniel. They require less coat care than the Irish, are substantially smaller, but can be willful. They are energetic, are usually natural retrievers and are also uncommon. They would meet the hypo allergenic properties you are looking for and are wonderful companions providing they get adequate exercise and have appropriate training.

Poodle Offered in three distinct sizes, all carry the same coat properties, color selections and texture. They are lively dogs that are keenly intelligent and very active. The coat requires a considerable amount of maintenance, but there are several clips that are much less low maintenance and keep the dog attractive without looking 'frilly'. Their drawbacks as with a lot of purebred dogs is the propensity for health issues, so when selecting any of the pure breeds, please research the genetic testing your dog's sire and dam have undergone so you can avoid the heartbreak of having to treat your dog for a variety of genetic anomalies.

These are my personal choices, backed by personal knowledge of the breeds and an admiration for them.

Not that you would take my advise however, but for your consideration; not all breeders are bad, and not all shelters and breed rescues are all that altruistic. It would seem to me that you have far deeper concerns than the pet you bring home for your family, but since the outrage on some of your associations recently and in the past, it is probably best to know who your sources of information are.

It is a known fact that HSUS has financially supported such domestic terrorist organizations like PETA and ALF less discreetly in the past than now, and as a non profit organization has created a war chest similar to your own.

It is also true that although some people who breed dogs are less than honest about their product, there are breeders out there who are genuinely concerned about the health and welfare of their dogs and have only the best of intentions.

Your Vice-President Elect has made a decision to purchase a pup from a breeder of German Shepherd Dogs and has taken steps in assuring the pup gets the right start with training and socialization. He has made a dubious choice, for himself, for the rights of conscientious breeders everywhere. Research will bear out on the type and quality of the breeder he chose.

It would do well for the President of this country to not be denuded by the current opinion and choose wisely.

Best of luck to you and your family.

For Barter or Trade....

2008-10-07T20:05:00.009-04:00

Won't be too long now before we hit the streets looking for ways to make a dime or two to pay our mortgages and feed our families.

This whole racket with the 'bailout' of Wall Street (which incidentally is being manipulated by the very people who got us into this mess in the first place, and I don't mean just Democrats or Republicans) is plucking my one last nerve.

As a Sole Proprietor and heavily taxed business owner I am appalled at the actions and activities of our Nations leaders and wannabe's.

I swear if I hear the term "fundamental" used one more time I am going to scream.

Fundamentally, our only saving grace is that for the day, oil is still under 90$ a barrel and this may save us fossil fuel burners who heat our homes even partially with it. Unless of course you live in the great state of Maryland where it seems that the elected officials deemed it necessary not only to raise taxes but increase the cost of energy.

It is fundamentally NOT OK to strip the nation's only steadfast resource, the taxpaying public, rendering the ability to save anything impossible with the ever increasing cost of living.

It is fundamentally NOT OK to openly deceive us with this load of crap about the 700 BILLION dollars as being necessary out of one side of their mouths, placing one of the biggest offenders to head it up and tell us we NEED THIS. IT WILL BE GOOD FOR US.

Everyone knows what it's like going to the dentist as a kid to hear the guy say "Don't worry, this won't hurt a bit". We all know what it's like to be lied to. What are we going to do about it now?

Tell me, where was due process? Who discussed this and when? They can filibuster on the allocations for Viagra to prisoners in Federal Penitentiaries but go behind closed doors in the dead of night to figure out a way to foist this garbage onto us?

And then have the unmitigated GAUL to load the second attempt with enough 'sweeteners' for our 'leaders' to be inclined to vote for it. Even after it was criticized by the public (that would be you and me) as not acceptable.

It is fundamentally NOT OK to support a community of people who are within the borders of this country through MY TAX DOLLARS AND YOURS with health care and education incentives when they themselves are not contributing and are at the very least, here illegally to begin with.

It is fundamentally NOT OK to burden the honest, legal citizens of this nation with the cost of a welfare program that rewards drug addiction, poverty and criminal activities as opposed to incentives for obtaining or continuing education and rewarding good honest effort.

It is fundamentally NOT OK to allow the corporate heads of these failed financial institutions to reap the benefits of their failures by rewarding their poor judgment and questionable practices with enormous bonuses, when many in combination exceed several billion dollars.

Puhleeze.

I may be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of them.

What's that about lipstick on a pig? Seems like the US Gubmint just got a whole load of porkers to dolly up for the Wall Street Ball.

What our politicians have handed us is not salvation, it's another way to squeeze yet another drop from our wallets into their greedy little hands. This incestuous relationship with Wall Street and Washington dates back for more years than I have been alive and there is not one of them who has not benefited from the excesses from liberating the credit market to individuals and institutions that had no business borrowing in teh first place.

I take personal exception to that. I scrimped and struggled and saved my entire life for what I have and I am deeply resentful of the many who just hold out their hands and expect me and everyone like me to cover their insolvency.

IT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE THE FRUIT OF MY LABOR.

I propose this to every taxpayer across the United States;

Barter or trade your services.

Don't buy a new car, take what you have and spend it on a used car, spend the additional money to do what work is necessary to keep it road worthy and drive it until the wheels fall off. Force the automakers to make some hard and fast decisions about the products they will be offering in the years to come and the prices they will charge.

Co-op and build community gardens in the spring and raise your own food, or buy local produce from your local farm growers. If you live in urban areas, there are rooftops and window ledges,porches and alleyways that can support vegetable growing even if it's herbs or one or two tomato plants. Disable the importation of tainted foodstuffs from countries that do not have adequate protocols in place for controlling potential contamination of our food supply.

Grow what your neighbor cannot or does not, and trade.

Purchase your meat in bulk from a local butcher, and co-op it's purchase with your friends and relatives. If you like your neighbors, include them too. Support the growth of a healthy food supply by controlling what your livestock is fed and how it is cared for.

Pick up a rifle, shotgun or bow and learn how to hunt. Barter for venison from your hunter friends and learn how to cook game meat.

If you have some land or know of someone with some land, co-opt the raising of some livestock for meat and help to support some poultry for fresh eggs. Depending on the county that you live in determines what kind of livestock you can house and how many of each type. Not only are you supporting the growth of a healthier food supply, you get to oversee it's care in person. No stomach for that? Barter a skill or product to help support it.

If you don't have access to land but you have a skill; barter or trade the service you can provide for a reasonable percentage of the co-op that it will require to purchase, support and care for the livestock, garden, poultry or whatever.

If you are over 40 and your mother is still alive, pick her brains for recipes that are not only tasty but nutritious, talk to your friends and their families and see if it's possible to make stone soup once or twice a week. Share.

Support your local businesses and boycott the large box stores or chains. Eat at a local diner instead of a chain restaurant. Take your car to the local garage that your neighbor runs, buy your dry goods at the local market. Recycle things. Instead of buying new furniture, have an upholsterer resurface it for you.

Better yet, if you know a guy who knows a guy who can do these things, ask and trade something of value with him. Or her.

Recycle construction waste from houses being torn down or rehabbed. Take what is usable and create interesting living spaces. Do more of your own work and barter or trade with others for theirs.

Support you local craftsmen or become one yourself. Have a hobby? Exploit your talents for the new free market and trade your goods.

Many years ago when my husband and I first moved to Pennsylvania, we were young and naive but what we lacked in real-world experience, we made up for with the ambition to succeed. For a period of time our lives were pretty rough. We struggled to make ends meet like many young families just starting out and since we had no real network of family or friends having just moved to the area, we struggled with a lot of things. Hell, we struggle now.

We had a nice little bit of ground and planted a garden just about every year. For a while it was just the two of us; I can remember getting creative with rice and beans and what little we kept back from the garden to eek out something over the winters. We never starved. Our big treat would be Ice Cream bars or some other novelty and if we were lucky we could afford to go to the local store and get some "real" food occasionally. We supported the local feed stores, local markets, bought fresh from our neighbor-growers and traded goods and services.

Both of us lost our jobs and things got pretty bad just before the first Gulf War and to make ends meet we sold virtually everything we owned to survive. I cooked Pan Bread and re-baked potatoes to keep us from starving. We ate Pasta Fazule' so much I was sweating beans. I learned to cook a feast from rice and sour cream.

And I bartered dog training to repair our furnace, fix our car and even once for a 25 ton load of gravel for the driveway. I bartered photography for vegetables and chickens, dog food and clothing. We shopped at Goodwill and garage sales for everything and in turn sold everything at yard sales and flea markets. The summer before the Gulf War, we sold enough stuff in one month to live for three.

But to do so we had to make the command decision to sacrifice many things.

We used to joke that in the lean times we worked better as a team. It was the times of plenty that got us into trouble.

Here we are having survived the oil embargoes of the 70's, all of the minor little glitches to the dot com bust at the turn of the last decade and again a humdinger of a problem looms before us.

Again we are faced with the same decisions our parents had to make and their parents had to make during times of great sacrifice and need.

I call it the hierarchy of priority. I won't be taking that trip to Texas this spring for our annual conference, nor will I be attending too many seminars as a result of the economy. Instead, I will be concentrating on creating some unique ways to conserve finances so I do not have to pass those costs on to my dog training students.

Christmas is before us and although fuel has come down to record low prices since I started this post, it is a hard time for many.

We will celebrate quietly at home, the three of us, feast on grown or captured foods and conserve our money for what may happen at the turn of the new year.

I am plotting my garden now.

Providing of course, we can afford the price of seeds.

A Bit off the Beaten Path

2008-10-06T08:15:00.006-04:00

I am confident that everyone is either in the grips of news about the Economy or the upcoming election. How this relates to our dogs is multi-fold.

When the economy suffers, there is a distinct rise in the surrender rates at shelters across the country as people determine the hierarchy of priorities for themselves and their families.

Animals suffer as a result.

As for the election, whom we vote for as our leaders determines the interventions and subsequent loss of freedoms that affect our ability to own the animals of our choice and care for them in a way that is beneficial and productive for both species.

My colleague and dear friend Margot Woods of Applewoods Dog Training in Laurel Maryland has a few interesting additions to her blog regarding Animal Rights verses Animal Welfare that addresses the issues of greatest importance to animal owners in the United States of America.

It is important to understand that the political candidates who support such radical views as HSUS and PETA do so exclusively for one of two reasons. The first is the principal of money; the politician needs money to run his campaign and the HSUS and PETA operatives are quick in their approach to candidates who will gobble at the proverbial election campaign contribution "carrot on the stick".

The second principal is simply one that the candidate may simply not be aware of the agendas and sign on in support because they are unfamiliar with the tactics and true ideals behind their new-found allies.

It is important for us to become more involved in the politics that determine not only our fates, but the fates of our animals, our rights to own them and care for them in time honored, respectful ways. The infringement of an oligarchy over the ownership of animals speaks directly to our rights as citizens of this nation and our rights under the Constitutional Laws of our fathers.

No one is opposed to animal WELFARE; the conscious and deliberate acts of protecting animals from abuse and cruelty. Do not be deceived however, by the conscious and deliberate acts of Animal Rights groups to strip you of your rights to own animals.

Forewarned is fore-armed.

If Pets Could Talk, Would We Love Them as Much?

2008-10-04T19:07:00.004-04:00

I was on my way to a dog training client's home in Adams County Pennsylvania this weekend and I saw those words on a sign in front of a Veterinarian's Office.

The incongruity of the question didn't hit me until later when as I passed the same office on my return home, I saw a morbidly obese Lab exiting the office with it's owner.

I thought that the question should read "If our Pets could talk, would THEY love US as much?

A thousand years ago I had a dream about one of the dogs I owned at the time; a bright, intuitive German Shepherd Dog named Rose. She and I were inseparable for many years and we shared many things. She was the consummate mother to countless litters not her own, was a master of surprise and possessed a sense of humor equal to or greater than most people. She was one of a kind on so many levels.

Anyway, in the dream I was sitting on the first landing from the steps that led to my cellar and she was leaning against the washing machine with a cigarette and a brandy snifter, elbow leaning on the top of the appliance, upright on her hind legs like a human, lower legs crossed at the hock.

Her long saber tail is draped around her feet in a very vintage 20's coquettish fashion, as she asks me to explain to her the differences between she and me.

"Well Rose" I start, "you are a dog and I am a human".

She sips her brandy with strangely articulated paws, draws on her cigarette and says "Nope".

"Oppose-able Thumbs".

She sets down her glass, puts out her cigarette, walks to the stairs and past me on the landing sashaying like a queen.

I remember waking up with a start and trying to remember where I left the car keys in fear that she and her partner Indy had decided to steal the credit cards and take a trip to Atlantic City without me.

Somehow I seriously doubt that our pets would love us as much if they could talk, since it would also have to include the requisite criticisms we must face as a result.

I would have to wonder how many of us would make it to enduring friendship with an animal that could talk. Would our long association abruptly end as a result? Would we end up in a Planet-of-The-Apes type scenario where humans became the targets of exploitation, extermination and mass sterilization?

If our animals could talk, would we love them as much? Somehow I think we would fear them, or at least some of us would.

I for one am glad they don't, but anyone who really KNOWS dogs, know that they can easily convey their emotions. Rose for example, is certainly NOT a dog I would want capable of speech. But all the same we always communicated.

I could hear her voice now, regarding the poor choices I made in men, (she was quite capable of making the right decisions even when I was not) in jobs (when I had jobs that left her at home, they were always bad choices, not because they created separation anxiety in her or any of the other dogs, but because of the withering glares I would get when I got home, "where have you been, what have you been doing, you smell like other dogs") in vehicles (there's not enough room for ALL OF US) in food (Popcorn, MAKE POPCORN! Pizza? Did someone say PIZZA?) and friends of either sex ("She smells funny". "Whaddya mean I can't do THAT? How else am I gonna know if SHE'S RIGHT?")

She was an indiscriminate giver of love and a harbinger of great fear to anyone canine or human that she chose, but she was always right.

Hated my first husband, pleaded with me not to marry him and took great pleasure in giving the poor man a few less heartbeats every chance she got. She never tried to bite him, just treated him with the greatest disdain. Used to deliberately lay in wait for him so she could scare him every chance she got. Usually when he was coming up the steps from the basement of our house in New York. She would wait to hear his footsteps on the wooden stairs and position herself just behind the door so that when he tried to open it he couldn't because she was laying up against it. When he began to recognize her trick, he would leave it ajar so that he could see if she was laying there. In those instances, she would wait far enough back so he couldn't see her shadow or her form and just before he could reach the handle to push it open, she would slam herself against it and shut it in his face.

She would walk away from these episodes like she had just accomplished climbing K-12. She was the greatest show on earth.

She worshipped my second husband. They were best friends from the moment they met. She was in the drivers seat of my Blue Ford van as a matter of fact, working to roll down the window and come looking for me when the both of us came out to the parking lot together as she was vaulting out the window.

She walked over to us, gave him her regard, nodded her approval and jumped back into the van. Through the driver's side window. The same one she had exited. My future husband thought that was amazing. I told her to stop showing off.

Back in those days, electric windows were a luxury for the wealthy. Since I was not so, my windows were the manual kind. I figure she had taught herself through trial and error to do it, but she was always prudent in her use of it.

At a Dog Show in York Pennsylvania a few years later, she let herself out of the van while my new husband and I watched an entry of mine in the ring. There is no way she could have seen us but she found us none-the-less, skirting dog show officials and those who wished to catch the LOOSE DOG! LOOSE DOG! on the show grounds. She came straight to us, plunked herself at our feet and looked at me with those shrewd Rose eyes that told me in no uncertain terms that it was late, she was lonely and why is this taking so long? People came running at us to chastise us for the LOOSE DOG!!! and command us to collar her up so that she doesn't get hurt. And on and on as some fools will do. Hurt? Me? she said. Pah!

Gritting my teeth from the embarrassment of it all, I led her away at heel only to be told again that she needed a collar and leash. "Well, no not really, I comment. "She is that mythical creature of legend, a TRAINED dog, see"?

I never attempted to stop her from doing it. Some may recriminate me for that, but she would exit the van to seek me, not trouble. She would sometimes exit to relieve herself and then jump back in. I had no problems with either and neither did the times. To allow this today would invite disaster with the Humaniacs and PETA Nazis.

She would patrol our little bit of ground morning noon and night and announce an all-clear after each and every search. She could tell me of visitors, how they got there, how they left and practically what they did. She warned of intruders and forbade me entry into my own home until she was thoroughly convinced that no-one was there but those that belonged.

She greeted guests like a diplomat and would coyly encourage them to give her things like a good politician. She was selective in her attentions to the best bratwurst, spare-ribs and steaks at parties and loved it when I made it rain popcorn. She worshiped children and I mourned that she would never meet my only child.

She suffered the loss of her best friend for years after Indy's untimely death and rejoiced in the birth of each and every puppy even if they were not her own.

She was my best friend on the face of the planet for years and I still miss her today so many years after her passing.

I always wondered what she would say to me if she could talk and I am not sure some of those words would be so kind.

In the dream she had a deep, resonant voice. No accent, just plain English.

In reality it was much the same.

Yeah, Rosie.

Oppose-able thumbs indeed.

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle and other Fictional Tales...

2008-10-02T20:26:00.009-04:00

After much prompting by my colleagues and friends, I broke down and bought the book written by David Wroblewski in the hopes of finally finding a tale worthy of my limited time.

I love to read and in earlier days made a practice of reading as much as I could on any topic I found of interest (to the point that what parts of my home which are not allocated to the housing of dogs, people and all of their accoutrements but to books; hundreds and hundreds of them).

The vast majority of my book space is divined for works of non-fiction but occasionally I will allow a fictional piece to reside there in a collection that ranges from archaeology to astrophysics. Every letter of the alphabet is represented although of late I tend to shove them in any available space and in no particular order. If I have to find something in particular, I have to search each and every spine, looking at each and every title.

Someday, I will treat myself to organizing them in such a way that they are cataloged in some reasonable fashion. Something tells me however, that is not likely to happen anytime soon. Still they proliferate; on nightstands, coffee tables, office desks, kitchen counters, chairs, beds and dining room tables. I cannot pass a bookstore, library or antique shop without buying SOMETHING with pages and text.

I need a bigger house. The Library of Congress or the archives of the Vatican will do nicely.

What drew me to this story of course is the dog component. A genealogy that begins and ends with one family who painstakingly creates a recognizable type of dog based on an intangible virtue.

The founder, John Sawtelle is captivated by a dog he meets by chance in a town distant from the one he lives in, based on how the dog regards him. How the dog looks at him.

In the era of Albert Payson Terhune and his books about the life at Sunnybank Fam, I guess the term that best describes the quality of dog that Sawtelle envisions is 'sagacity'.

I suppose every dog owner would feel that way about their dog, but as a reproducible quality?

He acquires a dog of indiscriminate ancestry through a trade and the Sawtelle dogs are born.

I imagine in the early foundation of all recognizable dog breeds, something similar had to have taken place and the thought becomes not so idyllic after all, but the story unfolds with the principals essentially creating a strain of dogs whose no greater purpose is to be good pets. Or as referred to in the book, 'companion animals'.

There is much of value in this read; of training dogs, rearing dogs, breeding dogs but then the story veers dangerously into a treatise of why 'show dogs' will never be selected as breeding stock but then great importance is placed on (what otherwise should be maintained as arbitrary structure or if you prefer; conformation, of) the Sawtelle dogs.

So why is structure given so much emphasis? My initial thought was that this passage was going to lend itself to the argument of form following function and at least the suggestion of breeding dogs for a purposeful task, but I was mistaken as the story continues to unfold.

Although the story abandons the pretense of being a 'dog story' pretty early on, Mr Wroblewski had an interesting collection of material to work from, but still some of what is portrayed in the book can only come from one who has experienced it first-hand. I read somewhere that Wroblewski had a relative that bred English Springer Spaniels for field trials, but I have not been able to confirm that claim.

There is no illusion about the book being other than a novel, but it is rich with language and descriptions comforting to 'dog people' everywhere. It resonates with the reader that is familiar with dogs and the dog culture. The language is deeply descriptive, warmly familiar and relatively responsible with issues that are germane to breeders, trainers and other dog professionals.

The book never loses enthusiasm for responsible practices and lends insight to much of the concerns surrounding the politics of 'dog'.

The Sawtelle dogs undergo rigorous training and handling from birth to placement and the regimented protocols are documented in such a way as to give clear and concise information on not only their heritage, but their growth and development both physically, mentally and emotionally.

Much of what is done mirrors the processes of conscientious breeders and trainers throughout the ages and one can read this novel and come away with a feeling that there IS someone out there that KNOWS what it's like to handle a great dog from the moment of it's birth to it's passing.

Much of what is written should be done for ALL DOGS, representing goals all dog breeders should aspire to, all trainers should aspire to accomplish at all levels of obedience.

But the story takes it's departure from our personal beliefs through a dialogue remembered by the central character regarding a conversation about the breeding to "show dogs" and how that 'must never occur' in the grand scheme of the Sawtelle dogs. Another about the value of the Sawtelle dogs as it relates to the value of a pup from a 'show ring Champion'.

I do not disagree with the concept, as most dogs of pure breeding today are rife with hereditary defects that disable their abilities to function in the capacities that they were developed and maintained for. My departure came when I realized that the Sawtelle dogs were specifically created for 'that one-in-a-million' quality that is so intangible that it cannot be measured by breeding for or training for. These mythological beasts were created out of whimsy to satisfy one man's quest for 'sagacity'.

The current definition of a show dog is pretty much like what you see at the Westminster Kennel Club's annual show in New York. It is an arbitrary adherence to an arbitrary standard of physical perfection (conformation) without the rigorous testing that only a standard of FUNCTION can determine.

What was originally intended to identify the physiology of exemplary working structure borne by merit of performance has been reduced to the production of Beauty Pageant contestants.

As a dog professional, I understood the derision and the reference, but I got lost when I realized that the description of the Sawtelle dogs became one of an esthetic standard. If not in physiology, then one of the mind.

And then there's the line as remembered by the son Edgar about what a dog 'meant'.

The construction of the dialogue with Fortunate Fields and the correspondance over what the founder of the Sawtelle dogs called the "next dogs".

All interesting hypothesis that ends up tragically wasted by the ending of the book.

These qualities that Sawtelle sought are those of the mind. I got the impression that what he was trying to create was literally a mind-reading dog, or one so perceptive to it's owners needs that it could interpret human behavior and engage it on a cerebral level.

The final portion of the book has the lead character literally releasing the dogs into the wild where they take up with a feral dog that is written about intermittently throughout the story.

The reader is left to come to his own conclusions regarding the outcome of the dogs, the genetic endowment and the painstaking work to create them in one final cataclysmic blow.

It's a good read for a lot of people. Dog folks too, if you can suspend your disbelief and remember that it is a work of fiction.

I am ambivalent about the book. I liked the story until it grinds to a screeching halt undoing anything I had personally hoped for regarding the outcome of the magnificent Sawtelle dogs and their rich, inspiring history.

I hated the fact that it played on the dubious fortune of randomly breeding dogs for a reason that is, to me at least, a bit pretentious. This train of thinking is what has given birth to the capitalization of 'new breeds' of designer dogs instead of preserving the working qualities of the dogs at hand.

I was left thinking about the concept of the "next dogs" and what ramifications that could possibly have.

As for what a dog "meant" all one has to do is ask a dog owner who has painstakingly created a relationship with his animal, a breeder who has chosen judicious selection to a standard of performance over the contentious fad breeding of the show dog populations and the trainer, who has endured to understand dogs through observation, effort and compassion.

I have already found a home for my copy.

Animal Cognition, Strictly Speculation....

2008-09-24T19:08:00.021-04:00

Funny this should show up on one of my email lists:

Wolves Make Dogs' Dinner out of Domestication Theory

Funny because a few days ago I was a participant in a discussion about Animal Cognition and an article that had appeared in National Geographic magazine in March 2008 of the same name. I had read the article and had seen various televised specials regarding it on Maryland's PBS and the National Geographic channel.

The article appeared to contradict the recent assertions from the scientific community about animal cognition, dogs specifically; refuting the 'theory of mind' in which it is thought that through the evolutionary process, dogs were endowed with an ability to communicate with us in a way that wolves could not have. The experiment details the study of wolves, household (owned) dogs who fared as well and the study of institutionalized dogs in shelters, who fared poorly.

Since no-one knows for sure how domestication came to pass, the dogs aren't talking, don't have a written history and all of our primal ancestors are decedent; I speculate that dogs developed a symbiotic relationship with man by virtue of a common usury. Raymond Coppinger believes it had to do with the by-products of pre-civilization.

Our own waste. Middlings from our campfires, the leavings of a species on the move.

I support that theory in part only because it makes sense that we as a species are a messy lot. I can't imagine much thought was given to concealing our waste products, but I disagree that that's all it was. I think that early man was compelled to follow wild dogs on the hunt for game, allowing them their successes, only to drive them off and consume the game for themselves. In this way a few things may have occurred; the two species would have become quite familiar with the movements and activities of each other, become rather comfortable in a "Know Thy Enemy" sort of way and became dependent upon each other through that process.

As the millennium creeped on and the two species became more comfortable with the presence of each other, that same familiarity enabled each to become more predictable in their mutual behaviors. Since the goal of survival was the same for both, it makes sense that each could become co-dependent on the other to locate and bring down game. When game was difficult to locate, man tracked the animal tracking the game animal. If the human was successful on the hunt, there would certainly be leavings for his erstwhile canine companion from his abandoned campfires. If the wild dog was successful, man learned how to overcome his fear and scare the wild dog off of the game to consume it for himself. And still leave enough for his reluctant companions.

It becomes easy to visualize a suspension of fear between the two parties and a union develop that allowed for more intimate contact, the securing and raising of pups to do what they had always done, but this time from within the lights of the campfires.

It is not too much of a stretch to see this happening in human populations across the globe, using what raw material they had available to work with. Selection begins here, with cognitive decisions for choosing and rearing the young animals.

I believe it is not necessarily one wild dog population that acted as the genetic raw material for all dogs, but I would like to think it was many separate genetic pools that didn't begin to intermingle until trade routes developed through the passage of man to other areas beyond his home range. A wolf on the steppes of Siberia during these times may have shared some of the genetic material as a wild counterpart in what is now known as Africa, but the diversity of each was coupled with his environment and his capability to survive in it.

The recruitment of dogs for specific tasks was a direct result of this symbiotic relationship. This symbiosis continued throughout much of the evolution of both species until within the last one hundred years. Hunting dogs will have always been first. Without them, the success of early man's survival may have been questionable. Sentry or guarding type dogs would have been right up there with the hunting dog if not one in the same animal. To this day, there are populations of indigenous people across the globe that are wholly dependent on their dogs to help locate game, act as sentries to their villages and encampments and protect their flocks and herds from predators.

The wolves they used for this experiment were intensely socialized from early ages and trained much like a dog could be. Some of the dogs they used for the study were in effect tested twice; once in a laboratory type environment where they tested poorly and again in their own surroundings, where they fared equally with the wolves. The last group of dogs tested were dogs in an institutionalized environment like a shelter.

After reading the remainder of this post and following the links, you can draw your own conclusions both about the study and about the evolution of dogs or animal cognition on the whole.

There were studies conducted on a fox farm in Siberia more than half a century ago based on genetic selection and it's impact on a population of foxes raised for fur. The discoveries offered telling arguments for domestication through selection for "tameness" in their pursuit of animals that were easier to handle. What transpired over many generations were measured in the alterations of physical attributes that changed along with the fox's temperamental changes. Folding or hanging ears, alterations in coat color, tail carriage and shape. Genetically, they were still foxes.

The original foxes used in this study were wild animals who were captured and then selectively bred for their fur. Successive generations were bred specifically for tameness, proving the genetic diversity within the species itself. These successive generations were born with largely patterned coat color, soft ears, different eye colors, other physiological differences that made them more "dog-like" than fox-like.

Since the wolves in the study were trained much like one would a dog, how are their cognitive skills anything more than a by-product of that conditioning? It is clear that the dogs in the study who were tested in their own homes fared just as well and it is also clear that the institutionalized dogs failed. I construe these findings as a result of the relationships, of the training and socialization that they had received. It had nothing, in my mind, to do with genetic influence, cognition or racial differences.

Wolves and other wild canids are by nature a suspicious lot. Brilliantly observant and cautious. Their survival depends on their abilities to adapt. Through whatever domestication process that transpired, the one thing that was removed from the equation was caution. The wild beast through whatever process; capture, peripheral association, familiarity that came in some way, lost his basic fear of man and man for his part lost his fear of the wild beast.

The caution that kept the wild dog in the distance was eroded to a point to make it possible for humans to exploit it. If they captured pups in the den, these pups were raised in the company of humans for whatever length of time and the rudiments of communication must have occurred on some level. I venture to guess that even back then our progenitors knew the value of a tasty morsel when made available to a hungry animal.

Surely our ancestors knew when they were being followed and by what. I can imagine somewhere in the past when we were not the highest predator on the food chain. Just speculation on my part, but I would also venture to guess that the 'domestication' occurred by design when it was discovered how alike as a species we really were.

Wild dogs of any species are keen observers. They see better than the average dog, hear better than the average dog, have olfactory capabilities beyond the average dog. These are all skills necessary to make them successful predators. I would surmise that early on in our association with wild dogs that we recognized the VALUE of these attributes and learned to work with them.

One of the folks that had been discussing the National Geographic article also read the results of this study. His comment to me encapsulated my question perfectly.

He wanted to know what kind of dogs the research participants were working with.

The wolves in the study were nurtured to a point that they lost their natural caution of humans and were able to react to the test using the function of their inherent abilities. That which makes them successful predators.

The dogs used in the study ranged from the average house pet (who were tested both in the institutional environment and in their familiar surroundings) and either failed or succeeded according to the environment. In the confines of the lab, they were inhibited, cautious and failed; while tested at home they were comfortable and conversely, successful in equal measure to the wolves.

The institutionalized dogs failed miserably.

This is not a measure of cognition. This is a measure of the nurturing component that affected all three populations.

The domestic dog is considered to be the most successful species on the planet. Within his genetic potential lies the capability to reinvent himself in as many ways, with as many skills as necessary to continue to survive. Early on we found those traits to be indispensable for our own survival and began to mold them in our image.

Border Collies are the penultimate stock dog for a reason. For centuries they have been selected not only for their ability to round up sheep and deliver them to their masters' feet, but all of the qualities that enable them to do that. Keen hearing, keen sight, a keen sense of smell and the willingness to cooperate with a human.

The hounds, all with noses like double barreled shotguns to locate game, again endowed with skills inherited from their wild ancestors. Endurance, scenting ability, excellent hearing.

Other breeds, other tasks, all extrapolations of what was considered valuable by humans and selected for.

All of these skills are the direct result of selection from an ancestor richly endowed with them. What makes them useful to us is the willingness to cooperate, a lack of inhibition and for us to recognize and select those inherent skills and direct them to a specific task. To nurture them.

So of course the wolves did well. They are naturals.

The dogs from the group of house pets also did well, but not when taken out of an environment familiar to them.

The institutionalized dogs did the worst of all the groups.

But what kind of dogs were they?

Of the institutionalized dogs, it is easy to determine that they are certainly a product of their environment. What considerations were made to their selection for this experiment? Breed? Age? Reasons for surrender? But still, there remains a question regarding their selection as dogs or rather, why they came to be? Were they purposefully bred working dogs? The product of a puppy mill or pet shop? Random-bred mutts from the cities or farm communities surrounding a particular area? What breeds did they have in common if they were of mixed ancestry? What breed or breeds did they represent if they were 'pure'? Had there been any prior training? Was the training conducted by a professional trainer of dogs or by lab technicians much like the Scott and Fuller experiments conducted throughout the mid part of the 20th century.

Of the owned dogs, what were their statistics?

The argument that dogs 'read' humans better than any other animal based almost exclusively on their route to domestication just doesn't appeal to me. I have owned, bred and trained them for many years. Although I have owned some very special dogs, they had to LEARN to read me. Once they 'knew' me, they could anticipate my intentions based solely on cues I offered, either with movement no matter how subtle, sounds I made no matter how hard or soft or even the casting of my eyes from one direction to another. This is a testament to their skills of observation, handed down to them from ancient contributors whose very lives depended on these same skills.

But they had to know me first. They had to adapt and conform to the signals passed on to them through me and observe the outcomes each and every time.

Does this diminish them as cognitive beings? Certainly not. It places them on a level of capability that to this day we depend upon. Since we have moved through the need for dogs as hunters and guards in most parts of the modern world, we still select for the excellence of their attributes for sport, for protection, for service and even now for detection of things as insignificant as insects and mold to life threatening cancers.

Does this make them better than wolves? No, it simply makes them less cautious.

I wonder...

2008-09-23T18:44:00.002-04:00

How the Animal Rights radicals can reconcile their existence through their ancestor's presence of mind to clothe themselves in FUR and EAT MEAT.

Must be tough to be them...

Newkirk, after a lobotomy.....

2008-09-23T18:24:00.002-04:00

Greetings,
Please read the following article, perhaps copy it and give it to your attending Veterinarian:
"Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete" @ www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

Now, I know the following is long but I believe that is well worth the time and effort it takes to read it. I recently received this article and I'm sending it to you all in full. In these days when politics are being discussed in even the most casual circumstances, this is an issue that can be "quite stimulating" to say the least!

Do you know the real PETA and Humane Society of the United States ( HSUS)
An editorial by Alice Fix

This is a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA: " I don't use the word 'pet'. I think it's speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus cats and dogs ( artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." The Harper's Forum Book Jack Hitt,ed.,7/6/89, p.223

It is interesting that Ms. Newkirk used the word "speciesist" Allwords.com defines that word as follows: 1. The discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can therefore justify putting them to their own use. One of the animal rights mantras is that all animals are created to be equal to all humans, and should have the same rights as humans. Just in case it still isn't clear what their agenda is, here are a few more quotes from Ingrid Newkirk:

"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. (Dogs) would pursue their natural lives in the wild... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." - The Chicago Herald, 3/1/05
" In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether." Newsday, 2/21/07

Ms. Newkirk has very close ties with several groups identified by the FBI as known terrorist groups, such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The animal rights group are very well organized, and when you check closely, you will see many of the same names sitting on the boards of these radical groups. They are intertwined and closely linked through their finances, and the work that they do.

PETA operates on an annual budget of $29,000,000 Most of this is through donations made by ordinary citizens that don't know the real work of PETA. Many people think that they are out to save the lives of animals after seeing all of their ads on TV and the newspapers. That is why millions are donated to them each year.

In Virginia, the home state of PETA, in 2004, PETA adopted out 361 animals and euthanized 2,278, according to their records ( www.nokillnow.comPetaDVACreporting.pdf)

Those figures aren't good. That means that they euthanize 86.3% of their animals and only adopt out 13.7%. These figures come directly from PETA's Annual Report and from their 2004 Tax Return.It doesn't seem that they used that $29 million for the betterment of the majority of the animals that they came in contact with.So where is the money going? It is being spent for publicity to raise more money for one thing. It is also being used for legislative purposes. They have placed key people in city governments all over the country to try to influence legislation to take your pet ownership away. And they are having a lot of success with it.

You need to understand the basic difference between the "animal welfare" groups and the "animal rights" groups. Although the names might sound like they have the same objectives, there is a big difference.Animal welfare groups are working to see that all animals are treated humanely. Animal rights groups are working to see that all ownership of animals comes to an end.

As I said, PETA has close ties with many other organizations. One of these organizations is the Humane Society of the United States. (HSUS) People donate millions to the HSUS each year, thinking that their money is going to save the lives of millions of animals. Nothing could be further from the truth.The HSUS does not own a single animal shelter anywhere in the country. Although many shelters have the word Humane Society in their names, they are not associated in any way with HSUS. The HSUS does not sponsor any spay or neuter clinic anywhere in the country. They do donate a very small percent of their annual budget to a few local humane societies, around$2 million annually, which just happens to be less than the amount that they spend in travel each year. Their major money is spent on fund raising and legislative activity. In 2005, they spent $28 million for public mailings, $6 million in vegan education, $10 million in legislative campaigns and litigation. Their income for that year was close to $125 million.

The HSUS was founded in 1954 as an animal welfare organization.By the early 1980's, just about the same time as PETA was founded, they began to change into an animal rights organization. In the 1990's, the personnel began to change to better fit with their new purpose, and today many of the personnel have ties to PETA, including the current President, Wayne Pacelle.
This is an interesting quote from Wayne Pacelle: "we have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Animal People News 5/1/03

When you combine other statements that he has made, with the above statement, in my opinion the meaning of this statement is that if we could spay and neuter all animals, we could eliminate pet ownership within one generation. "One generation and out" would mean to me that they are gone and are eliminated in only one generation.

Quietly sitting back and maybe not being aware, we are now allowing the HSUS to make presentations at our local schools, with the definite purpose to educate our children about how bad pet ownership is, to indoctrinate children to the thought that animals should be free and not kept as pets. They are doing this in the same way that they have infiltrated city councils and local governments all across the county, quietly and matter-of-factly.

Shortly after taking office, Pacelle announced a merger with the FUND For Animals which have assets of over $20 million, and the Doris Day Animal League. The combined group estimated its 2005 budget at "over $95 million" and also announced the formation of a new "political organization" which will "allow for a more substantial investment of resources in political and lobbying activities. ( www.activistcash.com/organization-overview.cfm/oid/136)

So that is where we find ourselves today. With HSUS and PETA combines annual budgets of over &124 million for political and lobbying efforts to take away our rights to own animals. And that figure does not include the many splinter organization that have been formed from those two major organizations. We are in an uphill battle now, and it will be the fight of our lives to keep our rights to own pets.

They are going at it from many different angles.One way is to get Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) passed. The banning of Pit-Bulls all 0ver the country is a good example. That has caught on like wild fire. The animal rights groups have said that if they can just get one breed banned, then it will be easy to add others to it at a later date, until eventually all breeds are banned.

Another way that they are going about is to have mandatory spay and neuter laws in place.

Just think about it: if all animals are spayed and neutered, when they die,there will be no more domestic animals.Those same words have been said by Wayne Pacelle, the President of HSUS. They have a very well thought out and planned agenda, and they are counting on the ignorance of the American people to get their agenda accomplished. Well guess what: Ignorance can be overcome by education.,The American people may be ignorant about the facts, but they are not stupid.

They can be educated.

We were ignorant before 9-11, and look what effect that had. It caused all Americans to become educated and unite and fight to prevent that from happening again.The difference here is that we are being attacked from within our own country. We are under strong attack by animal rights groups, and I hope that we don't just stand by and allow it to happen.

The animal rights groups are publicly stating that we need to get laws passed so that they can close down all the puppy mills and commercial breeding facilities that have their animals living in inhumane conditions. Just about everyone would agree with the idea that animals should be treated humanely. But that is just the vehicle that they are using to try to do away with all animal ownership, period.

And that is not a statement that they are being all that public about.

You can become active in this fight by telling your friends and neighbors what is going on. You can be an instrument of education. You can also fight this kind of legislation when it is presented in your area. Go to the City Council meetings and make your voice heard. Write letters to the state and federal government officials to offer your services to be on any animal related committee. In short, get the word out to any and all of your friends that own pets. Let them know what is going on. If enough people stop funding the animal rights organizations, we can put them out of business. There is not much that they can do without operating funds.
The next time you think about making a donation to any of these organizations, you better think long and hard about whether you really want your money being spent to take away your rights.

PETA
Humane Society Of The United States
Farm Sanctuary
Fund For Animals
Doris Day Animal League
Earth Save
Green Peace
Physicians For Responsible Medicine
Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Friends Of Animals
In Defense of Animals
PAWS

Right now the HSUS has started their "First Strike Campaign".

I find that an interesting choice of names.

At www.visualthesaurus.com they define first strike as follows:

First Stike: An attack that is intended to seize or inflict damage on or destroy an objective.

Most people think that "an attack" is on inhumane treatment of animals. They still don't know it is an attack to take your animals away from you.

Last year over 10 million people donated money to the HSUS because of their massive spending on advertising. Most of those 10 million people had no idea what their money was actually going to support.

Better places to donate your money that will fight for your rights to own animals are listed below. These groups are working hard to protect you right to own animals, and to expose the true agenda to much of the animal legislation going on all over the country.

National Animal Interest Alliance
http://www.naiaonline.org/
Sportsmen's And Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
http://www.saova.org/
American Dog Owners Association
http://www.adoa.org/index.cfm
U S Sportsman Alliance
http://www.ussportsmen.org/

You can either make your donations work for you or against you. That decision is yours to make.

This article first appeared in the March, 2007 issue ( Volume V Issue 2) of the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, the newsletter of the Centennial Shar-Pei Club, Inc.

Any reference to this article must give full credit to the Rocky Mountain Wrinkle, and the Centennial Chinese Shar-Pei Club, Inc,

This appears with permission to cross post as written by the original author.

This just in...

2008-09-21T12:01:00.003-04:00

And the question begs to be asked...

Just how are the two related???

Several dogs die while in the care of ANIMAL CONTROL and they are discussing mandatory Spay and Neuter as a result?

Click HERE for one of the most bizarre innuendos to come across the newswires ever.

Someone needs a reality check.

Language and the Dog Trainer

2008-02-05T09:20:00.011-05:00

In an era where language is being hijacked to further agendas, it should come as no surprise that the swiftly growing industry of Dog Training is no longer exempt. The language is being tainted with a political correctness not seen to this degree in any other industrial vernacular. Within the last few decades, the AVMA has bestowed a degree trac in Applied Animal Behavior that is based on the linguistics of the scientific community with little or no practical applications. Their model has always been the controlled study (read sterile laboratory environments and clinical study) of marine mammals, primates and an assortment of animals in cages, tanks and mazes. Their principals are based either wholly or in part from the works of B.F.Skinner who practiced psychology during the mid 20th century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhskin.html

The gist of his research gave birth to a revolutionary movement in dog training, spearheaded by the interpretations of the works of the Brelands;

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Breland/misbehavior.htm

Bob Bailey and Marian Breland Bailey

http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/bailey2.html and others.

In his work, "Training Dogs, A Manual" Konrad Most predates many of these applications of the 20th century with observations made from his work with dogs in military and civilian applications. His work stood as the hallmark for dog training throughout Europe and fell out of favor due to methodology that many deemed 'harsh' and 'inhumane'.

But not without being plagiarized for it's content before being dismissed as "outdated".

Still the applications of positive reinforcement and negative inducers are still in practice throughout the world today. He explains the concepts of capturing behaviors using these inducements in work that was started prior to the turn of the last century and published for the first time in 1910.

According to Wall Street, a 'correction' is a swift change either upwards or downwards in sales of stocks.

According to Main Street, a 'correction' is waking up the morning after the stock market took a 500 plus point nose dive and you realize that your little nest-egg was just used for a souffle'.

According to Princeton's WORDNET, a correction is defined as:

S: (n) correction, rectification (the act of offering an improvement to replace a mistake; setting right)
S: (n) correction, fudge factor (a quantity that is added or subtracted in order to increase the accuracy of a scientific measure)
S: (n) correction (something substituted for an error)
S: (n) correction, chastening, chastisement (a rebuke for making a mistake)
S: (n) correction (a drop in stock market activity or stock prices following a period of increases) "market runups are invariably followed by a correction"
S: (n) discipline, correction (the act of punishing) "the offenders deserved the harsh discipline they received"
S: (n) correction (treatment of a specific defect) "the correction of his vision with eye glasses"

In the current vernacular, it is always assumed that the use of correction is a use of force. Therefore, the definition of correction has become automatically to rebuke or discipline.

It is simply not so.

When teaching a dog to sit on cue, emphasis must be placed on what the dog views as meaningful. If a pat on the head serves as a meaningful reward than it stands to reason that the retraction of that form of reward can serve as a correction, or in the eyes of many; a rebuke or discipline. If a dog can be encouraged to perform a behavior for a treat, a toy or a game, the removal of that reward serves as a correction. This is what is termed as NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT, or the removal of something desirable contingent on an organism's behavior.

See where the language gets puzzling? None of these things can really be construed as 'punishment' as we know it, however they are. All of them can serve as a 'correction', but none of them really fit our mental profile of a rebuke or discipline either.

It gets worse:

In the Skinnerian vernacular, the addition of something to affect an organism's behavior is called 'Positive'. The subtraction of something that affects an organism's behavior is called 'Negative'.

A positive punishment is something added to the environment causing the likelihood of decreasing an organism's behavior.

Huh?

Appetitive: something the organism finds meaningful and desirable. A strong wish, or urge.

Aversive: something the organism finds repulsive and is deterred by.

OK. So....
Negative Reinforcement is the encouragement of a behavior through the removal of a consequence.

Positive Reinforcement is the process of following an action or response with something that the subject wants; a response is required before a positive event.

Alrighty then...

So am I adding something in order to decrease the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring, removing something to increase the likelihood of a behavior occurring, adding something to ...

OK, so now you get the picture.

My concern is this: In the study of marine mammals, these experiments are conducted in an environment so removed from the environment that we find dogs in that the correlations regarding their training are simply not applicable. Same with birds, primates, lab rats and so on. They live in labs, big tanks and cages. Our dogs do not. They live in our homes, on our streets. We come in contact with them in some way every day.

Whales do not chase kids on bikes, threaten the mailman nor eviscerate our family room furniture, but still their 'training' is held as the new standard for canine behavior. They live in TANKS at Sea World and other aquatic parks and demographically (considering the minuscule populations of whales in captivity) POSE A GREATER RISK to their "trainers" than the whole population of dogs on the continent.

There is an inherent risk of devaluing the dog at our feet in favor of training models that represent species housed in such a way that any of the variables related to the environment are FIXED.

A whale in a tank at Sea World has little chance of leaving for greener pastures if the chum treats he gets for jumping through big hoops fail to stimulate him. A quick search of YouTube gets you videos from as recent as a year ago where 'trainers' were toyed with much like they would be if they were prey animals in the wild.

I'll be a b'leever when I see these techniques on animals other than captive ones.

A Fine Kettle of Fish

2006-09-22T21:57:00.000-04:00

One of my aquaintances sent me a link regarding the state of the Pet Food industry a while back and I found it absolutely riveting. With all the different schools of thought on the nutritional needs of dogs in the modern age, this is a timely piece; well researched and heavily referenced.

There is a lot to think about regarding the safety of the foods our dogs eat, with the threats of disease from protein sources and contaminants from improper sanitation. It's some scary stuff.

Anyway, here it is. Spread it far and wide.

http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/784/Patrick06.html

Riddle me THIS, Batman!

2006-09-22T21:53:00.000-04:00

At one end of the leash, a dog; the other end, a VOTER. It is my constitutional right to own a gun, but some freak without a clue wants to legislate the breed of dog I own? Indeed.

What is it with people who think they can legislate common sense or heaven forbid, MORALITY! Each of us is endowed with the lessons of our ancestors, but there comes a time when we are assumed responsible for our actions. Michael Vick although a product of an environment very dissimilar to my own, engenders what people of his socio-economic background view as hope for themselves, for their futures. He chose to exploit his celebrity in ways profoundly opposed to those ideals set forth by polite society. In so doing, he further augments the deliberate attempts of a few individuals to extinguish a breed of dog by virtue of it's bad press. Remember the dogs who died because they WOULD NOT FIGHT. In horrible ways.

What he did was indeed wrong, under any measure, by any 'polite society'.

How does this matter to you?

We will develop this topic further as time and interest allows with the requisite links and content that is in direct relation to the dwindling of rights in this country and abroad.

Have a Little Faith...

2006-09-22T08:24:00.000-04:00

09/22/2006 I am reminded of a excerpt written by Donald McCaig out of his book "Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men". It is about a dog named Sirrah and a conversation Mr. McCaig conducted with the dog from a dream-state many years after Sirrah's death. I took away from the story a confirmation of my profound belief in the cognizance of dogs and a disturbing realization that that particular conversation is relevent to me, to anyone who has owned and disappointed a dog. I often wonder what such a conversation would reveal with one of my own dogs. Would they think me unfair? Would they languish in their respect and admiration of me? One thing I am certain of is their attention to me. Do they do it because I am a super owner? No, I think it is the dogs' nature to throw his lot in with man (or Woman) and accept that which they cannot change. I don't know about having the wisdom to know the difference, but I can attest to to memory of a grand gun dog who 'quit' on her drunken handler in such obvious disgust of his careless blunders afield she refused to work for him again. He sold her, as opposed to shooting her which at the time would not have been uncommon. She lived to teach me how to aim true and enjoy the communion of her silent companionship. She was a marvelous teacher in patience and we remained a team until her disappearance in 1979 under 'mysterious' circumstances. Her name was Catt and although no liturgies will be written over either her life or her passing, she had much to teach in the way of humility. I have no such misgivings with my son. He is human after all and young enough to not have developed the dubious talent of disguising his emotions. With him it is never a guess, he either is or isn't angry. He either is or isn't sad. What makes dogs special is the degree of observational skills one develops in close communication with them. An art certainly lost as our dependency on dogs to help us in our daily work or to assist in the deliverance from starvation passes with the advances in medicine, agriculture and technology. The machinations of the human animal have diverted our attentions from our natural world, the world of our ancestors and we as a species suffer from an acute sort of blindness as a result. As Mr. McCaig suggests, amongst other minds far greater than my own; dogs literally helped us to evolve to the state of mind and technical prowess that we currently enjoy. Without their uncanny and timely assistance, we may not necessarily have perished as a species, but their presence at our early hearths warned us of danger, either by their abrupt disappearance from our fires, or the warnings they provided in their defense of these resources. On the hunt, we followed the packs, emulated their ways and thrived. How do we repay them? We don't acknowledge their contributions to our successful survival, we control and manipulate them from their 'natural' state into something that looks like a parody of itself. We try to legislate them out of existence with our Breed Specific Legislation and other insidious Anti-Dog laws. We restrict their access to places under the guise of health ordinances or the risk of liability and we shun them to dark places we know exist but are not willing to acknowledge let alone change. This country executes dogs by the millions each year because they have lost their importance. They have either become the ultimate display of discretionary income with Dog Show Pagentry and as Mr. McCaig suggests, Victorian excess, or they have become the new Ford Model T. The first disposable car. People churn out puppies without a care past the dollars they line their pockets with. No value is placed on their appropriate placement, no value placed on their ability to contribute in a meaningful way.

Ok, so THIS is Christmas?

2006-09-21T21:52:00.000-04:00

09/21/06Well, here it is, Johnny. My second post on my very first Blog. I'm supposed to be writing a letter for a friend to help her get reinstated in a position that she inherited from moi. Selfish biotch that I am, I am fulfilling my warped need for others to feel the lash of my ascerbic pen. But not in this post, maybe another after someone makes the fatal mistake of twisting my sensibilities to the point I want to scribble with blue fountain ink all over their arses. Since I'll probably NEVER get published in a traditional venue, or even a respectable one, I can exercise my ambitions harmlessly here. Credibility is a terrible thing to waste... Anyway...

This thing is finally going to make it to the BLOG. Oh my. A bit shy of a year and a month since I WROTE the damn thing. Sigh. I am sooooooo lazy sometimes. But hey, we all need a respite from the cold hard fact of reality. You know, like jobs, kids, men (ugh, don't get me started) and stuff. How does this relate to dogs? It doesn't but I got you to read it anyway!

My son is upstairs wrestling with Scoot the Lava Cat and Nobb the kitten-from-hell in our new diggs in Carroll County, Maryland. I needed a change of scenery, he needed a stable environment in which to flourish and grow into a petty dictator with world domination in his horizon. So here we are, together with the muttley crew, Cotton; to whom a legacy will be written here and elsewhere, otherwise known as "The Comedic Exploits of Adventure Boy and Wonder Dog", Franklin-Stein the Pug and ButterBall the Bullish on everything Bull Terrorist. I have a compulsion to write about the current state of DOG in Carroll County, but today is reserved for unfinished business and setting a plan....