Superfluous Act of Reconciliation

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.

Competing Interests, One Solution

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

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...

Prized Hound Dies in Shelter Dispute

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.

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

Rescues Rescues Everywhere.....

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"

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.

A Bit off the Beaten Path

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.

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

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.