doggiedogworld

He Should Do It Because He Wants to Please Me

2009-06-24T10:10:00.000-07:00

I don't know how this notion got started, that dogs should adjust their innate behavior just because they want to put a smile on an owner's face. I mean, dogs already fulfill one of the noted shortcomings of the human race by providing a large measure of comforting touch. . . do they also have to feed our egos by being subservient beings intent only on performing to our desires?
No matter what you think, dogs are creatures with their own sets of wants and needs, and sometimes these conflict with what humans want, and sometimes the dog's point of view wins out. This doesn't mean that our dogs don't love us, or are plotting against us to gain ascendancy (the laughable gist of the whole dominance theory). It simply means that sometimes, in your dog's eyes, it's simply more fulfilling to chase that fleeing squirrel or sniff that enticing bitch than it is to respond to your "come" call.
You probably love your parents and want to please them. Did that stop you from breaking curfew or hiding in the bathroom to sneak a smoke or throwing a party when your parents were away or any of the other typical transgressions of youth? Did it mean you loved your parents any less because you did these things? No. It just meant that your own desires trumped your tendency to want to please your parents by conforming to their desires. And so it is with our dogs.
This whole "he should do it because he loves me" idea has kept numerous people from using food as a motivator. Some simply fail in their training, and others resort to punitive methods. Because punishment fits in with the whole Puritan ethic we still seem to cling to, and can let us keep our fanciful thoughts about why dogs do the things they do intact, just labeling this one individual dog as a bit wilfull and in need of some correction. Just as you were probably punished when you did transgress against your parents' rules.
A lot of people are dismayed that their dog will perform better if food is offered as a reward. The really smart ones are delighted that they have such a powerful tool at their command.
I could say a lot more, but I have deadlines to meet. I just hope maybe this will spark some consideration in those who subscribe to this myth. And maybe it will give those of you trying to counteract this line of thought something else to say.

Even Dog Trainers Pay Their Dues

2009-06-11T09:44:00.000-07:00

A lot of people seem to think that dog trainers always have perfect dogs. It's my experience that dog trainers often have flawed dogs, for the simple reason that they're willing to take them on, knowing what they're getting into. Such is the case with my herder/sighthound mix, Nestle.
He was in terrible shape when I adopted him from a shelter - shutdown, morose, and not enjoying the world one bit. We soon sorted that out, within a few months we were bonded, and training was well underway.
Nestle has titles in agility and freestyle, and looks good to the world outside. So much so that people have commented on how overprotective I am about him. But I know the truth - it only takes a tiny hiccup to shatter him into pieces. And a much bigger hiccup occurred late last year when I had major medical problems and, not once but three times, drove to a hospital emergency room, was admitted, and vanished form home for days.
This has resulted in Nestle being severely upset when left in the car. He has eaten bits and pieces of the interior of my Prius, as well as the wrapping of Christmas presents, a selection of water bottles, etc. So we have had to make a change in lifestyle. Sometimes the dogs have to be left home when previously they would have come with us. When they do accompany us, it's now at least partly a training outing. We leave the car, but one person stays behind to watch from some sort of cover (usually behind a parked van some spaces away - we're waiting to be arrested on suspicious of car prowling) and keep an eye on Nestle. At first we left for mere seconds. Now we're up to seven minutes, and we've been moving really slowly so as to avoid any setbacks. Each time we leave, Nestle is given a little blanket he doesn't see at other times, a Greenie chew, and a cue phrase to tell him we will be coming back soon. Each time we come back, he is greeted mildly (no big fuss).
And he is making progress. Yesterday as I was watching him, he managed to lie down for a few seconds a couple of times. He popped back up pretty quickly, but that was the first time he even tried to settle. He still is not eating the Greenie while we're gone, so that will be another big sign of progress.
We are taking a brief vacation, and it has been carefully planned to include the dogs on all possible excursions. We will have to take turns visiting the two indoor attractions - an aquarium and carousel museum - but that's a small price to pay to enjoy a trip together and continue rehabilitating my dog.

More Truth about Aversive Training Methods

2009-05-22T13:13:00.001-07:00

A University of Pennsylvania study was publixhed in Applied Animal Behavior Science recently. The study looked at such "firm" training techniques of hitting the dog, growling at the dog, and physically forcing the dog onto his or her back. They found that 25 percent of dogs subjected to these techniques responded with aggression. The techniques, far from asserting dominance over the dog, resulted in making dogs fearful, which then manifested as aggression. (Most canine aggression, by the way, is fear-based.)
The report mentions the popularity of Cesar Milan, the "dog whisperer," specifically, but also notes that this idea of "firm dominance" goes back many years, and will likely take years to wipe away. It seems we've already been trying for years!

More on Food Safety

2009-05-15T12:44:00.000-07:00

I didn't plan on blogging again quite this soon, but an article in today's New York Times set me off - "Food Companies Are Placing the Onus for Safety on Consumers."
It seems that big agribusiness can't be bothered to guarantee that the ingredients in their products are free of contaminants, bacteria, and other things that could make us sick (or dead). So they have said it's up to the consumer to be sure that they are preparing the foods well enough to kill any bugs. Yet testing, according to the article, found that following the directions for preparing a pot pie left some of the pie below the recommended temperature while much of the crust was burned and inedible. Yummy.
I am fortunate to live in an area that offers an abundance of local foods, from meats to dairy to grains to vegetables. It is sometimes difficult to afford the added cost of buying from the farmers market rather than the supermarket, certainly, but it also certainly feels a lot better.
One positive effect of the bad economy, at least in my eyes, has been to slow the rampant development that was paving over hundreds of acres of farmland every year. A local nonprofit has been doing their best to save agricultural lands, but that is a hard fight, especially against realtor organizations from far outside our local area and with much better funding. They defeated a proposed ballot measure to help raise money to buy development rights, so that farmers could retire with a nest egg but leave their land in agricultural rather than sell it for development. They promised an "alternate solution," but of course that has not been forthcoming.
Other than fresh seafood, you have no way of knowing from whence your foodstuffs are coming. And if the source is China, it's big time buyer beware! So I am fully behind the locavore movement, and hope others out there will push to save their own local agriculture. We are still going to have to feed ourselves in the future, and I don't see how we will do that if we pave over the most productive lands.

Flashback to Pet Food Recall

2009-05-14T12:51:00.000-07:00

This didn't make the news much, but it seems that there are still major problems with importing food ingredients from China. A brief report carried in the May issue of Petfood Industry states that hydrolyzed leather proten, known as a possible carcinogen, was found in batches of dairy products. Someone anonymously tipped authorities that manufacturers were trying yet again to boost apparent protein content of products by adding illegal substances. Leather protein is reported to be similar to melamine (one of the culprits in the major pet food recall), but harder to detect because it is actually a protein, albeit one that happens to be toxic.
When are we going to wake up and smell the roses and realize that we just can't trust products coming in from China? Shoot, we can't trust products coming from our own fields of spinach! We need much tighter inspection of any product coming in from China. If you knew how few inspectors were responsible for supposedly keeping us safe, you would have a panic attack. Fortunately, there are dog foods available that use only U.S.-grown products, certified organic products, and plenty of other safe choices.

E-Collars as "Torture"

2009-05-06T09:12:00.000-07:00

There was a segment on one of my local news broadcasts last night about a father who is now charged with torture because he put canine shock collars on his children. According to the broadcast, he thought it was funny and got his jollies chasing his kids around and threatening to shock them or actually doing so. But this raises some important questions in my mind - is it considered torture because he wasn't training his children but just shocking them for the hell of it, or because he put the collars on humans rather than dogs?
The report even noted that "it wasn't specified if the man even owned a dog" . . . which seems to intimate that it would have been perfectly fine if he had put the collar on his dog and shocked to his heart's content.
So just what is the dividing line here? Is it acceptable to shock (or "stimulate," as the manufacturers of the e-collars like to phrase it) one species of animal but not another? (Yes, we are indeed animals.) Or is it acceptable to shock for the purposes of training but not otherwise?
Unlike a lot of positive trainers, I actually do see a (limited) place for shock collars in training. Some behaviors are so potentially unsafe that the temporary infliction of some pain seems a reasonable response to avoid worse consequences - avoiding rattlesnakes, stopping chasing of deer (for which dogs can be shot), stopping chasing of cars. Aside from the rattlesnake training, it would be less painful and just as effective to keep the dog on leash or confined in a fenced yard, but in reality this isn't going to happen a lot of the time.
What caught my attention in this news piece was the blithe assumption that the shock collar was perfectly fine for one species, but "torture" for the other. If the piece had been presented differently, emphasizing that the collar was being used solely for entertaiment of the male (it doesn't seem appropriate to call him a man or a father) and not for any even marginally legitimate purpose, it wouldn't have struck me this way. But the fact that it was presented the way that it was seems to say a lot about public opinion.
I subscribe to Gandhi's excellent quote (which I may not have word-perfect) - "A nation will be known by the way it treats its animals."

let's all be safe out there in the garden

2009-05-01T11:17:00.000-07:00

Now that spring has finally arrived in the Northwest, I've been doing a ton of gardening. And it dawned on me that, as the "authority" on dogs and gardens, I really should say something hear about keeping it safe for your dog when working in the yard.
The biggest immediate hazard is snail and slug baits. The metaldehyde-based products unfortunately kill dozens of dogs every year. And there's no need for it any more, because there is a safe product called Sluggo that works perfectly well. Believe me, we grow our slugs BIG here in the Northwest, and Sluggo takes care of them efficiently and without any hazard to your dog, or to birds or other wildlife. So please don't use the old-style snail/slug baits.
Every year, lawns suck up tons of fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides. None of these are particularly friendly to the environment or to your dog. There is a growing movement afoot to change the way people think about their lawns, using organic practices rather than all the chemicals. I don't get the whole "perfect lawn" thing - clover is just fine with me, and my sheep LOVE dandelions. Please take it easy on the environment, lower your dog's risk of bladder cancer (studies have linked lawn chemicals and this cancer), and go green while keeping your lawn green.
And for weeding, especially those tap-root type weeds (like the aforementioned dandelions), there is a great tool called, funnily enough, the Weed Hound, that pulls them up quite well. It's a long-handled device, so you don't even have to bend over -- just step on the appropriate part of the tool, pull the weed out of the ground, and press the plunger to release it into a bucket, your compost pile, or whatever.
Enjoy your garden, enjoy your dog, enjoy the environment.

animal welfare/animal rights

2009-04-22T07:22:00.000-07:00

There is a woeful lack of understanding out in the general public about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Well-meaning people are unfortunately supporting groups that are actually working to undermine the very things in which they believe.
Animal welfare wants to improve the lot of domesticated animals by such actions as outlawing cruel practices with livestock (such as raising veal calves in tiny boxes where they can't turn around), minimizing live animal experimentation as much as possible while acknowledging that some research is necessary and valuable (for instance, dogs suffer many of the same diseases as humans and thus are an excellent research model that benefits both species), halting animal cruelty such as dog fighting and cock fighting.
Animal rights wants to stop any sort of use of animals by humans, including barring you from owning pets. They don't often say this in public, but I have a letter somewhere from the founder of one of the most powerful groups, stating just that goal. So what are you truly supporting when you give one of these groups money? You are helping them force you to get rid of your beloved dog(s), cat(s), or whatever animal companions you may have.
It's not always clear cut, either. Some groups veer back and forth from one side of the dichotomy to the other, holding good positions and doing valuable work on one specific issue while going over the line on another.
I'm not going to name specific groups -- I'll probably get hassled enough just for going this far. But I would urge everyone to fully investigate the goals and practices of any group before offering support. Some of the most extreme groups can actually be classified as domestic terrorists who have bombed offices or universities, freed lab animals (who can no more fend for themselves in the wild than most of us could), and committed other illegal acts. Put your money where your true goals are -- if you want to support canine health or TNR programs for feral cats or stop greyhound racing or whatever, be sure whatever group you choose agrees with your goals and doesn't want to go further than you would want.

The New First Dog

2009-04-14T10:47:00.000-07:00

Well, the Obama girls have their dog at last. It was sensible of the Obamas to take some time to settle in first (though I'm sure the girls found it hard to wait). And the tale of their new pup is a pretty karmic one.
He comes from a breeder in Texas, who uses a theme to name her litters, as a lot of breeders do. The litter that was born six months ago was named on a theme of Hope and Change. One of the puppies went to Senator Ted Kenneday (his third current Portuguese Water Dog). One of the puppies went to a home in Washington, DC where they had lost one of their two older Porties. They got the puppy as company for their remaining older dog, but it turned out that the two did not get along. So the puppy was returned to the breeder. Mrs. Ted Kennedy heard about the puppy being bounced back to the owner, through a friend. And knowing that the Obamas were considering a Portugues Water Dog, she mentioned it to her husband. And lo and behold, the puppy who needed a second chance has now become the new First Dog.
His paper name is Amigo's New Hope, and he indeed has some new hope.
The breeder said "Bo," as the girls named him, should be quite the gentleman at the White House. . . until he sees the fountains. They are water dogs born and bred, after all, and he may just find the water too irresistible.
I heard that the Obamas had been in touch with Ken Ramirez, head trainer at the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, about choosing a dog, and I hope they will stay in touch with him about training for Bo. This is a breed that can do just about anything, and needs to be kept busy both mentally and physically.
Best wishes for a long and happy life together - it seems to be in the stars.

Interesting Dog Factoids in Magazines

2009-03-30T08:02:00.001-07:00

The April issue of Smithsonian had a tiny piece about "A Wolf in Dog's Clothing." In North America, wolves come in gray and white, but also black. Stanford University scientists compared the DNA of the black wolves with the DNA of coyotes and dogs and seem to have found that the gene for black coat comes from dogs. They theorize that the wolves interbred with domesticated dogs that came across the Bering Strait on the land bridge with people migrating from Asia more than 10,000 years ago. So in an interesting circle, wolves became domestic dogs and the dogs then brought their genes back to the wolves.
A second piece was in Conservation Northwest, and it detailed a canine service I'm been reading about a lot lately - finding scat. In this particular instance, dogs are being used to find grizzly bear scat for the Cascades Carnivore Connectivity Project. They want to determine the effect of the roads crossing the Cascades on the local grizzly bear population, and the dogs locate the scat for genetic testing, and for hints on where to place hair sample devices and wildlife cameras.

Puppy Mills on Nightline

2009-03-27T13:38:00.000-07:00

Tonight, Nightline will be doing an expose on Amish puppy mills in Pennsylvania. I believe this is the same guy, from Main Line Animal Rescue, who was on Oprah some time ago. He goes around and tries to rescue some of the breeding dogs and tries to get the worst operations shut down. But he is fighting a losing battle as long as people continue to buy the product from the puppy mills. So if you aren't buying from a breeder or rescuing from a shelter, you just may be part of the problem. A pet shop local to me advertises that all their puppies are from local breeders, but if you demand to see the paperwork, they came from Kansas or Arkansas. . . almost certainly from puppy mills.
I was dumb enough to buy a puppy from a pet shop back in my youth. She was far too young (6 weeks) and quite ill, and I nursed her back to health and dealt with her mental problems for 16 years. The only things I can say in my defense was that I was young and stupid and at least I made the pet shop honor their health guarantee, which contributed to getting them shut down.
Now my dogs have all come from rescue. Someday I may buy a purebred from a breeder, but I'm kind of fond of my rescues. And no matter where they may have started life - some may have originated in puppy mills, after all - I'm not putting any money in anyone's pocket.
I'm not anti-breeding. Heck, I've covered Westminster for the AKC Gazette. But I am against puppy mills. So please think before you purchase a dog.

Confidence Is Fragile

2009-03-19T08:40:00.000-07:00

My dog Nestle had pretty much given up on the world when I adopted him from a shelter. He quickly bloomed to appreciate the good things in life - walks, meals, treats, even training. But it took a full six months for us to establish a bond, and he still spent too much time with his ears pulled back and his mouth in a tight grimace. We cautiously saw new sights, met new people and dogs, practiced agility purely for the increased confidence, and he blossomed. People who see him out and about with me think he's a perfectly sound dog. But I know differently, and that was brought home to me recently.
I had some quite serious medical problems, and through November and December, we had several occasions when we all (dogs and humans) got in the car, drove to the emergency room, and I went in and didn't come back out. This has resulted in Nestle being very anxious when left in the car. He started out just hiding and trembling on the floor in the front (the dogs ride in the back and aren't supposed to come into the front. Then he tore up some Christmas presents that were on the floor in the front. Since then he has torn up other things on the floor.
So his confidence is, as I always knew, fragile. We are working on getting his comfort level back, taking car rides and leaving the car for only short periods at a time. He has had several good days where he remained in the back, and another episode of tearing up a bag of pastries in the front. It is especially bad if I have to go to the hospital for tests or the cancer treatment center for appointments. He obviously recognizes these places.
But we are working on it, and I'm sure he will settle down again in time. It just reminds me that living with dogs is a constant work in progress.

National Animal Identification System

2009-03-11T10:15:00.000-07:00

Full Disclosure: This has nothing to do with dogs.
There is a proposed bill in DC right now, to have all farm animals chipped for identification purposes, so they can be tracked. Though this may sound like an excellent idea, given recent problems with disease outbreaks and contamination problems, as usual, there is a downside.
For big factory farms, the cost and additional time would be minimal. But for the small family farmer, it could be crippling. And I think we need to support and encourage the small family farm. With all the supposed focus on anti-terrorism, what do you think might be the most essential thing to have in the event of some really catastrophic event? I'm thinking a local food supply. Not depending on food items shipped from thousands of miles away.
If you're lucky enough to live where there still is local food being produced, I hope that you will make every effort to support it. The small farmer struggles constantly to keep it going. Here, we have two lively farmers' markets, and an online store where you can order local foods and pick them up at a central dispersal site. We have farm shares, and can even work on the farms to pay for part of them. People raise grass-fed beef and free-roaming chickens, organic vegetables, and even grains, which a local bakery is using to make its breads and pastries.
I hope Congress does not pass this proposed bill, at least not without a provision being made for small family farms.

Censorship Is Not For Me

2009-03-02T09:05:00.000-08:00

One of the television news magazines apparently recently ran a piece on AKC dog shows. I can't comment on it as I didn't see it, but I can comment on some of the fallout. I have it first-hand from people to whom it has happened that at least some AKC clubs are now trying to ban media from their shows. As most shows are held in public places, this seems like an illegal action. And besides, quite the overreaction. Yes, the press does sometimes overstep, especially in these days of "if it bleeds, it leads," but people also need to remember that the press has been responsible for uncovering things like Watergate and Love Canal.
As a long-time member of Dog Writers Association of America, I think we need to let the AKC know that trying to ban media is an excruciatingly bad idea. The people who have personally been told they will no longer be welcome at shows were also significant contributors of awards and financial support, so it's especially unfair.
And the AKC needs to remember that they aren't the only game in town - there is the UKC, which welcomes mixed breeds as well as purebreds.
Censorship is not an option. Maybe clubs need to engage in more education, as that was always stated as one of the prime objectives of the AKC regarding dog shows.

Friends Are Everything

2009-02-20T12:03:00.000-08:00

I received a surprise in my email this past week - a message from someone who reads my blog asking where I'd been! I didn't know I had any readers who cared enough to ask. But now here I am, back from fighting the latest round of cancer. And I have to tell you, it was borne home to me through this battle just how important good friends are.
My dog Nestle is part border collie, so even though he is now 10, he still requires a good bout of regular daily exercise. My most excellent friend and roommate Judy saw to his exercise while I was in and out of various hospitals. When I was home, she not only saw to my care, she continued to exercise Nestle. I don't think any of us would have made it through this with any shred of sanity intact without her.
So that led me to think about people who don't have such an immediate dependable support system. What happens to their pets if they are whisked off to the emergency room in the middle of the night?
I am lucky enough to also have a brother living nearby, and had it been necessary, he would have taken my dog into his home. But have you thought about this? The single individuals among you out there might want to have a plan for such an eventuality, one you keep up to date. In my case, Judy even brought Nestle to visit me in a Seattle hospital (they have regulations in place to accept canine visitors), which helped cheer my day. The whole experience has set back Nestle's tenuous self-confidence. . . now, if we visit a medical establishment, which I still have to do with some frequency, and he is left in the car, he gets a little wild with the need to tear things up to calm his nerves. He's obviously concerned that I will be disappearing again, so it's going to take some understanding and desensitizing till he can once again be calm in the car.
I know I'm sort of wandering from subject to subject here, but the overall message is that Nestle had someone who loved him to look after him when I couldn't. Please make sure that your own dog has the same support system. . . just in case.
I will try to post more regularly now that I am back working at my desk. And if any of you out there have any questions about anything I write here, please feel free to contact me. Out of necessity, I have a lot of fairly unique experience with dealing with dogs and the medical establishment simultaneously.

Chemotherapy and Dogs

2008-07-30T05:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Take Your Dog to Work Day

2008-06-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

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.

The News Needs an Expert Filter for Stories on Dogs

2008-06-05T10:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Try to Remember

2008-05-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Salmonella and Dry Dog Food

2008-05-15T09:06:00.000-07:00

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?

Fatal(?) Attraction

2008-05-02T13:49:00.000-07:00

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.

An Earth Day Celebration of Dogs

2008-04-22T13:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Leading by Example

2008-04-14T13:49:00.000-07:00

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.

Oprah's Show on Puppy Mills

2008-04-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

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.

Dog Writers Need Freedom of the Press, Too

2008-03-31T08:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Companionship

2008-03-14T08:08:00.002-07:00

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.

Hoarders

2008-03-14T08:08:00.001-07:00

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.

Pet Food Safety

2008-03-14T08:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)

2008-03-04T10:12:00.000-08:00

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.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter

2008-02-25T11:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Frequently Asked Doggie Questions

2008-02-18T12:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Introduction

2008-02-14T07:43:00.001-08:00

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.