Category Archives: Dog Welfare

Fake Testicles, Facemasks, the New Level of Pet Pampering

NEW YORK – People and their pets often end up resembling each other, but image-obsessed Americans are taking that age-old relationship a step further, treating their four-legged friends to everything from spa facials to testicle implants.In a nation of surgically enhanced human breasts, teeth and skin, perhaps it was just a matter of time before the beauty stakes were raised for pooches and cats.

FYI, give dogs a break, go out and train, play, teach them manners, socialize them with other humans and dogs, this is getting ridiculous! Don’t the people doing this, these faux dog specialists have anything better to do?

“One end of the spectrum features dogs like Hops, a Maltese terrier who recently was given a blueberry facial, followed by a blow dry, and tooth brushing with chicken-flavored paste, at Manhattan’s Downtown Doghouse spa.”

“Groomer Ani Corless described this as the new normal for lapdogs.”

ME:  NO, not new normal, disturbed people thinking it’s normal!

“These are man-made breeds and they require maintenance,” she said.

ME:  What dogs need is not makeovers, they have real needs based on biology, not skewed psychology based on humans with obvious emotional and real problems…living in reality!

“Mid-facial, Hops ejected a tiny puddle of vomit, but otherwise did seem to enjoy the attention.”

ME:  Can you really blame him? He could have been so upset being put through such unnatural behavior, both human and dog expected, it would make me puke too!

“More extreme — and painful — makeovers are also gaining ground.”

ME:  Someone please stop the madness, dogs really don’t like this shit!

“New York Republican lawmaker Nicole Malliotakis says animals are subjected to tattoos, earrings, nose rings, chin rings, tummy tucks, even facelifts.”

“Owner of two Chihuahuas called Peanut and Olympia, Malliotakis has proposed a law to ban cosmetic alterations to pets in New York state, calling this “a form of animal cruelty.”

ME:  Someone with some sense, it IS animal cruelty!

Read more Fake Testicles, Facemasks, the New Level of Pet Pampering | petMD.

Advertisements

Health of Pedigree Dogs

Copyright Responsible Dog

Her name is Baby! Really!


How Selective Breeding is Affecting the Welfare of Dogs

http://responsibledog.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/how-selective-breeding-is-impacting-the-welfare-of-dogs/


Vodpod videos no longer available.

Dog owner responsibilities by William E Campbell

Darwin Play Bow Rascal 011711

January 23, 2011

Joyce Kesling, CDBC, Professional Dog Trainer

I had to share this with many of you, knowing you will more than appreciate what he says.  I feel exactly the same way, but he says it so elegantly. I have referred to these types of individuals as “predators” taking advantage of others, who either lack understanding or as he suggests the needs of the individual, not the pet.

The client who wants instant, off-leash control of a potentially dangerous dog doesn’t only want to have his cake and eat it, too.  He is violating the laws of most communities and adding fuel to the forces who want to outlaw dog ownership in many cities.  His viewpoint is not only dangerous to himself and others, (including the dog), but is awash in irresponsibility.

The ‘solution’ to this type of client’s situation lies in counseling that motivates the owner to change his attitude about his responsibilities.  In other words, we need to differentiate in our minds between clients-wants and client-needs, and apply our skills to bring new insights to this kind of client.

There are those in this field who use and sell devices ranging from choke and prong collars to electrical shock-collars as a means of off-leash training or containing dogs in the yard.  However, the reality of the average dog-owner’s dilemma of ‘wants versus needs’ begs for a counselor who will help that client recognize that dilemma, deal with it, and then become a responsible dog owner in a society that is becoming alarmingly more anti-dog due to irresponsible pet owners and distorted media coverage regarding dangerous breeds.

I regard people who prey on human weakness as hucksters because these devices are not 100% effective, and because they feed on human selfishness.  Further, they utilize a mechanistic ‘ends-justifies-the-means’ mentality in man’s relationships with one of his oldest mammalian partners, the dog.

I have explained the essence of this viewpoint to many clients during preliminary discussions of problems, and the vast majority agree; when an owner must rely on painful, artificial control of a pet dog, something is terribly lacking.  Very few really want a dog who comes who comes when called simply because they, the owners, represent a means of escaping 250 volts of electric shock to the throat.

Source:

Dog Behavior Problems: The Counselor’s Handbook by William E. Campbell, 1999

Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS

Humane Society United States

Yet another example of animal rights activists causing more problems for the very animals they profess to be helping.  The only animals being helped here are these organizations of humans with little regard for other animals themselves.  It’s all about raising money, that further goes to raising money, with little actually reaching the organizations who are really helping animals.

Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS
You may have missed our New Year’s Eve exposé covering the dismissal of a federal lawsuit pushed by a consortium of animal rights groups that included the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The groups alleged that Feld Entertainment (the parent company of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) mistreated elephants in violation of the Endangered Species Act, but in December a judge tossed out the lawsuit. Now the plot thickens: The circus is suing HSUS, two HSUS lawyers, and a number of other animal rights organizations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. (The lawsuit is exclusively available at HumaneWatch.org.)

The original animal rights lawsuit, filed more than nine years ago, was based on information provided by a former Ringling elephant “barn helper” named Tom Rider. After Rider left his circus job, he was paid by animal rights groups to testify about the supposedly “bad” treatment of elephants there. In all, the original lawsuit’s plaintiffs paid Rider more than $190,000—his sole source of income for years—while the litigation made its way through the court system.

Sound a bit like pay-for-play? As Judge Emmet Sullivan noted in his December ruling that dismissed the animal rights groups’ lawsuit: “The Court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony…. [T]he primary purpose [for the payments] is to keep Mr. Rider involved with the litigation…”

Based on Judge Sullivan’s finding, Feld is suing everyone who played a part in this collaborative scheme (hence the “racketeering” aspect). This includes Rider and a nonprofit “Wildlife Advocacy Project” charity that the Washington, DC law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal allegedly used to launder money between their plaintiff clients and Rider.

One of these clients putting up dough to support Rider was the Fund for Animals, which merged with HSUS in 2004.

Feld is leveling bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, and money laundering charges against HSUS and two of its corporate attorneys, three other animal rights groups, Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, and all three of that firm’s named partners. It’s an earth-shattering lawsuit. Today we’re telling the media:

America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket. But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.

You can read the full, 135-page lawsuit over at HumaneWatch. It’s worth more than a glance. If these allegations are proven true, HSUS employees might be finding themselves walking the same breadline they’ve tried to put so many others in.

Why consider the use of Shock Collars (E-Stimulus, E-Touch) carefully

Any more suggestions Cesar (Millan)?

Why consider the use of Shock Collars (E-Stimulus, E-Touch) carefully

This is a bit technical but brief overview on this issue.  I will do my best to make it easy for everyone to understand.  In the JVB (2007) Overall evaluated the molecular and cellular use of shock on the learning process.  She suggested, “we may be changing other behaviors or processes” with these devices technically called E-Stimulus Devices.

Overall (2007) uses what she describes as “a landmark study” by Schilder and van der Borg published in Applied Animal Behavior (2004).  Schilder and van der Borg noticed dogs exhibiting more stress related behavior when using these types of devices.  Stress related behavior continued with the control group, during free time in the handlers presence while at parks, when dogs should be relaxed.  Stress behaviors and/or conflict resolution behaviors is extensively defined in recent dog literature.

The authors, Schilder and van der Borg (2004), concluded three negative effects from the use of e-stimulus devices (shock collars).  They are as follows:

  1. This type of training is stressful
  2. Dogs are feeling pain
  3. Dogs learn to associate the collar with shock and presence of the handler/owner!

Overall (2007) suggests, though some guard type dogs are successfully trained using these devices, other concerns i.e. “heightened uncertainty and reactivity” were reported.  She says,  president of  a regional detection dog group in the US believed “any handler who hits the streets with a dog wearing a shock collar did not have a well-trained or reliably trained dog.”

As said earlier, I am attempting to offer only an overview on the use of e-stimulus devices, aka shock collars, not an in-depth study or research paper.  There appears a growing number of dog trainers schooled to use these devices as standard training equipment.  One such school is located in Florida.  Their slogan “We do this quickly, effectively and lovingly.  Plus we GUARANTEE our E- Touch approach and dog training for the life of your dog.”

Guaranteeing results is a very questionable practice in the discipline of behavior and often advised against in literature when selecting a dog trainer or behavior specialist.  Not even a human therapist will guarantee your results.  This is purely marketing, and when their system fails, because they have not correctly identified any underlying problems associated with a behavior complaint, the owner will either seek other counsel or worse, surrender the dog to an unknown fate at a shelter.

A legitimate concern exists for newly introduced dog trainers, veterinarians, dog owners/handlers, dog-related businesses, and dog owners who are unaware of these findings and literature on the subject is sorely lacking.

The following statement and review comes from a “Letter to the Editor” in response to Overall’s (2007) editorial cited earlier.  The response appeared in the JVB (2008)  published by a “representative” from Radio Systems Corporation, the world’s leading manufacturer of e-stimulus devices which they refer to as “static stimulation.”  The brands represented included Invisible Fence, PetSafe, Innotek, SportDOG, and Guardian Brands.

The author, in the first paragraph says, “We are in complete agreement with Overall…decisions to use such equipment should not be made lightly,” and states their literature includes warnings.  I am purposely omitting the author’s reasoning for suggesting e-stimulus devices as a “legitimate means of behavior modification” that would need discussion on learning theory, highly technical and lengthy paper.  The intended target audience is to bring attention to dog-related business’s, shelter and rescue personnel, foster parents, veterinarians, groomers, daycare owners, and dog owners.

Before making an informed decision using dog-related equipment for purposes of behavior modification, a complete behavior history and medical workup should be completed.  This gathering information about the dog, family, and dog’s environment, help the behavior consultant identify the problem and informed choices how to approach modifying the dog’s behavior.

Additionally, any medical reasons sometimes masquerading and/or contributing to a behavior problem need eliminated first by a veterinarian.

Once these two requirements are completed, any medical problems eliminated, the consultant can begin offering solutions including training, modifying the owner’s behavior, and any necessary management.  If the case involves a dog who has already bitten, a risk assessment is necessary.  The owner/handler, rescue organization, or foster care person is apprised of any risks and recommendations keeping in mind the public’s safety and anyone coming into contact with the dog.

If a certified behavior consultant (IAABC), board certified veterinarian (ACVB), ABS and/or AVSAB member were to decide the use of an e-stimulus device is warranted, then according to the representative the following must be taken into consideration.

The choice of the targeted stimulation is important, and since instrumental behavior (learned) is usually rewarded by its consequences, “not all behaviors are equally likely to be associated with certain consequences.”  They state, “researchers discovered that certain responses can be exceedingly difficult to establish” using shock avoidance!

Here’s the kicker… they admit animals are not ‘biologically prepared’ to associate a negative event when faced with danger.  I’m including any type of fearful stimulus.  It is widely known animals have choices when faced with threatening situations.  They can freeze, flee, defend themselves offensively or offer appeasement behavior (tend-befriend).  The author says, “if a trainer attempts to punish defensive aggression in an already frightened dog, the aggression is likely to escalate,” not diminish.  Aggression, except predatory, is always associated with fear and unless you change the emotional response, you cannot change the dog’s perspective toward that fear.

The author suggests behavior “targeted for suppression” using e-stimulus devices include roaming, chasing vehicles, prey drive and “other high-arousal behaviors far removed from stress.”  The bolded phrase is concerning since “high-arousal” behavior can manifest in a myriad of ways and reasons and often already associated with stress!  An example of “high-arousal” behavior could be jumping, barking, or zooming around the house to release energy!  All of these suggested behaviors, often undesirable “high-arousal” behavior are always associated with the owner, not the dog.

The dog is often responding using normal dog behavior, often perceived negatively by their owners.  Many of these dogs are living in dysfunctional environments.  A dysfunctional environment often does not include clear rules and boundaries associated with the dog’s behavior, and in most cases, owner reinforcement is often present.  So punishing the dog for owner-reinforced behavior, inconsistency, lack of enough outlets for energy expenditure, and generally not meeting a dog’s needs seem rather cruel.

The following statement made by the author needs understood, especially by dog owners considering these devices for training and/or behavior modification.  The author states, “experienced trainers acknowledge…motivating learning through aversive control” is only effective if the trainer concentrates on “one response at a time” and “intermixing behaviors only when performance” of the first target response is “fluent” (reliably trained).

Most problem behavior consists of chained behavior.  For example, dog hears owner’s car arrive home, dog begins to get aroused, owner walks in, dog jumps all over owner.  If they suggest the correct way to use these devices means, the owner/dog trainer must stop the behavior before it gets started, when the dog hears the car!  All other points in the entire chain of behavior must be “fluent” (reliably trained) first, before proceeding to the next!  I have to ask, how many of these trainers are training reliably each sequence in a chain of undesirable behavior with the owners?  This is exactly how positive trainers shape desirable behavior, but without using punishment.

The author’s argument that other punitive procedures, i.e. time out, are ineffective, citing “electrical stimulation is potentially superior to and safer” than other aversive punishment, i.e. spray bottles, restraint, and noxious tastes, is unsubstantiated.  This suggestion is weak lacking any research or quantification.

I purposely left time out from their list; time out, used effectively and consistently, with rules, timing and proper social settings can/is very effective, given the dog wants to stay in the social environment.  If the dog’s social environment lacks rewarding opportunities and training an incompatible behavior, sending them to time out will have no effect at all, in some instances, it may offer the dog relief.  Therefore, the author’s statement is weak and appears to lack understanding correct time out rules and when/where its use is effective.

The author further justifies using electrical stimulation by comparing it to human cases of “self-injurious behaviors,” i.e. head banging.  Dog owners commonly complain about barking, running away and jumping, these common dog behavior problems don’t come remotely close to “head banging” but aversive punishment is commonly recommended.  A recent study, on territorial aggression suggested owners are most responsible for their dog’s behavior.  See related blog post, “Spoiling dogs, is it really good for them? .” Until owners step up to the plate, take responsibility for contributing to their dog’s behavior… after all, it was their choice to adopt or buy a dog…  We will continue to debate this issue as well as how many dogs are euthanized every day and yearly because of unresolved behavior problems.

Lastly, using the author’s own words the use of e-stimulus devices “should never be considered in isolation from positive reinforcement” when used to correct unwanted behavior.  My answer is: if more owners were properly educated in the use of positive reinforcement and life rewards, there would be limited need for these devices.

The only consideration for the use of an e-stimulus device might be to control prey drive.  However, this requires your presence, a dog allowed to roam freely will still be able to kill.  A dog diagnosed with prey drive is a danger to the community and based on a risk assessment, should be remanded to its property, and if taken out in public should wear a muzzle to protect the public and other animals.

Joyce Kesling, CDBC

Certified Dog Behavior Consultant (IAABC)

Professional Dog Trainer (APDT)

Sarasota, FL

http://www.responsibledog.net/

Campaign to ban Cesar Millan’s The Dog Whisperer from Italian TV

Campaign to ban Cesar Millan’s The Dog Whisperer from Italian TV

22 October 2009
Italy trying to ban Cesar Millan Dog Whisperer

Members of the APBC have provided information and resources to concerned pet behaviour counsellors in Italy following the broadcast of The Dog Whisperer featuring Cesar Millan on Italian TV.

 
The Italian pet behaviour counsellor Laura Borromeo contacted members of the APBC after just three episodes of the controversial show were aired. She is developing a campaign that aims to educate the public that there are alternatives to Cesar Millan’s methods.
 
 
The Italian ASETRA web site represents the Society for the Ethological Studies of the Relationship between Animals and Humans and it is denouncing Millan’s methods with dogs: http://www.asetra.it/?Comunicati_Asetra
 
The Italian veterinary web site ANMVI is warning vets and owners about how dangerous and abusive Millan’s approach is towards dogs. They announce that they are taking steps to stop the show from being broadcast: http://www.anmvioggi.it/10262/12-10-09/la-veterinaria-disapprova-il-metodo-millan
 
There has also been coverage in the local Italian newspapers too where the headline message is equally clear; “Stop Millan – the veterinarians say he is educating people in the wrong way.”
 
Laura Borromeo is taking advice from lawyers so that a strategy can lead to the program being prevented from being broadcast.
 
Dog owners, dog trainers, pet behaviour counsellors and vets all have a choice in how pets are treated. The APBC believes in promoting the best in pet behaviour and it is clear from experience and research that some of the methods used by Cesar Millan can lead to an increase in dog aggression and behaviour problems. That’s why the APBC chooses to use better ways to train pets. There is a choice.
 
Graham Thompson
APBC Provisional Member.

Copyright 2009 APBC

No Shock Collar Coalition ~ Join for Dogs Sake!

Little Sunny...now Big Sunny!

No Shock Collar Coalition ~ Join for Dogs Sake!

The following is from an organization of supporters, received as a member and supporter and being passed on in its entirety to help get the word out. Please take the time to evaluate the efficacy and harmful effects determined by scientific studies and observation and sign up to show and express your support for dogs who can’t speak up for themselves. If you’re not familiar with this information then please ask those who are already members and/or you are welcome to contact me…I have sufficient information  for using these devices. Let’s raise happy dogs, not dogs trained using fearful aversive training methods and tools. The dogs will thank you and not out of fear of you!

No Shock Collar Coalition

Getting Started
You are receiving this message because you have previously signed up with the No Shock Collar Coalition.

This silent movement began in 2006, as those who love our canine companions and respect them as our brethren objected to the use of electric shock devices being used in the training and containment of dogs. In 2006 we were concerned by the proliferation of these devices, and now, three years later, there appears to be continued focus on shock collars as acceptable tools, not only in the dog trainers’ toolbox, but in the hands of the general public.

Since this problem has not abated, we believe it is time to stand up and be counted and make our position on this matter known to those who promote these devices and profit from them. In addition, raising awareness among those well-meaning trainers and owners who use them out of ignorance is also on our agenda!

To this end, we’re asking those of you who have previously signed up for the NSCC to consider your commitment to this cause; if you are no longer interested in supporting us, please use the ‘opt out’ instructions in this email to have your email address removed from our list.

If you have continued commitment to the No Shock Collar movement, please help us by encouraging your like-minded friends, relatives, clients and others to sign up with us and lend their support to our campaign. New members can sign up by visiting http://www.baddogsinc.com/noshockcollars.html.

Over the coming months, we’ll be collecting articles and other information about the use of shock collars to help educate users and distributors alike. In addition, we’ll be looking for ways to make our position known to those who profit from these devices, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Thank you in advance for your support. Remember that a handful of committed people can make a huge difference for good!

With gratitude to those who honor and respect our canine brethren, I remain

Sincerely,

Barbara Davis
BADDogsInc
Family Dog Training & Behavior
Corona, CA

Thanks

Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Responsible Dog
http://www.responsibledog.net