In other words, he did few of the things most dogs naturally love to do. Submissive, wary, and good-natured, he was sent to me in the first place because his breeder believed him to be one of the few dogs who could live peaceably with his tempestuous housemate. This turned out to be true, but it cost Homer a lot.

Studies of submissive dogs show that they often adapt by becoming background pets, living on the periphery, staying out of the way, waiting to edge toward the food bowl or before daring to chew their biscuits. They do what they need to do to stay out of trouble. This is what Homer had learned—what I had allowed to happen.

Trainers and behaviorists know, of course, that the good dog (like the bad dog) is a myth. Dogs are neither good nor bad; they are shaped by all sorts of factors: their mother’s feeding and nurturing habits, life in the litter with their siblings, their first few months in the world, their owner’s instructional methods. They adapt to their environments depending on training and circumstances and on varying degrees of luck, instinct, and skill on the part of human beings. It wasn’t a case of Homer being good or bad but of how well I’d taught him to live in our world.

Like the shy, awkward kid growing up in the shadow of a more charismatic older sibling, Homer lived entirely in the shadow of Orson, my first border collie. You couldn’t help loving Homer, of course. A profoundly amiable creature, he would collapse with joy at the sight of the mailman, his favorite UPS driver, and every other kid getting off a school bus. Each morning, he braved Orson’s possessive wrath to hop onto our bed and wrap himself around my wife Paula’s head for a snuggle. He and Paula were crazy about each other, seeing in each other the stability, predictability, and sanity so often missing around them. Unlike Orson, a pest in his affections who never knew when to quit, Homer was gentle and discreet, crawling up to offer a few licks, then skittering away.

While I did love Homer dearly, I’d known for a while that in some ways our relationship was incomplete, troubled. Although it is heresy to say so, we don’t love all our dogs the same way, any more than we love all people equally. Nor do dogs love us in the uniform, unwavering way often depicted in dog lore. When I first picked Homer up at the Albany airport, he cringed and backed away from me. We’d gotten much closer, but I’d never completely shaken a sense that he didn’t really know what to make of me.

Homer and OrsonI should have paid more attention to certain idiosyncrasies. Homer was the first dog I ever had, for instance, who rarely stayed in the same room with me. When I was working in my basement study, Orson was always Velcroed to my leg. My third dog, Rose, more independent and less needy, came and went, but continually touched base and checked up on me. Homer usually went upstairs to doze until the next walk or meal.

Some of this, I knew, was the result of our chaotic years with Orson, who for a while had glared and glowered whenever Homer came near me. Orson was a powerful, dominant, and possessive creature, Homer a docile, submissive, and cautious one. Some of it, I was repeatedly told by trainers, was the result of my inadequate or haphazard training.

But some of it, I also believed, belonged to the peculiar realm of chemistry. At the core, I was no longer sure I was really the best owner for Homer; I also wondered if he was the right dog for me. My other dogs and I seemed almost eerily in tune. Things didn’t always go smoothly, but there were few places I wanted to go that didn’t involve Orson and Rose, and vice versa.

How ironic, given that Homer had generally behaved impeccably. Orson raided the refrigerator, opened screen doors, jumped through windows. He roared off after longhaired shaggy dogs he thought were sheep. He herded bicyclists and skateboarders and scarfed food from babies’ strollers. He escaped over, under, and through fences. I love him beyond words. Homer did none of those things, yet our relationship seemed a struggle.

Increasingly, Homer lagged behind on walks, left a room if Orson and I were in it, and showed poor name recognition and eye contact, despite hundreds of dollars spent on beef and liver treats. He did not seem—something that only someone who knows and loves a dog well can see—a happy dog.

Could I have trained our way out of this? Sure, especially knowing what I now know. But I didn’t then. Orson took too much time; or perhaps I wasn’t motivated enough.

Herding was the thing Homer most loved, and there was no more companionable grazing dog. He quivered with excitement whenever we pulled into Raspberry Ridge, the farm where we herded sheep for my friend Carolyn. When I said, “Let’s go get the sheep,” Homer exploded with glee and rushed to the barnyard fence. We’d walk the 200 sheep down a forested path to the pasture—they knew the way so well a stuffed dog could have moved them—where Homer and I would sit for hours listening to the herd’s munching. At times, his instincts were nothing less than heroic. One spring evening a ewe broke off from the herd and ran into the woods—strange behavior. Homer followed her, and when I located them, a newborn lamb was nuzzling the startled Homer and the ewe had taken off to rejoin the flock. It took the better part of an hour to identify the proper ewe and bring her and her baby back into the barn for nursing and warmth. Meanwhile, the lamb had imprinted on Homer and tailed him for weeks. Homer looked unnerved but kept an eye on the little guy.

“Away from sheep, however, our troubles persisted”

At some point I’d begun to enter the murky area where the boundary between the human’s issues and the dog’s troubles blur. I became increasingly annoyed with Homer, his avoidance, his lagging, his sniffing at every bush and tree, and, yes, his rejection.

I found myself scolding him, urging him to hurry up on walks, to pay attention. “C’mon, c’mon,” I’d hiss in a voice I never used with any of my other dogs. “Let’s go, let’s get going.”

Many people advised me to stop worrying about Homer. “Look, he’s just a dog, and he’s living a better life than 99.9 percent of the dogs on the planet. Life doesn’t have to be perfect, even for dogs. You do the best you can, and he’s fine.”

For a number of reasons, that didn’t work for me. Does that philosophy really serve the dog, or is it designed to make the human feel better? My duty went deeper than that, I thought. The day I took on this dog, I accepted responsibility for his care. I hadn’t done right by him.

Was he happy? I wasn’t sure. Was he as happy as he deserved to be? I didn’t think so. Was he getting the attention he craved? Did he feel calm and safe? No.

On some level I’d concluded Homer wasn’t good enough. He wasn’t as adventurous as the other two dogs, nor as resilient. He didn’t walk as fast, react as quickly, herd as competently.

“Poor guy, I thought. No wonder he slept in another room”

One of my strategies for Homer was to start plotting activities for just the two of us. We began to leave Rose and Orson behind several times a day, something I should have done much earlier: at dawn, when we trained; then late morning, when we went out to chase balls and Frisbees; and again in the late afternoon, when I began what I called the school-bus ritual. It was a neat idea, better than I first realized.

Homer loved school buses, mostly because kids came pouring off of them, and he loved kids. He was especially fond of one of our neighbors, Max, a sweet 10-year-old with a shy but easygoing nature. In a funny way, he was much like Homer, which is perhaps why the two connected. Homer adored Max from the first, and vice versa, so I thought it would be nice for him to greet Max at the bus stop.

At 3:30 p.m. the bus pulled up to the corner across from our house and a gaggle of kids came thundering out. Homer waited and then went into his patented wriggle when Max disembarked; Max beamed and looked for Homer, knelt down to say hello, gave him a hug. Then Max and Homer would walk the half-block to his house.

By the third day, all I had to say was “Let’s go see Max” and Homer would go nuts, as happy as if there were sheep outside. The other school kids loved Homer, too, and he was nearly drunk with joy from all the attention. The first day or two, he looked nervously around, perhaps waiting for Orson to appear and order him away. But he soon realized that greeting Max’s bus was his daily task, his moment, another form of work but without competition from his siblings or scolding and criticism from me. There was no part of this task that Homer could fail at, and it was delightful to see these two guys fall in love.

It occurred to me, after only a few days, that this was the kind of relationship Homer would thrive on, and the kind I couldn’t provide.

Max’s family was dog-starved. He had a younger sister, Eva. His mother, Sharon, an education specialist, worked at home. His father, Hank, a magazine editor, worked grueling hours in the city but was at home several days during the week. Everybody in the family wanted a dog and talked incessantly about taking one to soccer games and playing with one in the backyard.

In fact, Max asked if Homer could come over and play. So one sunny afternoon, shortly before I was due to head back to Bedlam Farm in West Hebron, N.Y., semi-permanently, I took Homer to Max’s house. I sat on the back porch with Hank, who sensed that there was more to this encounter than an interspecies play date, but I didn’t tell him what was on my mind.

In a week or two I would head north to my farm for the winter. Whatever was going to happen with Homer had to happen soon or else wait for months.

Sitting on the porch, Hank said only how much they all loved Homer, and what a great dog he was. In the yard in front of me, Max and Homer were lying down face-to-face. Max was throwing a ball over Homer’s shoulder; he’d rush to grab the ball, lope back to Max, and slurp his nose.

Homer was having a blast, running in circles, tearing around the yard, smooching Max in between. I’m sure Hank noticed that I was affected by the sight, although I didn’t say why. The reason was that I’d rarely seen Homer so uncomplicatedly happy.

The next few days unraveled me. I knew where this was heading, yet it brought up awful pain and anger, much of it having nothing to do with Homer. The experience of being criticized, abandoned, frightened—all feelings I was thinking about subjecting Homer to or already had—resurfaced in me. I couldn’t sleep. Not even Paula could quite grasp what was happening to me.

So I called the only person I knew who would completely understand: my sister. “Of course I understand that this is unbearable for you,” she said. Yet as a veteran dog rescuer, she also understood the animal nature of dogs. “He’ll be happier. He’ll adapt. And he’ll be close enough so that you and Paula can watch and make sure.” The family I was describing was every dog rescuer’s dream, she pointed out: somebody at home almost all the time, everyone eager for a dog, young kids with energy, always somebody to play with and cuddle.

“He’s had a great life with you,” she told me. “But if he can’t get what he wants with you and you can’t get what you want with him, it’s OK to let him go.”

I asked Hank if he would be willing to have Homer stay there for a few days; if it went well, I said, we could talk about extending the visit further. They’d all love it, he said. I decided to drop Homer off, then take the other two dogs upstate. If things worked out, I would bring Homer up at Christmastime so our family could say its proper farewells. If things didn’t, I’d drive down in a few days and take Homer back. We agreed that Paula would come by to check on things, and that Hank or Sharon and I would talk regularly, as long as necessary for us all to feel at ease and reach a mutual decision.

The next morning, Homer hopped into bed and snuggled with me more affectionately than I could remember. We went for a long walk together before sunrise.

Then I left him in the backyard with Orson and Rose and took his crate to Max’s house down the street, along with a carton of bones, treats, and food. Inside the house, I silently reassembled the crate, lined with his favorite sheepskin and quilt. Then I put Homer on a leash, and Paula and I walked him to what might be his new home. When I handed the leash to Sharon, Homer looked at me nervously; he started to follow me out, then stopped, restrained by the leash. Walking home, I could hear him barking all the way down the block.

That night, on my late-evening walk with Orson and Rose, I saw a dog on a leash coming around the corner. Rose went wild, and Orson began thumping his tail. It was Homer. The sight of somebody else walking my dog, a creature I had loved for several years but had failed, struck deep and hard.

“Is it OK?” yelled Sharon, trying to be sensitive.

“Sure,” I said.

Homer came running over to us, tail wagging, excited and confused. “Goodbye, boy,” I said, at first walking past him, then turning back to lean down, stroke his head, and kiss him on the nose. He seemed anxious and bewildered, started to follow me, yelped in alarm when Sharon drew him away. His yelps sliced through me like bullets. I turned away and kept walking, feeling as if I’d left a part of myself behind. And of course, I had.

The next morning, we returned to Bedlam Farm.

Two months later, Homer came up for Christmas week with Paula. I didn’t think this sort of reunion was something we should do too often. Homer had earned his new life, and returning to ours had to be confusing and difficult for him. Dogs are not like people; they don’t miss what they’ve left behind. They figure out the new rules, check out the food and the folks, and set out to do what they do best—adapt.

The reports from New Jersey had been encouragingly effusive. Everybody loved Homer. Nobody could believe how well-trained he was. Max was in heaven; Homer walked him to the school bus and was waiting for him when he got home. Homer lay next to Sharon all day as she worked in her home office; he dozed on the couc next to Hank while they watched basketball games. He availed himself of a number of sleeping options—sometimes with Hank and Sharon, sometimes with Max, once in a while with Eva. Max and his friends tossed Frisbees and balls for Homer in the yard, and he was the sensation of Max’s soccer team.

When Paula pulled up at Christmas with Homer in the back seat, both Orson and Rose pounced happily on him, and he and I had a joyous reunion. Life quickly grew complex for him, of course. Orson went after his bones, and Rose mercilessly taunted him to play. Within a few hours, he looked beleaguered and wary again.

Over the next few days, though, things sorted themselves out. Rose was more interested in the sheep, Homer was happy to tear through the woods after chipmunks, and Orson generally ignored him. In the early morning, Homer crept up onto our bed as he always had, to bestow a series of quick licks and enjoy a cuddle before retreating—under Orson’s glare—onto the dog bed on the floor.

On the last day of his visit, I took him for what I imagined might be his last adventure with sheep, no small event in the life of a border collie. I had no doubt now that he was a happier dog; that I’d made the right decision. When I opened the gate, Homer tore into the pasture, racing for the ewes. When I called for him to stop, he slowed down. He’d lost a step or two in his cushy suburban lifestyle, and the ewes kept their distance. By the time he caught up with them, he was winded. I came up next to him, put him in a lie-down, and sat scratching his ears while the sheep crunched peacefully on the hillside.

Homer licked my hand and stared at the sheep. It was probably, I thought, the last time we’d spend together like this, for both our sakes. I was grateful for it. Maybe he was, too. At the end of the week, he drove off with Paula, his head propped on the rear window ledge of her car. He was looking back at me.

I’ll always miss Homer’s affectionate heart. But while I regret much about Homer, I don’t regret sending him off to Max and Eva and Sharon and Hank. Things didn’t work out as I’d planned, but at least I didn’t condemn him to the peripheries of love. Because he couldn’t speak, I spoke for him. What I said was: I can’t give you what you need, but I can find you somebody who will. In this, I kept faith with him.

From The Dogs of Bedlam Farm by Jon Katz. Copyright 2004 Jon Katz. Published by arrangement with Villard Books, an imprint of Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House Inc. 

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/CaBuD9QBvzA/

Alice Cooper, founder of the Solid Rock foundation – a charity that helps disadvantaged youngsters

Alice Cooper, founder of the Solid Rock foundation – a charity that helps disadvantaged youngsters

The year is 1972.

Word from the United States is that original ‘shock-rock’ superstar Alice Cooper is making headlines for doing terrible, depraved things in a live stage show containing everything from animal sacrifice to full on necrophilia.

Of course, rumour and gossip fuel the fires. In reality, one single incident propelled Alice Cooper to notoriety. At a concert in Toronto someone in the crowd threw a live chicken on stage. Why anyone would bring a live chicken to a rock concert is anyone’s guess, but Cooper collected the bird and, being a boy from Detroit who’d never been on a farm in his life, threw it back – assuming “It had wings, I thought it would fly.”

Except, it didn’t quite fly as much as it plummeted back in to the crowd.

A sea of blood, guts, wings, feathers and media storm erupted.

“Alice Cooper kills chicken and drinks the blood.”

“Satanic Cooper sacrifices animals at live concert.”

“Evil Alice kills animals in frenzied sacrifice in front of baying mob”.

Well, you get the picture.

The rumours that surrounded Cooper and his stage show grew and grew – as rumours are prone to do. Before you knew it, Alice Cooper was the anti-Christ and the children of the world were not safe from the evil he spewed.

Nobody, it would seem, bothered to actually find out much more than that. Especially Mary Whitehouse the veteran ‘media standards and decency’ campaigner who busied herself by deciding on our behalf what we should and should not be allowed to see, think or do.

When it was announced that Alice Cooper would be bringing his shock-fest to the UK, Whitehouse went in to overdrive.

She lobbied MPs. Some of them supported her. In fact one MP, Leo Abse objected to Cooper’s show so much, he accused him “peddling the culture of a concentration camp.” Strong stuff.

The frenzy surrounding the most villainous man in music built and built.

Watching this all unfold were, basically, three groups;

1) The outraged.

2) The sensible.

3) The really, really, really, really, really EXCITED!

Whitehouse did not manage to ‘ban’ Cooper from bringing his show to the UK. Nor did the MPs, he was after all a singer, not a criminal.

Given the mass hysteria surrounding rock’s baddest of the bad, which of the following scenarios do you think played out upon his eventual landing on UK soil?

1) The public shunned the morally corrupt singer and sent him packing where he would later fade in to obscurity

2) Without doing a SINGLE stroke of his own PR, he sold Wembley Stadium out TWO nights in a row

???

Cooper’s sold out Wembley shows elevated his career to a new high. He is still going (very) strong to this day.

Had Mary Whitehouse actually met him before making her judgement, she’d discover that Alice Cooper is a devoted family man, born again Christian, keen golfer and one of the GREATEST showmen alive. The Alice Cooper show is a morality play. It’s a character showing, teaching, if you like, that if you do bad things, then bad things happen to you. Alice – the character – never ‘gets away’ with anything. It’s more Shakespeare than Satanism. In fact, I’ve found myself streaming out of Alice Cooper concerts (I’ve been to many. Many, many!) to sometimes overhear the dissefected youth of the day say “Well the music was great, but I thought it’d be all Satanic and stuff.” The greatest disappointment Mary and Leo would have found at an Alice Cooper gig is the sheer lack of the demonic, satanic elements and lack of corruption of the young, impressionable audience – the same young, impressionable audience who Mary and Leo DROVE to the show with their ill informed hype and tittle tattle.

Ken Baker has done the same job for the Pit Bull.

He’s made a dog breed that is owned and loved by millions the ‘poster child’ of canine badness. He’s made the breed the 1972 version of Alice Cooper.

Only there’s one big difference, Alice Cooper sent Mary Whitehouse a bouquet of flowers every year up until her death, so grateful was he for the career platform she built for him. I’m fairly sure the countless owners and dogs who’s lives have been wrecked by Baker’s 1991 act will not feel such affection for him.

Breed Specific Legislation has failed. By demonising a breed, any breed, you make it attractive to the sort of people who will do a fine job of perpetuating negative stereotypes. I wonder. Will the same disaffected youth who turned up at Alice Cooper concerts only to leave saying “Well, music was good but a bit disappointed at the lack of animal sacrifices” be overheard to say “Well, dog’s all nice and everything. Bit disappointed at the lack of psychotic viciousness though.” about their newly, illegally obtained ‘Pit Bull type’ dogs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVNcD6q_grc

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/zBWemaN6BDs/

Why Do Dog’s Pant?

Unlike horses and indeed us humans, dogs do not sweat through the skin; they sweat through the tongue and nose, so that when a dog is panting, he is not necessarily thirsty. He is just sweating.

Naturally if exertion makes a dog pant for long, he loses fluid, which he will have to replace by drinking water. Panting does not necessarily mean thirst, but a thirsty dog will pant.

Excessive panting may indicate distress, and dogs should be taken into a shady or cool place or they may get a heatstroke. It is not unknown for dogs to die at shows in hot weather from heatstroke.

If a stroke is threatened, immediately put cold compresses to the dog’s head or, if the temperature is extremely high, immerse the dog in cold water until the temperature is reduced to about 103°, which is fairly safe for a dog. Of course the animal must be dried off, or chill may result. If the animal has not lost consciousness, cool drinks are invaluable.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Compare pet insurance

OFFER: Get FREE Dog Food

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/Q6YIpmKYatw/

The package (for England) includes an extension of dangerous dogs law to cover private property, the removal of the requirement for all dogs to be held in police ‘custody’ and a range of options to introduce the compulsory microchipping of all dogs.

The announcement follows the 2010 Defra consultation on a wide range of dangerous dog and dog control issues.

Although the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) broadly welcome the individual measures announced, the proposals do not include any of the preventive measures that the BVA, BSAVA and many other organisations and individuals have called for since the introduction of the failed Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991.

Commenting, Harvey Locke, Past President of the BVA, said:

“In the 2010 consultation the Government received the message loud and clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act has failed to protect both the public and dog welfare. Unfortunately, today’s announcement has missed this once in a generation opportunity to overhaul the legislation.

“Dog welfare charities, veterinary organisations, trade unions, and enforcement bodies have been united in the call for a complete overhaul of the legislation and a new, consolidated Bill to focus on prevention. There will be a huge amount of frustration and disappointment with today’s announcement.”

Mark Johnston, President of BSAVA, said:

“Although we welcome the individual proposals they only tinker with the inadequate existing laws. The move to cover incidents on private property is a positive step but it will do little or nothing to actually prevent attacks happening in the first place.

“We are pleased that the Government has recognised the problems associated with breed-specific legislation and has proposed steps to ensure the welfare of dogs that have become the subject of court proceedings. This type of ‘bail’ for dogs is a welcome move to improve welfare, but we hope we can make the case for it to go further.”

On compulsory microchipping, Mr Locke added:

“The BVA strongly supports the introduction of compulsory microchipping and will be making the case for all dogs to be microchipped from a certain date, rather than a phased-in approach that would be very difficult to enforce.

“However, microchipping is primarily a welfare measure. It is not the answer to the serious problem of dangerous dogs and shouldn’t be promoted as such.”

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/0dRRqMe8tA4/

Cases revealed ahead of the charity’s major fundraising push, RSPCA Week 2012, include a dog repeatedly stabbed with a potato peeler, a dog the only survivor of a house of horror where five animals died of starvation; a blind kitten found dumped in a carrier bag and two cases involving tens of dogs kept in squalid conditions.

As well as a rise in those convicted under the Animal Welfare Act and other legislation, bans on keeping animals also increased in 2011, along with the number of prison sentences imposed for animal cruelty.

The RSPCA’s Animal Cruelty Facts (2012):

23.5% rise in the number of people convicted for cruelty neglect (1,341 in 2011)
22% rise in the convictions relating to cruelty to dogs (2,105 in 2011)
21% increase in disqualifications imposed by courts (1,100 in 2011)
27% rise in prison sentences imposed by courts (74 in 2011)
9.3% increase in the numbers of people reported to the RSPCA prosecutions department (3,036 in 2011)
13% rise in the number of phone calls received by the RSPCA (1,314,795 in 2011)

Pets were not the only victims. Cases involving farm animals last year rose as well as a convictions relating to equines (230 in 2011).

RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant said: “The RSPCA faces a crisis that is stretching us to breaking point.

We show zero tolerance to animal abusers. Anyone causing animals pain for profit or pleasure will be tracked down and prosecuted.

We need the courts and councils, police and people who care to join us in standing up and getting justice for Britain’s abused animals.”

However, there were some amazing stories of survival including a lurcher-type dog which survived against all the odds after two men broke her back and stabbed her with a potato peeler before dumping her and leaving her to die. Thanks to the efforts of RSPCA and veterinary staff Maggie May has a fantastic new life in a lovely new home.

Beethoven, the dog from the ‘house of horror’, had been left to die along with another dog, two cats and two small animals. The others all suffered a painful and slow death from starvation, but Beethoven was rescued and now has a great new life.

Sally Case, head of society prosecutions, said: “The RSPCA strives to keep animals with their owners wherever possible and offers advice on improving their welfare. Overwhelmingly this advice is followed, but where it isn’t, or where someone has already harmed an animal there has to be a way of ensuring that animals are not left to suffer and the RSPCA is the charity people turn to – and we are struggling to continue providing this service.

“Of course we work closely with governmental and other charitable organisations, but we are the main organisation which prosecutes those who abuse animals and which can prevent cruelty to animals.

Animal Cruelty Facts (2011)

For the second year running – and for a variety of different reasons – the world’s largest animal welfare charity rescued nearly 150 thousand wild, exotic, farm and domestic animals from dangerous and distressing situations.

The rescue figures include a 23 per cent increase in the number of animals abandoned by their owners – from 5,959 in 2006 to 7,347 in 2007. Almost half of these were cats.

Typical examples of how animals were abandoned* in 2007 include:
· a litter of kittens dumped in a dustbin bag for refuse collectors (London)
· a rabbit abandoned in a box in a crushing machine at a recycling centre (Northallerton)
· a puppy dumped in a cardboard Cadbury’s box on a street in Orpington (Kent)
· five hamsters abandoned in a plastic tub – two of which were dead – at the side of a road (Southampton)

And the worrying trend could be continuing. Just four months into 2008 the Society has already rescued 2,621 abandoned animals, including a three-legged cat with no tail dumped outside a Co-op store this month. (See case studies at the end of the release).

Equally concerning are some of the bizarre reasons given to the RSPCA by owners no longer wanting their pets, for example: “My dog hurts my legs when she wags her tail” and “my cat doesn’t match my new carpet.”

This news comes at the start of RSPCA Week (28 April – 4 May) – the Society’s largest annual fundraising and awareness raising push.

Commenting on the figures Tim Wass, chief officer of the RSPCA inspectorate, said: “From birds injured by oil spills to stranded cattle, and cats in road traffic accidents to dogs simply abandoned by their owners, the RSPCA was on hand last year to help all types of animals whatever the emergency.

“Last summer we deployed the biggest number of RSPCA staff for a generation to the rescue of farm animals, horses and other much-loved pets from the severe floods that swept the country.

“Sadly we also noticed a rise in the number of animals callously abandoned. It is an offence to abandon any animal and there is never any excuse for doing so. If people have pets they cannot care for, for any reason, then help and advice is always available from the RSPCA.

“During RSPCA Week we want people to spare a thought for the many thousands of animals needing the RSPCA’s help each year and in particular for anyone thinking about getting a pet to consider the responsibility they are taking on before doing so.”

*The term ‘abandoned’ is used for an animal that has been left completely alone to fend for itself ie.it has not been handed over to an RSPCA centre or any other organisation or individual to care for it.
**The term ‘rescue’ refers to all animals that the RSPCA rescues for a wide range of different reasons, including animals that are sick and injured, in road traffic accidents, trapped in dangerous places and abandoned.

[WP-PHOTO-SLIDER:TYPE=gallery1]

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/iYcps9SQqQU/

The country’s biggest animal welfare charity has accused Defra of ignoring the advice of the country’s dog law enforcement agencies, and instead launching yet another unnecessary consultation.

The RSPCA’s believes the coalition has broken its promise, set out in its ‘programme for government’, to “promote responsible pet ownership” and that it “will ensure that enforcement agencies target irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs.”1

An extension of the law to cover private property, as well as public land, is a step in the right direction. However, along with compulsory microchipping of puppies, it is a purely reactionary measure that fails to prevent dog bites and attacks from happening in the first place.

The RSPCA also fear suggestions of an increase in the fee to have dogs put on the exempted register from £24 to more than £70 could lead to more people choosing instead to have their dog put to sleep rather than pay costs of up to an estimated £850 for it to be exempted.2

RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant said: “Britain’s dogs deserve better. Too many are abandoned and abused, demonised and dumped. All owners need to be accountable to their dogs, the irresponsible deterred and the abusive prosecuted. That is the approach we need to take. These proposals need to go a lot further to achieve that.

“It has been 21 years since the disastrous Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced. After years of watching the problem of irresponsible dog ownership spiral, this was the perfect chance for the current Government to make huge strides forward for dog welfare. Instead they have taken only the smallest steps and merely tinkered with a piece legislation that many people widely acknowledge is one of the biggest failures of modern politics.

“These measures not only lack bite, they raise major questions about how exactly they expect to effectively tackle the danger of irresponsible ownership to both people and animals.

“Animal rescue centres are filled to breaking point with unwanted, neglected and cruelly treated dogs. Irresponsible owners are continuing to make money from breeding dogs with little care for their health or welfare. Meanwhile, people continue to be put at risk of being attacked or injured by out of control dogs and their irresponsible owners.

“The proposals set out by the Government in Westminster today do not appear to fundamentally address these growing problems of irresponsible dog ownership.

The RSPCA aren’t alone in expressing frustration at the Government’s proposals. The Dogs Trust was also unhappy and expressed disappointment and frustration that the Written Ministerial Statement on tackling irresponsible dog ownership failed to effectively address two elements that the charity believes are vital to successful policy in this area – compulsory microchipping of all dogs to connect owners with their dogs and preventative measures to reduce the number of dog attacks.

The announcement, which Dogs Trust believes will provide an outline for the government’s future proposals on dangerous dog law, has been long awaited and the charity had hoped that it would signal some significant and effective changes to dangerous dog legislation. It has taken over twenty years of campaigning to get the government to attempt to redress the mistakes that were made by rushing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 through Parliament.

Dogs Trust believes that compulsory microchipping of all dogs should form a central part of any future policy on tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Microchipping will not prevent attacks but the charity believes that it is the most effective way to link a dog to its owner and to make irresponsible owners accountable for the actions of their dog. Microchipping all puppies is a step in the right direction but will mean that the effectiveness of any policy will be delayed by upwards of 10 years. Dogs Trust research shows that 83% of the UK population believe all dogs should be microchipped – it is hard to understand why government is so reluctant to take this step.

The charity is also concerned that this consultation makes little provision for the prevention of dog attacks. We would like to see the government identify ways to deal with irresponsible owners before an attack takes place, which could take the form of Dog Control Notices to keep dogs on a lead or muzzled in public places where necessary.

Dogs Trust does, however, welcome an extension of the law to private property as this would send a strong signal to owners who fail to keep their dogs under control that they could now face the full force of the law. The charity believes that the most severe attacks should be considered a criminal matter, while minor incidents should continue to be dealt with as a civil matter by the courts under the Dogs Act 1871, but with a power of compensation for the victims of dog attacks.

And finally, in the absence of a repeal of breed specific legislation, Dogs Trust would like new provisions to be introduced that would better improve welfare for dogs that could be deemed to be of ‘type’ by allowing responsible owners to make applications to Court for their dog to be registered and for Magistrates to be given a new power to allow a dog to be returned home on ‘bail’ pending a case being concluded.

Clarissa Baldwin, CEO of Dogs Trust, says:

“The Government has spent a great deal of time examining this legislation since it came to power and whilst we accept DEFRA has done their best to look at this issue, unfortunately, their best is no where near good enough. Not good enough to better protect the public or good enough to improve animal welfare.

“Government must tackle this problem head on with completely new legislation rather than just tinkering around the edges. We’re extremely disillusioned that there is nothing in the consultation on measures that will actually help to prevent dog attacks, which is surely what the aim of these proposals should be. We seem to be waltzing along on this issue rather than the quick step we need to meaningful reform.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/EX6D4OXT1zk/

Whilst NDWA welcomes the government announcement on proposed ways to deal with irresponsible dog ownership in its many forms, it is extremely disappointed that yet again the end result is another consultation process by DEFRA rather than decisive action.

NDWA has stated elsewhere that the government was wrong to intermingle ‘dangerous dog’s’ and stray dogs as a single issue, confusion on what a ‘dangerous dog’ is has clouded public perception and has helped to create a misleading image that microchipping will help reduce the number of dog attacks.

Further confusion has arisen in the belief that a microchip will identify a dog to an owner, ask a Local Authority Dog Warden (if there are any left at your local council) how many stray dogs that are microchipped have up to date details or perhaps the microchip has not been registered, a figure of around a 40% failure rate is not uncommon.  There would need to be legislation that placed responsibility for a dog with the person or organisation that bred it, sold it or re-homed it, much in the same way that the DVLA places responsibility on the previous owner of a car if the log book has not been signed over to the new owner.

Microchipping as an aid to animal welfare and the swift reunification of dogs with owners is welcomed by NDWA but there are far too many unanswered questions that require addressing, a major one being, if it becomes mandatory that a dog is implanted with a microchip, who is responsible for enforcing non-compliance?   Many Local Authorities have reduced the traditional Dog Warden Service that offered dog control through a combination of education and enforcement.  If the dog control aspect of the person responsible for dealing with dogs at a council is a secondary one, when will there be time to carry out enforcement of a law that requires dogs to be implanted?

NDWA worked with partners from the RSPCA, ACPO, CIEH and LGA to produce simplified legislation that would enable the primary enforcement agencies, prohibited breed’s and dogs dangerously out of control (The Police), stray dogs and minor dog related issues (Local Authorities) the tools to protect public safety and promote responsible dog ownership.

The amount of money set aside by the government for Local Authorities, charities and local groups to promote responsible dog ownership £50,000 is frankly risible, if there are 326 Local Authorities in England that have a statutory duty to deal with stray dogs, this amounts to approximately £1,533 per council, how much printing will this buy?  Would this money actually be ‘ring-fenced’ or would it go straight in to the general council fund?

NDWA President Susan Bell said:

‘Any consultation process needs to address the issue of inadequately funded Dog Warden Services, the whole ethos of the NDWA is the promotion of responsible dog ownership through a combination of education and enforcement.  Without competent Dog Warden Services  there will be no positive promotion of responsible dog ownership in England.’

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/vseKuu9bmyA/

The black Labrador pups, three female and two male, join a long line of animal species the group. has demonstrated can be successfully artificially inseminated with sex-sorted sperm to achieve the desired outcome — female or male offspring. To date, XY(R) Sex Selection Technology has been used to produce hundreds of thousands of sex-selected offspring of various animal species. Cattle, horses and sheep have benefited from this technology, which also has been successful in elk, domestic cats, the bottle-nosed dolphin and the Mediterranean water buffalo.

“We are delighted to show our sex-selection technology also works in the canine world,” said Dr. Mervyn Jacobson, president and CEO of XY Inc., an international biotechnology company based in Fort Collins, Colo.

XY Inc. holds worldwide licenses and patents to a technology that is revolutionizing animal breeding, particularly the dairy cattle industry in which literally millions of dairy cows are needed to satisfy the need for increased milk supply in developing countries.

The successful births were a collaborative effort among XY Inc.’s research team; Dr. Greg Burns, DVM, owner of South mesa Veterinary Hospital in Fort Collins; and, of course, Morgan’s Chocolate Rose, the patient mom of the rambunctious brood. Rose is owned by Steve Huffman and his family. Huffman is a laboratory technician with XY Inc.

“Over the last several years, XY Inc. has been approached by organizations breeding seeing-eye dogs or dogs used by law-enforcement agencies and the military. These groups have an interest in breeding technology as a way to improve and expand their breeding pools of animals desired for certain traits or temperament,” Jacobson continued.

In the case of seeing-eye dogs, Labradors, particularly females, are a desired breed due to their calm and gentle disposition and intelligence.

“Producing a single litter of five pups is only the beginning of the process to prove the sex ratio really can be controlled, but if the sperm-sorting process is proven to work with canine semen over many litters, this will be a major step forward,” commented Eldin Leighton, The Jane H. Booker Director of Canine Genetics, The Seeing Eye, which breeds Seeing Eye(R) dogs.

While XY(R) Sex Selection Technology typically guarantees at least a 90-percent accuracy rate in selecting for the desired offspring in cattle and other animals in which the technology has been rigorously field-tested and used in breeding for many years, the Labrador litter of sex-selected puppies was 60 percent accurate in delivering the desired sex — female.

John Schenk, XY Inc. reproductive physiologist, explained the purity of the doses of sexed dog sperm was sacrificed to achieve the quantity of semen need for AI.

“We are reasonably certain the less-than-optimum purity of the X-sorted sperm doses, which was 81 percent, had significant bearing on the female/male split in the litter,” said Schenk. “There was an 18-percent chance we would end up with this combination in a litter of five.”

A typical dog ejaculate contains up to 1-billion sperm and decreases rapidly after the first semen collection. In this case, XY Inc. researchers were able to sort 46-million sperm on the first day; 21.5-million, the second day; and 27-million, the third day. Dr. Burns used the fresh sperm to artificially inseminate Rose three times over a five-day interval.

“With sperm sorting, early research is a process to learn what precise combination of factors is needed to first achieve live offspring from sexed sperm and then improve accuracy to consistently produce a very high percentage of the desired sex of the offspring,” Schenk said.

Dr. Burns explained the use of AI with non-sorted sperm to breed dogs has become an increasingly popular method over the last decade. Each AI dose typically contains 100-million sperm, and over the breeding service several doses are used.

Rose was AI bred with less than 95-million total sorted sperm.

“The low dose and the fact that the sperm were sorted is a ‘double first’ in the dog-breeding world,” Dr. Burns said.

Rose, who is a first-time mother, had no complications during the pregnancy or delivery of the five pups. Dr. Burns noted a typical litter size for a female Labrador is five to 10 pups with a mean of seven. This litter was no exception, with the litter developing normally over the typical nine-week gestation cycle.

Dr. Burns concluded, “Using sex-sorted sperm to artificially inseminate dogs is probably not too practical for typical breeding. However, for specialty breeding, this is a major breakthrough with great potential.”

Added Leighton, “The Seeing Eye would find it very helpful if some litters could be produced that are mostly females, and I believe that access to sex-selection technology would be useful to dog guide schools around the world.”

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/IVDwDJelGzk/

Sloppy, wet dog kisses – it would seem – could hand in paw with the dog ownership experience. But can dogs pass on germs when they lick your face? One of the more commonly asked questions we get here at DogTips.co is whether dogs can pass on germs to humans, particularly by licking…

Dogs Lick Faces Because…

Dogs use their long tongues for mopping up lunch crumbs, removing mud from their feet, and cleaning their privates. And yet, when they give our faces sloppy licks, there’s something endearing about it. Apart from occasional attempts to retrieve bits of glazed doughnut from our chins, dogs lick us because they like us. It isn’t a kiss, but it’s close.

Almost as soon as they’re born, dogs experience the soft warmth of their mothers’ tongue, which bathes them with maternal affection. The licking never really stops after that. Mothers take advantage of their puppies’ relative immobility during nursing to lick them clean. They also lick their bottoms to jump-start their impulses to relieve themselves.

Is it OK to Let Puppies Lick Faces?

Puppies do their share of licking too. They lick older dogs’ chins and faces to greet them and show respect. And when they’re hungry – and puppies are perpetually in search of something to eat – licking their mother will sometimes stimulate her to regurgitate a meal, which the puppies regard as an appetizing lunch.

As dogs get older, they lick each other less often, but they never quit entirely. At the very least, in the absence of hands and hairbrushes, they do each other’s hair with their tongues.

A Show Of Respect

Dogs don’t lick people because they’re hoping for a hot meal. They lick because we’re their parents, or at least the head folks in the house. Even when dogs are old, gray, and grizzled, they see themselves in some ways as being our children, and a lick shows how much they respect us.

You can tell a little bit about your dog’s personality by how much licking she does. Dogs who are very bold or independent are restrained with their licking because they don’t feel as though there is anyone they have to win over. Outgoing, sociable dogs, on the other hand, lick everyone all the time.

We play a role in all this licking too. It doesn’t take dogs very long to learn that laying a wet one on the cheek is a great way to get cooed over and rubbed the right way. So in a way, the instinct to lick is both ancient and immediate; dogs do it naturally, and we en- courage them to do it more.

How To React to Dog Face Licking?

People are never sure how to react to licks. The first emotion is generally “Aw, that’s cute,” closely followed by “Yuck.” Imagine where that tongue has been! But it’s not as unhygienic as it seems. At worst, dog licks are like wiping your face with a slightly dirty washcloth. Not exactly cleansing, but hardly worth worrying about. In fact, there’s some evidence that it may be good for you.

So whilst a dog lick on the face might not be to everyone’s taste, judging by the millions and millions of dog owners who’ve received a dog lick to the chops, it’s not going to kill you (or your children!).

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/_ocj2Sv1_S8/

Hyperkinesis in dogs is rare. If you have a dog that appears to acting in what is common called a hyper-active way, the chances are it is NOT hyperkinesis. However, learning to understand more about this condition can help dog owners identify the signs and in this article we start out by looking at a case study where drugs were used as a treatment plan for hyperkinesis.

You should always seek veterinary and/or professional dog training advice if you have concerns about your dog’s behavior or any sudden changes in their personality.

Canine Hyperkinesis: A Case Study Of Drug Treatment

The first controlled studies of hyperkinesis in dogs were an outgrowth of a long-term attempt to develop animal models of psychopathology.

Dogs were chosen for these studies for several reasons, primarily because there were many carefully bred animals available. This allowed an evaluation of genetic strains in certain breeds. Also, dogs are the only domestic animal with a variety of emotional responses comparable to those seen in people: they worry about things not essential to their survival.

In studies designed to evaluate responses to stress, some dogs did not respond to Pavlovian conditioning. Positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and tranquilizers were all tried, but nothing worked.

Typically such dogs would be eliminated from the study, but because the researchers were interested in the interaction of genetics and psychological environment, they were curious about dogs that appeared unwilling to be studied. Eventually the researcher decided they were dealing with the equivalent of a hyperkinetic children. On that basis, amphetamines were given, and the tentative diagnosis proved correct.

The first model of hyperkinesis in a dog was Jackson, a Cocker-Beagle mix whose usual response to any approach was to snap, snarl, growl or, if possible, bite. Many experienced, gentle dog handlers were bitten, until eventually laboratory personnel refused to approach the dog. Jackson responded the same to other dogs. He viciously attacked any dog without hesitation, even friendly and docile animals. He refused to submit to Pavlovian conditioning, and destroyed laboratory equipment in his rages.

Because depressants were not effective against Jackson’s abnormally hyperactive and vicious behavior, it was suspected that hyperkinesis may have been involved. On this assumption, the dog was given amphetamine orally. Within 2 hours, Jackson’s personality changed to complete docility. He whimpered as if he wanted to be petted. When petting was stopped, he begged for more. He became nonviolent, even submissive, toward the same dog he had attacked earlier. Jackson appeared to be perplexed and unsure of what to do.

When placed in the Pavlovian experimental stand after medication, Jackson responded normally and learned rapidly, indicating that his previous failure was not a result of mental retardation, but rather a secondary effect of his behavior problem. After 6 weeks of drug-facilitated psychosocial therapy, medication could be withdrawn without reappearance of aggression, but hyperkinesis reappeared in low-threat situations. Aggression was apparently trained out by the drug-facilitated social interaction and conditioning experiments, indicating that what is learned under the influence of amphetamines is retained later.

After 2 more months of psycho-social therapy using amphetamines, Jackson’s non-medicated hyperkinesis was also reduced. Because he was between 1 1/2 and 2 years old at the time of the experiments, maturation could have been associated with the cure; however, 6 older hyperkinetic dogs did not outgrow their abnormal behavior patterns.

An Insight In to Hyperkinesis in Dogs

Hyperkinesis is a disorder characterized by excessive activity, extreme restlessness, impulsivity, and a short attention span. In humans, especially children, it is now referred to as ADD, Attention Deficit Disorder. Veterinarians continue to use the term hyperkinesis. Hyperkinesis can affect a dog’s ability to learn new behaviors. Dogs so afflicted exhibit inattention, restlessness, and are easily distracted. The syndrome seems to be caused by both genetic and environmental factors.

Most owners are not aware of the disease. The condition is quite rare in dogs, and when diagnosed by a veterinarian, medications, usually stimulants, can be prescribed to ameliorate the effects. Unfortunately, the popular use of the term to describe normal, but overly excited dogs, has clouded the issue for both owners and veterinarians. Dogs with extreme hyperkinesis that cannot have their symptoms improved with drug therapy, are often euthanized.

Truly hyperkinetic dogs exhibit many of the following symptoms:

Cannot be taught anything, even in obedience school
Salivates constantly
Always excited or nervous
Cannot sit still, even for a minute
Never becomes accustomed to everyday situations
Chronically rapid heart rate

The symptoms of hyperkinesis are usually exacerbated in dogs that are stressed by being kept in conditions of close confinement or short-leash tethering. Even with the clear presence of defining symptoms, it is difficult to treat the basic problem because there is often no clear reason, either physical or environmental, to explain the symptoms. Some truly hyperkinetic dogs do not respond to positive reinforcement, and tranquilizing drugs seem to have no positive effect. Truly hyperkinetic dogs can be vicious, and are known to bite owners and other dogs without provocation.

Don’t be worried about your dog if she is simply hyperactive. This can be normal for some breeds, and is typical with new puppies who display enthusiasm for everything. Just a simple hello will have them running in circles. Some dogs are simply energetic and enjoy running, jumping, chewing, pulling, and barking. Their enthusiasm is one of the things that endear them too us.

True hyperkinetic dogs seldom have a rest period. They exhibit abnormal frantic behavior, and continue it until they drop from exhaustion. Because the symptoms are also exhibited in simply overactive dogs, veterinarians will usually require a test trial with stimulants like amphetamines or Ritalin, which is often prescribed for children with ADD.

If your dog is simply overactive, they can be retrained and managed with persistence and obedience training. Vigorous daily exercise will also help the overactive dog to expend energy.

Resources:

Nancy Cope
K9 Magazine
Vet Gazette

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Compare pet insurance

OFFER: Get FREE Dog Food

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dailydogarticles/~3/WSaUBqluTQ4/