The Drought Is Almost Over!

The recent period of inactivity on this site, which has been much longer than I anticipated – and seemed to be brought on by a combination of illness and the holidays – is almost over. Please watch this site; new posts will be appearing on a regular basis within the next few days. Hopefully, I have not chased off the few readers that I had, and I look forward to a fun and interactive time in the near future.




, Hopefully

An Apology

I would like to offer an apology to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis, if there is anyone who reads it on a regular basis.  Even though it is a relatively new endeavour there already has been a noticeable drop-off in posts over the last couple of weeks.  This may be due to the holiday season causing a reduction in my ability to be pissed off, or it may be a simple case of writer's block . . . whatever the reason, I apologize. As they used to say on British TV--they used to have to say it ridiculously often, actually-- "we apologize for the interruption . . . normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."

I would also like to make a request . . . if you see something that you disagree with or have your own opinions on or just that you would like to add to, please feel free to make comments. We can all learn from the experiences and opinions of others, especially if we disagree.  I would prefer this to be a forum for discussion (and even argument) rather than a simple one-sided rant. 

Thank you to anyone who who takes time out of their busy life to spend a few minutes here.  Have a joyous holiday season.

Giving Thanks

On this Thanksgiving Day I don't want to be annoyed or try to be controversial in any way.  I simply want to give thanks to all the dogs I have known throughout my life for the joy and the love that they offered.  Some, Tuppence for example, were only in my life for a few weeks but, while providing an early childhood lesson in topics such as the dangers and realities of buying a puppy from a pet store, they also exhibited the loyalty and love that makes the bond between humans and dogs so special .  Others such as Dalglish, Sandy, and Kettles gave us love and laughter for the entire fifteen years of their lives.  In this expression of gratitude I include all the dogs--too many to name individually--that I have met through my connections with rescue shelters.  So, to Timmy, Tuppence, Lassie, and Candy; to Dalglish, Sandy, and Kettles; to Suzie, Shadow, Sam, and Lulu thank you all.  My life would have been less fun and less meaningful if you had not been in it!

Michael Vick Reviewed and Revisited

In a previous post I touched on my refusal to forgive or forget what Michael Vick was involved in when he was running his dog-fighting ring.  I thought I’d just take a moment here to revisit the subject and offer a couple of thoughts.  Okay, I know there are some people out there who are probably rolling their eyes and saying, “A bit late, aren’t you?”  Well, excuse me for breathing . . . I didn’t have a blog when all that was in the news!

Do I begrudge Vick the money that he makes as an NFL quarterback?  The answer to that would be no . . . no more than I resent any other spoiled professional athlete when compared to professions that are more socially valuable.   If you asked me if I think he should still be in jail the answer would be different, but he served his time as it was laid down by the courts.  The legal system, although improving, still shows the same lack of concern that Vick showed for the life and welfare of dogs.  Having said that, he has a certain set of skills and he should not be deprived from cashing in on that if he is able to.  What does piss me off, however, is that the ownership and the management of the Philadelphia Eagles placed their profit-line above what seemed to be the popular sentiment of the time.  Of course they touted the idea that Vick was rehabilitated, reformed, and remorseful but, to me, that was just a rationalization for their decision.

Which brings me to my main point . . . Do I think that he is rehabilitated, reformed, and remorseful?  Of course not!!!!!  I have been a psychiatric nurse since God was a boy, and I have studied and worked with all kinds of mental illness, including behavioral and personality disorders.  I have seen this type of situation before.  Vick’s involvement in a dog-fighting ring showed a disregard for life that is not situational.  It emerges from a core value, a central belief.  Those core values and beliefs are not easily changed.   What Michael Vick is remorseful about is getting caught, not about what he did.  I honestly believe that if he thought he would not get caught again, he would do the same thing.  Now, I am not saying he is a psychopath, but it may interest you to know that a diagnosis of psychopathy cannot be given to anyone over the age of 40.  Why?  Because the established theory is that as psychopaths age they develop ways of channeling their anti-social tendencies into things that are more socially acceptable but that continue to fulfill their belief that they are the center of the universe.  Does that sound somewhat like what is going on here?  The re-emergence as a singular figure in the NFL?  The work being done on behalf of animal welfare groups (which were initially court ordered)?  This transformation is true of many personality disorders, not just psychopathy or sociopathy.  I don’t know the guy well enough to say that he meets the criteria for these diagnoses, but many of the traits are there. 

In saying all of these things I truly hope that I am wrong because, as an animal advocate, he is in a position to do an amazing amount of good.  The problem is that if I am wrong that would destroy my own center-of –the-universe view in which I am never wrong. 

Just one final thought--and I am probably just being vindictive here—I don’t actually think that he is as good a quarterback as last season would seem to have indicated . . . and there are probably more than a few Eagle fans that are beginning to agree with me!

Who Needs Enemies?

On 10 November 2011 Jacksonville.com, the local internet arm of The Florida Times-Union newspaper, reported on the recent resignation of a Putnam County animal control officer.  According to the report this officer was told on 26 September 2011 to pick up seven dogs held in three cages outside a residence.  The owner of the residence had called animal control to inform them that he was being evicted, had lost his job, and was moving.  On 23 October 2011 the dogs were found, still in the cages outside the residence: 6 were dead and 1 was barely alive.

According to the report, during an interview with her superiors, the officer admitted to driving past the residence but not picking up the dogs because she thought she would end up just returning them to the owner.   Even worse, between this time and the time the dogs were found dead, the officer had gone on vacation.  

The outcome for the officer?  She was given the choice to resign which she did on Oct 31 2011.

Now, I don’t know about you, but to me this complete dereliction of duty is the equivalent of a surgeon leaving you lying open on the table and walking out because he or she would just have to repeat the procedure at some time in the future.  In other words:  I don’t feel like it . . . What’s the point?  I don’t care what the officer says; it boils down to she couldn’t be bothered to do her job.  How many of us would get away with that in our job . . . and her responsibilities involved the lives of these dogs!!! 

It’s bad enough that animal abusers get a slap on the wrist and then go on with their lives a la Michael Vick—yes Michael, there are a lot of us who have neither forgotten nor forgiven—but when people charged with caring for animals can’t be bothered to do their jobs!!!   These are supposed to be the good guys! With friends like this, these animals don’t need enemies.

I am not absolving the owner of the dogs from blame, but it is horrifying to see that this travesty appears to be deemed resolved because the officer resigned.  Where is the public outcry? Where is the criminal prosecution?  One friend of mine suggested that we should cage the officer on the side of the road and then all drive by and ignore her plight.  This is a suggestion that I am not completely averse to!!!!   

Should I Adopt from a Kill Shelter or a No-Kill Shelter?

You would think that, as a supporter of no-kill shelters, I would have well-defined views on this dilemma but as with all animal welfare questions it is not that straightforward.

 I am incredibly conflicted when it comes to this question.  If you choose to adopt from a kill shelter you are actively saving a life but you may be condemning another animal to a lifetime in a shelter, and no matter how well they may be cared for shelter life is not the same as being part of a family.  Conversely, if you choose to adopt from a no-kill shelter rather than a kill shelter you are rolling the dice with the life of another animal.  Obviously someone else may decide to adopt the animals in the kill shelter, or a no-kill shelter may intervene and save those animals . . . but if you look at the numbers nationwide the odds of this happening are not great.

So, if you find yourself having to make this choice it really is a very personal decision. In this situation, I would tend to move in favor of adopting from the kill shelter.  As I say, it means that the animals in the no-kill shelter may have to remain there for a lifetime, but at least they would be alive.  And it cannot be denied that many no-kill shelters look after their animals extremely well, considering their limited resources.

Of course, there is one final option:  organize efforts to ensure that all shelters in your area adopt true no-kill policies!  It would be too optimistic to hope that we will ever eliminate the need for rescue shelters, but if they are all no-kill shelters it would take some of the trauma out of this decision

Adopt a Senior Dog

As I scanned my Facebook newsfeed yesterday two posts that initially may seem unconnected appeared consecutively.  However I, like many other dog advocates would, immediately saw a connection.  The first was an anouncement by the ASPCA announcing a raid on a puppy mill in Arkansas (this caught my eye not only because of the puppy mill but because I lived in Arkansas for many years). The second was a post by Petfinder.com advertising a sweepstake to promote Adopt-a-Senior-Pet Month. 

We all know how cute puppies are and how they tug at your heartstrings when you see them, but there are countless adult dogs in shelters around the country that will never be adopted because of our obsession with puppies.  As this situation continues the puppy mills will remain in existence as pet stores supply the demand for puppies, and the adult dogs will--if they are lucky enough to be in a no-kill shelter--remain in a shelter for the remainder of their lives or they will be scheduled for death, deemed unadoptable because of their age.

There are many advantages to adopting an adult dog, not least of which are that they are usually already housebroken, and trained and socialized to some extent.  Also, adult dogs tend to be less boisterous than puppies but can be just as funny and even more loving.

If you are considering adopting, please think of the advantages of an adult dog.  Visit a local shelter, check out a website, and see just what fantastic adult dogs are available in your area!  You will not be sorry.  

Adoption Rules: Not Intended to Offend!

On the second Saturday of each month Pet Rescue North in Jacksonville, Florida takes some of their dogs over to a local branch of PetSmart in an effort to stimulate interest in adoption for some of those animals in their care.  One of the few ways in my all-too-limited schedule I am able to help this organization is to assist in the transportation and showing of the dogs during these events.  Part of the duties, in addition to organizing this meet and greet, is to explain the adoption rules and requirements.  One rule more than any other causes upset, indignation and tears . . . the organization will not adopt to homes containing children under seven years old!

I can understand the negative reactions upon hearing this—I have been around dogs almost all my life and many of my most important relationships with dogs occurred when I was very young.  I have witnessed potential adopters on the cell phone almost screaming at the shelter’s director about how their child is in the store playing happily with a dog, about how the child and the dog appear to be getting along brilliantly, and about how their child would never do anything to hurt an animal. However, I thought I would take a moment to explain such rules, rules that are not that unusual for true no-kill shelters.

One of the more common reasons for a dog to be returned to the shelter during the trial adoption period is that the dog’s behavior has changed for the worse, especially around the children.  There are many possible reasons.  As the dog tries to establish its position within its new pack, it may become dominant or even aggressive toward small children.  Conversely, as small children become more comfortable with a dog that seems placid or friendly they may unintentionally become too rough and the dog feels the need to protect itself.  Whatever the reason, the parents cannot hand back their children so they hand back the dog.  There have been many occasions where dogs that seemed to love children were returned in a terrified state.  They cower or snarl whenever children are now in the vicinity.    

Adoption rules for each shelter have developed through many years of experience.  As a true no-kill shelter the one and only focus of the shelter is to find a forever home for animals that have already been abused or abandoned at least once in their life. This focus includes doing everything that can be done to avoid a failed placement.  As I said, these dogs have generally been abused or abandoned at least once before, and a failed placement can compound or increase problems that stem from this treatment.  Also, because many of the dogs are found as strays or rescued from puppy mills, other shelters that euthanize or in some cases homes that did not contain children the organization usually has very little in the way of history on the dogs.  We simply cannot guarantee how they will react after an extended period in a home with small children.

So, if you see a dog that you would like to adopt and the shelter turns down your application because of rules such as this, please please please do not take offense. Try and understand the primary goal of the shelter.  If you desperately want to adopt a dog . . . and I would encourage you to do so . . . and rules such as this prevent you from adopting from one shelter this does not mean that you are viewed in some way as a bad family.  There are probably many shelters in your area with different rules that would be willing to adopt to you.  Just remember, a dog is not a throwaway toy . . . adopting a dog is no different from adopting or raising a child!

    

Is Your Vet Just In It For The Money?

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? 
A: One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish!

It's a fairly well known joke, but it typifies how certain professions or occupations are viewed.  We tend to think of some, such as nurses or teachers, as dedicated to helping their clients.  Others, such as lawyers are seen as only being interested in how much they can earn.  Strangely, doctors tend to move from one end to another depending on their specialty.  I know these are generalizations but it is the way most of us see the world.

When we think of vets we tend to place them in the former category.  Their driving force is thought to be the welfare of the animals, but is this necessarily true?  Unfortunately, I know of some cases where the vet in question holds more in common with the lawyer than the nurse or teacher (or even the doctor).  A good measure is how much your vet is involved with their local rescue facilities.  Those who are in it for the animals tend to offer extensive services to such shelters and disregard the loss of profit caused by the discounted services that they provide.  If money is the driving force they will have little to do with the rescue facilities because providing services cuts into their bottom line.  I know of one vet who will not even allow strays or rescues on his property.  Perhaps we owe it to our dogs to ask what our vet's relationship is with the rescue shelters!!!!!

Have you asked? 

My Own Hypocrisy Revealed

After my previous post in which I ranted about communities allowing the mass gassing of dogs to occur, I discovered my own hypocrisy when I realized that I had never thought to ask the local goverment-run Animal Care and Protective Services department what methods of euthanasia they use.  I had automatically assumed that they used the same humane injection methods used by vets in medical cases.  In other words I was remaining blissfully ignorant.  I have now e-mailed the department and I am awaiting a response.

Questions Raised by the Miracle Dog

If you haven't seen the story of Daniel Milagro , the beagle who survived a gas-chamber, you need to check it out.  However, it does raise a couple of questions.

First, why is this barbaric practice still used?  Did the local community know about it and, if so, why did they tolerate it?  Well, with all the publicity it is definitely known now.  What is going to be done about it?

Secondly, where were all these people that are now desperate to adopt Daniel when these 19 dogs were sentenced to death and were being herded into the gas chamber?  Certainly the publicity means people now know about Daniel but would they be so keen on adopting a dog if he wasn't a celebrity of sorts.  And if they were desperate to adopt how come nobody had already applied for this particular dog?

Let us not forget that even though one dog miraculously survived, 18 others were successfully murdered!!!!

C'mon people! Show your concern at all times, not just when something makes the headlines

When "no-kill" doesn't mean no-kill!

One topic that is certain to turn my face blue and start me frothing at the mouth is rescue shelters claiming to be "no-kill" shelters when in reality that is far from the truth.  The next time you are considering supporting a shelter that claims to be no-kill you had better take a look at the fine print!  As an example, let me tell you about a situation that I know of personally.

A true no-kill shelter that I am familiar with was asked to pull a gorgeous little pug/pekinese mix out of a so-called "no-kill" shelter. This dog had been scheduled for euthanizing the following day because he was considered unadoptable. When asked about this the response was that this dog was known to try and bite people. When further asked about when these attempts occurred it was stated, "When you grab him by the collar or when you try to take his food away." My first thought was, "Well, duuuuhhh!!" Actually this was not my first thought; I've taken a little artistic liberty and cleaned it up for general viewing. The rescuing shelter showed this sweet little guy at their next adoption event at a local pet superstore, and throughout the event he was on his best behavior. One of the store's trainers even tried a few things and declared him a highly trained dog.  No evidence was seen of food aggression or any other type of aggression.  Okay, he was a little territorial and yappy, but aren’t all pug/pekes?

I decided to look into this "no-kill" policy of the shelter from which the dog was pulled and, lo and behold, under all the declarations that this was now a no-kill shelter was the statement that by this they meant no dog will ever be killed to make room for another. Leaves a lot of wiggle room, doesn't it!  Under this policy, declare a dog unadoptable—often an opinion rather than a fact—and they are eligible to be killed.  What makes these word-games worse is that they are often played by some of the biggest and best supported shelters in any given geographical area.  The particular shelter that I am thinking off saw a massive increase in donations when they declared themselves no-kill.

It is understandable, not acceptable but understandable, when a shelter finds itself having to implement euthanasia policies because of space or money--we all know that there are far too many abandoned or neglected dogs on our streets—but it is completely unacceptable to declare your shelter no-kill when what you actually mean is: okay, we kill the dogs sometimes but not in every circumstance.  Don’t play word games with us!  The only time a true no-kill shelter will euthanize a dog is for medical reasons.  We owe it to these dogs to understand exactly what we are donating our time or money to, and these shelters owe it to the dogs to make sure that the public knows what their policy is.  We shouldn’t have to have a law degree to work through all the possible implications of a well-worded statement.

In case you are wondering, the dog of which I spoke was adopted after a couple of months and, last I heard, he was bringing joy and laughter to the adopters—not a biting attempt in sight.

Why Title This Blog "What We Owe to Dogs"?

As this blog progresses many posts will simply be dog-related: anecdotes, memories, random thoughts, and a few plugs for rescue activities in my locale: Jacksonville, Florida.  However, many will reflect my deep-seated belief that humans have reneged on a contract, a partnership, that they formed with these animals thousands of years ago.

Humans created dogs as we know them now.  We designed and adapted them to play specific roles in a partnership.  Some of those roles were positive, but all too often we asked dogs to perform tasks that were unpleasant or unsavoury.  Unfailingly they performed those roles and the only cost to us was food and companionship.  Yet, although the dogs required so little, although they asked so little, somewhere along the way many humans decided that even this cost was too high.  Worse still, many seem to have decided that these animals do not even deserve a modicum of dignity.  Abuse, abandonment, downright cruelty are often the currency with which these loyal partners and companions are repaid. As a tough economy hits hard even some who thought of themselves as dog-lovers have abandoned their companions .

I realize that there are many true lovers of these beautiful creatures. The cruelty and neglect is not exhibited by everyone, but even a few abusers--and there seems to be more than a few--can cause untold suffering. So what do we owe to dogs?  I contend that we owe them at least the same love, care, companionship, and protection that they have given to us.