roland

OR HB4021

Feb 132012
 

In all likelihood, tomorrow morning HB4021 will pass the Oregon House, and then will move to the Senate where it will likely also pass.

In many ways this bill is not a big deal: it merely shifts the power to commission humane agents from the Governor to the Superintendent of State Police which makes it a little easier for humane agencies to continue doing what they have been doing for years: running a private police force with state approval to seize any animals they want and then sell those animals for whatever amount they want, after, of course, charging the owner money to pay for its care while they kept the animal.

In each of the past four legislative sessions, seemingly insignificant bills have passed that subtly altered how humane agents are trained, how warrants are obtained, the process for seizing animals, and now how humane agents are commissioned.  But despite strong opposition in each session that explained how these bills combine to grant humane agencies clearly unjust powers, the legislators have consistently failed to seriously consider these dangerous consequences.

Some readers may not see why this is a big deal—after all, humane societies are wonderful institutions who have the extremely difficult task of going into awful homes where animals are being abused and saving those animals. And there is no question that in those cases in which the targets happen to be guilty, this is exactly what happens.  The problem is that there are no limits, no balances, to ensure that this process cannot collaterally trample innocent owners, and even more, innocent pets.

Do not for a moment forget that animal sales—even if euphemistically called adoptions—generate millions of dollars each year for Oregon’s humane societies, and that the media coverage generated during alleged abuse cases brings in millions more. Giving the same private agency the power to seize animals and the right to profit from selling them is insane. Not to mention that they also have the power to set the amount they charge for upkeep while they hold the animals, and full control of the only possible exculpatory evidence.

Humane agencies have been given nearly unlimited power to create a private police force and to utilize that force to seize any pet they choose, then turn around and sell that pet before trial has occurred, let alone guilt been proven.  Thus empowered, humane agencies can perform surgery on the animal, charge the owner for the care, demand a bond, destroy the owner’s reputation in the media, alter evidence, and sell or destroy the animal, all before the owner (presumed in American tradition and law to be innocent until otherwise proven) has the opportunity to face their accuser or defend themselves.  In the exceedingly rare case where the person was genuinely abusing an animal, such action may have helped an individual animal.  But in the overwhelming number of cases, innocent animal lovers AND innocent animals will have suffered irreparable harm. And in every case, the most fundamental of civil liberties will have been trampled.

It matters not that some legislators are so confident in the humane society’s virtue that they cannot fathom why anyone would worry about giving such groups the power to seize animals.  It matters not that some of the humane agents are ex-cops. U.S. law is intended to ensure that no person or agency can violate individual citizens’ rights.  Oregon statutes should similarly ensure that no agency now or in the future should be empowered to seize a person’s property without due process, whether they are motivated by good intentions, profit, politics, personal vendetta, irrational extremism, or even a genuine-good-old-fashioned-mistake. The job of our laws is not only to find and punish the guilty, but also to protect the innocent.

Oregon’s current laws create a system in which virtually no private citizen, even if absolutely innocent, has a chance of defending themselves or their pets. Any time a humane agency feels like it, they can send their own deputized employees to any door in our state and seize the pets living there, and in 99% of cases the person will not even try to fight back against the overwhelming threat of losing their life’s savings and their good name in addition to the animals that they have already lost.

This is unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral, and hurts animals and humans far more than it ever helps them.

Share
 February 13, 2012  Posted by at 8:03 am

Canine Auditory Sensitivity

Jan 292012
 

My friend Doug and I were walking along an old logging road in the woods when we heard the faint sound of an ATV coming towards us from way off in the distance.  A few moments later, our dogs appeared to hear the sound, and visibly perked up and acted interested.  Doug asked me why. Surely, he asserted, our dogs must have heard the sound long before we did, so why were they just now reacting?

Interestingly, his question is based on a common misconception: that canine hearing is far more acute than human hearing.  My impression is that many people have learned that dogs, when compared to humans, have hugely superior olfactory sensitivity and that dogs can hear higher frequencies such as dog whistles, and have concatenated these two facts into a fallacious belief that canine auditory sensitivity is far greater than human.

Given the prevalence of this belief, I figured I would share with my readers the answer I gave:

In general dogs’ auditory sensitivity is almost identical to that of a typical human: both species generally begin to hear sounds at a volume level of around -7 dB.   And human spatial acuity is significantly superior: we can generally localize a sound to within less than one degree of accuracy, while dogs can usually localize to an area of approximately 6 degrees.  And humans can hear lower frequencies than dogs, and can generally detect low frequencies at lower volume than dogs.  Dogs can however hear frequencies considerably higher than humans—humans generally cannot detect much over 18 kHz while dogs can generally hear sounds up to around 45h kHz.

So if there is a sound of more than -7 dB in volume and a frequency between 20-45 kHz, you will not be able to hear it and your dog will, but if its frequency falls within a range that humans can hear, you and your dog will hear it at right about the same volume level…

Just in case you want to verify this with your own eyes and ears, take your dog for a walk and pay attention.  You will quickly recognize that his reactions to interesting sounds are virtually simultaneous with yours.

Here is the same information in a chart taken from Wolves by David Mech and Luigi Boitani:

Share
 January 29, 2012  Posted by at 11:10 pm

Carpe Diem

Jan 102012
 

A few weeks ago, I had one of the worst experiences of my life: my dog Sequel disappeared while we were hiking in the woods around our home, and he was missing for several days and nights.  Each moment he was gone was devastating, but daytime was more bearable—there was so much to be done running the search that it was easy to set aside any thoughts about him being injured or dead.  We had multiple teams searching the woods and updating the search map, people driving the roads and putting up signs, people going door-to-door, people calling all the shelters, vets, daycares, etc.  Busyness can be a real friend in times of anguish! Long after night fell and the searchers had gone, I would force myself to try to get a few hours of sleep, but how can you lie in a warm bed and fall asleep knowing that your dog may be lying somewhere near death hoping you will find him soon…

And so, instead of sleeping, during the long, dark hours agonizing about all the worst things that could be happening to my dog, I wracked my brain about what I should have done differently, what I would do differently when—if—I found him and brought him home.  And I returned time and again to the same surprising answer: nothing.

I love my dogs with every fiber of my being.  I love them enough that while it sometimes might make me feel better to wrap them in cocoons and cloister them away safely, I force myself to always try to make the best decision for them.  Insofar as it is possible, I try to give my dogs the lives I believe they would want, with the balance of safety and adventure that they would chose if they could fully understand the issues. Most of my dogs would absolutely prefer to run in the woods, to swim in the ocean, to wrestle and leap and herd and play, even if these things come with some risk.

Of course, judgment is required-knowledge of your dogs, their personality and fitness and training (I would stake my life on Sequel’s recall if he could have heard me, and as soon as I got on the right side of the creek where he could, he came immediately), and the area and all the hazards so you can make an informed decision about whether to keep your dogs on leash or a long line or a GPS collar or have them loose but call them back frequently. And no matter how careful you are, there will be some risk!  But for nearly 20 years we have taken many, many animals out to run, play, hike, and camp in our woods, and the tens of  thousands of hours of joy, health, enrichment,  fitness, and fun it has brought is more than worth the risks, and really the worst that has ever happened is a few scrapes, a few porcupine quills, and some lost sleep…Those are pretty excellent odds, and even if Sequel had died, I am certain I would feel the same.

Please understand, I am not advocating recklessness: I am amazed at how often I watch people let their dogs out of a car in a parking lot and then pay no attention, or whose dogs are left unattended in homes full of hazards, or whose dogs are meeting groups of large, intense dogs while the owner is 100 feet away. Vigilance and mindful awareness are almost always to be advised with animals…

My dog is at risk in a moving car. He is at risk fetching a stick or a ball or wearing a collar. He is at risk at home that my house could catch fire. He is at risk on a dogwalk, or running in a field that might have a mole-hole. He is at risk chewing on a toy or meeting other dogs at a park. He is at risk that some lunatic will put poison on a sidewalk. Heck, I knew a dog recently who was run over while walking on leash in town… The risks from wildlife to a healthy, medium-sized dog in most areas are statistically very, very low. (of course if you live in an area in which risks are greater, you would need to behave accordingly!)

There are undoubtedly a few dogs that die from wildlife encounters each year in this country, or that get lost while out playing in the woods, or slip and fall down a cliff, but there are millions and millions of dogs that die each year obese and bored and with their bodies, minds, and spirits atrophied.  And while you can never perfectly protect your pets from risk, you absolutely can save them from boredom.

Being a good dog owner is not about avoiding risk-it is about balancing risk with richness.  Life is full of adventures, opportunities, and experiences that make our dogs’ lives wonderful, but we must not be so afraid that we avoid them.  I certainly cannot tell anyone else how to find their perfect balance point, but I can say that for me and my dogs, we would rather be injured or die living a rich full life than sit safely at home growing old.

One last happy thought: pursuing a full and rich life, will often have the magical side-effect of also maximizing health and longevity.  Our dogs spend their lives sprinting and swimming and leaping and playing as hard as possible, and they virtually all live well into their teens. Flint, our Belgian/Border Collie mix, lies at my feet as I write this, 18 years old. And I can hardly remember a day in his life that he did not fling himself into the unknown with utter abandon and sometimes crazy disregard for any potential risk…

I could probably write more about this topic, but Sequel wants to go for a hike now—back into the same woods, to his favorite swimming hole, and to the meadow to play a fast game of chase with Fig. We may die while playing our favorite games, but first, for sure, we are going to live…

Share
 January 10, 2012  Posted by at 10:13 am

What Do I think about the Dog Whisperer?

Jan 062012
 

­I am asked about Cesar Millan fairly regularly, generally by novice dog owners who are curious as to whether I recommend his show and techniques. This is a reasonable question since Cesar Millan is perhaps the most recognizable and influential dog trainer ever: millions of people watch his show and listen to his advice on how to address behavioral issues with their dogs.  Yet many of the most respected experts in the field consider his techniques to be harmful to dogs, ineffective, and destructive to relationships.

So, what is the truth?  There is no single right answer about how to train animals. We all have opinions, and most of us are certain we know the best way and everyone else is wrong! Most trainers are very good in some areas and less good in other areas. And we all have different goals–one trainer may be much better at helping you achieve a particular objective while another trainer may be much better at something else.

I do not know Millan, and can only comment on what I have observed on television. People are entitled to like Millan’s methods–many people do! And it would be hard to fault his business and marketing savvy… I am not judging anyone’s opinion, merely sharing mine:

I think Cesar Millan is a first-rate bully and a fifth rate trainer. While he does some things well, and offers some excellent advice, in aggregate I do not like what he does to most of the animals with which I have seen him work. He is uninformed, unimaginative, cruel, and absurdly coercive.  The fact that his bullying sometimes works at least temporarily does not make it less offensive.  In my opinion he has hurt far, far more dogs and relationships than he has helped, and of the ones that he has helped, I suspect the recidivism rate is extremely high. He has set dog training back decades. He is dangerously irresponsible. (For example, one person taking 30 dogs off leash to a dogpark ought to be a felony in my opinion)

Let me start with what I like about Millan’s message: exercise, calmness, and leadership.  I absolutely agree that a huge portion of the behavioral issues people see in their dogs can be ameliorated through increased exercise and mental stimulation.  Canids evolved to spend a large portion of their lives active and challenged, and sticking them in a room all day with rich foods and little exercise leads to many problems.  I also agree that canids thrive in an environment with clear boundaries and a calm and strong leader.  This allows them to be relaxed and confident and know how to behave. I also recognize that many average pet homes want a dog that is as “shut-down” as possible: they do not want a happy, curious, and confident pet, they want a pet that just lies quietly in the corner, and Cesar’s techniques are in many instances an effective path to that end.

Now to the negatives about Millan’s techniques:

  1. Impatient: Millan often takes little time to get to know the dog, or to teach it what is desired, or to build a relationship, he simply grabs the dog, puts it into the situation where it is known to have problems, and then corrects it for failure. In most cases, good training is just the opposite of this. You find situations in which the dog can succeed, and then you gradually increase the difficulty of the situation while rewarding the dog for success at each step. Good training is often almost invisible.
  2. Correction first: Millan often hits, chokes, kicks, drags, and electrocutes dogs that do not yet know what is being asked of them as part of a systematic routine of intimidation. There are several steps that should occur before correction: it is very rarely effective to correct or punish a dog that does not yet understand what you are asking.  In many instances Millan could work the dog a little further away from a particular stimulus and teach the dog how to succeed and then get closer, but instead he rushes up, lets the dog fail, and then corrects the heck out of it. This may create good TV drama, but it is patently not in the dog’s best interests.
  3. Micromanaging: Millan often keeps the dogs on such a short leash (literally and figuratively) that they do not learn accountability.  They do not learn to make the right choices and respect the rules, they simply learn to give up and shut down. They learn to do and try nothing because they will get attacked if they move.  Good training allows dogs to feel empowered and instructed; to clearly understand what behaviors are not allowed, and be responsible for making the right choices.
  4. Confrontation: Millan routinely creates confrontation where it does not naturally exist.  This was a popular notion in the 50s—you cannot really train a dog until you have shown it that you are the boss by kicking its butt, so you should make this happen—set up the dog to fail without any training, just so that you can induce a confrontation that you can then win and make sure the dog knows you are stronger, bigger, and tougher. Good trainers absolutely may do this with some animals, but it is fairly rare, and Millan seems to want to go there with almost every dog.
  5. Unimaginative: Millan sometimes uses different tools, but his basic range of techniques is very narrow.  So when he happens to get a dog that needs those techniques he will be very effective, when he happens to get a dog that needs something different he will be very destructive. I would have the same problem if he were purely positive and gave treats for everything—one technique does not work across the board. Good trainers are fabulous problem solvers. They come up with brilliant ways to induce behaviors, change attitudes, and mold responses. They have a remarkable range of techniques that they use to work with different dogs. They can be very positive when needed, very harsh when needed, supportive, quiet, loud, calm, exuberant, etc.
  6. Cruel: Millan chokes dogs till they pass out and he electrocutes them repeatedly until they are biting and terrified. The American Humane Association who monitors animal use on set has requested that Nat. Geo not air some Dog Whisperer episodes because the treatment of the animals is so inhumane. Good training is never cruel.
  7. Archaic / Uneducated:  Millan’s training is essentially exactly what one would have seen in 1950.  But then, what educational background does Millan have?  How many of the relevant books has he read?  Has he made any real effort to learn what others know so that he can improve? Or is he just reinventing unrefined and simplistic dog training? We have learned so much in the last 50 years that it is hard to imagine someone who would not integrate some of that learning into their training. Good trainers avail themselves of available knowledge and science and continually improve. Even the best trainers in the world often attend each others seminars, but I have never seen Cesar…
  8. Isolation:  I am not a huge fan of competition with animals, but occasionally it can be useful to objectively assess how your techniques are working.  Entering an obedience trial, or agility or Schutzhund or whatever, lets you gauge your performance against your peers.  Cesar not only does not compete, he has never, so far as I know, tried any canine competition so he could see where he stands.
  9. Indifference to canine attitude: Millan sacrifices attitude for quick superficial results, and I believe that is very counterproductive. Watch any of the dogs he works, and you will rarely see truly happy dogs, confident dogs, secure, trusting dogs. Good trainers focus on attitude and character—training rules and specific behaviors is essentially trivial. Once you have taught a dog how to learn, how to take cues, how to relax, it is easy to teach specific behaviors.

Adding all of this together, I find Millan’s relationship with the dogs unappealing—I do not see trust, respect, confidence, and adoration, I see subservience, temerity, and learned helplessness.

Millan fans sometimes suggest that those who dislike Millan must be softies who reject notions of control and discipline.  It is absolutely true that some people who dislike Millan do so because they dislike any sort of correction.  However, there are also many, many excellent trainers who do believe in appropriate corrections but who revile Millan’s techniques. Virtually all good trainers impose rules, boundaries, and limits.  Some excellent trainers even use strong corrections when they are appropriate. Go to any canine competition (obedience, French Ring, agility, herding, etc.) and ask around, you will generally find the top people with the best trained and most obedient dogs dislike Millan’s methods, while hordes of novices with unruly dogs are devotees.  Some of the most accomplished trainers in the world dislike his methods, and I assure you their dogs are not disobedient or disrespectful.

I do not understand why many people equate control with intimidation.  Abusive parents who beat or terrorize their children may achieve “control.” So do reasonable parents who set and explain clear boundaries, teach and reward desired behaviors, earn respect and trust, and effectively utilize punishment when necessary.  These good parents or dog trainers absolutely may use intimidation when it is the best option, but it is not the foundation of their relationship—it is not where they start or how they interact most of the time. (I vividly remember the few times my father seriously intimidated me, and they were hugely effective in large part because they were not frequent!)

Perhaps the best place to observe the dichotomy between dominance based training and cooperation based training is in training any wild animal.  Work with a tiger, a grizzly bear, a pack of wolves, an orca, or even a raccoon or squirrel, and you quickly discover that these schools of thought are NOT the same.  Dominance based trainers exert a clear and absolute dominance every moment of interacting—it is imperative that the animal understands that humans have absolute power and should never be challenged.  Non-dominance trainers exert a clear and absolute cooperation every moment—it is imperative that the animal understands that humans are their friends and are not going to challenge them or hurt them. While a single trainer may utilize both attitudes at different times, if you switch back and forth with these animals, you have a VERY short career—suddenly showing weakness to a wild animal that has been dominated, or suddenly showing dominance to a wild animal used to cooperation generally elicits extremely undesirable results… Each attitude can be powerfully effective, but they are essentially different in far more than language. (I think it is important to concede that even many of the most cooperative trainers do have a line that cannot be crossed.  A point at which dominance training does come into play.  A point at which they say, “You have no choice here, you must do what I say.”  The critical distinction is that they strive to help the animal avoid crossing that line, rather than regularly luring the animal across that line so that they can have an “opportunity” to dominate and intimidate some more…)

If your primary method of control is intimidation, the animals you train learn that intimidation and power are tools to get what you want.  Sooner or later these animals may well decide to try to get what they want using intimidation.  This is what happens eventually to most animal bullies in the wild, and is extremely dangerous.  So I elect to use cooperation and leadership so that they learn that I am a powerful and benevolent leader who will help them get what they want in the world.  I outsmart them by making sure that their success coincides with my desires until they reflexively and habitually do what I ask. I am smarter, but not stronger or faster, so it makes sense to use my intellectual advantage rather than bluffing about a physical advantage.

There is a genuine distinction between a leader who is revered and idolized and a leader who is feared, and I personally believe that being revered leads to better working, more reliable, happier, healthier dogs, but I rarely see this occur on Millan’s show.  I see bullying and intimidation instead of leading and teaching.

It makes me profoundly sad to think that such a bully is out there working with dogs every day, but far worse is that so many people do not see his techniques for what they are.  That millions of people still see intimidation and cruelty as viable leadership techniques makes me sad indeed.

Share
 January 6, 2012  Posted by at 9:15 am

Zanesville Ohio

Nov 272011
 

Several people have asked me to comment on the incident in Ohio in which Terry Thompson was found dead and his animal loose.

I cannot meaningfully comment on what occurred: I just do not have enough verifiable information.  Certainly the timing of the event (in the middle of a huge battle in Ohio about whether or not exotic animals should be banned), and many of the reported details—cages cut open when Terry had a key, and raw chicken piled around his body—sound suspiciously like animal rights zealots killed Terry staged it to look like a suicide.  But then, he was also in financial trouble, with a history that suggests mental instability, and was having legal and familial problems, so suicide certainly is possible. I just cannot comment about what really happened…

What I can say is that while exotic animal ownership is an important topic worth discussing (and one that has been discussed on this blog many times), this incident had absolutely nothing to do with that topic.

Even if we assume that Terry committed these acts himself, it is the story of a mentally unstable man with a criminal history who went insane, ran amuck and loosed his animals, and shot himself.  This is very sad on many levels, but has nothing to do with animal ownership.  He could just as easily have killed his children—would we then be talking about banning children?  He could have driven his car into oncoming traffic—would we be talking about banning cars?  Could have poured gasoline on himself and ignited it, would we ban gasoline?

I have said it time and again, and will undoubtedly say it many more times: it is counterproductive to look at the few outlying worst cases within ANY activity and draw conclusions about that activity.  The bottom few percent within ANY group are awful, and that includes animal owners just as it includes parents, college students, drivers, etc. We cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the activity, or create effective regulations, by focusing on these aberrant cases.

If you are moved by what happened in Ohio, then by all means address yourself to the correct issue: how can we help mentally ill people get the help they need?  Or even, how can we help people who are deeply in debt and see no way out, or have lost their family and feel hopelessly alone, see that there are better solutions than rage, aggression, and suicide?

But if you want to talk about the important topic of animals and their relationship to man in the modern world, we will need to do so another time—a time when people have not been whipped into an emotional frenzy by animal rights zealots seeking to use this incident to inflame sentimentality and obscure reason so as to achieve their own longstanding agenda of creating laws to prevent reasonable and sane individuals from keeping animals.  That topic cannot be illuminated by focusing on rare cases in which individuals behave in a manner that can only be deemed insane.

That said, there were a few interesting secondary observations possible during the media storm:

  1. The media is dysfunctional.  They leap to conclusions and present the information that supports their conclusion while ignoring all else. They are unimaginative and largely incapable of rigorous thought. How many of them seriously considered the POSSIBILITY that this incident was staged by an animal rights zealot?  Even though it occurred in a state where exotic animal legislation has been a huge fight recently (and in which the animal rights position was losing until this event, after which they will unequivocally win), even though AR zealots are constantly proclaiming their desire to orchestrate exactly such incidents, even though the cages were cut, and raw chicken was piled around Mr. Thompson’s dead body,  pretty much no media outlets even seriously entertained the possibility that this could have been a staged murder.
  2. There is a ridiculous tendency to assume that anyone who owns exotic animals is, ipso facto, insane. This prevents real discourse from occurring.  If you assume the group is insane, of course nothing they say, no matter how true , rational, or persuasive, can ever sway you.
  3. Jack Hanna is always able to raise the bar on uninformed and ignorant thoughtlessness.
  4. Wayne Pacelle is always able to raise the bar on megalomaniacal, solipsistic evil. Whatever events occur, he can find a way to look at them solely from his narrow perspective and twist whatever truths may be present to fit his agenda.
  5. There are a huge number of well-intentioned people in this country who have very little animal experience, but have made up their minds that “wild animals belong only in the wild” and are unable or unwilling to set aside their preconceptions and authentically discuss and consider the issue. If you have little experience, take some time to speak with those who have genuine experience BEFORE formulating your position.
  6. There are a huge number of people in this country who have no genuine understanding of the animal rights agenda, the core values of HSUS, the stated willingness of the AR extremists to kill or do whatever else is needed to get their way; and who are essentially unaware of the entire war that is being waged between responsible animal owners and those who seek to eradicated all animal “use.”
  7. Time after time, those who oppose wild animals in captivity have argued that the danger, if ever one of these animals got out, is so great that it should never be risked.  Of course, escapes are SO RARE that it is hard to evaluate the merit of their assertion, but here is a case in which 49 of the most dangerous animals on the planet were intentionally set free, and how many people were eaten?  How many children carried away?  How many pets even harmed?  ZERO.  Heck, they did not even consume the body that was lying there…  This of course does not mean that, given more time these animals would not have caused harm, they almost certainly would have, but perhaps it suggests that they are not quite the dire immediate threat that has been alleged.

Everything that happened that day in Zanesville is sad, and there are undoubtedly many lessons to be learned from the events if we ever truly know what happened. But this was not a story about animals escaping, or about wild animals being unhappy or unhealthy in captivity, no matter how much some people want to twist it into such a story. It is the story of a person losing his mind and behaving irrationally, and that is not an appropriate basis for discussing unrelated issues.

 

 

Share
 November 27, 2011  Posted by at 8:41 pm

Maximize Pet Longevity

Nov 222011
 

This past week our Mal-n-Collie “Flint” turned 18, and several people asked me a question that we hear fairly often, so I thought I would address it here: what are we doing that is allowing our dogs to consistently exceed, or at least push the upper limits of, the expected lifespan for their breed?

Of course, the answer is that I do not know—we do many things, and without conducting a careful study it is impossible to know which of these things are significantly contributing to our pets’ longevity. But here, in roughly descending order of importance, are the things I believe are most important:

 

Low stress: this is perhaps the single most important ingredient in keeping your dog young.  Nearly every time I spend time around other people and their dogs, I can feel my anxiety climbing—so many unclear rules, so much correcting, nagging, yelling.  So many conflicting requirements, or vague paths to success that change depending on circumstance or mood. Be mindful of your dogs stress level.  Use good management techniques to avoid stress.

Exercise: not walking on leash, or running for a minute around an agility course, but real exercise.  Exercise that gets their heart rate to 80% or more of max for prolonged periods several times each week.  Exercise that pushes their muscles nearly to the point of failure repeatedly. Sprinting up sand dunes, swimming hard, pulling weights, tugging for all they are worth, work their hearts and lungs and large muscles and small muscles and…

Weight: study after study has demonstrated that calorie restriction is one of the greatest prolongers of life, health, and comfort. Honestly, I get so frustrated when people say their dogs are fat because they love them too much to feed them less.  Grow up and quit feeding your dog too much. Keep them lean and they will live years longer and be more comfortable.

Diet: we feed a very carefully planned natural diet with minimal grains.

Minimal vaccinations: not only are multiple vaccinations implicated in many ailments, but also the adjuvants contained in most vaccinations are detrimental to health.  This is not to say that you should not vaccinate, but you should utilize the fewest number of vaccinations that is likely to provide adequate protection in your circumstances.

Minimal toxins: we are very mindful of toxins.  We live way out in the woods away from urban poisons, our dogs drink well-water, we use almost no herbicides or other toxins on our property, we almost never put topical flea or tick treatments on our dogs, we feed from inert bowls, we use least-harmful cleaning products and do not let our pets near them.

Diverse Enrichment: have you ever noticed that some people as they age just get bored and lethargic and sit in their comfortable chair waiting to die, while other people are still active and engaged?  And the lethargic people generally wither away, while the engaged people stay younger longer…  A similar phenomenon seems to occur in animals.  I often go over peoples’ homes and their dogs are lying in the same spot, going on the same walk, essentially experiencing the same day over and over and over.  Sure, they are still eager to go for a walk or get dinner, but there is very little novelty or excitement. Give your dogs new experiences, new treats, fun games.  Give them challenges to overcome and puzzles to solve. Maintaining neural plasticity protects youthfulness.

Joy: being happy is a powerful energizer.  Play with your dogs, wrestle with them, have them chase you.  Laugh and smile and be happy together.

Temperature/climate: in general it seems that dogs who spend most or all of their time outdoors age more quickly. So I would suggest keeping them inside, particularly when the temperature or weather deviates more than a little bit from ideal.

I genuinely believe that quality is more important than quantity when it comes to life.  However, for the most part, pursuit of either results in an increase in both.  So give your pets low-stress, healthy, rich, and happy lives, and they will live the longest they can…

Share
 November 22, 2011  Posted by at 7:14 am

Wild Lion Documentaries

Nov 022011
 

I generally avoid nature documentaries—they tend to contain so much misinformation that they make me crazy—but the other night I was flipping channels, and I watched a few minutes of two different shows, both about lions, that really piqued my curiosity:

Lions are a true apex predator—one of the most powerful and successful creatures on the planet with few adversaries. So their lives are in many ways easier, safer, and more comfortable than most other animals.

In the first show, a lioness was raising her cubs in what turned out to be the territory of a cobra, and each of the cubs and the mother ended up being bitten.  Within a few agonizing minutes the cubs were all dead, but it took much longer for the mother, who was clearly in incredible pain and anguish as she lay next to her dead cubs, growing weaker and weaker, salivating and cramping and going blind before eventually a pack of hyenas showed up to terrorize her before she finally died…

 

In the second, a pride of lions (a 3 year old male, several females, and a bunch of cubs) was struggling to survive.  In a brief period they had battled drought, and a scarcity of food, and they were weak and hungry.  They finally managed to catch a buffalo which was great news for the lion pride, but was gruesome for the buffalo who was essentially pulled down by the weight of several lionesses and eaten alive…  But at least the lions were finally able to eat, although each of them had countless flies on her face making even the brief moment of satiation rather unpleasant.  Then, just as they were finishing their first meal in weeks, an unknown male lion showed up to fight with and defeat the resident male.  The resident male was injured, and limped off to die a slow agonizing death of starvation, while the new male spent the next hour or so killing all the cubs and playing with their lifeless bodies.

Each of these is, obviously, quite sad on an emotional level, but I was able to set aside my sentimental response and remember that this is how nature works: almost all wild animals will face hunger and injury and cold and parasites before dying an unpleasant death while they are still quite young.

What I could not answer, and still cannot, is how so many people can look at a lion in captivity—lounging on a comfortable bed, eating its fill of optimal food, free from flies and worms and fleas, drinking clean fresh water every day, running and playing without a worry in the world, living several times longer, raising babies in safety—and feel sorry for the captive animal.  Feel that the animal would be happier or better off living the “free” life of a wild animal.  Certainly, there are some captive animals that are abused or neglected and would be better off in any other situation, but you would have to look long and hard to find ANY animal in captivity that suffers more than its wild counterparts…

Share
 November 2, 2011  Posted by at 12:26 am Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Unpredictable?

May 232011
 

One common argument as to why animals of species that have not been domesticated for thousands of years should not be kept as pets is that they are “unpredictable” and might be sweet one minute and aggressive the next.  A few days ago I read an interesting article making this argument and illustrating the premise with an anecdote:  a person was playing with her pet raccoon and having a lovely time, and then she spilled her soda and the raccoon started drinking up the liquid and when she tried to pick up the animal and take him away from the spillage, he snarled and attempted to bite her.

This interesting anecdote; however, does not at all demonstrate “unpredictability.”  In fact, it illustrates the diametric opposite: that animals (wild or domestic) will in certain circumstances behave EXACTLY as a rational person would expect them to behave—like animals.  Animals will sometimes guard resources that they value: they will use their voice, their expression, and their teeth or claws to get what they want.  Predators will sometime try to kill prey animals.  Animals will sometimes fight for dominance or social position.  Animals have moods.  Animals have hormones.  Animals are not dolls, and not angelic Disney creatures. Unless you have worked very hard to remedy such behavior, pretty much every raccoon in the world will—predictably —behave exactly as hers did.

This does NOT mean they cannot be wonderful pets and companions.  If what you want is a companion that will be perfectly benign and never do anything untoward, get a teddy bear.  Animals are slightly more complex.  They require that those who interact with them possess a modicum of sense, pay attention to their language and behavior, and be aware and respectful of their capabilities.

Animals have been behaving this way for millennia and will continue to behave this way.  Not only wild animals, ALL animals…  Even within the most domesticated species, individuals will sometimes act in accordance with their wild natures.  This does not make them unpredictable and it does not make them bad pets.  It simply makes them living, breathing individuals with teeth and claws and personalities.  And isn’t that precisely why we choose to share our lives with them?

Share
 May 23, 2011  Posted by at 8:25 am

Precision in Language and Quotations…

Apr 172011
 

“We give dogs time we can spare, space we can spare and love we can spare. And in return, dogs give us their all. It’s the best deal man has ever made…”

Dog lovers often adorn their emails, websites, and social networking pages with sweet quotations like this one.  In general, these quotes are intended to illustrate how much we love dogs, not to be considered seriously.

At first glance these quotes are generally sweet and illustrate how wonderful dogs are—how generous, forgiving, and loving. However, in an effort to exalt dogs, many of these quotes are inaccurate and unintentionally send troublesome messages that have serious negative consequences.

While there may be some people who give their dogs only what time, space, and love they can spare, most people are every bit as committed and generous toward their dogs as their dogs are to them.  They sculpt their entire lives around making their pets happy.  Most of their income goes to their dogs, their weekends are spent driving to places and activities for their dogs, they spend hours creating perfect nutrition for their dogs and then grab a quick bite of whatever for themselves.  They take their dogs to the vet far more often than they go to the doctor, purchase houses they think will make their dogs happy, and then remodel them with flooring better suited to their dogs comfort.  We build ponds and pools and agility fields. We purchase vehicles based on how comfortable and safe they are for our dogs. We sleep on the very edge of our beds and do not get up to pee because we do not want to wake our sleeping dogs. We exercise them, we spend thousands of hours socializing and training them, and we design our vacations around where they want to go. We spend billions of dollars developing medicines and veterinary procedures to make animal lives better, and spend huge sums of money each year on toys and luxury items for pets. No question, dogs are wonderful, and so are most dog owners.

In addition to denigrating humans, many of these quotes seem to assign to animals some sort of idealized spiritual status—that they are kinder, gentler, less aggressive, more tolerant, and just all around more wonderful creatures than evil, detestable human beings.  I hate to burst the sweet Disney bubble, but animals can be and often are every bit as selfish, hostile, aggressive and cruel as man.  They kill each other for fun, they fight, they eat crap, they eat their own babies, etc.  It is great to appreciate and value the wonderful traits of animals, but sentimentalizing these traits and imagining that animals are all wise, benevolent, and enlightened beings is simply not true.

This may seem like an inconsequential distinction to make.  Surely it is ok to say sweet things about our beloved animals even if they are not quite accurate…  But the problem is that we live in a world that is becoming more and more intolerant of pet ownership.  A society that is passing more and more laws to protect sweet, wonderful, innocent animals from the evil of being associated with man. Many lawmakers and average Americans have become persuaded that interaction with humans is BAD for animals.  That surely these wonderful creatures deserve a life away from the exploitation and cruelty of humans. They have forgotten how much good we do for our animals, and we need to be very careful that we are not instantiating this skewed perception, and in fact that our statements reinforce what we know to be true.

The time has come to stop self-deprecating and stand proud: animals are great for us, and we are great for them.

Share
 April 17, 2011  Posted by at 3:02 am
 Older Entries  Newer Entries