Posted on

Breaking Up Dog Fights

One of the greatest risks to employee safety is breaking up two dogs fighting.  Dog fights are most likely to occur in the shelter, but recent designs to animal control vehicles place employees at risk while transporting animals.  In order to accommodate various size dogs, animal control vehicle box designers have created removeable walls to adjust the size of the cage compartments.  Those walls are an extremely weak point in the design in which an aggressive dog can breach the wall and attack a dog an adjacent cage.

I have found that the most effect way to break up a dog fight is to use a CO2 fire extinguisher.  The blast from the fire extinguisher is sufficient to shock the dogs from fighting briefly.  One used, the extinguishers can be recharged to be used again.  The extinguishers should be in every animal control vehicle and placed throughout the animal shelter.

Police and EMT might consider using the extinguishers to access an injured person who is being guarded by the person’s dogs.  Although tasers are effective, they may be unnecessary  if emergency personnel prepare in advance for such incidents.

Posted on

Adequate Confinement

In the business of animal welfare we constantly butt heads with people lacking commonsense or reason.  We are partly to blame because we do not word our laws in such a way that applies to every specific circumstance.  If we served reasonable people, we could write our laws in a broad sense, but too many in our communities need someone to draw a picture.  Unfortunately, because many of our laws are written in a broad sense, we encounter reasonable complaints that provide us no measure to resolve.

It is not uncommon for one neighbor to complain about another neighbor’s dog that aggressively attacks the fence trying to get to passersby.  The fence is flimsy, but (so far) has contained the dog(s).  The dogs present a threat to the community, but you cannot determine if the it is an immediate threat.  Asking the dog owner to strengthen the fence usually falls on deaf ears.  The neighbors are upset believing that if (or when) the dog(s) escape their yard, only an attack on a small child will prove their point.

We can use language like:  “The confinement structure must be of sufficient strength by which a reasonable person might believe that the structure will confine the animal.”  I am not sure that with all of our laws that use the measure of a “reasonable person” has ever found such person.  And then the question comes in to play, as to whether that person could be brought into the courtroom to confirm your suspicions about the fence.

I once had a company ask me to indorse invisible fences as a physical barrier to as to satisfy a portion of law that I had written about animal confinement.  Even if the batteries are fully charged on an invisible fence system, those fences are CLEARLY not a physical barrier. I could not believe that I was asked to indorse the system for the confinement of an aggressive dog; proof that this distributor didn’t have the sense to understand the weakness in his own system.

Maybe these incidents should be handled like zoning code violations, where a group neighbors sign a complain agreeing that the fence is inadequate and can make their case to the zoning board.  Then you just have to wait for your meeting with the board and hope that the dog doesn’t escape the yard and attack someone in the mean time. 

I spoke to a group neighbors that were so sure that their neighbor’s dogs were going to escape that they began carrying guns to protect themselves for that day.  It is a sorry day when the ignorance of a single dog owner causes us to have to relive the wild west.  Anytime you are revising your laws on animal confinement,  write this portion of the code very slowly, because this is the portion of the code that frequently brings us the most grief.

Posted on

Postal Carriers at Risk

Locally, our media is reporting an increase in dog bites to Mail Carriers.  In addition to delivering bills, something else is going on when a carrier comes to your door and it deals with the psychology or your dog.

When you are not home, your dog sees his job as protecting your home.  His job is to frighten away any possible intruders.  When the carrier comes to your house, your dog barks at the carrier and the carrier leaves.  Job done.  The dog’s aggression toward the carrier as saved the day.

When this event occurs day after day, your dog begins to think of him/herself  as invincible.  Every time he/she barks at the carrier, the carrier flees.  In every incident the dog wins.  Given the opportunity to take this up a notch, if the dog has an opportunity to bite the carrier the dog, the dog is more likely to do so.

Mail carriers are bitten because they are doing their jobs.  Mail carriers are bitten because dog owners are not doing their jobs.  This has become such an issue that the Postal Service encourages communities to participate in Dog Bite Prevention Week.  As I always say, “Pet owners should treat their dog as if it could bite.”

Posted on

Dog Attacks

Nothing causes me to step up on my soapbox faster than reading about dog attacks.  Media sources in the Cayman Islands report, “Dog attacks on the rise.”  It makes you wonder if dogs are suddenly becoming more violent.  That doesn’t make sense, so the only thing left is pet owners are becoming dumber.

A few days ago someone videotaped a dog attacking a mail carrier in Detroit.  I love that the only assistance people offer is to videotape incidents.  Actually, I think that after getting sufficient video tape, the person actually did step in.  But, I am not ranting about the videotape.  This is all about the owner.

After being told about the incident, the dog’s owner, asking to not be identified, said, “He’s a big clown, he’s friendly.  He’s not vicious.”  He made it sound like it was the mail carrier’s fault for delivering mail to his house; after all, it is “a dog’s job to defend its home.”

Detroit’s animal control department took possession of the dog and according to the dog’s owner, they plan to “kill the dog.”  The dog does what dogs do.  The mail carrier does what carriers do.  The fault of this incident falls on the dog’s owner for not confining his dog.

The problem with society is that not enough dog owners are sued for the actions of their dogs.  The dog is killed, problem solved.  People like this dog owner should suffer sufficient financial loss to be convinced that he should never own another dog.  He is not smart enough to see the role that he played in putting the mail carrier at risk.  Usually when something like this plays out, we walk away shaking our heads thinking, “Thank God that it wasn’t a child.”

Posted on

Dog Training

Dog trainers have evolved over the years as parents have evolved in raising children.  We have become a society that demands that correction be given in the form that appears to be a reward for the dog’s or child’s misbehavior.

Several years ago smart dog trainers stopped making public displays of training dogs.  They used public parks to facilitate training in hope that people would see them and would seek their assistance with their own pet.  Not any more.  Just as parents fear being in a shopping mall when their child or children act up.  Bystanders took on roles to determine how the correction should be administrated.

I learned to train dogs in the military.  Our lives depended on the dog following commands.  We needed the dog to listen and stop chewing on a person when then person became compliant and stopped resisting.  I did not find the training techniques abusive, just effective.  When the public first started complaining about the techniques in use by certain trainers, I figured that the economic principle of supply and demand would force the evolution of training techniques. 

If people started avoiding the “rough” trainers and sought out the “gentle” trainers, the tough (rough) trainers would adapt.  That is how evolution works, you adapt to the environment so as to survive and place food on your table.  The world did evolve and trainers became kinder and gentler; some even had their own television shows. 

There have been no studies that suggest that the kindler approach to dog training is more effective.  I think that it was less about the technique and more about the engagement of the owner with their dog.  The same is true with raising children, the more engaged that a parent is with their child, the better the child will behave.  Too many parents leave it up to the school system to raise their children; but, this is a blog about pets, not how people raise their children.

Posted on

Leash 101

Welcome to Leash 101, your introduction to the use of leashes.  Let’s see a show of hands of those who believe that they have 100% control of their dogs off leash.  If you have raised your hand, you are one of the biggest threats to your neighborhood and need this class.

A leash is a physical connection between a dog and the dog’s owner.  For a leash to be effective, it must be of reasonable length and under the control of someone physically capable of controlling the dog.  A dog being walk on a flexi-leash by a six year old is NOT under control.

Most ordinances require that the length of a leash should be between six to ten feet and should be of sufficient strength to maintain control.  String, ribbon, and twine are insufficient material to constitute a leash.  Many owners purchase flexi-leashes that allow the leash to expand out to 50 feet or more.  These leashes, although not legal, give your dog sufficient room in open areas; these leashes are not suitable on trails.  If you lose sight of your dog, while on a leash, the leash is too long.

In order to achieve maximal control, the person controlling the leash should be of sufficient size and strength to control the dog.  This is called “walking the dog.”  It is not uncommon to see a dog pulling along its owner in an uncontrolled fashion, this is called “the dog walking the person.”  A person with reasonable intelligence would see the dangers of failing to control your dog.  Most incidents involve dogs walking their owners.

If you cannot control the dog that you are walking, look in the mirror.  You need to talk to that person into getting a smaller dog before someone is hurt.

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to when to use a leash.  Smart people place a leash of their dog while in a confined space before taking the dog outside.  Animal shelters are full with animals who once belonged to people who were not smart.

When we adopt animals, we discuss the need to keep a dog leashed until the dog accepts his new home.  I am constantly amazed at the number of times people get their new pet home only to lose the pet when they decided to open the door of their car to let the dog run off leash to the front door of their house.  We have fine-tuned our adoption screening process and have yet to discover a true test for identifying stupidity.  These are the same people who think that their adoption fee should be refunded because the shelter was negligent in adopting the dog to a stupid person.

The leash is your friend.  It keeps your dog from being hit by a car.  Keeps your neighbors from being frightened or bitten.  Keeps you out of court when animal control picks up your dog.  Your leash is one of the single most effective tools for keeping you out of trouble.  It is so important, I suggest that you give your leash a name… make it personal.

Posted on

Trusting our Pets

It is not uncommon that people use their pets as an indicator for who to have relationships with.  On dating sites, you see comments like, “Must like pets.”  What they are really trying to say is, “My pet must like you.”  We seem to believe that pets have some psychic ability to discern the character of people. 

Pets are a bad judge of character.  Put them on a chain in front of your house and they hate everyone.  Pets hate delivery people and these are the folks that deliver presents to you on your birthday and Christmas.  Pets should hate animal control officers, but with a chocolate chip cookie, a pet will become their best friend (and no, one chocolate chip cookie will not kill a pet).  Let’s face it, you cannot trust your pet’s insights.

As pet owners, we place too much trust in our pets.  We don’t know what is going on in their heads.  If we did, we would have the ability to prevent dog bites.  Pets are like people, they are unpredictable.  Every year we read about a dog killing his or her owner.  Who could have predicted that?

Animal Control Officers become sensitive to the potential dangers of situations that put people and pets at odds with one another.  Too often we witness pet owners disregarding our suggestions, only to discover that we were right.  My experience as an animal control officer is that pet owners are the ones who know the least about their pets.

Posted on

Service Animals Out of Control

The issue has gotten so far out of control with people claiming that there dog is a service animal that Idaho is considering creating  laws under Senate Bill 1312 of making the false representation a misdemeanor, calling it “unlawful use of a service dog”. 

Although this is a good step forward to stop this abuse.  I am afraid that once the Bill is implemented, the legislators will see that they were negligent in not including other animals.  Idaho animal shelters might see an increase in cat adoptions.

The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) has allowed this to get too far out of control.  In an effort to protect the disabled, they have created a mechanism to allow overwhelming abuse.  This abuse is placing people at risk. 

Over a year ago, a child was “mauled” by a pit bull at the Portland International Airport that the owner claimed to be a service animal.  The case is now going to court because Alaska Airlines allowed the dog through the airport with out being in a crate.  I think the law suit is misdirected; the ADA is responsible because they refuse to create measures to prevent abuse.  I believe the ADA believes that it is better to protect one disabled person from unreasonable questioning than to protect society from the abuse of their system. 

I think Idaho is taking a good step to forcing compliance; but, until the ADA recognizes the abuse of their of their system, people will continue to be placed in harms way due to laws that are intended to protect our disabled population. 

I recently came across an article in which a guy was complaining that his therapy coyote was not recognized to assist him.  Forget the fact that coyotes are wild animals and cannot be vaccinated for rabies. 

It furthers my belief that people feel lost living in a big pond and that they have to do something, anything, to stand out and be recognized, to be seen, even if that something is very, very stupid.  So many people have become lost in life.  It is too bad that Gamin cannot produce GPS for the human soul.  To keep them on the path of life.  I suppose that is why we have churches.

In the meantime, we will clutch our therapy object and try to make our way though our insecurities from moment to moment.

 

Posted on

Adopters in Harms Way

A current trend to increase adoptions is for animal shelter personnel ignoring the aggressive behavior of an animal as reported by the animal’s owner or keeper.  Shelter personnel wish the animal to have a clean slate and treat the animal as having no background information; they are confident that their own evaluations are sufficient to determine the animals fitness for adoption.

It is not uncommon for various factions in a shelter to view an animal in different light.  One of the most common problem that my last shelter faced was our volunteers posting glowing comments about animals on social media that were not consistent with the staff’s evaluations.  The volunteers felt that they knew better because of the behavior that they witnessed when walking the animal, even though the previous owner and staff assessed the animal differently.  They didn’t realize that they were observing the animal from a very small window.  People would come in to the shelter and discover that the volunteers lied to them so as to facilitate the placement of the animal.  Fortunately for the community, our shelter staff had the integrity to report the correct information or refuse to accept the adoption application.

This trend of passing marginal animals or animals with aggression in their history is getting animal shelters in trouble.  I frequently read about cases in which an adopter is subject to a serious incident and then finds that the animal’s history of aggression was not shared with them.  It became so commonplace in Virginia that laws were drafted to force adoption organizations to give out the animal’s history, good or bad.

Many shelters have placed their animal placements ahead of public safety due to the pressures of being no kill.  Not only have people been harmed, but many shelters have been sued for their callous actions.

Posted on

Perception

Dog owners have the worst case of perception.  For that reason, I have found employment in the animal control field for over thirty years.  Neighbors, on the other hand have finely tuned perception.  There is nothing worse than a dog owner maintaining one or more aggressive dogs behind a flimsy fence.  Commonsense would dictate that the dog owner would want to keep his neighbors safe.  My career has been founded on the lack of commonsense that is found in many dog owners.

The problem with perception is the legal aspects associated with whether a person’s perception is real or imagined.  Until the aggressive dogs break through the fence and mauls a neighborhood child, the perception is imagined.  It is most unfortunate that a child has to suffer to prove the perception real.

People who choose to own aggressive dogs are evidence of a fracture of our society in which these folks believe their rights are greater than the risk they place on their neighbors.  I have witnessed neighborhoods in which owners of (perceived) aggressive dogs are turned loose.  I have seen the same neighbors begin to carry means of protection from the dogs.

The problem with pet ownership is that there is no examination that proves a person fitness to be a pet owner.  The fact that people like myself have made careers in this field is evidence that we live in a world of unfit pet owners.

Parents should constantly watch their children because they are usually the litmus test when determining the intent of a dog’s actions.