Feeding Young Puppies

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

In-Depth response to query on feeding young puppies by Marj Brooks

Upon weaning your puppies you will need to continue feeding more than 3 times a day awhile. My rule of thumb is you feed enough to fill their stomachs and not have them have that extended stomach look when they are finished eating. You can guesstimate the size of their stomachs just by looking.

Let them still be around mom through the 7th week. They can help mom dry up by suckling on her for a minute when her breasts fill up with milk and relieve her and save yourself from having to do it. Also mom teaches the puppies dog things or things that dogs need to know. In the 7th week mom teaches discipline. You should observe this yourself and use what mom is teaching them for her and other dogs for you to teach for you and other humans.

Back to feeding: Put them on a daytime schedule. You shouldn’t have to be getting up in the middle of the night to feed them. You are imprinting a bad
habit. They probably need to be fed 5 or even 6 little meals on the same schedule each day backing off to 4 or 5 meals at six weeks and 4 meals at
the 7th week for a while. Maybe at 9 weeks or so you can drop to 3 times a day and at about 4 months to 2 times a day. You will be able to tell by
their behaviors when you can feed less meals.

All during this time you are giving them more and more each meal and day as they grow. As you will see, they will be growing very fast now and actually have been all along.

It is good for digestion that they chew their food too, so you don’t have to smash it all up but soak it some for the added moisture. Another thing that I can advise is to feed them all in separate dishes. This way they all will get what they need. The bullies and the bigger pups will eventually cause a slower and the lesser or lower puppy in the pecking order which they are establishing to not get enough and they eventually could give up and become fussy eaters when they leave the nest and your home.

I have a photograph to share and I will put it on the website to illustrate this feeding separately thing. You don’t have to separate the puppies all over the place at this time, just line all of the dishes up and keep each puppy at their own dish until they have all cleaned up their respective dish of food. Then they can go around to all of the dishes and clean ’em up if you desire. At the time you hand them the food, you can say “let’s eat” and “go to you dish” and you will have to guide and push them to their individual dish. During the time they are eating and want to leave their dish to go another, stop them by guiding them back to their dish and say ‘eat you own food’ or ‘go to your dish’ … whatever words or command that you think of. This way they are learning direction and obedience from you. Their dam (mom) is already teaching them these things at this time and has been all
along.

Puppies normally play a little after eating, eliminate and then go to sleep to grow. Actually this is a great time to teach them to housebreak them. After they eat they have to eliminate and you can usher them outside ‘let’s go outside’, ‘take a pee’ after they get outside and so on. Let them play outside, weather permitting and/or say ‘let’s go in the house’ and usher them in to play, and you play with them a little and let mom play with them a little and they will go to sleep and you start all over.

When they wake up say, ‘let’s go outside’ and  take them out to eliminate as they always have to eliminate when they wake up and so on through out the
day.

If you set up a schedule that works for you, they will learn it and you should be able to get a full nights sleep.

It is hard for me to remember just how much food that I am feeding to each puppy at 5 weeks, so you will learn how much that they need to satisfy them
without allowing their stomachs to be noticeably extended. You should be able to tell at a glance that they are full or something is in the stomach
though.

I hope that this is a big help to you and if you have more questions, please ask.

I will work on getting the photo up on the site.

Articles to guide you:

Rule of 7’s

Puppy Advise

Super Puppy

Considerations When Buying A Doberman

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

by R.M. (Bug) Russell

These questions are certainly those that every breeder gets asked over and over again.  I’m not a breeder but I’m going to answer the questions that this potential Doberman owner asks anyway.

We are considering getting a Doberman as a family pet. We have some questions and would like a referral to a breeder in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Here are our questions:

1. When we bring the puppy home, how long after do we take it for obedience training?

If you are thinking about getting your first Doberman  I’d recommend a puppy obedience class as early as the puppies adults vaccinations are complete.  Dobermans seem, in general, to have more than their share of very smart dogs and even the puppy obedience class will give you some valuable information about how dogs interact and how to train any dog, including a Doberman.  It also gives your puppy a chance to see and interact with other puppies and young dogs in a stress free but supervised situation.  And finally it will allow you to lay down the beginning training that ALL good dogs should have if they are to be a successful pet and companion.

2. Should we bond with the puppy first or take it to obedience training right away?

Over the last few years I have reached a point where the term “bond” has become a sore point with me.  I see it used, inappropriately, to describe a lot of owner behavior  which always turns out to be greatly to the detriment of a good owner/dog relationship.  I have gotten Dobermans (and other breeds) at various ages, from very young puppies to fully adult dogs.  If what you mean by “bond” is for the dog and you (or you and your family) to form strong attachments to each other then I must tell you that I’ve never had a dog (of any breed or age) who wasn’t thoroughly attached to me and when there were other family members living at home, to them as well by the time he’d been with me for a week.  Obedience training is simply another way for you and your dog to interact with each other.

Even if you don’t take your puppy to a class for obedience training you should buy one of the excellent books on the subject of training dogs and use it to help you train your dog from the beginning.  These should be painless lessons on behavior for the puppy.  Puppy hood is when dogs learn the basics of life in the real world–they soak up what you teach them like a sponge.  You can make this part of the “bonding” (that awful WORD again) and both you and your dog will profit by it.

3. Do you recommend that we take time off and be with the puppy?

I certainly recommend that you take time off to be with the puppy when you get it.  If one member of the family isn’t home all the time a week or two is kind of a minimum period of time for you and your puppy to be together and learn about each other and for the puppy to learn how to behave in your household.

But if your family is one in which both (all) parties work on a full time basis you might want to think again about getting a Doberman at this time.  Or for that matter about getting a dog at all.  Nothing can be much more destructive than a bored puppy/adolescent/dog–it can make your life with your dog so distressing that you will rue the day you ever wanted a dog.  Raising a puppy is very much like raising a child–you get out what you put in.  But a puppy grows to well behaved adulthood in a very telescoped period of time.  Too often a puppy who gets insufficient supervision when young ends up in the same boat as the juvenile delinquent–NO ONE wants them–they are simply too much trouble.

Many of the young dogs who end up in rescue come from the ranks of puppies with too much energy and not enough supervision.

4. For how long should we stay home with the puppy?

See the comments above.  When I have a puppy I have a deal I make with the place  I work–I come in early and stay late and take a longish lunch hour.  Since I work 40 hours a week there is no way that I can be there to supervise the puppy.  Instead I’ve worked out a routine which means that the puppy is NEVER alone longer than 4 hours at a time–and that is the maximum it would ever be alone.

I have a breeder friend who loves to place puppies with retired folk–they, she told me, are always home and are willing to spend time with their dog, to go places and take the dog with them–in short–they are great homes.  This can’t always be said for those of us who work 5 days a week.  Make sure you have enough time in your life for a puppy and for the dog it will grow up to be.

5. What type of obedience training do you recommend; how long should the training be?

I recommend puppy kindergarten for first time owners–see the answer to the first two questions.  I train my own dogs in a rather informal way (since I show them in conformation I don’t want them learning some of the formal obedience exercises–specifically the automatic sit)  But I also believe that Dobermans should be able to do it all and I also eventually put at least one working title on my dogs–it is generally a CD–but the foundation is laid long before we go to class to learn the formal exercises.  All dogs, no matter what you do with them should be able to walk on a leash with you and not pull you off your feet.  All dogs should know how to sit, to lie down, and to stand on command.  And all dogs should know how to stay where you left them for a short period of time or wait for you to attach a leash, open a door or put the groceries down.

In short–all dogs should have good manners.  You need to teach them that–in or out of an obedience class.  I have friends who take their dogs to obedience classes for years.  They aren’t going to show them in obedience–it just provides a week to week  reminder for both the dog and owner; for the owner, how to teach the dog things and for the dog, how to please the owner by doing what they have been taught.

6. Should Dobermans be kept indoor or outdoors?

Dobermans are dogs–they need time outside to do doggy things without worrying about what you might want them to do.  If by this last question you mean should they be what people used to call a “yard” dog–a dog that has a house out in the yard, who is fed in the yard and who never comes inside DON’T get any dog–particularly DON’T get a Doberman.

A Doberman is at his very best as a family member.  These are not dogs who will do well as kennel dogs, yard dogs or anything except the dog that lives with you–where you live–inside, where they can see you, be your companion, and just generally hang out with you.

Changing The Estimates

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

by Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia

Those who win are bred more often than those that lose.

Calculating The Aging Process

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

Time is our most valuable and unique resource because it can only be used once, and unlike any of our other resources, it cannot be recycled, borrower or saved. Most importantly, everyone accepts it as a given because it moves at the same rate day after day. Some have described it as a straightforward progression like steps on a ladder where one always follows another, as in minutes, hours and days. For these reasons time has been linked to the aging process. The rationale for this is the clock and how we count. Each day is just as long as every other and all of them have just 24 hours. Given this truism, we are led to believe that the amount of time that it takes to pass from one year to the next (except leap year) is always the same. What furthers this belief is the way we count the distance (hours, minutes, seconds) between each day and the next. Our reasoning is that hours lead to days, months and then years. Hence, we conclude that it must be linear. The most logical reason to believe all of this is that after 10 years, we all believe that we are 10 years older. It was this conclusion that led me to think about time and how we calculate the age of our dogs.

A little research on this subject led me to look beyond the obvious and into the world of other living organisms. There we find birth rates, adolescence and the aging process itself. For some organisms these periods are different rather than similar. Those who have lived through some of them already know that time does not always seem to be so linear. In other words, for some of us the distance between one year and the next was not always the same. As a child, some of our days took longer to pass than others. As an adult, these same days now seem to pass more quickly. I remember my mother saying, “It seems like just a few weeks ago it was spring and now it’s almost Christmas”. What’s funny about all of this, is that now, I have begun to say some of these same things myself. Even our common expressions seem to confirm that time moves at different speeds and it seems to take on different meanings depending on our age. In the non-scientific world when people speak about time they then to associate it with their age and experiences. This could be why it seems to pass at different rates for each age group and whether they were having fun or dreading every minute of it.

Dr. Deepak Chopra a noted endrochrongolist wrote about how people can change their biological clock just by the way they view time. He speaks about the mind-body connection and what science has learned about the aging process. Chopra reminds us that our body is constantly replacing its parts one by one but at different rates. We replace our skin each month and our heart and other organisms at different intervals. The body we lived in last year is not the same one we live in this year.

How people think about time and how they express it in conversation can not only affect their body but its many functions. For example, we can all remember meeting an old friend. If we had a really good time, we would say that “time flew by”. On a recent flight that took six hours, I ran into an old friend and we began to catch up on things. When we arrived we were not even tired, we forgot to take a nap and kept on talking. Chopra addresses these kinds of events and reminds us that when people are enjoying themselves; time passes by in a “jiffy”. When events are pleasant, we use phrases like; “our time just flew by”. Chopra reminds us that we can actually alter our biology for sleep and reset our need to rest with just a thought. He points to examples of how our attitudes can influence these things. For example, when people describe their life in negative ways, with phrases like; “my time is running out”, they also change their biology. These individuals via their thoughts are actually stressing their bodies by closely watching the clock. Their perception of time makes their biological clock run faster. As a result of their internal perception of time (which is running out), they tend to have a faster pulse. Their hormone and insulin levels are higher. Their blood pressure is elevated, they have a faster heart arrhythmia and their heart beats more times than normal each minute. While a newborn infant is not thinking about these things and has no notion of time, their biology also changes with age but for different reasons. After having lived one full year, they are just beginning to walk, while other mammals who were born on the same day can be fully developed and mature enough to become parents. These differences suggest that time may not be universal or linear for all species. Some believe that the aging process begins at birth and travels at a different pace each year thereafter for a lifetime. For these reasons we should question how the aging process is measured since it can vary within and between species and it can change pace depending on ones lifestyle, experiences, general health and attitude.

Researchers have changed their notion about time and how it passes. Advances made in the process of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) have moved time forward at a pace faster than anyone noticed. The first child born of frozen embryo was Zoe Leyland. Her birth occurred on March 28, 1984, in Melbourne, Australia. In 1997, Lesley and John Brown of Oldham, England gave birth to the first child conceived in a test tube. This was a shock to the world and it signaled the beginning of a new era in human reproduction. Today, the use of IVF has become such a wide spread practice that thousands of children are now being born each year using this technology. What we thought about reproduction and the time it took for a pregnancy to occur full term had been changed. Scientists have re-shaped our genetic destiny by shortening the nine months of pregnancy preceding a birth with the creation of artificial wombs. By 2000, the time an unborn child needed to be nurtured in the womb had been shortened from nine months to less than six. These changes have led to an increasing number of children who start their lives outside the human womb in petri dishes where, as embryonic cells, they divide and grow before implantation into their own or a surrogate mother’s womb.

There is other evidence to suggest that what was thought to be the time required for certain things to occur had changed suggesting that for other species time may not necessarily pass at the same rate as it does for humans. One year in the life of a human is not the same as one year in the life of a puppy, a colt or a goldfish. Even the speed of a human heart beat changes with age. The resting rate for a newborn is 120 – 180 beats per minute. At one year, the rate changes to 100 – 130, at two it has slowed down to 90 – 120 and by eight years of age it is near that of a young adult, 70 – 120 beats per minute. The rate at which time passes and the speed with which each species develops, matures and dies is related in part to its genetics, but also to their nutrition, health care and their biological clock. Dr. Chopra and others remind us that our perception of time can also change body functions and the aging process just by the way we think.

In the year 2000, scientists revised the average life expectancy of humans. For women it was raised to 87 and for men it was raised to 80. But for the horse it remains about 25-30 years and for most breeds of dogs it is still about 10-12 years on the average. One can not help but notice that for most of the species on this planet, their life expectancy has remained unchanged for the past 150 years. Humans seem to be the one notable exception. The fact that humans have significantly extended their life ex
pectancy by almost 50 years is worth some discussion. These extensions were not accomplished by slowing down growth or development at the beginning of life, but instead they were achieved by extending the number of years at the end of the life cycle. It is interesting to note that the one period of life that has not changed is the length of time that it takes to reach reproductive maturity. For most species including humans it still takes about the same amount of time to become biologically mature as it did 150 years ago.

Humans born after 1950 can now expect to live almost twice as long as their great-grandparents who lived in the early 1800’s. Tables 1 and 2 compare and contrast the rate at which individuals pass through life.

TABLE 1. AGE POINTS IN YEARS FOR HUMANS

Bathing A Dog

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

written by Anna Browning, Windsor Dobermans

submitted by Marj Brooks, Manorie Dobermans

NOTE: “The wetter the dog, the less soap you will need for a good lather”. Anna also said to dilute the soap. If you do this just about any soap will work including Joy dish detergent. The shampoo however must have the right p/h balance for dogs. I suggest that you print this out, try it and learn to bathe your dogs this way.

Here are Anna’s instructions:

Many years ago, while at the Western States Veterinary Conference, I attended a lecture on Dermatology.  The speaker started off by saying, ” I’ll bet you that most of you don’t know how to bathe a dog…”.  Well, we all laughed, but he then piped in, “Seriously, I’ll bet you that at least 90% of you are doing it wrong!”.  Silence came over the room as he explained.  Most people bathe their dogs in warm water.  This, he said, is for the owner’s comfort … not the dog’s!  His rules for bathing were:

1. Bathe in tepid water — when I say bathe in tepid water, this really means room temperature water … NOT warm.  I thought I’d clarify this as some people think that tepid means warm.  If in doubt, go COLDER, not warmer.
2. Use a hypoallergenic/PH balanced DOG shampoo
3. Wet the dog thoroughly
4. Dilute the shampoo before putting it on the animal
5. Start at the head of the dog, and using ONLY your finger TIPS (NEVER the fingernails!), gently massage the dog WITH the grain of the hair… NEVER rub against the grain of the hair.
6. Once the entire dog is properly bathed, rinse in tepid water
7. Rinse again
8. When you think you’ve rinsed enough, rinse one more time!

Other rules are:

1. Don’t over bathe (don’t bathe too often… he suggested once a month if needed).
2. If you do bathe, use an conditioning spray afterwards, such as HyLyt Bath Oil Spray to replace essential oils removed by bathing.
3. When petting the dog, don’t rub against the grain of the hair…. especially important in short haired breeds without
   undercoat!!

His theory on “bathing reactions” are:

People use warm water to wet the dog. This opens the pores.  They then put shampoo on the dog, full strength,
irritating the skin.  The person then “scrubs” the dog against the grain of the hair, using the fingernails to get the dog “good and clean”!  This further irritates the skin.  They rinse the dog, again with warm water, shoving the shampoo
into the open, irritated hair follicle.  They don’t rinse thoroughly enough and once the warm water stops running, and the dog starts to dry, the pores close.  Now, you have an irritated hair follicle.  This irritated hair follicle now becomes infected, leading to folliculitis (those little zits your dogs usually get the day after bathing!!).  The owner then thinks the dog is allergic to the shampoo and has to go to the vet to get hydroxizine and prednisone to make the
bumps/pustules go away.

At the end of the lecture, the room was DEAD QUIET!  Myself included.  Up until that point I really didn’t know how to bathe dogs!

Are You A Responsible Dog Owner?

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

by Ms Dany Canino

According to Webster´s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word responsible is defined as follows: “…involving accountability, obligation, or duties.”

I feel that the definition of being a responsible dog owner can be defined with those same words.

Test yourself to see how you respond to the following questions:

Far too many dog owners over feed their pets. They feed their animals a diet that is way too high in protein for the pet´s activity level. They even continue to feed this high source of protein to their pets that are considered to be senior citizens. When a dog gets to be seven years or older their pancreas slows down in its functional duties, just as their physical activity slows down. Therefore, we need to lower the protein level so that they can completely digest and utilize their food.

Many pet owners have not yet learned to read the dog food labels of the food they feed. Some dog foods that are on the market contain excessive amounts of salt (sodium) and sugar (dextrose or sucrose). Just as these ingredients in excess aren´t good for humans, they also are not good for your dog.

If your dog is overweight there are two things to consider as the cause:

2) DO YOU KEEP YOUR DOG WELL GROOMED?

Pets don´t like to be dirty any more than you do. Getting a bath on a regular basis makes your pet feel good. A bath not only makes them smell good, it prevents them from scratching because of the dirt on their body (possibly causing a “hot spot”). Plus, bathing allows them the luxury of a massage.

It also feels good to your pet to be brushed about twice a week. A coated breed that is not brushed will frequently end up with matts (tangles) in their coat. This cannot only be painful, but in time it can be life threatening. Matts can literally cut off the pet´s circulation. Close-coated breeds also need to be brushed frequently, but you should use a good rubber brush because of their lack of hair.

Nail trimming is very important to the well being of your pet. If your pet doesn´t get his nails trimmed regularly he can end up totally crippled. If you´re afraid to do this duty (once or twice a month) then take your pet to a local groomer. There is usually a very nominal fee for this procedure. Of course the ideal would be to learn how to do it your self.

Teeth cleaning is another simple procedure that any pet owner can learn to do. Dogs can have some of the same teeth and gum problems that afflict humans. Most pet supply stores sell products to help you keep your pet´s teeth and gums in healthy condition.

It´s a known medical fact that these simple medical procedures will add additional years to your pet´s life. Most of the sexual organ cancers that affects dogs can be eradicated if your pet is rendered sterile at an early age (5 months to 1 year).

Dogs are basically pack animals. When we bring them into our homes and lives as family pets, in their eyes we become their pack. To make them stay in the backyard solely makes them feel that the pack has deserted or abandoned them. A dog´s natural instinct is to protect his pack members and their den. If they only know the backyard, then that´s the area they will feel they need to protect. They will be of little or no use for protection of your home. Personally I´ve never understood why people get a dog as a companion and then stick him in the backyard on a permanent basis.

Pet owners that haven´t taken the time to properly train their dogs are oftentimes the same people that get rid of the dog because he becomes a nuisance and unmanageable. They neglect to see that it is their fault that their pet is this way. If they do decide to train they are sure that they need to wait until the dog is over 6 months of age. By doing this they have many more behavior problems to work out than they would have, had they started the pup at 4 months of age.

Obedience training your dog is the most efficient way to rectify any behavior problems and to deter any future behavior problems. Training a dog is also an excellent way to build a lasting bond with your dog.

Besides being illegal to let your pet be off leash when away from your property, it is the fastest way for some moving vehicle to put permanent “tire tracks” on your dog´s body and, sometimes ending his “freedom” permanently.

If you´ve answered Yes to questions 4 and 6 and answered No to questions 1-2-3 and 5, you need to sit down and re-evaluate why you got a dog in the first place. You also need to admit that up to now you haven´t been the most responsible pet owner. It´s not too late to change. You can still become that responsible owner that I know you want to be.

For the most part our pets love us unconditionally. Whether we gain weight, whether we´re in a good or bad mood, whether we´re a little late feeding them, or are too busy from time to time to throw the ball for them. They love us no matter what. Theirs is truly the purest form of devotion. In return, our pets ask very little of us. All they are looking for is our affection and some basic responsibilities on our part that make their life painless and comfortable. When the pet´s owner meets these responsibilities, it shows your pet that you really care.

Anonymous Tribute

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

Before I grow too frail and weak,
And all that’s left is peace in sleep,
I know you’ll do what must be done,
To end this fight that can’t be won.

I don’t fear death as humans do,
So let me try to comfort you,
Come, let us take a quiet stroll,
And share some quietness soul to soul.

No need for words ‘twixt you and I,
No need to say a last good-bye,
We’ve grown so close in mind and heart,
It seems so cruel that we must part.

Be sure I sense the pain you’ll feel,
Without me walking at your heel,
The days will feel full of despair,
Your “Sunshine” simply won’t be there.

In time the pain will slowly wane,
You’ll think of me and smile again,
You’ll speak with love and pride of me,
Your extra special Doberman.

Now take me where my needs they’ll tend,
And stay there with me till the end,
Hold me close with soft good-byes,
‘Till life’s bright light has left my eyes.

The final sound I need to hear,
Is your soft voice upon my ear.
Your loving face will fade and dim,
As the rush of heaven closes in.

Animal Rights Or Animal Welfare?

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

written by Beca Zaun & submitted by Marj Brooks

Most people believe there is little difference between animal welfare and animal rights organizations.  But the ‘Animal Rights’ movement’s main goal is not, and never has been, to save or help individual animals.  Its only mission is to market its anti-human, anti-pet philosophy and vegan lifestyle to the American public.  Animal rights extremists have camouflaged their true agenda from the public.  This agenda is the ultimate goal of abolishing all animal ownership.  They disguise this goal in many different ways.  One way is to encourage the public to confuse animal rights with animal welfare.  These two concepts are diametrically opposed.

Animal welfare works for the humane treatment of all animals and embraces a broad variety of uses that include owning pets, raising and using animals for food, fibre, labour, and medical and behavioural research; managing animal populations by hunting; keeping animals in zoos and other educational venues; and enjoying animal sports and animals in movies, circuses, and on stage.

The animal rights viewpoint, on the other hand, views domestic animal ownership as exploitation and seeks to destroy the domestic animal by using government to pass prohibitive animal laws, such as mandatory spay/neuter, breed specific ordinances (BSL), pet limits, and anti-breeding restrictions.  Proponents of animal rights are collectivist in nature and harbour a deep-seated hatred of humanity.  These animal rightist ideologies do not mix with principles of morality, individual responsibility or responsible government.  One of their main objectives is to take away your right to own or breed pets – community by community, state by state.  Consider the following quotes from some of the leaders in the animal rights movement:

“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership.  The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.”  Elliot Katz, President, In Defence of Animals, “In Defence of Animals,” Spring 1997

“If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. … Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s director of Vegan Outreach, Animal Rights Conference, 2001

Animal rights activists also support Breed Specific Legislation (BSL).  This targets specific breeds of dogs based on how they look, from extra insurance policies and special licenses, to outright bans of particular breeds.  The reason for this, of course, is that BSL has the overall effect of reducing the number of pet animals.

“……our support of such legislation is NOT out of concern that some dogs may be vicious. Our concern is only for the dogs who are being abused and neglected because of the way they look……, [BSL] legislation would help reduce the number of animals brought into the world only to be dumped at shelters, abandoned on roadsides, abused, neglected, and killed. That in itself is enough reason to support breed–specific legislation.” Teresa Gibbs, PETA Investigative Reporter

To further their agenda the animal rights groups (of which there are many) have created a powerful, sophisticated and media-savvy movement designed to take advantage of the concern and ignorance that many people have regarding animals and animal issues.  These groups target meat-eating, individual animal sports and pastimes one by one.

“Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer.” Toni Vernelli European Campaign Director, PETA, PETA Europe news release, “Meat Expo Declared A ‘Danger Zone’ By Vegetarians: PETA Targets Smithfield 2000” November 27, 2000.

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.

One of the Animal Rightist’s current campaigns is the attempt to change the term “owner” to “guardian.”  People who have pets will no longer “own” them, but be their “guardian” instead.  This may seem like an innocuous distinction, but it is a potentially dangerous one.  The term “guardian” already has a legal definition, which would not be altered by including animals.  The legal term refers to temporary caretakers who are court appointed to care for children or adults who are not responsible to care for themselves.  Therefore, the state retains all rights over the one receiving the care.  The state can dictate all standards of care, as well as revoke the guardian’s statu
s whenever it determines that the guardian is not doing their job properly.

In other words, pet owners would not be free to make their own decisions for their animals regarding housing, feeding, training, breeding, euthanasia, spaying or neutering.  Guardianship leaves the animal owner with all the duties, including financial, of caring for the animal, but removes their right to make decisions regarding that care.

Animal rights groups are very eager to have these guardianship laws so they can dictate care, remove animals from their owners, and make ownership so difficult and legally precarious that people will avoid having animals at all.  This would be a big step towards the animal rights extremist’s stated goal of ending pet ownership completely.

One of the most well known animal rights groups is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  Most people believe this organization supports and helps fund nationwide animal shelters.  The truth is that the HSUS, who calls itself an “animal protection” agency, does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter and is not affiliated with any local humane societies.

“[The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies …… The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.” From a 2001 disclaimer issued by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)]

Despite HSUS’s public claims that it seeks only to ensure animals are humanely treated, the group’s values and actions are tilted toward eliminating humans’ use of animals entirely, including ending lifesaving biomedical research on animals, funding anti-breeding campaigns, and reducing society’s consumption of meat and egg products.

The HSUS scams thousands of dollars from an unsuspecting public using their massive media events, attention-grabbing legislative proposals and Hollywood spokesmen.  The HSUS misrepresents itself and takes advantage of every single “crisis” issue it can find to try to profit from it.  Its main activities are comprised of promoting laws to restrict use/ownership, propaganda in support of such laws, and fundraising/self-promotional actions.  While it has no relation to local humane societies and animal shelters anywhere in the US, HSUS does control dozens of legal corporations throughout the world. Despite its image as a cash-strapped animal protection agency, the HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

The HSUS, as well as the ASPCA, believe in the same animal rights philosophy of moral equality between humans and animals that the other more obviously radical organizations believe, like PETA, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), etc.  HSUS has stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.”  This whole premise is based on a single specious argument:  men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights.  The problem with this is that man’s rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to organisms capable of reason and choice.  Animals are by nature amoral; they don’t survive by rational thought, but by sensory input and instinct.  They cannot reason and cannot learn a code of ethics.  The implication of the animal rights philosophy is that nature has no moral hierarchy.  To them, “non-human” animals are morally superior to the human species.

“Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans.” Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York: New York Review of Books, 1990), p. 19.

Saying that human concerns outweigh animal concerns is just more bullshit.” Chris DeRose, Last Chance for Animals: SHAC rally, Edison, New Jersey, November 30, 2002

This animal rightist worldview has another unfortunate side effect:  it has made violence against human beings more acceptable.  Animal “rights” devalues an individual human life to a worth no greater than an insect or a rat.

“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.” Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President, The Humane Society of the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder and president, Washingtonian Magazine, August 1986

Animal Welfare, as opposed to Animal Rights is concerned with the health, safety, and the future of animals, not to mention the quality of life for both animals and humans.  No moral, mentally healthy human being wants to see animals suffer.  We have a duty and a moral responsibility to prevent animal suffering.  Pet owners, breeders and rescuers spend literally thousands of dollars and untold hours of time and effort caring for animals.  They do it out of love and respect for their pets.  However this is not the same as granting them moral equality.  There is a fundamental difference between respect and consideration for animals and granting them equal moral rights, just as there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals.  Animal rights philosophy seeks to blur that difference through anthropomorphism, brainwashing and political maneuvering.

There is an underground war going on in this country for the right to own, use and care for animals.  The animal/human relationship goes back thousands of years.  Animal Rightists want to destroy that relationship…one-law-at-a-time.  Those of us who care for animals are under attack like never before.  Licensing, new taxes, pet limit laws, registration schemes, Breed Specific Legislation and arbitrary governmental intrusion into our privacy have done incredible damage to healthy pet ownership over the years.

Animal Rights law is the fastest growing field of law in the country.  HSUS is currently in the process of expanding its litigation capabilities.  There has been a steady replacement of ‘helping animals’ statements on the web sites and in publications with ‘protecting animals,’ as organizations continue to shift toward passing and enforcing more laws.  If present trends continue, home breeding of dogs will be wiped out in this country within a few years, and along with it, the purebred dog.

All of us who love our pets must recognize the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.  Whether they’re opposing breeding, meat, medical research, zoos or fur, the animal rightists real agenda goes much further.  We need to be vigilant in our own communities, as well on the State and Federal levels so that we, as pet owners, are not legislated out of existence

WHAT TO WATCH FOR:

• Any regulations or laws that attempt to limit pet ownership

• Legislation that attempts to redefine pet ownership to “guardianship”

• Breed specific laws, e.g., laws which ban particular breeds

• Laws that define all breeders as commercial entities, including hobby breeders

• Unreasonable license fee increases

• Any other items that relate to ownership of pets or breeding of dogs

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

• Educate yourself on the issues involved; familiarize yourself with the animal rights agenda so that you will recognize anti-ownership or breeding legislation in your city or state.

• Do not give money to organizations like the HSUS; instead support your local animal shelters.

• Join a group that deals with animal legislative issues, like the National Animal Interest Alliance (www.NAIAonline.org).

• Check the American Kennel Club (www.AKC.org) website on a regular basis for legislation that affects your state.

• Refer any proposed regulations or laws in your area to doglaw@AKC.org.  The AKC has many helpful documents related to wording for regulations related to dogs. 

• Be a model citizen with your dogs and help educate other owners to do the same.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

National Animal Interest Alliance,  www.naiaonline.org

Pet Law, www.pet-law.com

Activist Cash, www.activistcash.com

Sportsmen & Animal Owners Voting Alliance, www.saova.org

PETA Kills Animals, www.PETAkillsanimals.com

Anatomy Of Breed Specific Legislation

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

By Dr. Carmen Battaglia (REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION FROM DR. CARMEN BATTAGLIA)

INTRODUCTION

During the past one hundred years the demographics of America shifted the paradigm from a country that was principally rural to another that had become urban. By the turn of the century, seventy-five percent of all Americans were living in cities. This massive shift in population and demographics resulted in an increase in real estate costs, zoning restrictions and pet laws which today have emerged as a growing concern in every state. The impacts of these changes have forced breeders to adapt their facilities to fit the problems of urban sprawl or to relocate. In short, the ownership of dogs has come face to face with a new set of social, economic and legal issues.

In 2005 the AKC tracked 106 breed-specific measures that were adverse to purebred dogs. In 2006 that number surpassed the previous year. A cursory look at history shows that the pervasive trend in anti-dog legislation is no longer a problem peculiar to just the large cities. It has become endemic throughout the country. Unfortunately, most anti-dog measures seem to begin with a tragic incident where a person, very often a child, was bitten. The incident then becomes the catalyst for some kind of legislation. In most cases, the scenario begins with the incident, followed by the press which usually avoids or ignores the details surrounding the tragedy, the owner´s responsibility, or the history of the dog or dogs involved. A typical case begins when officials respond with proposals that restrict ownership of one or more breeds. A broad look at this kind of legislation shows that whether the proposal was successful or not, the impact on the dog-owning community is becoming a cumulative problem that has risen in almost every community.

Officials typically claim that anti-dog legislation and breed-specific laws are needed to control the dog population, address the “dangerous pet” issue and provide the public with a measure of safety. What seems to go unnoticed is that the owners of the “bad” dogs often hide them or choose another breed which leaves the responsible owners the innocent victims of excessive fees, licensing requirements and restrictive zoning. Now, after more than two decades of this kind of thinking, the legal approach has gained momentum.

THE PROBLEM

The steady and extreme nature of anti-dog legislation over the past few years has raised awareness to new levels among owners and breeders who are struggling to retain their basic rights and privileges. Unfortunately, the interest in removing dogs and breeds from communities has gained momentum at an alarming rate. This is a problem that deserves to be called by its proper name, breed-specific legislation (BSL).

The term BSL is often intermingled with the term anti-dog legislation. Both translate into the banning or restriction of ownership of a breed or those dogs that have a resemblance to a silhouette or profile. A typical case begins with restrictions or a proposal to ban an entire breed and all dogs that look like those that were involved in an incident. In some cases these measures begin when there has been no incident. Following close behind are efforts to limit or restrict ownership — another detrimental phenomenon called the trickle-down effect. It includes restrictions on zoning, changes to airline policies, the prohibition of certain breeds at dog shows, increases in homeowner insurance rates, mandatory spay/ neuter, muzzling on or off the owner´s property, high licensing fees to breed or sell pups or to own adults of any breed etc. Most of these events go unnoticed by the dog world even though they are increasing each year. Underneath the exterior of these actions is an anatomy that deserves to be examined and understood.

ANATOMY OF ANTI-DOG LEGISLATION

A proposal to restrict or eliminate ownership and breeding very often begins on the desk of some official whose motives are not always transparent. At other times they begin with a dog bite to a person. In the latter case, the bite incident does not receive a fair and impartial evaluation and rarely do the actions taken produce a lasting solution. In most cases, the dog´s behavior is considered central to the problem and the owners are seen as having only a secondary role. Experts such as Peggy Moran agree that “dog breeds don´t bite, individual dogs bite”. A fundamental problem underlying anti-dog legislation is that the larger audience of responsible owners and breeders who are the innocent victims become burdened with the excessive restrictions of ownership. Because of the disconnect in thinking between the legislation and its intended purpose, anti-dog proposals only serve as a catalyst that eventually polarizes the community.

The chronology surrounding this kind of legislation typically begins with an incident- -very often a bite. The process that follows identifies one or more breeds as an important threat to the community. The participants and victims include dog owners, interested citizens, the media, elected officials and the animal rights groups. One of the ingredients used to promote this kind of legislation is the use of undefined labels which effectively stigmatize or characterize the owners and the breed(s) in a negative way. Undefined labels such as “puppy mill”, “dangerous dogs”, “vicious dogs”, and “dogs out of control” are used to promote the need for severe legal action. Throughout the process no one questions the use of the undefined labels, perhaps because they are aimed at a lesser species that cannot speak for themselves. Others believe the answer may lie in our lack of understanding how the media, elected officials and the animal rights groups see the problem, and how they are drawn to use and apply undefined labels to achieve their goals. A useful way to review this phenomenon is to notice what factors are needed to produce the incendiary reaction that gives credence to anti-dog legislation and BSL.

In order to better appreciate the issues and the social factors involved in this kind of legislation, a review of other problems that have a parallel or similar pattern may exist elsewhere. For example, when well-known athletes or their institutions become involved in a scandal, the press is quick to use undefined labels that depict them as “rich”, “out of control” or “well-connected bullies” etc. Murray Sperber, author of Beer and Circus: How Big-time College Sports is Crippling Undergraduate Education, says that “many rich athletes have gone wild with their money and connections because they are able, through their contacts and wealth, to get themselves out of the problems they cause”. Recent examples in the NFL include running back Jamal Lewis in his 2000 cocaine case. Lewis, who faced a 10-year sentence, served four months, was suspended for two games and was back in time to play 15 games for the Baltimore Ravens in 2005. Miami Dolphins wide receiver Tony Martin was found guilty of laundering drug money and went on to play three more seasons. No player rebounded stronger than Mike Bell, Kansas City linebacker, who was convicted in 1986 on two counts of arranging cocaine sales, served a short sentence, and returned to play the 1991 season.

How the media takes advantage of these situations is well-illustrated in the more recent incidents involving athletes at a Colorado (2004) and at Duke Unive
rsity (2006) which left both schools with accusations about rape and sex parties involving their recruits and players. Both events made national news. At the outset, the media, with only a few facts, were able to give credibility to both incidents. A series of follow-up stories identified the victims, plaintiffs and defendants, and within days the media was able to provide a media trial for the public with a parade of “experts” (lawyers, DNA technicians, psychological counselors) who were asked the “what if” questions. Before the institutions or the NCAA were able to conduct their own investigations, guilt was inferred and penalties classified. In each case, the school and league officials were expected to make announcements to explain their situation. At the same time, local and state officials were called upon to make pubic statements.

In most instances, what usually follows is a series of dissonant reporting and commentary that reflects far more than the difference between what the public would learn before they would hear, see or read the news. By getting a head start on their competitors, the press is able to drive the story. Within hours, politicians will usually begin to make announcements which are designed to expose, clarify or fix the problem. In most instances there is more than enough blame to go around, but none draw as much interest as those involving a high profile person or event such as the football, baseball or basketball scandals. By 2004, only a few editors were bothering to require two or more sources to corroborate a story. Instead, they blame intense competition for ratings and circulation in a “24-hour” news cycle as the reason for inaccurate reporting. After months of live coverage, the Duke rape story lost its ratings. Several months later, in January and again in April, 2007, buried several pages back in a small article, mention was made that the charges were dropped against the Duke athletes for lack of creditable findings. The media which gave this story front page status showed little interest in it once the facts became known. Only a few talk shows found the story useful enough to interview TV attorneys and journalists who were willing to speculate on the impact the incident had made on the lives of the innocent victims.

These self-made conditions produce a scenario that the social critics say are right for a media circus. In many ways, dog bites and public scandals both provide a platform for stories that can focus on national flashpoints whose characteristics typically include one of the following: race, class, gender, violence, money or privilege. According to Robert Thompson, a communications professor at Syracuse University, “the forces all come into place to produce a journalistic perfect storm”, which will use some or all of the elements for a national flashpoint story. The elements of a story are then used to stir “the fundamental and foundational themes in American Culture”. Once the media and politicians expose their interests and get credit for reporting or suggesting a solution, they tend to go on to their next issue or their next story leaving behind a community that is left to sort through the rubble of their solutions. In most BSL cases, there are special interest groups which become embedded in the issues of the incident. They serve as a lever against all dogs and the dog-owning community. Their involvement often comes in the form of financial support that is used to push their agenda forward. Social scientists who observe these incidents begin their analysis by identifying the key players which are the elected officials, the media, the animal rights groups, and the dog-owning public. Each serves an important role in what can be called a social and legalistic puzzle. The elected officials claim they are acting in the interests of the public good; the media sees it as a story that will increase ratings; and the animal rights groups become involved because it fosters another opportunity to limit or eliminate more breeds and dogs. But in the end it is the majority of owners who are affected and become the innocent victims of these actions.

History shows that banning breeds has not accomplished the intended purpose of protecting or eliminating the threat of dogs that bite. If anything, these proposals only serve to polarize and disrupt communities. In spite of the opinions offered by the AVMA and others who do not advocate BSL, officials continue to use the legal system as their preferred solution to the ownership of dogs as a perceived social problem. There is little evidence to show that legislation has changed the behavior of those who are said to own the “bad” dogs. In an open and free society, it is easy to hide from and neglect the requirements of this kind of legislation. When new laws are passed, many owners seem to rapidly adjust by hiding their dogs or simply choosing another breed. Owners of the “bad” dogs in many instances can well afford the small fines levied by local courts and magistrates. History suggests that new laws do not motivate those who function outside the norm to change their behavior. To believe otherwise is to assume that the laws against drugs and their use have produced the desired changes in the behavior of those who sell and traffic in them.

CHOICE AND REACH

One of the most important elements of anti-dog legislation and BSL that go unnoticed is the social reach they have into the life of a community. These laws not only ban, limit and restrict ownership, they function with the authority of a class action lawsuit and, by extension, are able to reach deep into a community and affect a much larger group of owners whose dogs were not involved. In principle, anti-dog legislation promotes the notion of guilt by association and functions as another form of back door legislation. It is the equivalent of telling the parents of teens they can no longer live in their neighborhood because the son of a neighbor was involved in a fatality while using the family car. Proposals that ban and limit dogs are best known for their ability to produce tension between many groups with vested interests. They are able to bring relationships to a boiling point based on the use of undefined labels combined with the proven and unproven allegations. The social and economic strategy underling many of these cases confirms that the behavior of a few can be used to change the fundamental rights of many.

In 2006, the city of Louisville proposed major changes to their breed-specific legislation which would further limit and restrict breeders and dog owners. Their new restrictions were specific to “pit bulls,” which the city defined as several breeds including American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Cane Corsos, Presa Canarios, Dogue de Bordeauxs, Dogo Argentino or any other dog having the appearance and characteristics of these breeds. In human terms, dogs and breeds were profiled based on a general structure or silhouette and not their behavior. Each breed determination and the designation of “dangerous dog” would be made by the Director of Metro Animal Services. The appeal process was limited to the Secretary of Public Works with no opportunity for the dog owner to be heard in court. The proposed ordinance would require owners to obtain a $100 unaltered pit bull license, even for dogs that were in the city for less than 30 days. All owners would be required to provide proof of insurance in Kentucky and demonstrate that their dog had been microchipped and registered with the Metro Animal Services Department. Exhibitors who were in the city for a dog show fro
m out of state would also be required to obtain a $100 license. In spite of the fact that there is no science or evidence to show that the physical structure or body type of a human or animal portends its behavior, Louisville pursued its goal to ban thousands of dogs from its boundaries. No other community has proposed such a far-reaching legal set of requirements on its citizens.

Unfortunately, what usually follows many anti-dog legislation proposals is a phenomenon that is called the ripple effect. These are the post events that spawn from extreme proposals that usually come in the form of mandatory spay/neuter laws and license differentials. For example, $5 for a spay/neutered pet, $150 for a breedable animal, litter permits that require disclosure of sales, limits on the number of litters per year and restrictions on the number of breedings allowed per year. What goes unnoticed about the fallout from the ripple effect is the cumulative nature they have on the hobby breeders of purebred dogs.

Although these cases in many ways closely parallel the scenario of the scandalized athletes and their institutions, the key difference involves the species and the elements of the story. In a BSL case, all dog owners and, indirectly, the American Kennel Club, become involved. With over 20,000 events for purebred dogs which attract more than 3 million entries annually, the AKC feels the immediate effects of these cases through the loss of registrations, which in 1992 were at their all time high of 1.5 million. By 2006, they had declined to less than 970,000.

The AKC, with nearly 5,000 licensed and member clubs along with its affiliated organizations, advocate for the purebred dog as a family companion. The AKC works to protect the rights of all dog owners and promotes responsible dog ownership. It offers more than 20,000 competitions for AKC-registered purebred dog owners each year. The venues include conformation, agility, obedience, rally, tracking, herding, lure coursing, coonhound events, hunt tests, field and earth dog trials. Despite its size and influence, even the AKC feels the effects of these cases. With its operating headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina, nestled among many diverse ethnic groups, the AKC knows there are many reasons why Americans own a dog.

Those who choose the AKC purebred do so because of their good breeding and reliability. Some cost upwards of $5,000 – $10,000 and require complicated and binding contracts as part of the sale. Owning and campaigning a purebred can also be expensive. The best will spend in excess of $50,000, which exceeds the medium household income of Durham, North Carolina ($43,337). These facts alone tend to separate the AKC purebred dog owners from all others. But regardless of their pedigree or their value, BSL and anti-dog legislation fails to distinguish between those who are AKC registered, the mongrels and those that live on the streets. In each instance public officials bundle all dogs that have a similar “look” into one package regardless of their breed, gender or class of owner. Seldom do these cases focus on the care, conditions, treatment, history or behavior of the dogs or the people that own them. Rarely do the politicians or the media make distinctions or offer constructive or preventative solutions that can solve the problem. In the simplest of terms, BSL can be summarized as a class action against the innocent and the guilty without having to meet the high legal standards set for this kind of legal action.

Sociologists who study the social, economic and legislative aspects of these cases tend to focus on the social forces and policies that drive them. They examine how undefined labels are used to describe and characterize the targeted victims and the innocent bystanders. They look for the factors that result in the incendiary mix of accusations that involve the victims, defendants and breeds. They study the conditions leading up to the incident, the behavior of the victims and the impact of the legislation on the community. Their studies focus on the social and economic life of the community and how these actions are used to change the fundamental rights of citizens to own property as well as their right to choose a breed of their preference. Their conclusions usually address the unintended consequences of these events by those who are well meaning.

STANDARDS

The irony of this kind of legislation is that the media and the politicians do not apply the same logic, strategy or standard to other similar problems in our society. For example, one must wonder why the speeders and drunk drivers who kill and harm far more people each year are not dealt with in the same harsh fashion. The record shows that while many parallels occur in how human and canine problems are handled, it does not explain the extreme differences. The real problem behind the speeders and the drunk drivers is not the car or the alcohol … neither breaks the law. It is the behavior of the person, whether they are driving a car or drinking too much. Common to both are the use of undefined labels which are used to target the victim. Calling a person a “drunk” or “speeder” introduces a stereotype that can be applied and expanded to a person or a group of individuals. Insurance companies use the stereotypes to raise rates and elected officials use them to generalize to the larger community. The use of labels provides a vehicle that makes it politically correct to characterize the “bad” people as drunks and speeders. But when the incident involves a lesser species, they seem to be anxious to apply another brand of justice using undefined labels such as “dangerous”, “vicious”, or “out of control dogs” which allows them the opportunity to ignore the behavior of the owner.

Robert Thompson says that the events leading up to social disruptions in a community oftentimes are used to produce national stories which bring forward a whole new Animal House quality that makes for good TV stories and feature articles for the newsprint industry. The controversy produced by anti-dog proposals seems to come from the idea of contrast. Telling dog owners they must give up their property because someone else who lives in their community owned a “bad” dog that may have injured or killed a person is fundamental to understanding the anatomy of this kind of legislation. When the media, politicians and animal rights groups combine the incendiary elements needed to introduce anti-dog legislation or a BSL case, they are able to produce a national flashpoint for a perfect social storm. Because many incidents will begin with a horrific event such as a child who is mauled, bitten or killed, it provides opportunity for the media to exercise journalistic license with their version of the story using undefined labels and quotes from local politicians, victims and their families. All this is used to fuel the strategy for rigid limitations, prosecution and/or banishment. The strategy of these proceedings is to reach deep into the dog community without ever knowing how many “good” dogs and responsible owners will be adversely affected. Rarely does anyone look beneath the incident or the facts leading up to why a limitation is necessary. The solution to punish every owner mirrors mob psychology. The irony of this logic bears review. For example, no one proposes sweeping legislation each time a human injures or kills another human. In a study conducted by the AAA, they found that after-school hours rivaled weekend nights as the peak time for fatal crashes involving teenage drivers. The Travel Club r
eported crash data for 16-17 year-old drivers from 2002 – 2005 and concluded that just as many people died between 3pm and 5pm on weekdays as on Friday and Saturday nights, and that drivers 16-20 accounted for a disproportionately high number of these accidents. In 2004, there were 1.8 million crashes with 8,535 fatalities caused by young drivers. When the data was presented to the media they found little use for it and no politician proposed that teenagers be removed from their communities. Instead, the insurance companies pay the damages, settle the lawsuits and raise the rates. Sociologists, criminologists and psychologists all agree that there are specific and identifiable individuals who are clearly more dangerous to a society than others. While many are wellknown to the authorities, no legislation is proposed that removes them from the densely populated areas. Even repeat offenders are allowed to live anywhere they choose. Only in a limited number of cities have restrictions been adopted that keep child molesters from living near school zones and certain bus lines. The facts surrounding the horrific incidents they produce are rarely compared to the dangers of living with or near those who own animals. For example, which is more dangerous, a few “bad” dogs that can be contained and controlled or thousands of drunk drivers and repeat sex offenders who can live anywhere they choose and are free to act again?

The reason that BSL and anti-dog legislation is allowed to stand and, more importantly, function as a class action suit, has a basis in the etiology of social conflict. To this end, one can find that it resonates with a certain level of public support for a simple solution. Almost everyone can recall a dog problem they have experienced and most can either tell a familiar dog story of their own or one that involved a friend. “Oh yeah, I know of a neighbor or friend who also never controlled his/her dog.” Being able to tell a story about a friend or a neighbor´s dog gives this kind of legislation a measure of support. Experts see it as a social problem with many parallels. J. Douglas Toma, Associate Professor at University of Georgia Institute of Higher Education and author of Football University, Spectator Sports in the Life of the American University thinks that when social conflict occurs, there is a segment of the population which enjoys seeing others get “knocked down a peg or two”.

A closer look at those who own the dogs involved in bite incidents suggests that the owners of the “bad” dogs can well afford the small and insignificant fines meted out by the local courts. In this regard, there are few differences between the speeders, drunk drivers and rich athletes who are back on the street in a matter of hours. Police records show that small fines typically do not serve as a deterrent to unacceptable behavior, nor has the registration of handguns stopped senseless murders. On the other hand, rarely do officials propose laws, rules or codes that establish a fair and impartial process by which the owner´s behavior is evaluated based on measurable actions. In short, the breed, rather than the deed, is over- looked. Dr. Julie Gilchrest, medical epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Communicable Disease Center, stated that while the CDC maintains the nations largest database on fatal wounds caused by dog bites, it is firmly against breed-specific legislation. Data from the CDC shows that dog bites are misunderstood. Of the 2.8 million children bitten, boys are bitten twice as often as girls and most are between the ages of 5 and 9 years of age. More interesting is the fact that the dogs that bite most often are not the “dogs on the street”. Sixty-one percent of the bites to children come from dogs belonging to the family or a friend.

CONCLUSION

Anti-dog legislation is gaining momentum at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, in most communities, dog owners do not become involved until they are faced with the consequences of the legislation. This means that others drive the agenda that affects their pets. Historically, the response to dog problems has been to fight each proposal one by one, city by city. This approach no longer works as more proposals are prepared each year. A new strategy with a more penetrating and focused effort is needed…one that embraces coalitions of informed citizens whose purpose is to guide and steer the course of legislation and the political future of officials who are bent on eliminating dogs from their community.

At a minimum, every state and local community needs a well-defined code of conduct and a set of definitions that address the key labels used in anti-dog legislation. Coalitions must begin to collect data of their own that addresses a wide range of subjects. They must develop statistics to show that “pet overpopulation” is a myth and that, in many instances, the problem is the lack of responsible dog ownership. There continues to be communities who rely on data collected by the CDC, police and hospitals to craft their legislation and stigmatize breeds. Those who use CDC data do so based on the assumption that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. While there is no science to support this approach, this idea has been allowed to stand mainly because the dog community and all of its recognized organizations have done nothing to disprove it. Data must be developed to show that breeds should not be characterized based on the behavior of a few and that there are no genes that produce aggression

A broad look at BSL and anti-dog legislation suggests that this area has grown so large that containment is no longer a viable strategy. The paradigm must change. Organizations and individuals must step up and help meet the challenge. They must commit to gathering facts and developing relationships that result in a working relationship between the elected official and the dog community. The relationship must be cultivated so that the elected official relies on the dog community for information and facts about dogs. The dog community must learn to do more than lobby against legislation. They must learn who their representatives are at the city, county, state and federal levels. Coalitions must engage the broader voting community through education in order to respond with a greater impact that is aimed at the political life of certain officials if necessary. The dog-owning public must protect their rights to own and control their own destiny and begin to hold accountable those officials who continue to support legislation adverse to dog ownership. In a democracy, the will of the people is not irrelevant.
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Carmen L. Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in promoting better ways to breed dogs. An author of many articles and several books, he is also a popular guest on TV and radio talk shows including several appearances on Animal Planet. Those interested in learning more about his articles and seminars should visit the website http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com

Reference:

Battaglia, Carmen, “Bite and Who Bites”, unpublished paper pending publication in the Canine Chronicle, Ocala Florida.
Copeland, Larry, “After-School Peril for Teen Drivers, USA TODAY, October 25, 2006 pg 3A.
Dale, Steve, “My Pet World”,
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia, 2006, Section , pg. MH1.
Oates Daisy, Press Release entitled, “American Kennel Club Opposes Changes to Louisville Animal Control Law,” New York, New York, December 14, 2006
Thompson, Robert, “Perfect Storm”, Professor Syracuse University, USA TODAY, April 26, 2006, pg, 1.
Pelar, Colleen, Living with Kids and Dogs, C&R Publications, LCC, Woodbridge VA, 2005.
Staff Writer, “Players Rarely Win in Federal Cases”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia, Section B, pg 3

7 Year Glitch

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

Submitted by Marj Brooks through Susan Claggett

Looking for a Better Man-to-Dog Lifespan Ratio
August 29, 2008

If a human year really were equivalent to seven dog years, then people would reach reproductive age by seven, and some would live past 150.

For more than 50 years, scientists and dog lovers have been trying to debunk the dog-years myth. Yet, it persists in books, news articles and the popular imagination. No matter how you measure it, this numerical notion has impressive longevity.

“You can’t really kill the seven-year rule,” says Kelly M. Cassidy, curator of a biology museum at Washington State University, who in her spare time maintains an online compilation of dog-longevity studies.

The rule’s one-size-fits-all simplicity makes it a compelling way for people to track their pets’ development, or to monitor their own lives through their pets. That simplicity, however, is also the rule’s undoing — the seven-year glitch.

Scientists would prefer more-nuanced conversions. Typical life spans among the hundreds of canine breeds can range from 8 to 16. And dogs grow quickly in the first couple of years, with bigger breeds reaching the equivalent of U.S. voting age in toddler hood, by age two. “Eight years in one breed is not equivalent to eight years in another,” says David J. Waters, associate director of Purdue University’s Center on Aging and the Life Course.

It remains mysterious to scientists why big dogs die younger. Across different species, bigger animals tend to live longer: Compare men with mice. Within species, an inverse relationship sometimes takes hold: Smaller rats live longer than big ones. Prof. Waters prefers a physiological explanation for small dogs’ longer life spans.

Tracing the dog-year mythology to its source is difficult. An inscription at Westminster Abbey — no relation to the dog show — from the 13th century puts the ratio at 9 to 1, noting that dogs live nine years and men 81, with other life forms living longer by ratios of three, up to the predicted planet lifespan of 19,683 years. A similar ratio was calculated by 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, who reported that dogs can live to 10 or 12, and man to 90 or 100.

Somewhere along the way, it seems likely to several veterinarians, typical life spans were pegged at about 70 for humans and about 10 for dogs. Thus, the seven-year rule was born. “My guess is it was a marketing ploy,” says William Fortney, a veterinarian at Kansas State University, “a way to educate the public on how fast a dog ages compared to a human, predominantly from a health standpoint. It was a way to encourage owners to bring in their pets at least once a year.”

The rule has endured in many corners of world culture. In May, unverified reports of a 29-year-old mixed-breed dog in Chesterfield, England, headlined its supposed 203-year-old age. The notion has even been adopted by the Internet culture to explain its faster-than-life pace. The book “21 Dog Years” is about the author’s three years at Amazon.

Vets who tested the rule found several problems. Some 55 years ago, researcher A. Lebeau studied life-stage markers common to dogs and humans, such as puberty, adulthood and maximum lifespan, and found that aging in dogs can proceed 20 times as fast as human aging before age 1, gradually slowing to a ratio of about five. Since then, scientists have used veterinary-hospital records and breed-club surveys to refine the relationship further, by breed and by weight.

The improved formulas have appeared in general-interest books such as “Dogs for Dummies” and recent editions of “Old Farmer’s Almanac.”

But the new orthodoxy is itself based on uncertain numbers. There is no equivalent to the National Center for Health Statistics for dogs. Instead, there are three main sources for data on their longevity: pet-insurance companies, breed-club surveys and veterinary hospitals.

The first two may be biased toward longer-living dogs, because owners who belong to clubs and buy insurance may spend more to prolong their pets’ lives. Dr. Cassidy adds that surveys require dog owners to recall their pets’ life span, a number they tend to exaggerate. She has documented the gap by comparing ages from death notices on a poodle email list she belongs to with birth records in a poodle database. (Like other investigators in the field, Dr. Cassidy is a dog owner — three in all, ages 2 to 10 actual years.)

Meanwhile, hospitals may be biased toward shorter life spans, because they tend to admit the toughest cases, not healthy dogs. “It’s not good data, but it gets you in the ballpark,” says Prof. Fortney.

The true numbers are moving targets, adds Jeff Sampson, canine-genetics consultant to the Kennel Club in the U.K. As veterinary medicine improves and more dogs are immunized, fewer die young of distemper and parvovirus today than 30 years ago, Mr. Sampson says.

To dog lovers, fixed mathematical ratios of lifespan matter far less than the comfort that their companion lived a long and happy life.
 

How To Buy A Doberman Puppy

Breeder/Exhibitor Ed, Miscellaneous

by Joanna Walker

When you arrive, take a good look around. Although not everyone has a fancy kennel with chain link runs, the facilities can and should be spotlessly clean. If you find the outside runs or exercise area dirty and the inside of the kennel and home in the same shape, I would advise that you look elsewhere, no matter how cute the puppies may be.

To be healthy, puppies should be kept clean at all times, with a warm dry pen, clean papers on the floor, and a clean bedding area. These provisions also enable your puppy to be housebroken about twice as easily. Naturally, the food and water bowls should be clean. Breeders who keep all their dogs outside with dog houses, dirty runs and food left down to spoil are to be avoided at all costs. The puppies would probably be wormy or worse, and you will only be buying yourself a pack of trouble.

A good breeder will be full of questions about you and the facilities you have for a Doberman. He is not being nosy nor overly protective when he asks if you have a fenced yard. He may even refuse to sell you a puppy until you get a fence as he does not want to hear in a short time that the puppy was hit by a car .

Beware the breeder who wants to sell you a puppy at five weeks and before the ears are trimmed. Most likely, he is doing this in order to save money by passing the added expense on to you. Also, it can be very upsetting for a novice owner to go through an ear trimming experience with his puppy.

Your puppy should be at least nine (9) weeks old, free of worms, and have had at least one permanent shot. The puppy should have a clean shining coat, and his skin should be loose and too big for him. His eyes should be bright, alert and free from matter. He should also smell clean.

A healthy puppy of nine weeks should weight an average of 17 pounds for a bitch and 20 pounds for a male. At six weeks, 9-12 pounds is a good average. Generally, a puppy who weights much less than this has not had the proper care. We have seen seven week old puppies who weighed no more than five pounds.

If you are interested in a show quality puppy, it would be wise to put yourself in the hands of the breeder, and ask him to choose a suitable puppy for you. He has had a chance to study the litter since it was whelped, and can spot not only good conformation, but, also, that little extra something that spells “show dog.” Request to see the pedigree and have it explained to you, as it is important to learn as much as you can about the puppy’s background. If possible, see both the sire and dam. Inquire about their show records, and ask what they have produced in the past.

If you plan to buy your puppy by mail or long distance telephone, check with other breeders in an effort to determine if the breeder has a really good reputation, what his breeding has done in the past and if his dogs have good temperaments. Do not be taken in by fancy ads and promises that the puppy will grow up to be a Best in Show dog. A good breeder makes no such claims. He can only tell you that the puppy has no major faults at the time of sale, that the parents are champions or outstanding young dogs and that the puppy is in top condition when he leaves. He will probably request that you take the puppy to your vet to confirm the puppy’s good condition. He should also stress the importance of correct feeding habits. Of equal importance is the training necessary to develop his personality, including taking him out to as many places as possible in order for him to adjust to the stresses of everyday life. Then…you both hope and pray he will turn out to be a champion!

If the breeder of your choice does not have any puppies for sale when you inquire, he may put you in contact with someone who has a litter. While this person may not be a well known breeder, he could very likely have a good bitch. Frequently, these puppies have the best of care and were probably whelped in the owner’s kitchen or family room. They are accustomed to children and household noises and can be very well-adjusted puppies. Perhaps the breeder of the dam has helped plan the breeding of the litter , assisted with advice, and may even by able to pick out a puppy for you. It is possible to get an excellent puppy from such a home. Regardless of where your puppy is purchased, you should receive at least a four generationpedigree and an AKC blue slip for registration, unless the puppy has been registered by the breeder. In that case, you

should get the form correctly signed on the back in order for the puppy to be transferred to your name. Full instructions should be given regarding present and future care and feeding, as well as detailed information on the care of the ears if they are still in tapes.

Above all, a good breeder is there when you need him, and is always willing to help with the various little problems that develop over the years. He will share your joys, and your sorrows, too.