A Dogs Eye View

This was sent to me by the worlds best border collier (patent pending) and the crazed mini-aussie Captain Jack (with the help of a human friend).

10 Peeves about Humans

1. Blaming your "gas" on me...not funny...not funny at all!!!!!

2. Yelling at me for barking. I'M A DOG YOU IDIOT! (Guilty as charged)

3. Taking me for a walk, then not letting me check stuff out. Exactly whose walk is this anyway? (OK - point taken)

4. Any trick that involves balancing food on my nose...stop it!

5. Any haircut that involves bows or ribbons. Now you know why we chew your stuff up when you're not home. (never done that...yet)

6. The sleight of hand, fake fetch throw. You fooled a dog! Whoooo Hoooooooo! What a proud moment for the top of the food chain.

7. Taking me to the vet for "the big snip", then acting surprised when I freak out every time we go back! (That reminds me....)

8. Getting upset when I sniff the crotches of your guests. Sorry but I haven't quite mastered that handshake thing yet.

Thanks for the laugh guys and I promise to let you sniff more on the next walk.

9. Dog sweaters. Hello??? Haven't you noticed the fur?



10. How you act disgusted when I lick myself. Look, we both know the truth, you're just jealous.

Relief

In a way, I am relieved that this story ended the way it did.

When a pit bull kills a child, "all of us want to find a person who is responsible and to hold them accountable," Hennepin County District Judge Kevin Burke said Friday.
But Burke decided that Zachary King Sr. was not guilty of second-degree manslaughter in the death of his son "Zack Jr." from a pit bull attack in the family home last August.

I say in a way because I am torn. What Mr. King Sr. did (keeping a dog he knew to be dangerous around his kids) was so excruciatingly stupid...but to put a man on trial for manslaughter for this....I just think losing his child and then going on trial for it was probably punishment enough. Keeping an unsocialized intact male dog with no training of any size or breed in the same home with small children and a breeding female is a recipe for disaster.

Last summer, we brought Captain Jack home. Jack is a mini-Australian Shepard - a herding breed. His instinct is to chase his "sheep" and nip them in the heels in order to get them moving. He nip, people react, the action is reinforced. Because he is an "intact" dog, he has that aggressive male nature that is necessary for survival of the species if he were in the wild. We are not, so we are working very hard to train that instinct out of him! We do NOT lock him up in a damp dark basement with no contact other than at meal time...and that is exactly what Mr. King did to his dog.

Which in a way speaks back to what I had been saying during the initial course of the BSL debate here in Minnesota....ANY breed can become "mean" given the proper set of circumstances. No training and no socialization is a guarantee for a bad dog....whether it is a little ankle biter or a 200 pound Great Dane.

Of Celebrities and Dogs

A lot of people have commented on sad story of Ellen DeGeneres and Iggy the dog. The basic gist of the story is that Ellen's partner adopted a dog from a rescue and didn't read the contract that the rescue had her sign. One of the tenants* of the contract is that if you decide that you can not give the dog to anyone else should you decide that you can not keep the dog.

Under the Mutts and Moms contract agreement (section 3H discusses the “NO RIGHT TO TRANSFER”), which Access obtained a copy of, anyone accepting a dog agrees to “NOT give or sell ADOPTEE to another person, company, organization, medical research, pound or animal shelter,” or, “If ADOPTER fails to abide by the terms of this clause, ADOPTER will pay all costs, including any legal fees incurred, required to secure the return of ADOPTEE to RESCUE and will, in addition, be required to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $500.”

Lucky, the worlds best border collie, is a rescue dog. Jack, the wild and crazy puppy, came to us from a breeder. When we purchased both dogs, we had to sign similar contracts. I understand why they do this. Unscrupulous people would go to shelters and rescues, adopt pets and then turn around and sell them to research labs and dog fighting rings. Not that we would ever do something like that, but it is to protect the dog and it is a very common practice

What bothers me is how people are handling this. The owner of the rescue agency has received numerous threatening messages...including one from DeGeneres' publicist.

A publicist for DeGeneres, Kelly Bush, also allegedly took matters a step further by leaving what seemed like a threatening message for Mutts and Moms. “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization,” Bush said on the tape, which was first played by “Good Morning America.”

In another interview, DeGeneres accused the agency of "selectively" enforcing their rules all the while asking that they do so in her favor when, on her program today, she pleaded that her hairstylist be given the dog because the hairstylists children had already bonded on the dog.

This really is one of those sad no win situations. Ellen violated a contract, granted she did not know what was in the contract, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Mutts and Moms, certainly could have handled it better, but then again, we don't know what (if any) action they took prior to siezing the dog from the "new family". The real losers are the kids. Kids and dogs are a timeless combination. Dogs are good for kids and vice versa.

Perhaps the ladies that run Mutts and Moms can act like moms and give the kids a chance. I understand that not all dogs are kid friendly and not all kids are dog friendly, but if you really did care about the well being of the dog and the adoptive family the extra work is worth it. Just ask Lucky and Jack.

* - Thanks to reader and commenter J.Ewing for correcting my horrible spelling!

Meet Captain Jack

THIS is what has been keeping me occupied for the last week...the newest addition to the Logical Household. I had forgotten just how much fun puppies can be.

Editorial note

There were a couple of posts that had a title and no body. I do apologize. The puppy found the "Enter" key on my keyboard and posted for me.

They ARE entertaining and they definately keep you on your toes!

A personal note

Blogging might be hit and miss for the next few days. We have a new addition to the Logical Household. A mini-Australian Shepard puppy. The mini-Aussie is just what it sounds like...a minature version of the regular Aussie. Same body shape, same temperment the works. They are intelligent, hard working dogs that need "something to do". In his case the something to do will be agility.

This pup is just that...14 weeks old and spending his first night away from his littermates. While he is adapting well so far, we still have housebreaking etc to do. The good news is we have wireless at the Casa so I can blog from outdoors while waiting for the young pup to "do his thing"...

Dog Bites & Breed Specific Legislation

In my prior posts, I discussed some of the triggers that can "cause" dogs to go bad. Now it is time to discuss solutions. Here are some FACTS for Rep. John Lesch (DFL-St Paul) on Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) from a lawyer.

"A study reported in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Ass’n (JAMVA) showed that over a 2-year period, 82% of all human dog bite-related fatalities, involved unrestrained dogs who were either on or off their owners’ property. Analyzing these statistics, it would be prudent to stay away from dogs that you are not familiar with if they are off a leash.
Despite concluding that Rottweiler and pit bull-type dogs accounted for a 67% of all dog bite-related fatalities between 1997 and 1998, the JAMVA study concluded that “Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.” (emphasis mine)

My point exactly! The Fordham Law Review takes a reasoned look at BSL and quickly finds the shortcomings of BSL.

"Though all breeds of dog can and do inflict severe injury and death, extensive media coverage of serious pit bull attacks has resulted in public fear of these dogs in particular. [FN10] Despite the existence in the majority of the United States of dangerous-dog laws, which regulate ownership of dogs based on the animals' prior conduct, [FN11] legislators have proposed an additional quick-fix solution in response to public outcry and extensive media coverage of pit bull attacks. The solution is breed-specific legislation, a type of law that restricts or bans ownership of certain dog breeds, most commonly the pit bull terrier. [FN12] Unfortunately for Diane Whipple, however, legislation targeting ownership of pit bulls would not have protected her. She was killed by Presa Canarios, [FN13] a breed which does not fall within the common statutory definition of a pit bull terrier. [FN14]" (emphasis mine)

Best Friends Animal Society of Utah has a document that shows the REAL stats regarding these "dangerous breeds".

"Statistics are also flawed as to naming pit bulls as the instigators. It appears that in many cases in which pit-bull-type dogs are blamed for fatal attacks, the dogs were few of the recognized pit bull breeds. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation, using statistics on the American pit bull terrier from the AKC, A.D.B.A. and UKC and for the other breeds, AKC/UK statistics, found:
Numbers registered No. of Fatal Attacks Breed Percentage
240,000 12 Chow Chow .705%
800,000 67 German Shepherds .008375%
960,000 70 Rottweiler .00729%
128,000 18 Great Dane .01416 %
114,000 14 Doberman .012288%
72,000 10 St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000 60 American Pit Bull .0012%" (emphasis again mine)

Now these are fatal attacks. What about attacks that do not result in a fatality.

"Americans are feeling the bite of a growing dog population. There are approximately sixty-eight million dogs kept as pets in the United States. [FN17] Every year, these dogs bite an estimated four to five million Americans, representing about two percent of the population, and that number is on the rise."

Hmmmm that is what...a whopping 7.35% of the dog population in the country??

The other thing that BSL proponents forget is that the folks that want a "tough" dog are going to ignore or otherwise work around these laws as they already do existing laws such as dangerous dog ordinances and leash laws.

"On the other hand, irresponsible owners and criminals could care less about BSL. They really don't care about the laws anyway. They already fail to license and vaccinate their dogs. They don't follow leash laws. Their dogs are unsocialized, untrained, and neglected. How can BSL change the way these owners act?"

BSL treats all owners the same, whether they are responsible law abiding owners or not. Rather than go after the responsible owners, I wish Rep. Lesch would do something to make it harder for the irresponsible owners. Most current dangerous dog ordinances don't have a punishment for violations of the ordinances other than a minimal fine and the loss of the dog. That hardly does anything to change the human behavior....change the human behavior - make it painful for the owners of dangerous dogs and you just might fix the problem.

Calling all dog lovers

Beth DeLaForsest from AWholeRottaLove sent me the following email today. If you are interested in joining Beth for the event, please do so. I will not be able to attend (our County Fair starts on Tuesday and the 4Hers are very busy Tuesday night) but if any Ladies Logic readers who go I would LOVE to have a report of the event!

Rep John Lesch will be at the Town Hall Meeting Tuesday July 24 2007 at 6:30 PM. It will be held at The Model Cities Building 849 University Ave in St. Paul. He will be taking questions and comments including those on his proposed Breed Bans. The moderators might want to moderate the questions so please have questions written down before hand. St. Paul Animal Control will also be there.

***I want to stress how IMPORTANT it is that you take the time to make it to this meeting.

***Below is posted how to deal with a representative…that was sent in the initial e-mail I sent…I edited it a bit for this situation…good reminders as this can be a highly emotional topic for a lot of us.

***Please remember that you represent the breed…so we need to put our VERY best foot forward!

***I have attached a few items to read through (directly below)to look at so you all can compile as much ANTI BSL information as possible! (Please forgive me as a lot of this will be on pit bulls…since that is what most BSL is aimed at).

Web Sites: http://www.mydogvotes.com/ http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.html http://www.realpitbull.com/pits.html www.atts.org http://www.pitbulllovers.com/site-map.html http://www.ducksoupplayers.com/rubyatwork.htm http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/BSLindex.htm http://www.defendingdog.com/ http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/home.html http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm

Also, if you go to the A Rotta Love Forum (www.arottalove.org/forum) there is a section on BSL that says Web Sites. There are a lot more there to check out as well.

***If you would like to meet up with a group of us we will be meeting at 6:00pm sharp right outside the main doors. In case you can’t find us and you want to meet my cell phone number is 651-592-9591.

1) Keep it short and to the point.
2) Steer clear of stereotypes. In politics, appearance is everything. When you talk face-to-face about BSL to politicians and the media, you must also adopt that same philosophy. Hide your tattoos, brush your hair, put on some nice slacks and a dress shirt, stand up straight, and use good grammar. I know it doesn't seem fair that you can't just "be yourself", but the fact is, life isn't fair, and this isn't about you. It's about your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a dog owner. If you don't convey an attitude of respectability, you will get two negative results: first, you won't be taken seriously, and second, you will be reinforcing a negative stereotype, thereby making it much harder for all the rest of us.
3) NEVER speak or write rudely - ALWAYS be respectful and mature. As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Or like my mom used to tell me, "if you want to be treated like a grown-up, you need to act like a grown-up." If you want your views to be heard, you need to be patient, open-minded, and mature. If you name-call, swear, threaten, or lash out, you risk losing your audience. Not only that, but you are reinforcing a negative stereotype ("all pit bull/Rottweiler owners are uneducated and immature"). Denver council members recently expressed interest in a non-breed-specific alternative to their draconian pit bull ban - until they started getting angry hate mail and threats from some pit bull owners. That just confirmed to them that pit bull owners are scary, angry, dangerous individuals; they now defend their BSL with fervor, and hundreds of family dogs have been put to death as a result. Don't let your passion and emotions carry you away when you speak!
4) If you choose to mention your dog, be very careful what you say. When you speak out against BSL by arguing "My pit bull is the friendliest dog on the planet and everyone loves him!", that is not helping your case. Your pro-BSL representative believes you own a ticking time bomb. Your protests that your dog "loves everyone" only confirms in their mind that you are in denial - and anything else you may try to say becomes more crazy talk to them. On the other hand, if you speak to the representative as a concerned citizen - not a dog owner - you are more likely to be heard and respected as an equal rather than discounted as a nut job. Mention your dog only if you have proof - a title, certificate, award, or other evidence - that your dog is capable of "above average" good deeds and is highly unlikely to be a "ticking time bomb." If you have a therapy dog, a search-and-rescue dog, a hero dog (which received some sort of recognition from a major group), or an obedience-titled dog, you can mention it. If your dog's credentials are average (i.e. Temperament Tested, took some agility classes, lives with a child and hasn't eaten him yet), that's great - but not good enough to get out of the "could snap at any moment" category, so it's probably best to leave him out of it. Yes, you have every right to be proud of your dog, and yes, you should tell people all about your great dog - but not when you're talking to a pro-BSL legislator. They have a tendency to tune out words from pit bull and Rottweiler owners in particular.
5) Join your representative in worrying about the human victims. Aurora Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald gives us a wonderful quote regarding his reasons behind supporting a pit bull ban: "The thought of one kid getting hurt is too much for me." If we think further about the context in which Fitzgerald gives this comment, he seems to be implying that he does not care about children who are attacked by dogs other than pit bulls. In fact, some months prior to Fitzgerald's insensitive comment, in a city very close to Aurora, a young girl was killed by two Alaskan Malamutes. This child's needless death was apparently not "too much" for Fitzgerald, since he shows no interest in banning Alaskan Malamutes.This sort of exclusionary thinking is pervasive among legislators who support BSL. They are so focused on the victims of attacks committed by certain breeds of dogs that they tend to overlook victims who were attacked by less "controversial" breeds. In effect, they are minimizing the danger posed by non-targeted breeds, the fear suffered by individuals who live near a dangerous dog of a non-targeted breed, and the pain inflicted on victims of attacks committed by a non-targeted breed. Ultimately, pointing this out to representatives is helpful; politicians do not want to seem insensitive toward victims, and the only way to treat every dog attack victim equally and fairly is through non-breed-specific legislation, where all victims are entitled to the same justice and retributions regardless of the breed of dog that injured them.
6) Provide good examples of non-breed-specific legislation that works. Identify some possible solutions to the problems your community is having with dangerous dogs. Perhaps your animal control department is under funded and understaffed, resulting in paltry enforcement of laws. Maybe your community has a blasé attitude toward leash laws and other dog laws. Perhaps school children are not getting any lessons in dog safety. Try to identify what areas need to be worked on in order to improve public safety and reduce dog bites. Offer model non-breed-specific dangerous dog legislation to replace breed-specific proposals (the AKC and the HSUS can both provide this). Our government representatives need to look like they're doing something - anything - to protect the public against vicious dogs. They automatically default toward BSL because it seems so easy, but if you give them something better, safer, and more effective...

I am working on a set of posts that will address the different problems of Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) that I will be posting over the next few weeks. Beth links to a lot of the information that I am using (but I do have a few other sources up my sleeve) so you can get up to speed fairly quickly through her links. If you have the time, I urge you to go. Speak out for the 4Hers who will be very busy getting ready for their annual rite of summer!

Dog Days

Now there are just too many ways you can go with this story.

"Jane Balogh said she registered the Australian shepherd-terrier mix to vote in protest of a 2005 state voter-registration law that she says makes it too easy for noncitizens to vote.
She put her phone bill in Duncan's name, then used the phone bill as identification to register him as a voter."

Now what Jane did IS wrong....regardless of her reasoning for doing so. There is no excusing what she did and to her credit, she is not trying to do so.

"Balogh said she doesn't plan to contest the charge because "I know I'm guilty." She said she submitted ballots in the dog's name in the September and November 2006 and May 2007 elections. She wrote "VOID" on the ballots and didn't cast any votes."

However, the fact that Duncan was sent 3 absentee ballots is pretty stunning. What is even more stunning is the reaction of the elections office.

"The elections office says the system is designed to catch fraud in voting, not the registration process."

Now by using the elections offices logic, there should not even be a prosecution. After all, Duncan didn't vote did he????? No harm, no foul...

Seriously, someone in the elections office needs to start smacking around a few heads and they need to START looking for (and catching) fraudulent registrations. Because those fraudulent registrations LEAD to fraudulent votes. If people can register multiple times or register their pet and their dead Aunt Sophie, what is to stop those from using those registrations to vote!

We need photo ID verification for registration and voting! The time has long since passed for that. It is not going to be an undue burden on the poor - if they are getting public assistance they have to have a photo ID so that is no excuse. The ONLY people that are "inconvenienced" by having to produce photo ID are the people who are trying to cheat the system! Something to keep in mind the next time a politician says we can't have photo IDs at the polls.

The worlds best border collie (patent pending) is actually a border collie/Australian Shepherd cross and she definately has the smarts of both breeds. If Duncan has half the smarts that most Aussies have (and the terrier part has some smarts too) he is probably a much smarter voter than most folks who have cast ballots before him. Maybe it wouldn't hurt.....