And the 2008 inductees are:
A German Shepherd who saved his owner who fell through ice.
A Lhasa Apso/ Poodle cross who altered his owners to a baby left on their porch.
And - can you believe it - three terriers. Often labeled as a self-centered and willful type of dog, one pulled his owner to a senior in need, one saved his owner by alerting that carbon monoxide was in the home, one alerted a medical crisis.
As I read their stories I pondered if, had I been the judge, picked them as well.

The GSD, used to play tug with his owner, followed the command pull, grabbed the attached leash with his teeth and pulled him out of the ice. Okay - awesome dog, wonderful companion and of course I am always up for a great dog story, but deserving of so much fame? Not in my opinion.

The Lhasa/poodle probably heard a noise outside and as a good watchdog scratched the door to see what's out there. That newborn baby would have died in the frigid cold that night had the pooch not alerted the owner. Again, what a great happy ending story. But seems that the dog did what was natural, not extraordinary.

The Schnauzer heard faint cries for help from a senior trapped in his pool. He pulled persistently until his owner followed. I know many dogs, my dogs included, that might have perked up for a moment, but then carried on with their own thing, ignoring faint noises from the distance. I also know many owners that would not have followed their pulling dog. Pulling is generally regarded as a nuisance behavior and usually either corrected or re-directed. So both owner and dog should get a steak for that.
Would I have been able to choose, chances are that Schnauzer would have been my pick as well.

The one that alerted to carbon monoxide that entered the home, I assume, smelled it. Odorless to humans, I have not yet found a conclusive answer if dogs smell it. But even if yes, it is not unusual for dogs for smell new odors in their home frequently. One might cook with a new ingredient, or pick up a perfume scent riding the bus, or in the office or restaurant. And dogs don't alert to that. So, not necessarily a natural behavior and that dog would have made my Hall of Fame list also.

The little terrier, the only specially trained dog, that alerted her owner to a medical crisis makes my list simply because she is a rescue and was willing to trust again, to learn and please.

I admire dogs and people who overcome adversaries and accomplish extraordinary things the same.

I look at my Will, born feral, who had to work so hard to trust, to learn what humans are all about. I remember a young dog mom crawling out of a rural garbage dump with a old piece of bread in her mouth she brought her puppies. She was so skinny that she could barely walk, yet carried on.
I think about people that are not rich but share the little they have with others. People that had it rough, but overcome hardships and contribute, help others to overcome their problems and addictions.
Those are the real heroes. Most are never mentioned anywhere, never become famous. Do they mind, I wonder? I don't think dogs do. For them, a Hall of Fame means nothing. Getting the 'hero' treatment daily from their owners who love them means everything.

Okay, this one is not entirely about dogs - or seals. It is about human brutality and short-sighted news anchors.

I have a strong opinion about a lot of things, and am often tempted to comment on one topic or another that bug me. I usually don't, because it shifts away from my focus on dogs, and my work to act and write on their behalf. But recently I felt compelled to add my five cents to an interview that was conducted by our local news station with animal rights activist Paul Watson.

Whoever followed the seal-hunt will know that Canadian East Coast sealers butcher thousands of baby seals each year for their coats. At one of their slaughter-outings a trawler got into trouble and had to be towed by the Canadian coast guard. They botched it and three sealers died, one is presumed dead. Paul Watson apparently made the comment that the inhumane slaughter of thousands of baby seals is a greater tragedy than the death of the four sealers.

Controversial comments always get the attention of the media, and this was no exception. Paul Watson was granted a couple of minutes at the end of the evening news and promptly asked by the news anchor if he thinks that an animal's life is worth more than a human life. (The local news station did another, unbiased interview a few days later.)

And that was when I took time out of my busy schedule and sent the station an e-mail; voicing my disappointment that a media that has the opportunity to relieve suffering, chooses to take sides and ask stupid questions.

It amazes me that an intelligent human being can still ask such a dumb question. It is not about the seals, or dogs, or horses or animals vs. humans. It is about human brutality in its many forms. That should be addressed. What drives people to kick a dying cow at the slaughter house? What causes someone to skin a seal or to rip the legs of a frog while the animal is still alive? Humans that justify brutality because they are able to think abstractly and therefore are worth more and have the right to do what they want, are the same ones that kill, maim and torture other humans because their race or religion isn't worth as much as their own.

Being human means to have empathy. I am hard pressed to feel for people who lack that. And grateful for the Paul Watsons in our world who speak out.

Okay, here is the newest trend regarding our pampered pooches. Pet Marriages. Arranged and expensive events that tie the knot between two dogs of the opposite gender. I guess, at times after the fact to prevent that the pups are born illegitimate.

My first thought when I read the article was that this is just a tad over the top. I mean, I cook for my dogs, I don't kennel them, and yes, they get a birthday cake and Christmas stocking. I cremated by dear old Newf after he passed away, and thought the outdoor blessing of the animals we stumbled upon by chance last year was sweet - even though we didn't stay because Davie and Will had much more fun swimming in the ocean and exploring that beached, dead seal, than listening to the priest.

I am all for sending our beloved animals positive vibes, including them into our activities, and treating them with kindness and consideration. But is it really necessary to make them participate in rituals and traditions we choose for ourselves? Dogs don't care about a marriage. Dogs aren't even that monogamous. I am sure that my Will's birthmother invited more than just one male in when she was in heat.

I'm sure the newlyweds enjoy the wedding cake, but couldn't the money for the ceremony, outfits and marriage license be better invested by supporting a cash strapped rescue organization?

I guess some humane societies organize such events as fundraisers. That is so a reflection of our human society. The haves in our society attend fashion shows and concerts, 500 dollar per plate dinners combined with silent auctions, to feed the poor and shelter the homeless. Folks with money can't just donate and feel good. No, they have to roll in in their limousines, all black-tied and done up. And their privileged canines get married, also all dressed up, and chomp on a 200 dollar wedding cake, to benefit the forgotten dog in a wire run for one more day.

Has anyone seen the Larry King segment scheduled for April 02/08? It was about autistic children and service dogs. I missed it, but have in front of me a newspaper article published in the Medicine Hat (Alberta) news.
In a nutshell the article talks about the close relationship this autistic child has with her service dog, and how much he has helped her. Of course, that's the whole idea why we have service dogs - to help people with one disability or another.
Great for the people but I always wonder what's in it for the dog? Here is this little puppy carefully chosen who lives for about a year with a social group he/she bonds strongly to, just to be removed to go for further, intense training with strangers. If he passes the requirements he'll be teamed up yet with another person and put to work. While he has his vest on nobody is allowed to touch/talk to him as not to distract. In other words, all natural behaviors stop and trained/shaped ones take over.
That is his life until he gets too old to be of any use, called retired, and might be re-homed again, while his life-long companion he served well gets a new dog, another trained one who costs several thousand dollars.

A couple of years ago there was a similar segment on the CTV Calgary News at Noon. In that case the family became aware of the benefits a dog could have for their autistic child when a rescue dog walked into their lives. Even though, according to the mother, the pooch/child team bonded and the dog made no mistakes, he wasn't a "real service dog" and didn't quite cut it. The family surrendered him - he had to leave to make room for the expensive trained one. During the segment the child, also diagnosed with ADHD, repeatedly taunted and grabbed him, and I wondered if that was the reason why the rescue pooch didn't cut it. Unlike the service dog who tolerated it all, trained to be calm and stoic regardless what humans do, the rescue pooch might have walked away.I am not blaming the child, but heck did I feel sorry for the dog.

During that time I happened to meet another mother with an autistic son regularly at the dog park. They chose to keep their rescue dog. She also reported that the dog greatly benefitted the family and her son, but also admitted that sometimes she has to protect the dog and interfere on his behalf and control the child. Imagine that! Control the child. What a concept. She admitted that it took some effort in the beginning, it took time to work with child and dog.

Makes me think? There are so many great dogs capable of working/helping humans in many different ways. It might take a little more effort on the part of the owner than the ready-to-go service dog. But it would also mean that many disabled and challenged people who are waiting years for an expensive dog, could have one sooner. And many wonderful rescue dogs could find a forever home.

A couple of days ago a fellow dog lover and rescue dog owner pointed the book "Redemption - The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" by Nathan J. Winograd, out to get my opinion.

I haven't heard about the book till now and can't really comment on it because I haven't read it. But I sure have an opinion on the title.
Overpopulation myth? What? Where does that guy live? If he can show me one region in North America that has enough foster homes and good, I emphasize good, homes for all homeless pooches I'd love to see that with my own eyes. Does he think that euthanasia statistics from humane societies and animals shelters are propaganda so they can make money? Has the author ever worked or volunteered at a shelter? I doubt it because than he'd know that there is NO MONEY made at a shelter. The folks working there certainly don't do it to become rich. They do it because there is a need and for the love of the animals.

I wonder if the Author might be a puppy miller or large scale breeder, which is essentially the same, who sees his furs swimming away due to the negative publicity puppy mills get lately? Is he affiliated with folks that create life en mass for profit and needs to justify their cruelties? I'll keep my ears open and will probably also order the book and comment more on it once I have read it.

I also have an opinion regarding No Kill shelters - the second part of the books title.
Popular with the public because no-one wants to see a dog euthanized, I am not a supporter of No Kill shelters, even though I do think that every dog has the right to live and almost every dog with behavior problems can be rehabilitated under the right circumstances and with the right owners.
The sad fact is that there aren't enough monetary resources, space, and knowledgeable people out there to ensure that every dog has a safe place to park his leash at and help for him to become a content and safe for the public pooch. That is because there is an OVERPOPULATION!
DUH!

So the typical No Kill shelter either only accepts dogs that are easily adopted out or hangs on to dogs till they find a permanent home, sometimes for weeks/months/years. Because space is limited, they have to deny entrance to other homeless dogs till space becomes available. That means that many strays and ferals are left were they're at, may die, suffer and continue to procreate. Some no kill shelters abort puppies when they get a pregnant female. So turning away dogs that need a place to live; leaving dogs behind that need rescuing; aborting puppies that could live; and not accepting certain breeds or personalities of dogs because they are difficult to adopt out is killing them indirectly and the term No Kill shelter does not apply.

As a dog trainer and behavior consultant I also have had cases where the new owners euthanized the dog because he/she was too difficult to live with. Even if the adoption contract stipulated that the dog had to be returned to the shelter. Some No Kill shelters pass their problem on to others, which is especially sad when children are involved that bond to the dog but can't keep him because of severe behavior problems.

In addition the non-adoptable dogs live out there lives in a cage, which is mental and emotional abuse.

What I do like are No Kill sanctuaries that have enough space and no dog is turned away, no dog is kept in a cage, and no dog is expected to rehabilitate so that she fits nicely into suburbia. But unless we have more of those, for some dogs euthanasia is the most humane solution.

Or, we could all get that book and stop "believing" in overpopulation - and live happily ever after.

There are a couple of posts my fellow dog-bloggers submitted that caught my eye.
One was about "Cujo", the runaway and intimidating German Shepherd and specifically the comment that two people were killed by dogs in the author's county; the other one about the life guard stray dog in India.

After reading both posts the question "How come that some dogs are great while others are killers" came to my mind. A question that frequently pops up and a thought I have pondered over for quite some time.

Aside from physical reasons that explain attacks, what causes a stray dog to safe people's lives on a beach in India, while others in the same country are mass culled because they attack humans? Why do some strays become excellent pets - or at least don't bother humans, while other's attack and kill?
Is is genetics? Are some dogs born bad and some good?
Or is it early imprinting? The influence people and/or other dogs have during the first few weeks of a pup's life.
Is there a canine equivalent to a human psychopath - and, on that note, are human psychopath' born or made?

I have met many strays and ferals - some in loose packs, some solitary. In Spain, in Greece and in Canada. My experiences were always good ones. The dogs were approachable, soliciting, at worst keeping their distance, but never attacking.
I have met a rescue pup, born to a feral mom, that relentlessly and seriously attacked other dogs at a very young age (after weaning), while all other litter mates were normal, middle of the road pups.
I have first hand knowledge of a pup born spitting, 'mean' almost the moment she popped out of her mother's womb. Born to a very knowledgeable and conscientious breeder and of a breed described by one dog book as the least likely to bite.

So what is it? Nature or nurture? Probably both. Which brings up another question? Is it okay to euthanize a pup we suspect is born bad, even if he/she is very young, and without having tried rehab?

Interestingly, and purely by chance, I recently read two books back to back that couldn't be more opposite.
One was Millan's 'Leader of the Pack'; the other Kerasote's 'Merle's Door'. There are only two times when Kerasote became more Millanish. The first he jerked Merle on a choke collar, the second time, a few years later, he zapped him with a shock collar and justified it with a professional's opinion that this kind of punishment is not long term damaging. Other than that, Merle enjoyed a life of almost complete freedom that is in stark contrast to Millan's dogs where every piss is by permission only.

Merle became a soul mate type friend for his owner. They had a once in a life time dog/human relationship, a deep cored understanding and love for one another I understand all so well and attempt to describe my book 'Dump Dog'. Was it Merle's retriever background, his hardwired, easy going demeanor regarding dogs, cats and especially humans that made an almost leash free existance possible? Or did he become that good natured dog as a result of his relationship with his owner; the way he was treated? Or a combination of both? And how can dog owners who live in urban and suburban areas with strict laws, which are most of North Americans, attain that?

Although neither book was one of my favorites, my nature and philosophy regarding dogs and relationships with them is certainly a lot more like Ted Kerasote (minus the shock collar even when things get tough) than Cesar Millan. I allow my dogs daily to explore off leash, control as little as possible in their lifes, and encourage the freedom to learn (which is not like free shaping). I tune into their world and am in bliss when they include me into activities that are important to them. I point out rabbit tracks for them, allow them to chase squirrels which they never get, and teach them to not chase deer by letting them observe and sniff where they've been. Not only do I feel that we are bonded at the deepest level because of that, I would also argue that unless a dog is allowed to be who he/she is meant to be, the bond between human and dog is superficial.

continue reading

My friend Laura fulfilled a life long dream of hers - to own a pure bred German Shepherd.
Laura is a dog trainer, and like most of us, was on a mental quest for the perfectly bred, perfectly imprinted pup, so that she could teach everything she knows and have the perfect canine companion and dog sports competitor.
And like some of us, Laura is aware of the need of countless homeless and needy second hand dogs, and her dream of the perfect pup was just that - a dream. She dedicated (and still does) her life to dogs that nobody else wanted. Old ones, sick ones and behaviorally challenged ones.

Till yesterday - when registered GSD "Keeper of the Night" joined her social group. I wish you well, Laura and little Keeper. And Barry and Bailey, your chosen human mate and sweet, sick rescue girl. I wish you fun at agility, and many years of friendship. You deserve the best - and knowing you also means that I know that your heart and home will remain open for rescue dogs as well.

Chances are that Laura's dream and the envisioned relationship with her Shepherd Boy will come true. Because she did everything correctly.
- She knows the breed, having researched, met and worked with many German Shepherds in the past. That means she knows the work that is involved and the intrinsic personality traits a GSD can come with.
- She waited until the time was right.
- She bought local. That means that she was able to inspect the kennel herself. Paper is cheap and words written do not necessarily reflect the truth. By seeing for herself what the kennel is like, and, more importantly, what the pup's parents are like, his siblings and the relationship between all dogs and all humans with all dogs, she was able to make sure that Keeper had the best breeding and imprinting.
- She bought from a small breeder who sells his occasional litter of pups through word-of-mouth advertising only. The best indicator that he is not in for profit, but for the love of the breed.

It is not enough to educate the public at large to not buy a family member from Pet Stores and on E-bay. Large breeding operations aren't any better than puppy mills. Kennels that advertise world-wide delivery to anyone who can pay for it fall into the same category as puppy mills. They are only profit driven.

Good breeders don't sell in the Bargain Finder. Good breeders don't sell to Pet Stores. Good breeders ask many questions and want references. They may inspect your home. In turn, they welcome potential owners to their kennel and proudly show off the pups' parents and other relatives. Good breeders own well behaved and balanced dogs. Good breeders will have a contract and will have a life time return policy - which means that they stipulate that the pooch has to be returned to them in the event that the owner can't take care of him/her any longer.

If everyone would as conscientious about acquiring a dog as Laura is, the suffering of that sentient species would be diminished drastically.

One my friend's dog got attacked about a week or so ago. Not just picked on, but beat up; injured.

He is an intact, young male German Pointer, who is dog savvy and relates very well with others. He was jumped by a pitbull in an off leash park and seemingly singled out - there were many other dogs at the park that day.

That incident confirms what I have observed for quite some time - since I own and began working with dogs, really. As a European, I opted to keep my boys unaltered and hormonally sound, and every so often a pooch we met had an issue with that. No just pitbulls and alike, but all kinds of dogs - and often Golden Retrievers.

Intact males are regularly attacked by neutered ones. Is it because the castrated boys are jealous? No. In my opinion, it is because in a dog's world where most pooches are fixed, one who smells like testosterone is unfamiliar. And insecure dogs attack things they don't know and can't predict. In addition, boy-dogs with testicles have a certain air about them that other dogs challenge.
Sadly, it is often the intact male that gets the blame from the other dog's owner, as if hormonal soundness is a crime against canine harmony. If they seek help from dog pros - trainers, consultants or veterinarians, the advice and recommendation often is to have him snipped.

One should not have to be concerned to take his/her dog to the park, or for a walk, just because he/she chose to keep the male hormonally balanced. It is the owner of every dog who visits off leash parks, neutered or not, that has to ensure that his/her dog is displaying acceptable behavior around all other dogs: small and large, males and females, on-leash and off, neutered or intact.

According to a Reuters article there is a shift within the Chinese society how dogs (and cats) are perceived.

Even though dog meat is still a delicacy and pooches are farmed and slaughtered for meat and fur, many Chinese people begin to treat their dogs like pets - like North American pets, showering them with the best food, toys, clothes and bling-bling.
That shift, and the fact that Beijing is getting ready for the Olympics this summer, leads to more and more restaurants restrictions for selling and serving dog meat.

My first thought was: "Big Deal". Just one dog slaughtered means that one couldn't pay me enough to visit China. It also means that I will avoid buying products made in China whenever possible.

On second thought, I realized that we aren't really that different. There are two types of dogs - the ones that are family members and treated almost like humans (or better), and the ones that serve a laboratory test animals. Or the ones that are homeless, abused, euthanized.

My heart goes out for the Chinese dogs that suffer incredibly because they, for some people, taste good - or because wearing their skin seems appealing to some twisted humans. But I also feel for the ones here that rarely receive any media attention and are not protected by our laws.

Article can be found at http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSHKG20620820080317