Getting Ready for the Trial

About turns are still not consistent, lots of running out of about turns and 270 turns but they don't seem to be making much of an impression. Left turns are still a little inconsistent but way better, she might get bonked once by not getting out of the way in time but no mistakes after the first one. Right turns are also just okay, I think her performance on both left and right turns are largely a function of how well *I* do the turn. We worked at the park blocks today and she sniffed the ground on her sit stay, something I haven't seen her do in a long time, so it's good to know that so we can work on it this week. Her elbows came up a little on her down stay but other than that did great. Didn't bump me on the slows today, if I recall correctly. We really need to work on her taking a good three seconds to resignedly settle into a down, she is not a fan of wet grass and needs to learn that it's not an excuse. I am thinking of trying the prong for the week before the show: I made that decision yesterday, and promptly forgot. Whoops. Hoping that writing it down will help me remember. Adding the hold to her retrieve is going good, we haven't worked on downs in two days which is no good since it's a bit of a contentious thing with her, but I'm focusing on polishing for the trial.

Snaggletooth, Fetch!

It's hard enough to find the time to train the dog everyday, much less write about it!

Writing because I have no one with whom to share the hilariousness of Kiko's resignation to the dumbbell. Other than my trainer, who stands with me waiting for her to accept that the way to get the dumbbell from being pressed against her lips is to take it. She sits there looking half asleep and snoring a little, as if hoping that she can take a nap and when she wakes up maybe the dumbbell will be gone. She is getting much better about taking it in a timely manner, though. Everything else is going really well, she finally started actually *running* in on recalls, and we got through an important confusion with doing a finish without the leash. I really don't think I was cuing her with the leash on the finish, except for the fact that the leash was physically present and serves as a cue by moving as I pass it behind my back. Off leash heeling is going REALLY well, I am really pleased, she's above and beyond doing way better than either Catfish or Chewy did at this point. I think Catfish did fairly well in the beginning, but poor Chewy was at a loss since the whole time he'd been training with a leash that was way too big for him, so it was a big shock to not have that weight there. And I'm finally learning not to make my commands sound like questions. "Kiko, heel?" isn't very convincing. I'd like to work around cats more, we haven't seen any in a week. Her recalls from an okay are what I feel is most important, and she's doing pretty well with them, so I'm happy.

Dog Aggression or Prey Drive?

Just a short "food for thought" comment:
I wonder how many dogs labeled as 'dog aggressive' are really just acting on their prey drive? With so many attacks from dogs 10x the size of their victim, I have to question if they recognize it as a dog. If I was a German Shepherd, I don't think I would recognize a 3 pound yorkie as a dog rather than some kind of varmint that it was my duty as a good dog to exterminate.

It reminds me of the section in Temple Grandin's "Animals Make Us Human" where she talks about 'killer dogs': people line breeding pit bulls with dogs naturally distrustful of strangers to create strong dogs more easily shaped towards indiscriminate aggression. She says there was a litter of these line bred 'killer dogs' that was adopted out by a rescue group and they were all eventually returned for killing cats. And this is supposed to be a strike against them? I know I would be furious if a dog killed my cat, but I would never blame it on the dog. That's what they DO: chase and kill smaller animals. It takes intentional socialization and training to keep this hundreds of thousands of years old trait under control. I have met MANY dog owners who have dogs that would kill a cat if they ever got a hold of one because their owners don't have cats so it's not an issue for them. And somehow pit bulls get the blame for this very natural dog behavior? As is often the case, certain breeds are talked about as if every dog trait that could possibly be construed as negative is unique to that breed labeled 'dangerous dogs' for acting on instincts that have worked for the last several hundred thousand years. Well, some of us weren't born yesterday and have touched more than the very tip of the iceberg on understanding the complexity of dog behavior, so don't expect us to buy it.

http://dogattacksyouneverhearabout.blogspot.com/2009/11/collie-attacks-3-and-spared-death.html

"This is a working breed and has a lot of energy and drive," Cline wrote. "It does them no good to be confined to an apartment with little to do. They get bored and frustrated, and with no outlet, this alone can lead to undesirable behavior."

...and that somehow doesn't apply to pit bulls? Never in a million years do I imagine I would see this in an article about a pit bull bite, not do I imagine a pit bull would have been given a second chance. Thank God the right people were able to save this dog whose only crime was not having her needs met.

My apologies for this sloppy post, much steam to blow off and little sleep :)

The Meaning of Oreo

Nathan Winograd wrote an article perfectly illustrating what all my beef is with Oreo's death. My main points being, why was she killed when she was offered a lifetime home by a qualified rescue group and was there anyone actually qualified to assess her temperament that said she was beyond rehabilitation? Another important issue that hadn't occurred to me until reading this was that the ASPCA is publicly funded and as such has a responsibility to listen when its financial providers are in outrage at its decisions. Ed Sayres was quoted as saying to USA Today "There is no room for No Kill as morally superior." Really, laziness at the cost of animal's lives is on the same level as being completely dedicated to doing all that you can to save an animal's life? Non profit doesn't mean non corrupt. Few things are ever as simple as they appear to be. Stories like this make me ever the more thankful and in awe of Austin Pets Alive's tireless and pure dedication to their mission, not a single thing they do is counter to their aims. Ellen Jefferson and Palmer Neuhaus are deities in my book. Anyhow, you can read Winograd's article at the link below.

http://www.examiner.com/x-16635-SF-Animal-Shelters-Examiner~y2009m11d16-The-meaning-of-Oreo

High Drive Could Save Your Life

The American Pit Bull Terrier is often criticized for its high drive. They quote how an ill cared for animal attacked another dog or occasionally a human and that it was incredibly difficult to remove the dog and/or it was hard to redirect their attention. NOT to be misconstrued as glamorizing dog fighting (I nearly passed out trying to sit through "Off The Chain") but it is the same dedication that keeps a fighting dog latched onto its opponent, that keeps the search and rescue dog on the track of a missing person despite bleeding paw pads and many miles already logged. Do you want the search and rescue dog looking for your children when they are lost or injured to be one that gives up halfway through because they're getting tired? Or would you prefer one that will go for the goal until they are physically incapable, for no reason other than that it is important to their handler? I can't reiterate enough how unfair it is to blame an owner's neglect to properly train a dog, when often those same qualities that make a dog dangerous can make a dog an incredible asset to the community when trained for search and rescue or police work. One of the Lassie dogs was turned over to Bill Koehler because she was "uncontrollable" and the Great Dane in Swiss Family Robinson was fond of biting people when he came to Koehler. In cases where a dog has not been outright abused or neglected, misbehavior is often due to assets that are channeled into undesirable actions because they aren't being utilized. A lot of high energy breeds are found in shelters because their owners didn't understand that a dog bred to be herding sheep all day can't be left in apartment for 8 hours without a good, exhausting workout in the morning and evening if their owners plan on keeping their worldly possessions intact. That's just one of the many behavioral problems that can arise in dogs who aren't able to expend their energy or use their mental faculties.

Now I'm rambling and I should be packing to leave for Florida tomorrow anyhow. The point I was trying to make is: there is a good and a bad side to everything. The greater the potential for a quality to cause great harm, the greater potential good it can create so let's not forget it. Happy Holidays!

Fear Mongering in Journalism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8386023.stm

"A four-year-old boy has been mauled to death by a dog at a family home in Liverpool.

The child, who the BBC has learnt was called John Paul Massey, was attacked at the property in Ash Grove, Wavertree, just after midnight.

A 63-year-old woman was also injured and is being treated in hospital. It is believed she was hurt as she separated the dog from the child.

Merseyside Police said armed officers killed the animal in the front garden.

Dog handlers also attended the scene and an investigation has begun. Efforts are continuing to identify the dog's breed.

'Agitated state'

Ch Supt Steve Ashley said: "This is a tragic incident and a full and thorough investigation will be carried out into the circumstances surrounding this young boy's death.

"Officers are with the family and our sympathies are with them at this time."

He added: "Of utmost importance in such incidents is the safety of the public and of police officers. "When officers arrived at the address the dog was in an agitated state in the front garden of the property and was deemed to be a danger to the public.

"As a result we were left with no other option but to have the animal destroyed quickly and humanely."

On Monday morning, police tape surrounded the house and street where the boy was attacked.

Local parish priest Father Peter Morgan, of St Anne's Church in Edge Hill, emerged from the house on Monday afternoon after meeting the family.

He said: "There is an awful lot of pain inside... They are broken, it is so, so sad."

The BBC's North of England correspondent, Nick Ravenscroft, said the youngster's identity was confirmed by the head teacher of St Clare's Roman Catholic Primary School in Wavertree.

People spoke of their shock at the death but complained there had been a problem with so-called dangerous dogs in the area.

Gillian Watson, 46, who heard the gunshot that destroyed the dog, said: "It's such a terrible thing to happen to a family.

"There are lots of dangerous-type dogs around here. You always see young lads with pit bull dogs roaming around.

"I have a dog myself and when I take him for a walk sometimes it's quite terrifying because you think your dog is going to be attacked."

Another neighbour, who did not want to be named, said residents had complained to the local Housing Association about the problem.

He said: "You see them all the time, they're huge animals and it is very threatening."

The attack comes nearly three years after the death of Ellie Lawrenson, a five-year-old killed by her uncle's pit bull terrier on New Year's Day 2007, just a few miles away in St Helens.

Merseyside Police held a dangerous dogs amnesty after her death in which more than 80 illegally-held dogs were seized."

How are pit bulls in any way relevant to this case? They had the decency to admit that the dog's breed hadn't yet been identified (I dunno, chief, whaddya think he looks like?) That being said, how did they attempt to loosely string together the rationale that pit bulls were somehow magically responsible for this? I am so sick of seeing inane comments like "I take my dog for walks and I'm afraid he's going to be attacked." What does that have to do with pit bulls? Any dog off leash may be inclined to attack the dog you're walking. If you allow your dog to get close enough to an aggressive, leashed dog that it attacks then it's nobody's fault but your own. This possibility has absolutely nothing to do with any specific breed of dog. They mention neighbors being concerned with "so-called dangerous dogs" which as evidenced by the remainder of the article is purely a reference to pit bulls. Not to dogs actually displaying aggressive behavior like the one who killed this little boy. The circumstances of the attack are hardly mentioned in the article. The only descriptors of the dog are that it was in an "agitated state" and that it was in the front garden. We don't even know if it was a loose dog, for all we know it could have been that the boy entered someone else's fenced front yard and the dog killed him. In which case, how can we place responsibility on the dog over the caretaker of the child who allowed this to happen? Regardless, you can't make any judgment with information that is this vague. I will never understand how people are able to redirect their attention from the the issue at hand to the completely unrelated idea of "aggressive breeds" that were not even involved in the attack! You can start your unfounded mud-slinging when the dog is "identified" as a pit bull, and not a moment before. Also interesting to note that they failed to mention that the number of dog bites in Britain has tripled since they passed the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991.

Merritt Clifton doesn't sound like much of an "Animal Person" to me...

It is incredibly irritating to me when people cite unreliable, shoddily done studies from unqualified sources. Especially when they are passed around out of context (like the CDC study, I'll have to get into that one another time) by people who have never looked at the actual report. Case in point: Animal People's editor creating a report based on press accounts. I'll address at a later date why press accounts are horribly flawed when it comes to covering dog bites.

http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html
this perfectly illustrates why the Merritt Clifton article is completely bogus.

A few things that weren't included in the above excellent critique of the report: "Pit mix unknown", "Sharpei/unknown mix" and the innumerable "/mix" dogs are obviously not "clearly identifiable breed type or ancestry" as he claims are the only reports used in the study. Also, thirty bites are attributed to the "Bull mastiff (Presa Canario)" A Bull Mastiff and a Presa Canario are two completely different breeds.

"The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal. For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances."

The arguments comparing certain breeds of dogs to big cats, bears, sharks etc are beyond absurd. The domestic cats and dogs are (by definition) domesticated animals that have lived with humans for thousands of years being specifically bred for tameness. I have seen no evidence that any big cat or bear species has been bred with this same goal even over multiple generations, and they certainly do not have anything approaching the longevity of dog's domesticity. I hope that there is no need for me to make it clear to anyone why it is ridiculous to compare a dog's relationship to humans to a shark.