For anyone who missed me (is anyone actually out there?), this post will explain the absence. I am facing a new cancer, and have been in a whirlwind of visits to a variety of medical specialties, eating up huge chunks of time. Now I have started ongoing treatment, and the new-to-me addition is IV chemotherapy. And something dog-related cropped up almost immediately.
In the treatment center, chemo patients are advised to flush twice to protect themselves and family members from the potent chemo drugs being excreted in their urine and feces. And the staff even had the foresight to mention that dogs should most definitely be kept from drinking from the toilet bowl. I was impressed that they had thought this far!
As you probably know if you think about it, sooner or later, almost any drug you take winds up in at least trace amounts in that toilet bowl. Hence part of the source of prescription drugs detectable in streams and rivers (other sources are unwisely dumping unwanted drugs down the toilet). So although dogs drinking out of toilets has long been fodder for the humor mill, it's actually not so funny. Don't let your dog ingest potentially harmful drugs. . . or, at the very least, those products so many people hang in their toilet tanks to help keep the bowl clean.
The extremely simple solution is to keep the lid down. In conjunction with that, always provide plenty of clean fresh water for your dogs. And there will be no need to lap out of that bowl.
Jul 30, 2008
Jun 18, 2008
Take Your Dog to Work Day
In case you didn't already know, this Friday, June 20th, is National Take Your Dog to Work Day.
When this national day of celebrating doggieness was first initiated, a lot of people thought it would just go away. Instead, it's gotten bigger every year, and some companies now actually make every day Take Your Dog to Work Day, in acknowledgment of the general calming effect of having well-behaved dogs in the office. A few studies have even been done, showing that offices with canines in the cubicles have higher productivity and lower stress than dogless offices.
I'm fortunate, in that as I work at home, I don't have to take myself or my dog to an office, other than the one on my ground floor. And I'm glad he's here, especially when it's a day full of rejection notices from publishers ("It's a really terrific idea, but it's not right for us"), demands for faster turnarounds, or lack of return calls in response to queries about overdue payments.
Nestle is an extremely good office dog. He knows that I will be here working at my desk until 2 pm. That is the magical doggie hour, when we go out for a walk, or to run errands and a walk, or sometimes, joy of joy, for a canine social hour with friends. He only asks for an occasional scratch until that magic hour, or perhaps some human help with a problem such as what to do about the raccoon on the roof of the lawnmower shed.
I don't have to worry much about being the only human here, because Nestle and his housemate Diamond alert any approaching strangers that there are canines on duty, ready to protect and defend. There have been a rash of daylight burglaries in the area, but I doubt that anyone greeted by a cacophony of barking would proceed with breaking in. . . there are lots of other houses without dogs, so why risk a confrontation.
But more than security, he is a warm fuzzy always eager to listen presence in what would otherwise be a quiet, lonely house.
So I celebrate Take Your Dog to Work Day, and feel a twinge of sorrow for those for whom this really is a once-a-year event.
When this national day of celebrating doggieness was first initiated, a lot of people thought it would just go away. Instead, it's gotten bigger every year, and some companies now actually make every day Take Your Dog to Work Day, in acknowledgment of the general calming effect of having well-behaved dogs in the office. A few studies have even been done, showing that offices with canines in the cubicles have higher productivity and lower stress than dogless offices.
I'm fortunate, in that as I work at home, I don't have to take myself or my dog to an office, other than the one on my ground floor. And I'm glad he's here, especially when it's a day full of rejection notices from publishers ("It's a really terrific idea, but it's not right for us"), demands for faster turnarounds, or lack of return calls in response to queries about overdue payments.
Nestle is an extremely good office dog. He knows that I will be here working at my desk until 2 pm. That is the magical doggie hour, when we go out for a walk, or to run errands and a walk, or sometimes, joy of joy, for a canine social hour with friends. He only asks for an occasional scratch until that magic hour, or perhaps some human help with a problem such as what to do about the raccoon on the roof of the lawnmower shed.
I don't have to worry much about being the only human here, because Nestle and his housemate Diamond alert any approaching strangers that there are canines on duty, ready to protect and defend. There have been a rash of daylight burglaries in the area, but I doubt that anyone greeted by a cacophony of barking would proceed with breaking in. . . there are lots of other houses without dogs, so why risk a confrontation.
But more than security, he is a warm fuzzy always eager to listen presence in what would otherwise be a quiet, lonely house.
So I celebrate Take Your Dog to Work Day, and feel a twinge of sorrow for those for whom this really is a once-a-year event.
Jun 5, 2008
The News Needs an Expert Filter for Stories on Dogs
When you have expertise in a specific topic, reading newspapers or listening to the radio can be a cringe-inducing event. I can chuckle and shake my head when my local paper misidentifies agility obstacles or reports on the "prettiest" dog being chosen in the conformation ring. But other missteps in news coverage are more serious.
There was a recent report of a "mauling" by dogs in a paper. For those converse in dog behavior, the report made no sense. The dogs were reported to be "scratching and biting" the victim, and immediately stopped when called away by others. A serious attack doesn't involve scratching, and a dog in attack mode isn't called off unless very highly trained. This read far more like rough play gone awry.
But the report that really got me steaming was on Paul Harvey. With no sign of disbelief, and in fact, what sounded like awed acceptance, it was reported that a dog in South Korea was so phenomenally good at sniffing out cancer than the Koreans were cloning the dog to repeat such excellence. And yet there are so many things wrong with that short report!
First, a variety of dogs have been trained to sniff out various cancers, and they seem uniformly good at the task. But more importantly, the idea that cloning will result in dogs of precisely equal ability is ludicrous. Cloned animals in general have not proven to be healthy or to enjoy normal lifespans. But the main problem here is that cloning merely produces an animal with the same genetic structure. So the dogs will look like the cloned dog. But as far as their actions, there's far more involved than their genetics.
This should be obvious to anyone who has known a set of human twins. They carry the same DNA, but hardly ever exhibit the same personality. It's no different with dogs or any other animal. It's that old nature versus nurture effect. You may start with the same blank slate, but experiences write on each slate differently.
I know news agencies aren't going to be employing canine specialists any time soon, but what really bothers me is that they fall down so badly on this subject I know so well, so why should I believe that they do a lot better on other subjects? I'm sure there are experts out there in photovoltaics or forestry or whatever who cringe just as much when their subject hits the news.
At least with the subject I know and love -- dogs -- please take news reports with a healthy grain of salt.
There was a recent report of a "mauling" by dogs in a paper. For those converse in dog behavior, the report made no sense. The dogs were reported to be "scratching and biting" the victim, and immediately stopped when called away by others. A serious attack doesn't involve scratching, and a dog in attack mode isn't called off unless very highly trained. This read far more like rough play gone awry.
But the report that really got me steaming was on Paul Harvey. With no sign of disbelief, and in fact, what sounded like awed acceptance, it was reported that a dog in South Korea was so phenomenally good at sniffing out cancer than the Koreans were cloning the dog to repeat such excellence. And yet there are so many things wrong with that short report!
First, a variety of dogs have been trained to sniff out various cancers, and they seem uniformly good at the task. But more importantly, the idea that cloning will result in dogs of precisely equal ability is ludicrous. Cloned animals in general have not proven to be healthy or to enjoy normal lifespans. But the main problem here is that cloning merely produces an animal with the same genetic structure. So the dogs will look like the cloned dog. But as far as their actions, there's far more involved than their genetics.
This should be obvious to anyone who has known a set of human twins. They carry the same DNA, but hardly ever exhibit the same personality. It's no different with dogs or any other animal. It's that old nature versus nurture effect. You may start with the same blank slate, but experiences write on each slate differently.
I know news agencies aren't going to be employing canine specialists any time soon, but what really bothers me is that they fall down so badly on this subject I know so well, so why should I believe that they do a lot better on other subjects? I'm sure there are experts out there in photovoltaics or forestry or whatever who cringe just as much when their subject hits the news.
At least with the subject I know and love -- dogs -- please take news reports with a healthy grain of salt.
May 28, 2008
Try to Remember
I recently adopted three rescue llamas. Though I have had horses and sheep, llamas are a new species for me. So I am once again climbing the learning curve of how to care for, train, and enjoy these large new additions to the ranchlet. They are tons of fun to watch, especially when they neck wrestle or run laps around the pasture. But being rescued, they missed out on any early training, and are a definite handful to work with.
This has reminded me once again how easy it is to forget just how confusing and terrifying it can be when you get your very first dog. I was lucky. My dogs came in an order that made the learning curve manageable for me. I shudder to think what might have happened had the first two canine members of my family arrived in reverse order.
My actual first dog was Sundance, a Keeshond. She failed the conformation standard, having an undershot jaw. But she was gorgeous and, above all, amazingly intelligent. As I knew absolutely nothing at the time about dogs, other than that I had to have one, she was the perfect "learner dog." She had a few housetraining accidents (all my fault, of course), chewed one rung of a wooden chair as her sole puppyhood transgression, and generally taught me much of what I needed to know to become a decent pup parent. She had more grace and social bearing than I did at the time, and seemed to learn things through osmosis. She traveled many of the national parks with me, and was welcomed everywhere, as it was evident that she was a princess in dog clothing.
I remember wondering what the heck all the fuss was about, and why there were so many books about living with a dog, when it all seemed so remarkably easy.
Then along came Spirit. . .
She was in a pet shop at six weeks of age, supposedly a Cocker-Springer mix. I was still uneducated, or I wouldn't have been looking at a dog in a pet shop. And I certainly wouldn't have purchased what was obviously a puppy mill dog who had been taken from her mother too soon. But the saying goes that you get the dog you need at the time, and Spirit was responsible for nearly all of my early learning about dogs, so she contributed mightily to my current career in dogs.
I had learned enough that once we had nursed her back to health, Spirit was enrolled in classes. Of course, these were traditional classes, with choke chains and leash pops. Nothing else was available at the time, and I didn't know I should be looking for something else anyway.
All seemed to go swimmingly until one week in class, when Spirit was perhaps six months old. The trainer was going over each dog as they performed a stand (as if we were ever going to do conformation). And just before she touched Spirit, I at least had the sense to see my dog's body stiffen, hair rise. So I had one hand grasping the collar and the other holding Spirit's tail, and literally swung her out of reach as she went for the trainer.
Bite averted there, but life was never the same. Spirit appeared to hate humanity. Now I would know that she was actually AFRAID of humanity, and determined to keep all of it, other than myself, at bay. We found a trainer (whom Spirit bit the first time she met him) who would work with us in group classes, and another trainer who did private lessons with us. No one mentioned counter conditioning, desensitization, or any program specifically to attempt to change how Spirit felt about things. They all concentrated on obedience exercises to "get control" of my Spirit.
Matters only got worse when a terrier mix joined our pack and the dog fights began. Humans got bit trying to break up fights (fortunately, only family members, and none requiring professional medical treatment, so we never got reported). We lived in an uneasy world of constant vigilance.
Now I would have so many more resources available, but even with that, I try to think what it would be like to have a Spirit as a first dog. Wanting love and companionship and getting teeth and terror is a rather disorienting experience. Some appear to solve it pretty easily, by disposing of the dog through one means or another. But others stick it out, and I have a great deal of empathy for them.
So I keep writing -- about breeding for temperament as well as looks, about the importance of early socialization, about how to work with a difficult dog -- in the hopes that someone somewhere with a Spirit will find the hope they need.
I couldn't love her in the same way that I loved Sundance, but I did my best for her, and stood by her for her 16-1/2 years. Thanks for the education, Spirit. I'll always remember you for it.
May 15, 2008
Salmonella and Dry Dog Food
There was a news report this morning about an outbreak of salmonella among humans. They blamed it on the handling of dry dog food, and recommended that people wash their hands immediately after handling dog food.
Aren't they missing a rather basic point here? Why is it considered perfectly all right that the dog food is contaminated with salmonella? What about the dogs actually EATING the food?
Food safety in the U.S. is low and deteriorating. The numbers and powers of food inspectors have been seriously eroded over the last decade. We have to eat our hamburgers well done, whether we like them that way or not, or risk an E. coli infection. We can't let chicken touch a kitchen counter without having to disinfect everything in sight. Even washing our spinach and lettuce may not protect us from field contamination with fecal matter. This is all considered perfectly normal.
In my own local area, various political and real estate organizations have declared that there is no need to protect our remaining farmland. Yet these same people profess to be most concerned about terrorism. Well, if terrorists really were to launch a massive attack, wouldn't safe food and water be one of our primary concerns? With transportation likely disrupted, a local food supply would be of prime importance.
But that's my own local hot button issue. On a more national level, why do we put up with such a lack of food safety? There are some pet food manufacturers who have not been involved in the melamine recalls, not suffered a mycotoxin taint in their grain products, been able to supply a safe and healthy product. If you start investigating, you find that nearly all of them use suppliers they know and trust -- not the lowest bidder in China. Many of their products are officially certified organic, which lays a whole new layer of testing and certification on them. Yes, they are more expensive than the supermarket brands. But in my opinion, some peace of mind is worth some expense. I would be willing to pay the same for my own food, and often do, through buying at farmers markets and local grocers rather than international chains.
This is not an issue that gets even a mention during this long long campaign season. Doesn't anyone care if their food is safe?
Aren't they missing a rather basic point here? Why is it considered perfectly all right that the dog food is contaminated with salmonella? What about the dogs actually EATING the food?
Food safety in the U.S. is low and deteriorating. The numbers and powers of food inspectors have been seriously eroded over the last decade. We have to eat our hamburgers well done, whether we like them that way or not, or risk an E. coli infection. We can't let chicken touch a kitchen counter without having to disinfect everything in sight. Even washing our spinach and lettuce may not protect us from field contamination with fecal matter. This is all considered perfectly normal.
In my own local area, various political and real estate organizations have declared that there is no need to protect our remaining farmland. Yet these same people profess to be most concerned about terrorism. Well, if terrorists really were to launch a massive attack, wouldn't safe food and water be one of our primary concerns? With transportation likely disrupted, a local food supply would be of prime importance.
But that's my own local hot button issue. On a more national level, why do we put up with such a lack of food safety? There are some pet food manufacturers who have not been involved in the melamine recalls, not suffered a mycotoxin taint in their grain products, been able to supply a safe and healthy product. If you start investigating, you find that nearly all of them use suppliers they know and trust -- not the lowest bidder in China. Many of their products are officially certified organic, which lays a whole new layer of testing and certification on them. Yes, they are more expensive than the supermarket brands. But in my opinion, some peace of mind is worth some expense. I would be willing to pay the same for my own food, and often do, through buying at farmers markets and local grocers rather than international chains.
This is not an issue that gets even a mention during this long long campaign season. Doesn't anyone care if their food is safe?
May 2, 2008
Fatal(?) Attraction
When you decide that it's time to add a dog to your household, how do you go about deciding what you want and where you'll look?
There are three basic ways to proceed
1. decide on a breed, do your research, and contact breeders or rescue groups
2. decide on a breed, go to a pet shop or look in the local classifieds
3. don't make any decision about what sort of dog, and go to the local shelter or rescue group.
Most of the time, I fall into the third group. I did buy my Keeshond after becoming utterly besotted with the breed, and I may have one again sometime. . . or perhaps a Portuguese Water Dog or Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. But most often, when I need a dog, I simply start making the rounds of the shelters, starting with the local and moving out from there. I do have some things in mind. Last time, it was "no black dogs," as I had just lost the second of two large black dogs and wanted a change. Now I seem to have developed a preference for male dogs, though that may not hold up if the right female were to come along. There is also more of a size requirement than there used to be, as I am getting older and having some effects from my battle with cancer, and can't really handle the big guys any more. Activity level also figures in, though I have plenty of ways to give a dog lots of exercise without having to totally exhaust myself. Intelligence is important to me -- I like a dog who thinks for him or herself, even has a bit of a naughty side or a wicked sense of humor.
My last search went through three shelters and even then, I didn't think I'd found my match. My friend had to point out the little inanimate brown dog to me. He hadn't moved the whole time we were in the puppy room. He obviously hadn't had much good happen in his life, but there was still something in his eyes that said there was a good dog in there, if only someone would give him a chance. So I said yes, and then cried buckets when they said he couldn't be released until they neutered him the next morning. But he survived the night, and though it took some months for him to develop trust and a good secure bond, after that he blossomed. He is perhaps at least as smart as my Keeshond was, maybe more. I was new to dogs when I had her, didn't know about clicker training, and didn't really do much training at all. So I don't know how she would have coped with learning the concepts of "bigger/smaller," "higher/lower," though she did know "left/right."
I have contacted purebred rescue groups from time to time, with the idea of having them keep an eye out for a Keeshond mix or a Collie mix for me, but we never followed through with it. Still, I think it's a good way to go if you have a particular breed in mind. The dogs in rescue are nearly always fostered in people's homes, so they're getting regular training and socialization from dog people who care. They're rarely puppies, but a slightly older dog who's already had the kinks worked out can fit really smoothly into a household.
Of course reponsible breeders are the real watchdogs of their respective breeds. The best among them are dedicating themselves to identifying and eradicating genetic diseases, breeding for good temperament, and socializing their puppies fully. I have my problems with some things in the purebred world -- I don't like cropping ears, and I don't like some of the extremes to which various breeds have been pushed -- but I have total respect for reponsible breeders.
The same doesn't hold for backyard breeders and pet shops that sell dogs. Most of the ads for puppies in my local paper can't even manage to spell the breed correctly, so what does that say for their level of knowledge? Pug/peke crosses are advertised as "papered," 8-week-old puppies "have had all their shots," and on and on. And all this goes on while we have a serious overload in our local shelter.
The local pet shop selling puppies claims that they don't do business with puppy mills, yet a suspicious number of their puppies originate in Pennsylvania and Missouri and Arkansas, the hot beds of puppy millers. The only dog I ever acquired from a pet shop was misidentified as to breeds, too young to be there (6 weeks), dying of every parasite known to dogdom (despite a health guarantee), and turned out to be psychotic. I made the pet shop pay for her veterinary treatments to pull her through, then helped the police shut the place down.
I called this blog Fatal Attraction because too often people fall in love with the look of a dog and have no idea what the dog is like to live with. People think they want a Border Collie because they're smart - you don't, not unless you plan to invest many hours in training and entertaining that dog. Or they love the look of a Siberian Husky, but insist they will not fence or leash their dog. Bye bye, Husky. It goes on and on.
Whether you decide on a purebred or a shelter mix, please give some thought to what it's going to be like to live with that dog for the next 10 or 15 years. You'll both be better off.
There are three basic ways to proceed
1. decide on a breed, do your research, and contact breeders or rescue groups
2. decide on a breed, go to a pet shop or look in the local classifieds
3. don't make any decision about what sort of dog, and go to the local shelter or rescue group.
Most of the time, I fall into the third group. I did buy my Keeshond after becoming utterly besotted with the breed, and I may have one again sometime. . . or perhaps a Portuguese Water Dog or Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. But most often, when I need a dog, I simply start making the rounds of the shelters, starting with the local and moving out from there. I do have some things in mind. Last time, it was "no black dogs," as I had just lost the second of two large black dogs and wanted a change. Now I seem to have developed a preference for male dogs, though that may not hold up if the right female were to come along. There is also more of a size requirement than there used to be, as I am getting older and having some effects from my battle with cancer, and can't really handle the big guys any more. Activity level also figures in, though I have plenty of ways to give a dog lots of exercise without having to totally exhaust myself. Intelligence is important to me -- I like a dog who thinks for him or herself, even has a bit of a naughty side or a wicked sense of humor.
My last search went through three shelters and even then, I didn't think I'd found my match. My friend had to point out the little inanimate brown dog to me. He hadn't moved the whole time we were in the puppy room. He obviously hadn't had much good happen in his life, but there was still something in his eyes that said there was a good dog in there, if only someone would give him a chance. So I said yes, and then cried buckets when they said he couldn't be released until they neutered him the next morning. But he survived the night, and though it took some months for him to develop trust and a good secure bond, after that he blossomed. He is perhaps at least as smart as my Keeshond was, maybe more. I was new to dogs when I had her, didn't know about clicker training, and didn't really do much training at all. So I don't know how she would have coped with learning the concepts of "bigger/smaller," "higher/lower," though she did know "left/right."
I have contacted purebred rescue groups from time to time, with the idea of having them keep an eye out for a Keeshond mix or a Collie mix for me, but we never followed through with it. Still, I think it's a good way to go if you have a particular breed in mind. The dogs in rescue are nearly always fostered in people's homes, so they're getting regular training and socialization from dog people who care. They're rarely puppies, but a slightly older dog who's already had the kinks worked out can fit really smoothly into a household.
Of course reponsible breeders are the real watchdogs of their respective breeds. The best among them are dedicating themselves to identifying and eradicating genetic diseases, breeding for good temperament, and socializing their puppies fully. I have my problems with some things in the purebred world -- I don't like cropping ears, and I don't like some of the extremes to which various breeds have been pushed -- but I have total respect for reponsible breeders.
The same doesn't hold for backyard breeders and pet shops that sell dogs. Most of the ads for puppies in my local paper can't even manage to spell the breed correctly, so what does that say for their level of knowledge? Pug/peke crosses are advertised as "papered," 8-week-old puppies "have had all their shots," and on and on. And all this goes on while we have a serious overload in our local shelter.
The local pet shop selling puppies claims that they don't do business with puppy mills, yet a suspicious number of their puppies originate in Pennsylvania and Missouri and Arkansas, the hot beds of puppy millers. The only dog I ever acquired from a pet shop was misidentified as to breeds, too young to be there (6 weeks), dying of every parasite known to dogdom (despite a health guarantee), and turned out to be psychotic. I made the pet shop pay for her veterinary treatments to pull her through, then helped the police shut the place down.
I called this blog Fatal Attraction because too often people fall in love with the look of a dog and have no idea what the dog is like to live with. People think they want a Border Collie because they're smart - you don't, not unless you plan to invest many hours in training and entertaining that dog. Or they love the look of a Siberian Husky, but insist they will not fence or leash their dog. Bye bye, Husky. It goes on and on.
Whether you decide on a purebred or a shelter mix, please give some thought to what it's going to be like to live with that dog for the next 10 or 15 years. You'll both be better off.
Apr 22, 2008
An Earth Day Celebration of Dogs
There's always a lot to put your mind to on Earth Day . . . or any other day, for that matter. But as this blog is about dogs, I'd like to reflect on what our world might be like if the canine species were to suddenly disappear.
In large parts of the third world, where dogs are not family pets as we know them, but are part of village life, conditions would deteriorate rapidly. Dogs are a necessary part of keeping the village clean and livable, clean-up crews on four legs. So disease and death would likely increase. Also, in many of these societies, dogs are treasured hunting companions, so the supply of food would also likely suffer.
But those places are far away in other lands. So perhaps some thoughts closer to home. . .
Humans have not yet been able to construct a smelling device as efficient as a dog's nose, so all those searches for explosives, drugs, contraband, and fleeing suspects would be rendered much less efficient. Lost people, avalanche victims, and potential survivors of natural disasters would stand less chance of being located and rescued in time.
The blind and the disabled would lose one of their best assistance devices, as well as a huge measure of companionship.
The emerging "one world" aspect of medicine and research would suffer a huge setback. Dogs are a natural subject for medical research, and I don't mean as lab rats. They suffer many of the same diseases as humans and share our environment intimately, so advances in canine medicine often lead to similar advances in human medicine.
Farmers and ranchers would lose one of their most able employees. Who else is going to be so efficient at controlling a flock of geese in a yard or an enormous herd of sheep spread across miles of grazing land?
A whole industry would disappear. Dog trainers, groomers, dog show judges, dog writers would all be summarily out of work.
But most of all, the world would be a much lonelier place. Studies have shown that talking to a loved one (of the human variety) increases blood pressure, whereas taling to or petting a dog, even one you don't know, lowers blood pressure. But we don't need studies to know how good dogs are for us.
So on this Earth Day, I pledge to continue my recycling as usual, to try even harder to remember my cloth bags when I go shopping, to celebrate my new-this-year photovoltaic panels, to drive my Prius proudly. . . and to cherish my canine friends even more.
In large parts of the third world, where dogs are not family pets as we know them, but are part of village life, conditions would deteriorate rapidly. Dogs are a necessary part of keeping the village clean and livable, clean-up crews on four legs. So disease and death would likely increase. Also, in many of these societies, dogs are treasured hunting companions, so the supply of food would also likely suffer.
But those places are far away in other lands. So perhaps some thoughts closer to home. . .
Humans have not yet been able to construct a smelling device as efficient as a dog's nose, so all those searches for explosives, drugs, contraband, and fleeing suspects would be rendered much less efficient. Lost people, avalanche victims, and potential survivors of natural disasters would stand less chance of being located and rescued in time.
The blind and the disabled would lose one of their best assistance devices, as well as a huge measure of companionship.
The emerging "one world" aspect of medicine and research would suffer a huge setback. Dogs are a natural subject for medical research, and I don't mean as lab rats. They suffer many of the same diseases as humans and share our environment intimately, so advances in canine medicine often lead to similar advances in human medicine.
Farmers and ranchers would lose one of their most able employees. Who else is going to be so efficient at controlling a flock of geese in a yard or an enormous herd of sheep spread across miles of grazing land?
A whole industry would disappear. Dog trainers, groomers, dog show judges, dog writers would all be summarily out of work.
But most of all, the world would be a much lonelier place. Studies have shown that talking to a loved one (of the human variety) increases blood pressure, whereas taling to or petting a dog, even one you don't know, lowers blood pressure. But we don't need studies to know how good dogs are for us.
So on this Earth Day, I pledge to continue my recycling as usual, to try even harder to remember my cloth bags when I go shopping, to celebrate my new-this-year photovoltaic panels, to drive my Prius proudly. . . and to cherish my canine friends even more.
Apr 14, 2008
Leading by Example
I don't know why I should expect more of elected representatives when it comes to dogs than I do of the general public. Perhaps it's because these people can actually impact dog owners by passing good or bad legislation. Lately, they seem to be infatuated with breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws, neither one a particularly good idea. And I'm sure there are some dog-loving right-thinking (as in correct, not right-wing) representatives out there. But it's the other kind that I've been hearing about.
Back when the Republicans were still vying for the chance to run for president, a bit of news came out about Mitt Romney. It barely made a ripple in the general media, but it sure made some BIG waves among the dog writers. It seems that the Romney family includes an Irish setter. And every year, when the family set off for their summer holiday, the dog would be loaded in a crate and then strapped to the roof of the family car for the ride to wherever their destination. That's right, the dog rode on the roof, outside the car. The Romneys seemed to feel that this was normal, acceptable behavior.
But that's old news, and I wouldn't have mentioned it. . . except that another story about an elected representative and a dog surfaced recently. It first arrived via the Internet, so the facts had to be checked before anyone got too excited. But when the story was confirmed, it turned out to be even worse than initially reported.
State Senator Kent Williams of South Carolina adopted a female German Shepherd from his local shelter. That sounds like a good thing. Until you get to the part where you learn that the dog was kept in a fenced portion of the yard, with an automatic feeder and automatic waterer. Sounds like a lot of human care went into this dog, right? Well, the senator became annoyed that the dog repeatedly jumped the fence and ran away (perhaps looking for a little human companionship?). After several such episodes he turned her back into the shelter, saying that he was worried the dog would be hit by a car. And that's when it turned out that the Shepherd was pregnant - she gave birth only a few weeks later.
There is a state law in South Carolina requiring that all shelter animals be spayed or neutered. When asked why he hadn't had the Shepherd spayed, Williams replied that he had hoped to breed her! Apparently, he didn't see anything wrong with this reply. You get a dog from the shelter and you compound the problem by breeding more dogs from her. Yikes!
This is just one reason that we dog writers sometimes despair, when we chat with each other, of ever having any effect on the problems of dog ownership. When we write for dog magazines, we are "preaching to the choir," as only the more informed dog owners actually read dog magazines. When we write for the mainstream magazines (not something any of us are allowed to do very often), we may get our message out there better, but this doesn't happen nearly often enough. And yet, we keep trying. And maybe here in the blogosphere, if enough of us speak up, we can gain a little more traction in getting our message out.
I've read two studies recently that confirm the old-time "common wisdom" that six months old is just about the perfect time to have a dog spayed or neutered. While some of the toy breeds may actually go into heat before then, most dogs won't, and you can get all the benefits of the surgery without much worry over impacting bone closure or temperament. Yet the most recent bit of spay/neuter legislation mandates altering by the age of four months. Elected representatives, if you are out there and you read this, feel free to contact me before you write a piece of legislation that's going to impact dog owners. I can point you to the science behind the issue and help you craft a bill that might actually do some good.
Back when the Republicans were still vying for the chance to run for president, a bit of news came out about Mitt Romney. It barely made a ripple in the general media, but it sure made some BIG waves among the dog writers. It seems that the Romney family includes an Irish setter. And every year, when the family set off for their summer holiday, the dog would be loaded in a crate and then strapped to the roof of the family car for the ride to wherever their destination. That's right, the dog rode on the roof, outside the car. The Romneys seemed to feel that this was normal, acceptable behavior.
But that's old news, and I wouldn't have mentioned it. . . except that another story about an elected representative and a dog surfaced recently. It first arrived via the Internet, so the facts had to be checked before anyone got too excited. But when the story was confirmed, it turned out to be even worse than initially reported.
State Senator Kent Williams of South Carolina adopted a female German Shepherd from his local shelter. That sounds like a good thing. Until you get to the part where you learn that the dog was kept in a fenced portion of the yard, with an automatic feeder and automatic waterer. Sounds like a lot of human care went into this dog, right? Well, the senator became annoyed that the dog repeatedly jumped the fence and ran away (perhaps looking for a little human companionship?). After several such episodes he turned her back into the shelter, saying that he was worried the dog would be hit by a car. And that's when it turned out that the Shepherd was pregnant - she gave birth only a few weeks later.
There is a state law in South Carolina requiring that all shelter animals be spayed or neutered. When asked why he hadn't had the Shepherd spayed, Williams replied that he had hoped to breed her! Apparently, he didn't see anything wrong with this reply. You get a dog from the shelter and you compound the problem by breeding more dogs from her. Yikes!
This is just one reason that we dog writers sometimes despair, when we chat with each other, of ever having any effect on the problems of dog ownership. When we write for dog magazines, we are "preaching to the choir," as only the more informed dog owners actually read dog magazines. When we write for the mainstream magazines (not something any of us are allowed to do very often), we may get our message out there better, but this doesn't happen nearly often enough. And yet, we keep trying. And maybe here in the blogosphere, if enough of us speak up, we can gain a little more traction in getting our message out.
I've read two studies recently that confirm the old-time "common wisdom" that six months old is just about the perfect time to have a dog spayed or neutered. While some of the toy breeds may actually go into heat before then, most dogs won't, and you can get all the benefits of the surgery without much worry over impacting bone closure or temperament. Yet the most recent bit of spay/neuter legislation mandates altering by the age of four months. Elected representatives, if you are out there and you read this, feel free to contact me before you write a piece of legislation that's going to impact dog owners. I can point you to the science behind the issue and help you craft a bill that might actually do some good.
Apr 4, 2008
Oprah's Show on Puppy Mills
It's been an interesting week in the media, dogwise. Word started flying around late last week that Oprah was going to do a show on puppy mills. Some of the dog writers were merely interested, some were trepidatious. Most of us probably watched.
But before the show aired, almost as soon as word got out, in fact, several of us received a long email from a man who appeared to be speaking for the American Sporting Dogs Alliance. I have not confirmed that with the organization, but he included their name prominently in his email. He was livid over this show (which had not yet aired), and demanding that everyone boycott Oprah's sponsors, because she was certainly going to get it wrong!
Well, after I wrote my last blog about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you can imagine how well this went over with me. I put the show on my calendar so I wouldn't forget to watch, and reserved judgment.
I have just finished watching the show, and I have to say kudos, Oprah. I thought it was a very fair-minded and, for a lot of people, probably eye-opening account.
First a man involved in rescue and Oprah's reporter Lisa Ling went to several puppy mills. That was combined with some footage from the HSUS. It showed dogs crammed in little wire cages, or larger dogs in small fenced areas in the mud. The rescuer was taking dogs the puppy millers no longer wanted. He often had to carry the dogs to his car because they had never walked on ground before.
They talked about pet shops getting most of their dogs from puppy mills, and the rescuer noted that no responsible breeder would sell their pups to a pet shop.
The show followed some of the dogs that had been rescued, showing them cutting off the chain collars, shaving them down because they were so matted.
Then the focus switched to animal shelters, the municipal kind, and how many dogs are euthanized. They showed a shelter manager going through and choosing which dogs would die that day.
Then they talked about spay and neuter. Oprah's vet was there, and gave some of the benefits of spaying and neutering. The show did NOT encourage, or even mention, legislation regarding spay/neuter, they simply encouraged owners to have their pets spayed and neutered. They talked about free or low-cost clinics, and said that money was not an excuse.
Other that what was probably an inflated percentage of how many dogs in shelter are purebreds, I found nothing in the program to quibble about.
What would be absolutely fantastic would be a follow-up show. On the off-chance that someone from Oprah's staff stumbles over this blog, a look at how successfull education combined with low-cost clinics has been at reducing the number of dogs in shelters would be a great next step. We don't need legislation. The legislation won't have any effect on most of the guilty parties, makes hard feelings with the responsible breeds, and accomplishes little.
Good job, Oprah. And Mr. nobody from American Sporting Dogs Alliance, I hope you might open your eyes and realize that you were WAY out of line.
But before the show aired, almost as soon as word got out, in fact, several of us received a long email from a man who appeared to be speaking for the American Sporting Dogs Alliance. I have not confirmed that with the organization, but he included their name prominently in his email. He was livid over this show (which had not yet aired), and demanding that everyone boycott Oprah's sponsors, because she was certainly going to get it wrong!
Well, after I wrote my last blog about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you can imagine how well this went over with me. I put the show on my calendar so I wouldn't forget to watch, and reserved judgment.
I have just finished watching the show, and I have to say kudos, Oprah. I thought it was a very fair-minded and, for a lot of people, probably eye-opening account.
First a man involved in rescue and Oprah's reporter Lisa Ling went to several puppy mills. That was combined with some footage from the HSUS. It showed dogs crammed in little wire cages, or larger dogs in small fenced areas in the mud. The rescuer was taking dogs the puppy millers no longer wanted. He often had to carry the dogs to his car because they had never walked on ground before.
They talked about pet shops getting most of their dogs from puppy mills, and the rescuer noted that no responsible breeder would sell their pups to a pet shop.
The show followed some of the dogs that had been rescued, showing them cutting off the chain collars, shaving them down because they were so matted.
Then the focus switched to animal shelters, the municipal kind, and how many dogs are euthanized. They showed a shelter manager going through and choosing which dogs would die that day.
Then they talked about spay and neuter. Oprah's vet was there, and gave some of the benefits of spaying and neutering. The show did NOT encourage, or even mention, legislation regarding spay/neuter, they simply encouraged owners to have their pets spayed and neutered. They talked about free or low-cost clinics, and said that money was not an excuse.
Other that what was probably an inflated percentage of how many dogs in shelter are purebreds, I found nothing in the program to quibble about.
What would be absolutely fantastic would be a follow-up show. On the off-chance that someone from Oprah's staff stumbles over this blog, a look at how successfull education combined with low-cost clinics has been at reducing the number of dogs in shelters would be a great next step. We don't need legislation. The legislation won't have any effect on most of the guilty parties, makes hard feelings with the responsible breeds, and accomplishes little.
Good job, Oprah. And Mr. nobody from American Sporting Dogs Alliance, I hope you might open your eyes and realize that you were WAY out of line.
Mar 31, 2008
Dog Writers Need Freedom of the Press, Too
Recently, some other bloggers have written about PETA's dismal record of animal adoptions, using PETA's own statistics, which by law had to be supplied to the state of Virginia. I won't go into the actual intake versus adoption versus euthanasia numbers here. Go investigate for yourself if you're so inclined.
What I want to talk about here is the fact that these bloggers, after writing using unquestionably accurate information, received letters from one of PETA's attorneys, warning them to cease and desist. While I don't support what PETA is doing as far as companion animals are concerned, I really can't stomach this attempt to curtail freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Short of slander, libel, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, we as Americans are supposed to have the right to speak -- or write -- our minds at any place and any time. Yet here is this massive "nonprofit" organization, one of the biggest moneyraisers in the country, using some of their gelt to try and muzzle those who would dare to utter a word against them.
Well, in this case it has backfired, as other writers and bloggers are now adding their voices to expose this attempt to silence our brethren. Perhaps PETA's lawyers are going to be very busy, churning out those "cease and desist" letters, or perhaps they will realize that this is not an effective way to keep the press reporting only what PETA wants them to report.
Funnily enough, though I disagree with the goals of PETA, I have in the past defended their right to state their case. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, even those with whom you disagree. The powers-that-be at PETA might want to sit down and think about that.
What I want to talk about here is the fact that these bloggers, after writing using unquestionably accurate information, received letters from one of PETA's attorneys, warning them to cease and desist. While I don't support what PETA is doing as far as companion animals are concerned, I really can't stomach this attempt to curtail freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Short of slander, libel, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, we as Americans are supposed to have the right to speak -- or write -- our minds at any place and any time. Yet here is this massive "nonprofit" organization, one of the biggest moneyraisers in the country, using some of their gelt to try and muzzle those who would dare to utter a word against them.
Well, in this case it has backfired, as other writers and bloggers are now adding their voices to expose this attempt to silence our brethren. Perhaps PETA's lawyers are going to be very busy, churning out those "cease and desist" letters, or perhaps they will realize that this is not an effective way to keep the press reporting only what PETA wants them to report.
Funnily enough, though I disagree with the goals of PETA, I have in the past defended their right to state their case. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, even those with whom you disagree. The powers-that-be at PETA might want to sit down and think about that.
Mar 14, 2008
Companionship
Rather than write about something serious this week, I thought I would share a prose poem I wrote for StreamFest, our local celebration of our land trust. They asked for art celebrating the North Olympic Peninsula here in Washington. Of course, my thoughts include my dog. I hope you enjoy them.
My dog and I walk the beach.
Well, I walk.
He runs the curl of the wave, herding its break onto the shore.
I look down, hoping to add to the jumble of beach glass, agates, and figured rocks in my pocket.
I look up as an eagle soars overhead, flapping perhaps twice to drift easily over
Protection Island.
Mount Baker seems impossibly near, just a skip across the island to the mountain.
The splash of sea salt mixes with pine scent and decaying seaweed in a perfume unmatched.
Clouds scud by, patterning the water dark, perhaps hiding a sea monster.
My dog runs up, happy mouth open, and shakes a spray of water across my legs.
I send him to the base of the bluffs to sniff for mastodon teeth. . .
Maybe one day we'll find one.
I pull my coat down to sit on its tail in defense against the damp of the beach log.
My dog runs up the beach to challenge some gulls.
A mist is starting to fall.
But we are happy.
My dog and I walk the beach.
Well, I walk.
He runs the curl of the wave, herding its break onto the shore.
I look down, hoping to add to the jumble of beach glass, agates, and figured rocks in my pocket.
I look up as an eagle soars overhead, flapping perhaps twice to drift easily over
Protection Island.
Mount Baker seems impossibly near, just a skip across the island to the mountain.
The splash of sea salt mixes with pine scent and decaying seaweed in a perfume unmatched.
Clouds scud by, patterning the water dark, perhaps hiding a sea monster.
My dog runs up, happy mouth open, and shakes a spray of water across my legs.
I send him to the base of the bluffs to sniff for mastodon teeth. . .
Maybe one day we'll find one.
I pull my coat down to sit on its tail in defense against the damp of the beach log.
My dog runs up the beach to challenge some gulls.
A mist is starting to fall.
But we are happy.
Hoarders
You may have heard about the case in Arizona where approximately 800 dogs were removed from the mobile home of a couple. These were all toy dogs, mostly Chihuahuas, and the people were selling them alongside roads and at shopping centers. Print reports made it sound like it was all simply a case of getting in too deep, with statements such as "the dogs had free run of the house" and "the couple were grateful for the help of animal control." But the limited television coverage and the accounts of humane workers on the scene painted a different picture. The inside of the home was wall-to-wall plastic crates, many containing more than one dog. The dogs had broken teeth from trying to chew their way out, and some were missing paws. Bitches were giving birth on the way to the shelter. This was a for-profit operation with little consideration for the well-being of the dogs. Those in the area said that no buyers were ever allowed to visit the premises.
This is not a case of initially well-meaning individuals attempting to do animal rescue and getting in over their heads, ending up with too many animals. These animals were being intentionally bred to produce more animals. It's important to separate these two things.
Animal hoarders, those who think they are doing a good thing, but end up with their "rescues" in an abusive situation on their own premises, generally suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. What starts out as an admirable act quickly mushrooms into trying to save them all, an act clearly beyond the abilities of any person or group. But the hoarder does not see the reality of what is happening, and gets in deeper and deeper. They usually truly are grateful when authorities step in.
Animal hoarders should receive a medical referral rather than punishment -- OCD can often be treated successfully. Those keeping dogs to create a marketable product, with little or no regard to the welfare of the animals or the ultimate human-animal bond with an often-defective "product" should be prosecuted.
This is not a case of initially well-meaning individuals attempting to do animal rescue and getting in over their heads, ending up with too many animals. These animals were being intentionally bred to produce more animals. It's important to separate these two things.
Animal hoarders, those who think they are doing a good thing, but end up with their "rescues" in an abusive situation on their own premises, generally suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. What starts out as an admirable act quickly mushrooms into trying to save them all, an act clearly beyond the abilities of any person or group. But the hoarder does not see the reality of what is happening, and gets in deeper and deeper. They usually truly are grateful when authorities step in.
Animal hoarders should receive a medical referral rather than punishment -- OCD can often be treated successfully. Those keeping dogs to create a marketable product, with little or no regard to the welfare of the animals or the ultimate human-animal bond with an often-defective "product" should be prosecuted.
Pet Food Safety
Most of the furor over the huge pet food recalls has died down, but now some new information has arrived - a 2004 recall that was attributed to contamination with mycotoxin (a naturally occuring grain contaminant) now appears to have been the same combination of melanime and cyanuric acid contamination as the most recent case. An article in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation reports that necropsy findings from the affected dogs in the 2004 Asian case and the 2007 U.S. case are identical. Because the 2004 case occurred in the Philippines, Japan, and Hong Kong, we didn't hear much about it in the states. But it was massive. And once again, the ingredients originated in China.
So I have to ask - when are we going to wake up and realize that more needs to be done to ensure the safety of our food supply, not just for our pets but for ourselves? What other combinations of potential contaminants aren't being tested for because they just aren't expected to happen? How can we have any assurance that anything is safe? Shouldn't food at least be labeled with country of origin so that we can choose on that basis? Now that seafood products are labeled, I can avoid tilapia farmed in China if I so choose. But why only seafood? With recall after recall, ranging from pet food to toothpaste to latex dog toys, why isn't our government looking more closely at this issue? Could it be because of the billions of dollars our country owes to their country?
For our pets, at least, we can choose to avoid Chinese imports. Ask the manufacturers of your dog's food where the ingredients originate. Any of the organic products will be happy to tell you that there's nothing from China in there, and that all ingredients have had to pass an additional level of inspection. Look at the companies that didn't have any foods involved in the most recent recall. You'll know they weren't and aren't importing glutens from China.
It seems we have to do our own due diligence, rather than relying on government inspections. If you won't do it for yourself, at least do it for your dog.
So I have to ask - when are we going to wake up and realize that more needs to be done to ensure the safety of our food supply, not just for our pets but for ourselves? What other combinations of potential contaminants aren't being tested for because they just aren't expected to happen? How can we have any assurance that anything is safe? Shouldn't food at least be labeled with country of origin so that we can choose on that basis? Now that seafood products are labeled, I can avoid tilapia farmed in China if I so choose. But why only seafood? With recall after recall, ranging from pet food to toothpaste to latex dog toys, why isn't our government looking more closely at this issue? Could it be because of the billions of dollars our country owes to their country?
For our pets, at least, we can choose to avoid Chinese imports. Ask the manufacturers of your dog's food where the ingredients originate. Any of the organic products will be happy to tell you that there's nothing from China in there, and that all ingredients have had to pass an additional level of inspection. Look at the companies that didn't have any foods involved in the most recent recall. You'll know they weren't and aren't importing glutens from China.
It seems we have to do our own due diligence, rather than relying on government inspections. If you won't do it for yourself, at least do it for your dog.
Mar 4, 2008
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)
Some of you may know that in 1991, the United Kingdom passed the Dangerous Dogs Act. This act banned ownership of dogo Argentino, fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, and pit bull terrier. Never mind that in the UK, the pit bull terrier is not even considered a breed, so banning it was rather problematic. This was going to solve the problem of dog attacks in the United Kingdom, or so the act's proponents claimed.
Now Britain's Liberal Democrats have conducted a statistical survey and found that the number of people visiting the emergency room after a dog attack has risen more than 40 percent over the last 4 years. As in most cases, young children and teenagers are most often the victims of the bites, and in the UK, there is also a strong regional variation. For example, the numbers doubled in London and rose by almost 80 percent in the West Midlands, whereas the East Midlands showed barely any increase.
In London, the response has been surprisingly reasonable - several groups have come together to launch a campaign for responsible dog ownership. If their campaign is effective, it's likely to have much more of an impact on the incidence of dog bites than the banning of specific breeds has.
A lot of dog people support the saying "it's the deed, not the breed," and indeed it should be. Doberman Pinschers were once rather sharp reactive dogs, and they still find their way onto dangerous dog lists, even though breeders have done an excellent job of changing their personalities to be more of a big energetic marshmallow.
I live in the U.S., where we are not supposed to profile anyone even after the terrorist attacks, because it could harm the innocent people who happened to fit the profile. We should exend the same courtesy to our dogs, and judge individual actions rather than a breed and a "dangerous dog" label.
Now Britain's Liberal Democrats have conducted a statistical survey and found that the number of people visiting the emergency room after a dog attack has risen more than 40 percent over the last 4 years. As in most cases, young children and teenagers are most often the victims of the bites, and in the UK, there is also a strong regional variation. For example, the numbers doubled in London and rose by almost 80 percent in the West Midlands, whereas the East Midlands showed barely any increase.
In London, the response has been surprisingly reasonable - several groups have come together to launch a campaign for responsible dog ownership. If their campaign is effective, it's likely to have much more of an impact on the incidence of dog bites than the banning of specific breeds has.
A lot of dog people support the saying "it's the deed, not the breed," and indeed it should be. Doberman Pinschers were once rather sharp reactive dogs, and they still find their way onto dangerous dog lists, even though breeders have done an excellent job of changing their personalities to be more of a big energetic marshmallow.
I live in the U.S., where we are not supposed to profile anyone even after the terrorist attacks, because it could harm the innocent people who happened to fit the profile. We should exend the same courtesy to our dogs, and judge individual actions rather than a breed and a "dangerous dog" label.
Feb 25, 2008
Mandatory Spay/Neuter
This is a tough one for me. Most of my dogs have been rescues, and I understand the need to keep the unhomed pet population from growing. But I also understand the physiological and perhaps psychological effects of early spay and neuter.
Los Angeles recently passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and I understand that they may want animals altered as young as four months. While this has been fairly common with shelters doing adoptions - insisting that the animal be spayed or neutered before being adopted out - it hasn't been common among dog owners who obtain their canines from other sources.
So how young is too young? Well, four months just might be too young. At a veterinary conference I attended recently, the presenter gave the pros and cons of neutering earlier and later, and concluded that six months, as common wisdom has long held, is probably the correct age for altering a dog.
Yes, spaying before the first heat does greatly reduce the risk of mammary cancer. And that's certainly a terrific benefit. But it also may make females prone to urinary incontinence later in life. And the closure of the growth plates in the long bones (in this case, the dog's legs) is regulated by the normal hormones, which aren't present in the usual quantities if the animal is spayed. The effect on bone growth may be even more pronounced in male dogs.
So this is a balancing act. Shelters certainly have a strong impetus to be sure that the animals they adopt out can't add to the population. But for others to be forced to spay or neuter earlier than the best medical knowledge may indicate, well, that's just bad legislation.
And just in case someone from the Los Angeles city council happens by to read this, I would like to say that mandatory spay/neuter has not yet solved an animal population problem. The same people who ignore leash laws, license laws, and general animal welfare will ignore the spay/neuter laws. But you're probably going to make a lot of reponsible dog owners unhappy.
Los Angeles recently passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and I understand that they may want animals altered as young as four months. While this has been fairly common with shelters doing adoptions - insisting that the animal be spayed or neutered before being adopted out - it hasn't been common among dog owners who obtain their canines from other sources.
So how young is too young? Well, four months just might be too young. At a veterinary conference I attended recently, the presenter gave the pros and cons of neutering earlier and later, and concluded that six months, as common wisdom has long held, is probably the correct age for altering a dog.
Yes, spaying before the first heat does greatly reduce the risk of mammary cancer. And that's certainly a terrific benefit. But it also may make females prone to urinary incontinence later in life. And the closure of the growth plates in the long bones (in this case, the dog's legs) is regulated by the normal hormones, which aren't present in the usual quantities if the animal is spayed. The effect on bone growth may be even more pronounced in male dogs.
So this is a balancing act. Shelters certainly have a strong impetus to be sure that the animals they adopt out can't add to the population. But for others to be forced to spay or neuter earlier than the best medical knowledge may indicate, well, that's just bad legislation.
And just in case someone from the Los Angeles city council happens by to read this, I would like to say that mandatory spay/neuter has not yet solved an animal population problem. The same people who ignore leash laws, license laws, and general animal welfare will ignore the spay/neuter laws. But you're probably going to make a lot of reponsible dog owners unhappy.
Feb 18, 2008
Frequently Asked Doggie Questions
I did my radio show last week, which is largely call in. And there was a definite theme to the questions. Most of them had something to do with dogs chewing. . . themselves, possessions, inappropriate food objects, and on and on.
Before you start looking for an answer to why your dog is chewing up something in your house, you need to understand a basic about dogs - chewing feels good. To a dog, chewing is a stress releaser. People may bite their nails (guilty), tap their fingers, twirl their hair, or do other more harmful things. Dogs, by and large, chew.
Given that dogs don't have our handy opposable thumbs, they use their mouths not just to consume food, but to pick up and carry things, to take things apart, and to explore their world. So using their mouths is a sort of natural fallback when they need to do something in a stressful situation.
This means, if your dog is a bit anxious about being left alone, the dog may chew up the couch pillows while you are gone. Or if the dog is left in the vehicle, the dog bedding or the seat cushions may take the hit. While it may be upsetting to have things destroyed, it's better than the dog choosing to chew (or lick) him or herself to the point of raising sores.
That's why my first response, when people phone in to the show and I can't actually see what their dog is doing and what his or her temperament appears to be, is to try taking actions to relieve stress. Rescue Remedy can't hurt and might help, so I recommend that often. Giving the dog a really great and long-lasting chewie can help if the dog isn't so anxious that he or she ignores food. Desensitization to being left alone is a much longer program, but has lasting results and makes the dog a much happier animal.
So if your dog chews something up while you aren't there, please don't jump to the (false) conclusion that your dog is "punishing" you for leaving him/her home alone. That's very, very unlikely. Instead, look at how you can help your dog be more comfortable with being left. You'll both be better off in the long run.
Before you start looking for an answer to why your dog is chewing up something in your house, you need to understand a basic about dogs - chewing feels good. To a dog, chewing is a stress releaser. People may bite their nails (guilty), tap their fingers, twirl their hair, or do other more harmful things. Dogs, by and large, chew.
Given that dogs don't have our handy opposable thumbs, they use their mouths not just to consume food, but to pick up and carry things, to take things apart, and to explore their world. So using their mouths is a sort of natural fallback when they need to do something in a stressful situation.
This means, if your dog is a bit anxious about being left alone, the dog may chew up the couch pillows while you are gone. Or if the dog is left in the vehicle, the dog bedding or the seat cushions may take the hit. While it may be upsetting to have things destroyed, it's better than the dog choosing to chew (or lick) him or herself to the point of raising sores.
That's why my first response, when people phone in to the show and I can't actually see what their dog is doing and what his or her temperament appears to be, is to try taking actions to relieve stress. Rescue Remedy can't hurt and might help, so I recommend that often. Giving the dog a really great and long-lasting chewie can help if the dog isn't so anxious that he or she ignores food. Desensitization to being left alone is a much longer program, but has lasting results and makes the dog a much happier animal.
So if your dog chews something up while you aren't there, please don't jump to the (false) conclusion that your dog is "punishing" you for leaving him/her home alone. That's very, very unlikely. Instead, look at how you can help your dog be more comfortable with being left. You'll both be better off in the long run.
Feb 14, 2008
Introduction
Hello. I've been dragged kicking and screaming through every electronic advancement since the desktop computer. So I start a blog with some trepidation. But with as many books as I've published, it seemed about time. I plan to post once or twice a week, when something of doggie interest hits the news or some profound thought pops into my mind. . . or maybe in response to an interesting comment from someone out there in cyberland.
For this first post, as Westminster has just aired, I would like to congratulate the Beagle on the first win for the breed. What a charming little guy! But I would also like to remind everyone that what made Uno so charming on television -- the barking, howling, acting up, chewing on the signs -- will be somewhat less charming in your own home. Before anyone rushes out to add a Beagle to their family, please do some homework. They are delightful dogs in many ways, but there's a reason their nickname is "a nose on four legs." They often have their own agenda, and it often conflicts with that of their humans. So please get to know about more than a pretty face before bringing a Beagle into your home. They're not for everyone, but for those who can handle all that sass, they're terrific.
For this first post, as Westminster has just aired, I would like to congratulate the Beagle on the first win for the breed. What a charming little guy! But I would also like to remind everyone that what made Uno so charming on television -- the barking, howling, acting up, chewing on the signs -- will be somewhat less charming in your own home. Before anyone rushes out to add a Beagle to their family, please do some homework. They are delightful dogs in many ways, but there's a reason their nickname is "a nose on four legs." They often have their own agenda, and it often conflicts with that of their humans. So please get to know about more than a pretty face before bringing a Beagle into your home. They're not for everyone, but for those who can handle all that sass, they're terrific.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)