Can We Have a Discussion About BSL Without Seeing Red?

I am no fan of Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL), which is exactly what it sounds like — legislation that generally involves banning or severely limiting pet ownership of breeds that are commonly perceived as aggressive. I think these types of laws overly simplify a complex issue and do little to actually reduce the risk of dog attacks.

Instead of banning certain breeds, I would love to see an alternative program where responsible dog ownership and stewardship is rewarded with incentives such as public access privileges at hotels and other travel accommodations or discounted license registration fees for those who complete puppy class, manage their pups in public (by obeying leash laws and cleaning up after their dogs), and who complete classes like the Association of Pet Dog Trainers’ C.L.A.S.S. program, regardless of their dog’s breed.

I live with a Chow mix who would fall under nearly every BSL and homeowners’ insurance ban in the U.S., but some of the BSL backlash concerns me. While I don’t feel it is fair to judge a dog’s temperament or likelihood to be a danger based solely on breed, I also think the tendency to undermine the importance of breed characteristics may actually increase the danger of dog bites in our communities.

Let’s use the Pit Bull, the poster child of BSL discussions, as an example. On one side, you have proponents of legislation who claim all Pit Bulls are vicious attack dogs and will eventually snap and maim or kill a person or another dog. On the other side are Pit Bull devotees, who are understandably concerned about the fate and cultural perceptions of their beloved breed — but who sometimes go a little too far in stating that, without exception, Pit Bulls work well with all families, have no greater risk of displaying interdog aggressive behavior, will graciously tolerate being groped by small children, and will not display predatory aggression toward small animals.

Who’s right?

Are they both wrong?

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. I know many Pit Bulls that are great with kids, and many that are not. Some are fantastic service dogs who work diligently to improve the daily lives of their disabled handlers, while some others would be overwhelmed and stressed by the same lifestyle. I know many Pit Bulls that are able to live successfully with small animals, and many that cannot. I know many Pit Bulls that have never been in a dog fight, and I know many Pit Bulls that have been in lots of them.

This holds true for all breeds. I looked at my records, and Pit Bulls and Pit mixes account for only 4 percent of my general businesses but comprise a full 17 percent of my dog reactivity cases. The tendency is to say that the owners of those Pit Bulls in my reactivity program are “bad,” that they somehow abused their dog into reactivity or aggression. While many of these owners may have made some training mistakes, a good number of them did everything right. Many of them give their dogs great socialization, physical and mental exercise, medical care, and optimal nutrition. They are not bad people, nor are their dogs bad dogs.

There is no dog breed that will be right for every family. I suspect there are so many Labradors and Lab crosses in shelters because we are sold the image of them being the perfect family dog. But what if you have a family of couch potatoes with an energetic Lab who will retain puppylike behaviors and energy levels well into adulthood? This won’t be the perfect pet for this particular family, who may be better off with an adult Greyhound or even a Pug. A low-energy household may find a mellow Lab that is the perfect fit, but Labs are not universally friendly, nor do they all come preprogrammed with off-leash reliability and a rock-solid retrieve.

In almost any breed, you will find almost every doggy temperament — lazy to hyper, focused to uber-distracted, quick learners to not-so-quick learners, prey-driven to “naps with squirrels.” (Well, “naps with squirrels” may not apply to any individuals within some breeds or groups.) Despite this, it’s important that we pay attention to breed-specific tendencies.

While I agree with anti-BSL advocates, we must be careful not to go too far in the other direction and say that “There are no dogs, only bad owners.” My Chow mix is very Chowlike; she is very devoted to her people and very aloof with other humans. She tolerates but doesn’t seek out or even enjoy playing with lots of new dogs, or dogs with poor social skills. Since she is well trained, I can use her in reactive dog consultations as a “stimulus” or exposure dog, but it’s all a trained behavior; I don’t kid myself that she’s just an exceptionally friendly Chow. She is aloof around strangers, and it’s not because she or I are “bad” — it’s just who she is.

Genetics don’t tell the whole story, but they do tell a good portion of it. “Genetic,” as it refers to tendencies for specific behavioral traits, also doesn’t mean set in stone or unmodifiable, but it will likely influence training goals and strategies for that particular dog.

The moral of the story: Not all Shelties bark, but many do. Not all Greyhounds must be leashed for a lifetime to be safe, but they should be. Not all Chows would hate being therapy dogs, but most would. Not all terriers like to chase and sometimes kill small animals, but probably more terriers than Pugs like to engage in this sort of behavior. I was going to say that not all Beagles like to bay or sniff everything in the environment, but that would just be an out-and-out lie.

Let’s chat: If you are a breed devotee, how is your dog typical and atypical of its breed? If you’ve had many dogs of a particular breed, which ones fit the stereotypes, and which didn’t?

Photos from the Dogster pages of Nala (top) and Bodie

View the original article here

The Vick discussion reaches an amazing new level

A week or so ago, about the time that Gina composed her outstanding post from the North American Veterinary Conference on the forensics of SickVick’s victims, Steve Dale of Chicago Now reprinted his syndicated piece opposing President Obama’s support of the Eagles’ signing and eventual promotion of Vick. The fun started when the HSUS made the unforced error (as they say in the sports world) of responding to Dale’s opinion piece. They could have, and I’d say should have, let well enough alone. But for reasons that will be clear in just a minute, I’m glad they didn’t. “AnneHSUS” posted the first comment after Dale’s post went up.

“Dale got it wrong by saying that Vick’s speaking engagements are court-ordered. They are voluntary.

[...]

Regarding the question of Vick getting a dog for his daughters, what our president and CEO said in entirety was that now is not the time for Vick to have a dog. That decision will and should be made after his probation is up. All of our work at The HSUS is predicated on the fact that we are all capable of change, of showing more compassion, of doing the right thing. If we didn’t believe people could change, there would be no point to any of our work.”

That allowed Dale to respond, in essence, “Liar, liar, pants on fire”.

Thank you for your interesting response. I don’t deny that people can change…but let’s back up a bit…I’ve linked in previous blog posts to your President’s remarks so people can read them in full, and that I am not taking them out of context. Here is a part of what Mr. Pacelle, your president and CEO says – directly lifted, word per word:

“It’s now a well-established principle within our movement that those convicted of malicious cruelty should not be permitted to have pets, at least for a number of years after a cruelty conviction, and sometimes even for life. It’s a precautionary policy, grounded on the notion that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and that it’s just very hard to know if someone has been rehabilitated. Together as a society, we are responsible for placing animals in homes where they are loved, and where they are safe.”

Judges typically don’t allow those who are convicted of dogfighting to have dogs, often for life, for a reason. The judge in this case didn’t say that…It’s not because of Vick’s wonderful work. How could the judge have known what Vick would do or not. Of course, Vick’s fame has nothing to do with it. By the way, that community work’ was, in fact, a negotiated part of ‘the deal’ arranged by lawyers, and later your President, as I understand from several sources.In fact, the HSUS was not approached first. At least one (perhaps two) other organizations turned down the offer to support Vick in community appearances.

Later on in the comment flow came what I thought was Dale’s best comment of all, referencing perhaps the greatest single Freudian statement SickVick could have uttered.

One more thing….at a press conference after the Packer/Eagles games, which the Eagles lost because Vick threw an intercepted pass…he said the pass was the biggest mistake of his life.

Really Mr. Vick?

“AnneHSUS” hasn’t been heard from since.

Nathan gets to chew on the AHA: Dale’s comment wasn’t the best recent response to a patently absurd public statement. Few people do a better job of shooting down misinformation than Nathan Winograd. This time, the lie was heard on New York’s WABC 77 Radio, the No. 1 talk radio station in the country based on listenership.  Nathan appeared Sunday morning to talk about shelter killing.  Before Nathan’s appearance, the host spoke with Dori Villalon, Vice President of Animal Protection for the American Humane Association. From here, let’s hear from Nathan in his recent blog post.

The Vice-President of AHA argued that pet overpopulation was responsible for the killing of half of the “six to eight million animals” impounded by shelters every year. But when asked how many people were looking to get a dog or cat this year, the “demand” side, she said “Gosh, um, I don’t know that number.” And when further asked how she could be so adamant that pet overpopulation was real given that she didn’t know, she said that it was because we are killing four million, a hopeless tautology. But she went further, claiming that for us to end the killing “every person in American right now [would have to] adopt eight animals” and they would have to do so every year. My jaw hit the floor.

Today, the human population in the U.S. is just over 300,000,000. If everyone adopted eight animals every year, that would be 2.4 billion animals—six hundred times the number of animals being killed in shelters every year. Here was a leader of the first national companion animal advocacy organization in the U.S. which has claimed a leadership position since 1877, and not only did she demonstrate a profound ignorance on the core issue of the humane movement which is used to justify the needless slaughter of almost four million animals a year, but she was willing to go on the radio and do so, apparently unaware of just how ignorant she was.

Thanks for that, Nathan.

Bunnies in danger: From Mary Cvetan, an alert about the expiration of the permit that has been saving bunnies in Victoria, British Columbia.

A key to contagious cancer: There’s a particular form of cancer in dogs, Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumor (CTVT). While it’s understood how the disease is transmitted, it hasn’t been known how it can keep regenerating itself. Discover News has the answer.

“It is possible that when dogs were first domesticated, they were highly inbred, and so different individuals were genetically very similar, and this might have helped cancerous cells from one dog to be able to grow on another.” study co-author Austin Burt told Discovery News.

“Then, as dogs were bred in many different directions and became genetically diverse, the cancer would have evolved to be able to grow on a diverse array of genotypes,” added Burt, a professor of evolutionary genetics at Imperial College London.

He and colleagues Clare Rebbeck and Armand Leroi analyzed the cellular structure of a geographically diverse sample of CTVT samples. They noticed that the cancer would sometimes acquire the “powerhouses,” or mitochondria, of host cells in order to repair itself in response to accumulated genetic mutations.

To determine if this was really the case, the scientists studied the evolutionary development of dogs and wolves. That investigation further supported their determination about the host-hijacking cancer. The research was published in this week’s Science

Thanks to Schnauzer Fan for the link.

Beagle rescue! Susan Fox forwarded a story from SF Gate about beagles used in laboratory research who need a home when their research time was up. Often, lab animals are killed when work with them is completed, but it isn’t always necessary. Hence, the birth of the Beagle Freedom Project in California.

My fair doggies: A story in the New Bedford Standard-Times features two insanely adorable cockapoos, named Higgins and Eliza. They’re the principal stars of “Cockapoos in the Classroom,” a volunteer pet-assisted therapy program in southeastern Massachusetts. I have to mention how this story found its way to my attention. Dr. Brenda Stone, featured in the article, is the mother of a friend I knew back in grade school. Through the wonders of Facebook, Maggie (I knew her as Margaret) and I reconnected, and she sent me the link. And no, you can NOT ask for stories about what I was like in fourth grade.

Revenge of the cats: This link from Science Blogs, features a video from the Moscow Cat Theater. There really are no words that would suffice to describe it, so I’ll just have you watch, and you can discuss it in the comments. (tip of the cap to Marge for the link).
.

.

I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories.  Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an e-mail.

Photo credit: Pants on fire, looneytunes09.wordpress.com.

View the original article here