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.
Jun 18, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)