Archive for September, 2009
Young Charlie has a few issues. He lost or was taken from his mother at the age of about four weeks. In a perfect world he’d have been put with a no-nonsense adult female dog who’d have whipped his snotty little butt into shape. But Charlie was being held as evidence so he was kept in a box stall with a group of similarly-aged motherless puppies. The little hooligans were regularly handled by people – but they didn’t have an adult dog around to teach them the rules.
As a result of this less-than-perfect upbringing, Charlie grew up to be a very pushy little dog with a short fuse. Fortunately for Charlie (and for me) one or more of his ancestors were thoughtful enough to bequeath him an exceptionally bright and resilient nature. Charlie isn’t just a quick study, he recovers from stress as easily as any dog I’ve known. Still…. we’ve got these issues to deal with.
One of the most problematic issues has been that when he arrived here Charlie had little or no tolerance to be touched with anything but my hands. If I tried to touch him with absolutely any object held in my hand he turned into a whirling, snarling bundle of snapping jaws that weren’t going to stop until they made contact with flesh. Preferably mine.
I really hate getting bitten and I refuse to let a dog set the boundaries in our relationship – so I had to change Charlie’s opinion about being touched. Borrowing from horse trainer Pat Parelli, I’ve used a modified version of The Friendly Game to teach young Charlie that being handled could be a safe – and even enjoyable – part of his life.
The goal of so-called friendly games are to teach an animal how to stay calm when pushed out of its comfort zone. Using a combination of approach and retreat we get the animal’s permission to touch every place on his body – without forcing him to accept it. You will progressively use touch to push the dog just a bit out of his comfort zone and then reward him with a release of pressure (i.e. stop the touching) after he tolerates it calmly.
When you do this work with a dog he should be on a slack leash. He must neither be held or restrained tightly nor be allowed to run away to avoid the game. I generally prefer to put a six-foot leash on the dog and stand on the midpoint of it. This keeps the dog close while giving him limited room to move and leaves my hands free to work on him.
Start a session by touching the dog in ways he’s comfortable with and then gradually move on to the places or situations he’s less sure of. If the dog tries to evade the touch, stay calm, ignore him and keep your hand (or the object you are touching him with) on the spot you have targeted.
Initial work should be done in small increments to avoid putting so much pressure on the dog that he is pushed into reacting with an excess of fear, aggression or excitement. Remember, the goal is to push the dog just slightly out of his comfort zone and then reward him for tolerating that pressure by ending the game. This teaches the dog that he must allow you to touch him and shows him that it is safe to trust you to do it fairly.
As you work with the dog, pay attention to the areas and situations the dog isn’t comfortable with. These will help you measure your progress and decide how quickly or slowly to move ahead with each new step in the game. The game should be played a few times per session. This helps teach the dog that he doesn’t get to decide when and how the game ends.
I’ve used friendly games to help lots of dogs. Some of them started out dangerously aggressive when they were touched, and every one of them got over it. Including Charlie. This morning I put him up on an elevated stand and calmly, quietly brushed several large tufts of loose hair out of his coat. Three weeks ago he’d have bitten me in the face. Today I got some puppy wiggles and a big kiss.
Steps I took in desensitizing Charlie included:
- Started each session by touching him with firm, extended pressure with my hands starting at his withers and continuing to his hips.
- Moved on to using a very thin, light leash to touch his body. I let the leash hang down from my hands let the loose end brush against his body. As he got used to the sensation, I flicked the leash gently back and forth over and across his body.
- Used a heavier leash to do the same things.
- Looped up a 15-foot long line and did the same exercises with several loops of line.
- Tied a rubber udder tug to a leash and repeated the exercises, alternating with the looped line.
- Used the leash/udder tug combination, then shortened the amount of leash between my hand and the tug.
- Touched him lightly with the tug held in my hand, then with a Zoom Groom.
Once I got to the point where I could touch him with the Zoom Groom (about a week from when we started) we moved ahead more quickly. I used the Zoom Groom and the back (non-bristle side) of a dog brush to touch him all over. In every session I started by doing things he was comfortable with and in every session I continued on, calmly, quietly and confidently until I pushed Charlie just a bit out of his comfort zone. I worked that ‘uncomfortable” area gently but persistently until he accepted what I was doing, then I ended the session.
Now as I progress to doing actual grooming work on him I’ll change the game a bit. When Charlie decides he’s not comfortable with what I’m doing I’ll pause to acknowledge that I recognize his discomfort. I’ll give him a second or two to regain his composure, then I’ll continue on. This will teach him to accept working in longer sessions and further increase his self-control resources.
Allowing your dog to set the boundaries in your relationship, especially when it comes to something as healthy and natural as day-to-day handling, puts that relationship in a very unhealthy place. While on the surface it might feel like the easier, “kinder” way to go – in the long run it teaches your dog to be increasingly intolerant of being pushed out of his comfort zone. And – it also leads to a dog whose comfort zone gets smaller and smaller over time. This puts your dog into a very ugly feedback loop where he gets less tolerant of stress and becomes easier to annoy. In my experience this leads to a dog being rehomed, euthanized or relegated to a life where he is excessively managed. And that’s not the way any dog would choose to live his life.
The Telegraph published a disturbing report today that Tesco, the largest retailer in the United Kingdom (and third largest retailer in the world) “has told New Zealand farmers, who supply the supermarket giant with lamb, to stop using the dogs unless they can be retrained to be “more considerate” towards the flock.”
Tesco’s benchmark standards for lamb production state that the animals must undergo “no abuse or mistreatment.” I’m all for humane treatment of livestock, but this is completely and utterly ridiculous. The Telegraph reports that:
Welfare experts expressed bafflement that the centuries-old tradition of moving sheep around with the use of a scurrying, yapping dog could upset the sheep.
However, Tesco was adamant that one of its largest suppliers in New Zealand, Silver Fern Farms in Fairton, should stop using dogs to herd sheep into the abattoir.
Unlike in Britain, most abattoirs are attached to farms in New Zealand, ensuring the farm does not need to truck its flock down the motorway to a slaughterhouse.
The supermarket wants the shepherds to wave their arms, beat sticks or wave flags, to move the sheep into the abattoir.
The surprise order from Tesco, which comes into force next week, came to light thanks to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph by an upset reader.
Mick Petheram, one of the shepherds, said: “New Zealand sheep are used to dogs, they know dogs. There’s more stress in a human herding and manhandling them, waving their arms and beating sticks. Dogs are part of a sheep’s life. This is absolute baloney.”
Maybe things are different in New Zealand, but the American and British handlers I know tell me that a good dog moves sheep with far less stress than any man can. The dogs that take the ribbons at stock dog trials are typically those that work the sheep in a calm, quiet way. Most working shepherds prefer dogs that are kind to their sheep and a shepherd’s desire to have his dog work stock at an unruffled pace is rooted as much in practicality as it is in animal welfare. Spooked, panicked sheep aren’t just stressed out sheep – they’re going to bolt – and that turns handling them into a time-consuming pain in the ass. You shouldn’t need a doctorate and a pile of government funding to figure out that this is something experienced stockmen and women would prefer to avoid.
It appears that what we have here is a group of starry-eyed “livestock experts” whose experience in animal handling lies almost entirely in the laboratory who want to “enlighten” the unwashed real-world masses about the importance of every animal’s right to avoid all fear and stress.
I suspect that this particular piece of insanity was derived from a study published in Applied Animal Behavior Science back in October, 2004 titled “Sheep show more aversion to a dog than to a human in an arena test” where “an arena test was used to assess differences in the aversiveness of a box, goat, human and dog.” The abstract notes that the order of ‘aversiveness’ observed in the study was dog, human, goat then box. Given those results I wonder why the ‘experts’ didn’t specify that New Zealand farmers need to use goats – or better yet empty boxes – to herd their sheep?
I didn’t read the entire study because I refuse to pay a fee to access what I strongly suspect is a complete and utter piece of sheep shit. Paint me as a dyed in the wood cynic, but I seriously doubt that experienced shepherds or sheep dogs were used to conduct the ‘arena test’ – or even consulted on its design. I also believe that unless an ‘arena’ of at least twenty acres in size was used (actually, I’ll lay odds that the typical kiwi pasture is ten to a hundred times that size) the sheep were crowded much too near the test stimuli to simulate anything even remotely approaching real world conditions.
Shame on the folks at Tesco for accepting this group’s recommendations. Bad science dictating poor animal welfare standards is not a step in the right direction. Worse yet, junk science like this just make it more difficult to promote truly meaningful animal welfare standards.
…maybe she needs a prong collar?
It’s that time of year again. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued a news release yesterday warning pet owners of toxic blue-green algae blooms in lakes and ponds.
A dog died during the weekend after swimming in Fox Lake in Martin County, apparently as a result of exposure to toxic blue-green algae. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the dog’s owner said the dog swam in the lake on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 13, and was dead within hours.
Blue-green algae “blooms,” like those on Fox Lake and some other lakes around the state, can produce toxins. These toxins can be deadly to dogs or other animals if ingested, particularly when they clean themselves after contact with the water.
Blue-green blooms can occur throughout the summer, but the recent warm weather and lack of rain create ideal conditions for them. The MPCA has confirmed other blue-green blooms this summer but this was the season’s first apparent animal death attributed to them.
Algae are a vital natural part of the aquatic environment and most of them are harmless; but sometimes water conditions (typically in mid- to late-summer when warm, still, nutrient-rich water is common) favor blooms of algae species that can be harmful to mammals. Some (not all) blue-green algae produce toxins.
Because toxic conditions can arise quickly in algal blooms and because laboratory analysis is the only way to determine when a bloom is harmful – all blue-green algae blooms should be considered potentially dangerous.
Blooms are less toxic to people, who typically just develop skin irritation or upper respiratory problems when they’ve been exposed to harmful algal blooms. But dogs and other animals can die very quickly after ingesting water containing the toxins. If you suspect your pet has ingested water containing blue-green algae you must get him to a vet immediately.
MPCA offers this advice on identifying blue-green algae blooms:
Research has identified the conditions listed below that tend to occur along with a harmful algal bloom. If you observe these conditions on your lake or pond, it is best to avoid contact with the water and keep pets and children out of the water until the bloom dissipates.
- Very low transparency, Secchi often 1.5 foot or less;
- Very high chlorophyll-a concentrations, generally greater than 30-50 ppb; and
- Very high pH, generally 9.0 or greater.
For those of you who don’t have a background in hydrology or geochemistry, the page includes several helpful photographs of blue-green algae blooms as well as photographs of harmless species that are often confused with them. Click photo for link:
Have a pet-related business? MPCA also offers this free pdf format poster on the dangers of blue-green algae. I’m getting one printed up in large format for the training room.
Rabies is a terrible disease. It doesn’t just affect wildlife and unvaccinated pets – rabies kills people too. Worldwide the disease kills more than 55,000 people a year and half of these children. Most of these victims live in third world countries where vaccination and treatment are often unavailable – or unaffordable.
But those deplorable statistics may soon be a thing of the past. ScienceDaily Reports:
A person, usually a child, dies of rabies every 20 minutes. However, only one inoculation may be all it takes for rabies vaccination, according to new research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases by researchers at the Jefferson Vaccine Center.
The immune response induced with this process is so substantial that only one inoculation may be sufficient enough, according to Dr. McGettigan. In addition, the vaccine appears to be efficient in both pre-exposure and post-exposure settings.
Currently, the World Health Organization standard for rabies infection is post-exposure prophylaxis. The complex regimen in the United States requires six different shots over 28 days: five of the rabies vaccine and one of rabies immunoglobulin.
The current standard vaccine is made from inactivated rabies virus, whereas the experimental vaccine is made from a live rabies virus. The virus is modified by removing the M gene, thus inhibiting its spread within the vaccine recipient.
An inactivated vaccine contains whole virus particles that have been treated so that they can’t infect host cells but are still recognized by the antibodies, B cells and T cells of the immune system. Inactivation is typically accomplished with solvents, detergents, pasteurization, ultraviolet light or acids. The new vaccine has been inactivated by genetically modifying the m gene, which is vital in building and budding off progeny viruses.
Developing countries do not have the resources to vaccinate people six times after exposure, so many of these 10 million do not receive the full regimen,” Dr. McGettigan said. “Therefore, simpler and less expensive vaccine regimens are needed. The alternative may also be to treat people pre-exposure, as they are with many of the current vaccines used. Although our vaccine was tested primarily to be a post-exposure vaccine, the data we collected show it would be effective as a pre-exposure vaccine as well.”
If it proves to be effective, this new vaccine could save human and animal lives and lead to more effective, less-expensive and less invasive vaccine regimens for pets. And it might lead to developing one shot vaccines for many more of the diseases affecting pets and people. This would be a very very good thing.
KGET News reports a story of dog spies animal control officers run amok.
A Bakersfield woman says she has been hounded by county animal control officers to license her dog. Funny thing is, the pooch officials were so concerned about is a stuffed animal.
Dottie Elkin lives by herself in a quaint home in south Bakersfield. For the past few months the 83-year old says she’s hated getting the mail, due to letters she’s receiving from the Kern County Animal Control Department.
“I told them I do not have a dog, it’s a stuffed dog,” Elkin said.
That’s right, Elkin has a stuff [sic] “guard dog” named Wolf, keeping watch at her front door. For the last six months she’s been getting letters from animal control asking her to license the dog or face a $200 fine.
Apparently animal control officers were cruising local neighborhoods trolling for revenue searching for unlicensed dogs when they spied Wolf sitting in Elkin’s doorway. In classic bureaucratic style, they immediately started sending letters threatening to fine her if she didn’t license the dog immediately. And they continued to send these letter for six months – even after she informed them that they had made what they now refer to as a “legitimate mistake”.
Video of the story is posted on MSNBC. How in doG’s name did these morons get close enough to the “dog” to see that it wasn’t wearing tags without noticing it was a freaking stuffed dog!!! Apparently Kern County officials have a very different understanding of the word “legitimate” than I do…
Several news sources today reported on recent testing conducted by Washington Toxics Coalition that found elevated concentrations of potentially toxic metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury in a quarter of the pet products they tested.
The government has not set any standards for hazardous chemicals in pet products. Some researchers use recommended levels for children as a substitute because pets and small children crawl around on the floor and put products into their mouth potentially exposing them to higher levels of surface contaminants. Standards for these metals set by ASTM F963-07: Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety are 90 ppm for lead, 75 ppm for cadmium and 60 ppm for mercury in children’s products.
The Washington Toxics Coalition’s press release states:
- 25% of the 400 pet products tested had detectable levels of lead.
- 7% of all pet products tested had lead levels greater than 300 ppm – the current Consumer Product Safety Commission standard for lead in children’s products.
- Nearly half of pet collars had detectable levels of lead; with more than one quarter exceeding 300 ppm.
- Nearly half of tennis balls tested had detectable levels of lead. Tennis balls intended for pets were more likely to contain lead, while the sports tennis balls tested did not contain lead.
The results can be found on the user-friendly website: http://www.healthystuff.org/departments/pets/. You can look up products by manufacturer, brand, or product type.