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

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

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

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

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

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.