Flashback to Pet Food Recall

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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.