It hasn't been a good week. Whether it was food poisoning, some new medicine I started, or just a bug I caught, I spent all of Wednesday night and half of Thursday throwing up. I only mention this to get to what I actually want to say -- how healing having a dog nearby can be.
As I was traveling from bed to bathroom all night long, I kept seeing my dog. He would either look up from his bed in my bedroom of poke his head in the door of the bathroom, but he would be a presence. It was comforting not to be alone, even though I don't really expect him to be Lassie and go for help if I collapse on the floor.
But the real effect came on Thursday, when I was still ill, but a little better. First, before I even got out of bed, Teddy came into the bedroom to have the morning play ritual with Nestle. They both lie down and jaw wrestle, with lots of sound. I couldn't even see them, huddled as I was under three layers of blankets, but I could hear them, and it was definitely a pick-me-up.
Later that day, as I was lying on the couch rather than in bed, the dogs came over now and then to give me a lick or just stand nearby. And Teddy did his "I saw something insanely exciting out the front window" act -- he sees our feral cats out the front window and takes off on a high-speed lap around the house while he tries to decide if it's better to stay at the window, where he can see the cat, or go out the dog door, which gets him outside but in the back of the house rather than the front. I couldn't laugh because all my diaphragm muscles hurt too much, but it definitely made me smile.
It's good to have dogs around when you are really in need of a little relief.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Emerging Diseases in Dogs
Here is one you may not have heard about unless you happen to live in my neck of the woods.
We started hearing about the appearance on Vancouver Island of the tropical fungus Cryptococcus gattii in the late 1990s. Though several people had become sickened, some animals, including dogs, had actually died.
The topic has popped up from time to time since then, and our local Peninsula College applied for a grant to study Cryptococcus gattii in its natural environment, but they were not selected to receive the monies.
However, now we get a report that the spore-forming fungus is not only appearing in Washington and Oregon, it has mutated into a more lethal strain as it has traveled. As its primary habitat is Douglas fir and western hemlock -- trees in which we are awash -- it is apparently finding hospitable conditions.
In Canada 218 people are known to have been infected, and slightly less than 9 percent have died. In the U.S., there have only been 21 confirmed cases, but 5 of those have proven lethal. There are no statistics available for animals other than humans infected, but the early reports from Vancouver Island mentioned dogs and llamas that had contracted the fungus.
Symptoms are said to be like pneumonia, but if left untreated, worsening slowly over time . . . shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, fever, headache. The fungus travels in sports, and when they are inhaled they colonize the lungs and then spread throughout the body. Treatment involves IV antifungal medications for roughly two months, followed by other medications.
The infection can easily be missed or mistaken for something else, so knowing that it is now occurring in Washington, Oregon, and California, should be a heads-up to residents, both for themselves and for their animals. There is no direct person to person or animal to animal transmission. Instead, the fungus spores are blown by the wind or carried on shoes or car tires.
We started hearing about the appearance on Vancouver Island of the tropical fungus Cryptococcus gattii in the late 1990s. Though several people had become sickened, some animals, including dogs, had actually died.
The topic has popped up from time to time since then, and our local Peninsula College applied for a grant to study Cryptococcus gattii in its natural environment, but they were not selected to receive the monies.
However, now we get a report that the spore-forming fungus is not only appearing in Washington and Oregon, it has mutated into a more lethal strain as it has traveled. As its primary habitat is Douglas fir and western hemlock -- trees in which we are awash -- it is apparently finding hospitable conditions.
In Canada 218 people are known to have been infected, and slightly less than 9 percent have died. In the U.S., there have only been 21 confirmed cases, but 5 of those have proven lethal. There are no statistics available for animals other than humans infected, but the early reports from Vancouver Island mentioned dogs and llamas that had contracted the fungus.
Symptoms are said to be like pneumonia, but if left untreated, worsening slowly over time . . . shortness of breath, chest pain, cough, fever, headache. The fungus travels in sports, and when they are inhaled they colonize the lungs and then spread throughout the body. Treatment involves IV antifungal medications for roughly two months, followed by other medications.
The infection can easily be missed or mistaken for something else, so knowing that it is now occurring in Washington, Oregon, and California, should be a heads-up to residents, both for themselves and for their animals. There is no direct person to person or animal to animal transmission. Instead, the fungus spores are blown by the wind or carried on shoes or car tires.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Taking Dogs to Outdoor Public Events
The season of farmers' markets and open aire markets is swinging into being here on the Olympic Peninsula. We have farmers' markets in Port Angeles and Port Townsend and an open aire market in Sequim, and this weekend marks the start of the annual Irrigation Festival, a huge deal that goes on for 9 days, with plenty of outdoor activities.
So that got me to thinking. What is the accepted etiquette for bringing dogs to outdoor public events? I encounter plenty of dogs at the farmers' markets and, dog lover that I am notwithstanding, I don't think most of them should be there. Their people generally are paying no attention to them other than to hold onto the leash, and wouldn't know if they peed on a display or pooped in the street, or even bit someone (until the screaming started). The dogs are sometimes okay with it all, but sometimes are overwhelmed by all the activity and totally unsupported by their human, and generally looking for a place to hide. Other times, later in the season, they're wilting in the heat of the street or burning their paws.
I used to bring my dog Nestle to the farmers' market to help socialize him. But all of my attention was focused on him. . . I wasn't shopping or visiting. He was afraid of many things, and I had to be ready to take him away from a situation at a moment's notice, or reward him for relaxing in less trying circumstances. I have a trainer friend who brings her rally dog to the markets to practice amid distractions.
But by and large, the people on the end of the leashes appear to be pretty clueless. I've heard a few vendors complain from time to time (probably after something they were hoping to sell was ruined by a dog), but by and large the public doesn't seem to say much.
I have brought my dogs many times to the open air concerts that take place in both Port Angeles and Sequim during the summer. There, I can choose not to be in the center of the action (or too close to the loudspeakers) and can settle down and relax with the dogs. They seem to have quite a good time. Whether or not the appreciate the music, they like my attention and the occasional pat from a stranger.
I just wish people would give a little more thought to the situations into which they're venturing with dogs. I hate it when other dog owners give the whole group a bad name.
So that got me to thinking. What is the accepted etiquette for bringing dogs to outdoor public events? I encounter plenty of dogs at the farmers' markets and, dog lover that I am notwithstanding, I don't think most of them should be there. Their people generally are paying no attention to them other than to hold onto the leash, and wouldn't know if they peed on a display or pooped in the street, or even bit someone (until the screaming started). The dogs are sometimes okay with it all, but sometimes are overwhelmed by all the activity and totally unsupported by their human, and generally looking for a place to hide. Other times, later in the season, they're wilting in the heat of the street or burning their paws.
I used to bring my dog Nestle to the farmers' market to help socialize him. But all of my attention was focused on him. . . I wasn't shopping or visiting. He was afraid of many things, and I had to be ready to take him away from a situation at a moment's notice, or reward him for relaxing in less trying circumstances. I have a trainer friend who brings her rally dog to the markets to practice amid distractions.
But by and large, the people on the end of the leashes appear to be pretty clueless. I've heard a few vendors complain from time to time (probably after something they were hoping to sell was ruined by a dog), but by and large the public doesn't seem to say much.
I have brought my dogs many times to the open air concerts that take place in both Port Angeles and Sequim during the summer. There, I can choose not to be in the center of the action (or too close to the loudspeakers) and can settle down and relax with the dogs. They seem to have quite a good time. Whether or not the appreciate the music, they like my attention and the occasional pat from a stranger.
I just wish people would give a little more thought to the situations into which they're venturing with dogs. I hate it when other dog owners give the whole group a bad name.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Greyhounds Hunting Coyote
There was an article in Sunday's New York Times about a "sport" in Oklahoma of using greyhounds to hunt and kill coyotes. This was one I'd never heard of before. I'm well aware that ranchers hate coyotes for their predation of livestock. Coyotes have proven highly adaptable to changing circumstances, and dwell everywhere from countryside to city. But they are accepted hardly anywhere. I receive New York versions of the main tv networks, and there was near-hysteria not long ago because a coyote was spotted frequently in some NYC park (I think it was smaller than Central Park, and thus the coyote was turning up on the streets from time to time).
We live with coyotes here on the Olympic Peninsula. I see them fairly often. In fact, I've named one "Gorgeous" because he or she has the most luxuriant coat I've ever seen on a wild canid. I keep chickens, sheep, and llamas, and yes, I've had my share of losses. The first flock of chickens, which I was allowing to free-range during the day, was mostly killed, but the perpetrators were raccoons. We lost two sheep in the past two years, but because they utterly disappeared without a trace -- something a coyote or even a pack of coyotes simply could not accomplish -- I put that down to either cougar or aliens. (I mean, even cougar should leave a trace of blood or a footprint or something!)
I know people around here who hate coyotes because they prey regularly on house cats. Well, if you want to keep your cats safe, then keep them indoors. I know that our feral pack is at risk, but at least I've given them a shed they can access through a cat hole, and our open hay shed, where they can hide among the bales.
But to get back to the greyhound/coyote hunting. It is described as "a regional pursuit that is part of the area's lore, like the cattle drives along the Chisholm Trail." Doesn't that make it sound pretty?
One of the perpetrators of this "sport" states "This is exactly what they're born and bred to do," referring to the Greyhounds. But further on, the article notes that shock collars are used to train the dogs to pursue only coyotes. Otherwise, they would be running after rabbits or antelope or deer, which are actually more their historic target.
The article also notes that the barbed wire fences common to the area tend to tear up the Greyhounds' thin skin, and of course, the coyotes put up a fight for their lives when cornered. So the Greyhounds are injured or killed regularly.
I'm happy to read that this practice is banned in Washington state, by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Their reasoning was that canines killing other canines was too close to dogfighting, a felony in all 50 states. But apparently, Oklahoma does not subscribe to that view.
We live with coyotes here on the Olympic Peninsula. I see them fairly often. In fact, I've named one "Gorgeous" because he or she has the most luxuriant coat I've ever seen on a wild canid. I keep chickens, sheep, and llamas, and yes, I've had my share of losses. The first flock of chickens, which I was allowing to free-range during the day, was mostly killed, but the perpetrators were raccoons. We lost two sheep in the past two years, but because they utterly disappeared without a trace -- something a coyote or even a pack of coyotes simply could not accomplish -- I put that down to either cougar or aliens. (I mean, even cougar should leave a trace of blood or a footprint or something!)
I know people around here who hate coyotes because they prey regularly on house cats. Well, if you want to keep your cats safe, then keep them indoors. I know that our feral pack is at risk, but at least I've given them a shed they can access through a cat hole, and our open hay shed, where they can hide among the bales.
But to get back to the greyhound/coyote hunting. It is described as "a regional pursuit that is part of the area's lore, like the cattle drives along the Chisholm Trail." Doesn't that make it sound pretty?
One of the perpetrators of this "sport" states "This is exactly what they're born and bred to do," referring to the Greyhounds. But further on, the article notes that shock collars are used to train the dogs to pursue only coyotes. Otherwise, they would be running after rabbits or antelope or deer, which are actually more their historic target.
The article also notes that the barbed wire fences common to the area tend to tear up the Greyhounds' thin skin, and of course, the coyotes put up a fight for their lives when cornered. So the Greyhounds are injured or killed regularly.
I'm happy to read that this practice is banned in Washington state, by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Their reasoning was that canines killing other canines was too close to dogfighting, a felony in all 50 states. But apparently, Oklahoma does not subscribe to that view.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Animal Cruelty and the Supreme Court
By now, you have probably heard about the Supreme Court ruling striking down the law on which the case (and conviction) of a man who was selling videos that included dog fighting was based. Several of the dog lists to which I subscribe were immediately filled with messages of indignation. People were disgusted that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of dog fighting!
But of course that is a complete misunderstanding of just what is being ruled on here. The issue is actually one of free speech, the First Amendment. As I understand it, the videos were shot in a country in which dog fighting was at the time legal. The videos were not about dog fighting, per se, but about the Pit Bull and its heritage, or about hunting with dogs. The legislation on which the case was based did not specify "dog fighting" in any way, but was far more vague, with mentions of "animal cruelty" but without specifics of what that was.
If anyone remembers the debate about child pornography, before that law was brought into effect, and comments of "I know it when I see it," you might have some idea of the problems involved with vague definitions. I'm certainly against animal cruelty, but some of what I consider animal cruelty is actually broadcast of the National Geographic channel. . . and no legislators are crying for it to be taken off the air. In fact, while I would love to see it disappear from the airwaves, I would actually have to be AGAINST any legislation to accomplish that goal. Because it is subjective. And it is a matter of free speech.
Issues can get rather thorny when two strongly held beliefs run up against one another. Do I want to see videos including dog fighting available for sale? No. Do I want to ban some mushy, non-defined idea such as "animal cruelty"? Even more strongly no. Because if PETA got to decide what constitutes animal cruelty, my right to even own my dogs would disappear.
The Supreme Court justices indicated strongly that if the legislation is rewritten to be more focused and specific, they would have no problem with it. So there's really no big debate here. An unfortunate percentage of legislation is so broad as to have many unintended consequences, and that was the case here. Our lawmakers need to learn to understand the subtleties of a subject before they write laws about it. Then we'll all have more security and less debate about matters such as this.
But of course that is a complete misunderstanding of just what is being ruled on here. The issue is actually one of free speech, the First Amendment. As I understand it, the videos were shot in a country in which dog fighting was at the time legal. The videos were not about dog fighting, per se, but about the Pit Bull and its heritage, or about hunting with dogs. The legislation on which the case was based did not specify "dog fighting" in any way, but was far more vague, with mentions of "animal cruelty" but without specifics of what that was.
If anyone remembers the debate about child pornography, before that law was brought into effect, and comments of "I know it when I see it," you might have some idea of the problems involved with vague definitions. I'm certainly against animal cruelty, but some of what I consider animal cruelty is actually broadcast of the National Geographic channel. . . and no legislators are crying for it to be taken off the air. In fact, while I would love to see it disappear from the airwaves, I would actually have to be AGAINST any legislation to accomplish that goal. Because it is subjective. And it is a matter of free speech.
Issues can get rather thorny when two strongly held beliefs run up against one another. Do I want to see videos including dog fighting available for sale? No. Do I want to ban some mushy, non-defined idea such as "animal cruelty"? Even more strongly no. Because if PETA got to decide what constitutes animal cruelty, my right to even own my dogs would disappear.
The Supreme Court justices indicated strongly that if the legislation is rewritten to be more focused and specific, they would have no problem with it. So there's really no big debate here. An unfortunate percentage of legislation is so broad as to have many unintended consequences, and that was the case here. Our lawmakers need to learn to understand the subtleties of a subject before they write laws about it. Then we'll all have more security and less debate about matters such as this.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Paw It Forward Day
You may remember the book Pay It Forward. It is from a novel by Catherine Ryan Hyde, in which a 12-7ear-old boy does three good deeds for others and asks for them to pass on their own good deeds to three other people. The concept has become an international day -- April 29 is Pay It Forward Day.
This year, the organization has enlisted a dog, Ricochet, as the ambassador for Paw It Forward on the same day. Ricochet has raised money for several causes. You can see Ricochet's video about paying it forward at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayn0d1yvOHw The Pay It Forward website is http://payitforwardday.com .
For the Paw It Forward portion of the day, you could donate to a special shelter dog who needs expensive surgery. . . help a friend who has suffered monetary or health setbacks care for their own dog. . . pay for the bag of dog food for the person behind you in line at the pet supply store. . . contact your legislators about how to pass effective and nondiscriminatory legislation regarding dogs. . . go and clean up poop from a park. The choices are many. In each case (well, maybe other than your legislators), as the recipient or anyone who notes your activities to paw it forward and keep the chain going.
You have some time to make plans. I intend to make one financial donation, one community work-oriented donation (boy, do I know a park that needs cleaning up!), and one personal donation, and seeing where that takes me. Please consider joining in. More kindness going out into the world certainly can't hurt!
This year, the organization has enlisted a dog, Ricochet, as the ambassador for Paw It Forward on the same day. Ricochet has raised money for several causes. You can see Ricochet's video about paying it forward at www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayn0d1yvOHw The Pay It Forward website is http://payitforwardday.com .
For the Paw It Forward portion of the day, you could donate to a special shelter dog who needs expensive surgery. . . help a friend who has suffered monetary or health setbacks care for their own dog. . . pay for the bag of dog food for the person behind you in line at the pet supply store. . . contact your legislators about how to pass effective and nondiscriminatory legislation regarding dogs. . . go and clean up poop from a park. The choices are many. In each case (well, maybe other than your legislators), as the recipient or anyone who notes your activities to paw it forward and keep the chain going.
You have some time to make plans. I intend to make one financial donation, one community work-oriented donation (boy, do I know a park that needs cleaning up!), and one personal donation, and seeing where that takes me. Please consider joining in. More kindness going out into the world certainly can't hurt!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Protecting Wild Dogs in Africa
I always thought I would visit Africa (that constantly thwarted vision of being a wildlife photographer is a big part of that), but haven't made it yet. But one of my friends visited Kenya. She went on several "safaris," where a group of tourists are driven around to spot wildlife. She says she enjoyed the lions and elephants and all of that, but she was nearly drummed out of the vehicle when they spotted African wild dogs and she wanted to stay and watch for longer than anyone else. African wild dogs are not one of the "big three" or "big five" or however you want to count the most desirous species of wildlife to spot. Heck, they're not even on the radar of most visitors. As such, they don't have any perceived value to the locals, and they are often blamed (unfairly) for livestock predation, so their numbers are declining rapidly.
Greg Rasmussen became a zoologist almost by accident (while relearning to walk after crashing a small plane in the African bush), but he specialized in African wild dogs. He's now one of the world's leading specialists on them, and he's determined to save them. His first effort is to rename them as "painted dogs." Their pretty spotting patterns lends itself well to the new name, and it's certainly more intriguing than "African wild dogs," which sort of makes it sound as if they're packs of feral animals.
His second initiative is to work with the local people. He runs the Painted Dog Conservation, a center that provides a refuge for the dogs from poachers and a rehabilitation area for the injured. The center also serveds as a children's camp for school groups, where the kids learn that painted dogs don't attack humans and rarely take livestock (hyenas are usually to blame).
The third strategy is to try and elevate the painted dogs to an exotic species that attracts visitors and generates income for the local villages.
You can sponsor a child to go to camp for $60. I think I will add this to my list of charitable donations.
(Information from New York Times article "Every (Wild) Dog Has Its Day")
Greg Rasmussen became a zoologist almost by accident (while relearning to walk after crashing a small plane in the African bush), but he specialized in African wild dogs. He's now one of the world's leading specialists on them, and he's determined to save them. His first effort is to rename them as "painted dogs." Their pretty spotting patterns lends itself well to the new name, and it's certainly more intriguing than "African wild dogs," which sort of makes it sound as if they're packs of feral animals.
His second initiative is to work with the local people. He runs the Painted Dog Conservation, a center that provides a refuge for the dogs from poachers and a rehabilitation area for the injured. The center also serveds as a children's camp for school groups, where the kids learn that painted dogs don't attack humans and rarely take livestock (hyenas are usually to blame).
The third strategy is to try and elevate the painted dogs to an exotic species that attracts visitors and generates income for the local villages.
You can sponsor a child to go to camp for $60. I think I will add this to my list of charitable donations.
(Information from New York Times article "Every (Wild) Dog Has Its Day")
Monday, April 12, 2010
International Search & Rescue Dog Day
April 25th is International Search & Rescue Dog Day. This is a young event, begun in Austria in 2008, but it is certainly worthwhile. You probably have some inkling of the enormous amount of work involved in training and being certified for search and rescue work, but did you know that teams almost always pay their own way to search or disaster locations. Not to mention having to take time off from whatever their paying work may be, and leaving family and friends for however long their services are required.
With all the recent magnitude 7+ earthquakes around the world, I'm sure many teams have been busy. This event is one fine way to acknowledge their dedication. You can find the official website at http://rescue.dogzzz.net/.
On April 25th there will be events at various locations (unfortunately, mostly in Europe) beginning at 10 am local time. At 3 pm GMT (that's Greenwich Meridian Time, i.e., London), all participating dog teams will have a symbolic deployment around the world and greetings will be read out by the highest ranking politician available. Some teams will be online via webcams. You can also find a list of participating rescue dog teams at the website, and new photos will be posted after the event.
When you are thinking about charitable donations, please consider your local search and rescue. We have one out here on the relatively small and isolated Olympic Peninsula, so there's probably one near you. They almost always need equipment and training and travel expenses. And they'll be ready to help if you ever need rescuing.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Pet ID Week April 18-24
There are a lot of pet-related events this month, so I need to get started on mentioning them early.
In honor of Pet ID Week, I want to talk about microchips. This has been on my mind anyway, as my niece has a new Rottweiler and told me that she isn't having him microchipped because she lost her previous two Rotts to cancer at early ages and "the only thing they had in common was being microchipped." Well no, actually, they had quite a large other thing in common -- they were Rottweilers.
This got me searching the Internet, and I came up with an excellent document put out by the American Veterinary Medical Association. You can find it on their website, and redistribution is okay as long as the source is identified. It's from October 2009, called "Microchipping of Animals."
It includes a section on adverse microchip reactions. They tracked reports of adverse reactions in the United Kingdom, where more than 3.7 million pets are microchipped, from 1996 through 2009. Migration of the chip was by far the most common complaint, with swelling, infection, and chip failure much more distant chances. There was one report of a tumor in 2003 and 1 in 2005.
The article then goes on to a specific section addressing cancer. It points out that the reports of mice developing tumors around chip injection sites have no correlation to dogs, as the strains of mice are particularly prone to developing foreign body-induced tumors. They also note that the site of chip implantation is often also the site for giving vaccinations, and thus the cause of any tumor is difficult to identify.
On the other hand, over the years, chips have become much more valuable and reliable as universal scanners have become available. They note that owners of unchipped dogs who searched for a lost dog were successful only 13% of the time, but a chipped dog turned in to a shelter was reunited with the owner 74% of the time. One of the recommendations put forth as a result of the 2006 National Animal Disaster Summit was that all animals rescued during a disaster be chipped if they weren't already, largely because after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, microships helped identify rescued animals. (Finding their owners in the aftermath of the hurricanes was another matter.)
We recently had a demonstration of how effective the universal scanners are, as Teddy was microchipped in Taiwan and our veterinarian's scanner read the chip just fine.
The odds of losing a dog are much much greater than the odds of a dog developing cancer because of a microchip. Do yourself and your dogs a favor and have them chipped.
In honor of Pet ID Week, I want to talk about microchips. This has been on my mind anyway, as my niece has a new Rottweiler and told me that she isn't having him microchipped because she lost her previous two Rotts to cancer at early ages and "the only thing they had in common was being microchipped." Well no, actually, they had quite a large other thing in common -- they were Rottweilers.
This got me searching the Internet, and I came up with an excellent document put out by the American Veterinary Medical Association. You can find it on their website, and redistribution is okay as long as the source is identified. It's from October 2009, called "Microchipping of Animals."
It includes a section on adverse microchip reactions. They tracked reports of adverse reactions in the United Kingdom, where more than 3.7 million pets are microchipped, from 1996 through 2009. Migration of the chip was by far the most common complaint, with swelling, infection, and chip failure much more distant chances. There was one report of a tumor in 2003 and 1 in 2005.
The article then goes on to a specific section addressing cancer. It points out that the reports of mice developing tumors around chip injection sites have no correlation to dogs, as the strains of mice are particularly prone to developing foreign body-induced tumors. They also note that the site of chip implantation is often also the site for giving vaccinations, and thus the cause of any tumor is difficult to identify.
On the other hand, over the years, chips have become much more valuable and reliable as universal scanners have become available. They note that owners of unchipped dogs who searched for a lost dog were successful only 13% of the time, but a chipped dog turned in to a shelter was reunited with the owner 74% of the time. One of the recommendations put forth as a result of the 2006 National Animal Disaster Summit was that all animals rescued during a disaster be chipped if they weren't already, largely because after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, microships helped identify rescued animals. (Finding their owners in the aftermath of the hurricanes was another matter.)
We recently had a demonstration of how effective the universal scanners are, as Teddy was microchipped in Taiwan and our veterinarian's scanner read the chip just fine.
The odds of losing a dog are much much greater than the odds of a dog developing cancer because of a microchip. Do yourself and your dogs a favor and have them chipped.
Monday, April 5, 2010
A Belated Happy Easter
We had a truly lovely Easter Sunday. First, Nestle and new dog Teddy started really playing together for the first time. They ran the racetrack around the house (our house path is round), chasing each other, tugged with plush toys, and wrestled. Lots of fake growling and smiling.
Then we walked the Olympic Discovery Trail to the foot of our property, where a bench is dedicated to my dad. We wanted to put up signs that the property is in the Land Trust and a certified wildlife habitat before an Earth Day bicycle ride of Land Trust properties that includes ours. While we were there, a board member of the Land Trust came jogging with her dog, so we had a nice chat. And then our two eagles appeared soaring not far overhead. They must have a nest somewhere nearby because we've been seeing them fairly regularly, but this was the closest ever.
After having my heart gladdened all day by pets and wildlife, it was a real downer to see a New York Times article that a class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of Denver and Aurora service dog owners whose dogs happen to be American Pit Bull Terriers or mixes thereof (banned in those cities). The lawsuit is referencing the ADA, and the fact that the dog owners have been told to move or give up their service dogs. Sheesh! Will our stupidity never stop?
Then we walked the Olympic Discovery Trail to the foot of our property, where a bench is dedicated to my dad. We wanted to put up signs that the property is in the Land Trust and a certified wildlife habitat before an Earth Day bicycle ride of Land Trust properties that includes ours. While we were there, a board member of the Land Trust came jogging with her dog, so we had a nice chat. And then our two eagles appeared soaring not far overhead. They must have a nest somewhere nearby because we've been seeing them fairly regularly, but this was the closest ever.
After having my heart gladdened all day by pets and wildlife, it was a real downer to see a New York Times article that a class action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of Denver and Aurora service dog owners whose dogs happen to be American Pit Bull Terriers or mixes thereof (banned in those cities). The lawsuit is referencing the ADA, and the fact that the dog owners have been told to move or give up their service dogs. Sheesh! Will our stupidity never stop?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Human Familiarization and Training Program
I have only been able to access the abstract of this article so far (darned paying work gets in the way of tracking down and reading interesting stuff sometimes), but it sounds quite interesting, though not surprising.
A study in Belgium investigated the performance of military working dogs. The dogs were divided into two groups, one trained in the traditional manner used by Belgian Defense and the experimental group also receiving a new "human familiarization and training program." The abstract does not go into any detail about what this program entailed, but the abstract intro notes that dogs can use a number of human social cues to successfully accomplish tasks.
The results state that the experimental group performed better, with better overall results and a "higher body posture" (I would guess demonstrating more self-assurance), than the traditionally trained dogs. The final sentence notes "Regular training combined with positive dog-handler interaaction is also required to increase the dog-handler team's performance."
This sounds promising, and I hope to have the time to track down the full study soon. Getting the military and police to move away from force-based training has been a tough nut to crack (despite Steve White's continued efforts), so studies like this can certainly help the cause.
A study in Belgium investigated the performance of military working dogs. The dogs were divided into two groups, one trained in the traditional manner used by Belgian Defense and the experimental group also receiving a new "human familiarization and training program." The abstract does not go into any detail about what this program entailed, but the abstract intro notes that dogs can use a number of human social cues to successfully accomplish tasks.
The results state that the experimental group performed better, with better overall results and a "higher body posture" (I would guess demonstrating more self-assurance), than the traditionally trained dogs. The final sentence notes "Regular training combined with positive dog-handler interaaction is also required to increase the dog-handler team's performance."
This sounds promising, and I hope to have the time to track down the full study soon. Getting the military and police to move away from force-based training has been a tough nut to crack (despite Steve White's continued efforts), so studies like this can certainly help the cause.
Friday, March 26, 2010
New Dogs Make New Work
We have worked hard over the past week to install fencing around the portion of the larger yard that either didn't have it or had it in bad condition. Teddy had already gotten out twice, and we couldn't have that keep happening. He's a good guy, but he doesn't know his boundaries yet, and he's very quick on his feet and hard to catch. Training has started, but we're nowhere near a reliable "come" cue yet.
This got me to thinking about things we put up with related to our dogs. I have tons of desk work. I am, in fact, running far behind today because of time spent on fencing. I can't make it up tomorrow because I have to travel back to Edmonds to do a big group book signing. So I am stuck here until I do what has to be done. All because I had to drop the desk work while my brother was available to help, and go out and work on fencing.
Then of course the dogs need their exercise, so yesterday afternoon time was taken off to let Teddy have his first go and staying in the yard off-leash. That meant we had to be out there with him, trying to keep him within visual range. We have a couple of small sections of woods, and some buildings behind which he can disappear, and we weren't sure yet that we had fixed all the weak points in our containment. So we traipsed merrily from one end of the (4 acres) yard to the other, over and over, following Teddy's eager explorations. This despite the fact that the weather had turned typically northwestern and saw spitting rain.
Teddy had a grand time. He and Nestle almost initiated play. (I expect that will come when the exploration isn't so very enticing to Teddy.) And about the umpteenth time we maneuvered around near the front door, I opened it, called Nestle in, and Teddy came with him. . . for which he got rewarded with whipped cream.
We will have a few more supervised outings, then will hope that there are no as-yet-unfound weak points, and just go about our business as usual with us and the dogs out in the yard, without having to chase the little white streak hither and yon.
Do I resent spending the time to make the yard safe for Teddy? No. I regret the confluence of events that mean I can't make up the time tomorrow, but those are the breaks. It's worth it to see the little guy running around in utter joy at being free. He's very funny to watch run, with his little stumpy legs, but boy, he can cover ground!
I find dogs so enticing, beautiful, funny in so many ways, the payback is always more than the effort.
This got me to thinking about things we put up with related to our dogs. I have tons of desk work. I am, in fact, running far behind today because of time spent on fencing. I can't make it up tomorrow because I have to travel back to Edmonds to do a big group book signing. So I am stuck here until I do what has to be done. All because I had to drop the desk work while my brother was available to help, and go out and work on fencing.
Then of course the dogs need their exercise, so yesterday afternoon time was taken off to let Teddy have his first go and staying in the yard off-leash. That meant we had to be out there with him, trying to keep him within visual range. We have a couple of small sections of woods, and some buildings behind which he can disappear, and we weren't sure yet that we had fixed all the weak points in our containment. So we traipsed merrily from one end of the (4 acres) yard to the other, over and over, following Teddy's eager explorations. This despite the fact that the weather had turned typically northwestern and saw spitting rain.
Teddy had a grand time. He and Nestle almost initiated play. (I expect that will come when the exploration isn't so very enticing to Teddy.) And about the umpteenth time we maneuvered around near the front door, I opened it, called Nestle in, and Teddy came with him. . . for which he got rewarded with whipped cream.
We will have a few more supervised outings, then will hope that there are no as-yet-unfound weak points, and just go about our business as usual with us and the dogs out in the yard, without having to chase the little white streak hither and yon.
Do I resent spending the time to make the yard safe for Teddy? No. I regret the confluence of events that mean I can't make up the time tomorrow, but those are the breaks. It's worth it to see the little guy running around in utter joy at being free. He's very funny to watch run, with his little stumpy legs, but boy, he can cover ground!
I find dogs so enticing, beautiful, funny in so many ways, the payback is always more than the effort.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Animal Abuse Leads to Additional Cruelties
Okay, this really shouldn't be news, because I've been aware of Frank Ascione's work for over a decade. A professor at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, Dr. Ascione has studied the topic of animal abuse and its relation to child abuse, spousal abuse, and even serial killing for many years. Yet this article appeared in the New York Times only last week, reporting that "animal abuse is a clue to additional cruelties."
I don't know where the disconnect has been, but I'm glad that finally states are paying some attention. The article reports that counties and states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and trying to develop better methods for tracking convicted animal abusers. They are including animal hoarders in the animal abuse designation.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is quoted as saying that animal abuse is not more prevalent, but "what has changed . . . is the recognition that animal abuse is often a warning sign for other types of violence and neglect." They also note that in these times of economic crunch, states also have less money to handle the costs associated with caring for animals of busted hoarders. Franklin County, Ohio, reported that caring for more than 170 dogs from a hoarder cost over $1 million.
The majority of states now have legislation that shifts the payment of care for abused or neglected animals to convicted defendants. Most states now also authoritze vaterinarians to report suspected animal abuse (something I'm sure vets are still not eager to do).
Tennesse and California are considering bills to create online registries of animal abusers, similar to what is done with sex offenders. It would cover adults convicted of felony-level animal abuse. Arkansas, Illinois, and Oregon have recently enacted laws requiring investigators of human abuse and animal control officers to inform one another when they find instances of abuse in a home. One of the sponsors of a similar bill in Connecticut noted that animal abuse is one of the four indicators used by FBI profilers to assess risk of future violent behavior.
Professor Ascione noted that "Often children are not willing to talk about what is happening to them, but they will talk about their concerns about what they are seeing done to their pets." Recent case have demonstrated that when children hinted at animal abuse to their teachers and the teachers alerted animal protection workers, the workers found warning signs of other types of abuse and social workers went in and found that the children were being abused.
All but foud states now have felony-level animal cruelty laws. May they use them well.
I don't know where the disconnect has been, but I'm glad that finally states are paying some attention. The article reports that counties and states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and trying to develop better methods for tracking convicted animal abusers. They are including animal hoarders in the animal abuse designation.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is quoted as saying that animal abuse is not more prevalent, but "what has changed . . . is the recognition that animal abuse is often a warning sign for other types of violence and neglect." They also note that in these times of economic crunch, states also have less money to handle the costs associated with caring for animals of busted hoarders. Franklin County, Ohio, reported that caring for more than 170 dogs from a hoarder cost over $1 million.
The majority of states now have legislation that shifts the payment of care for abused or neglected animals to convicted defendants. Most states now also authoritze vaterinarians to report suspected animal abuse (something I'm sure vets are still not eager to do).
Tennesse and California are considering bills to create online registries of animal abusers, similar to what is done with sex offenders. It would cover adults convicted of felony-level animal abuse. Arkansas, Illinois, and Oregon have recently enacted laws requiring investigators of human abuse and animal control officers to inform one another when they find instances of abuse in a home. One of the sponsors of a similar bill in Connecticut noted that animal abuse is one of the four indicators used by FBI profilers to assess risk of future violent behavior.
Professor Ascione noted that "Often children are not willing to talk about what is happening to them, but they will talk about their concerns about what they are seeing done to their pets." Recent case have demonstrated that when children hinted at animal abuse to their teachers and the teachers alerted animal protection workers, the workers found warning signs of other types of abuse and social workers went in and found that the children were being abused.
All but foud states now have felony-level animal cruelty laws. May they use them well.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Spot On Flea Products
Full disclosure: I have never liked the idea of the spot-on products. It always seemed to me that they could rub off.
Now reports from the Environmental Protection Agency seem to confirm my feelings.
It's certainly no surprise that dog products used on cats, or large dog products used on small dogs, would cause problems. These products are poisons, after all, or they wouldn't work on the fleas. The alarming part of the message, to me, is the new advice to keep dogs and cats separated after using the products. There would be no reason to do this except that the dog product could transfer to the cat, either by contact or by licking.
If this transfer can be made, then it is also conceivable that products could transfer to bed linens, clothing, or hands petting the dog. So are you now not supposed to touch your dog after treating them with a spot-on product? For how long? And if the product is meant to flow over the dog's entire body after being applied to only one or two spots (another fine point that has bothered me about these products), then does it also flow over human skin once it comes in contact?
I have written endlessly about flea control, and have always had a hard time recommending these products to anyone but a person with a dog with flea allergies. I had one of those myself, and it was hard to get satisfactory control (and I lived in California at the time, where the flea infestations are much worse than in the Pacific Northwest), and still I didn't use the spot-on products on my own dog.
I use Program, which is not insecticide, but a sort of birth control for fleas. Its ingredient has no effect on mammals. True, it doesn't kill the fleas, and yes, we do have a few bites from time to time, but it is effective in not letting an infestation take hold. I am happy with its results, and very happy not to be putting a poison on my dog every month.
Now reports from the Environmental Protection Agency seem to confirm my feelings.
It's certainly no surprise that dog products used on cats, or large dog products used on small dogs, would cause problems. These products are poisons, after all, or they wouldn't work on the fleas. The alarming part of the message, to me, is the new advice to keep dogs and cats separated after using the products. There would be no reason to do this except that the dog product could transfer to the cat, either by contact or by licking.
If this transfer can be made, then it is also conceivable that products could transfer to bed linens, clothing, or hands petting the dog. So are you now not supposed to touch your dog after treating them with a spot-on product? For how long? And if the product is meant to flow over the dog's entire body after being applied to only one or two spots (another fine point that has bothered me about these products), then does it also flow over human skin once it comes in contact?
I have written endlessly about flea control, and have always had a hard time recommending these products to anyone but a person with a dog with flea allergies. I had one of those myself, and it was hard to get satisfactory control (and I lived in California at the time, where the flea infestations are much worse than in the Pacific Northwest), and still I didn't use the spot-on products on my own dog.
I use Program, which is not insecticide, but a sort of birth control for fleas. Its ingredient has no effect on mammals. True, it doesn't kill the fleas, and yes, we do have a few bites from time to time, but it is effective in not letting an infestation take hold. I am happy with its results, and very happy not to be putting a poison on my dog every month.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
New Dog. . . from Taiwan
First, people have asked to see Teddy, so I will post a picture of him here. We don't have any great pictures yet, but this will give you an idea.
You can't really tell how short his little legs are here (very). He is a compact 17 pounds.
The strange thing about Teddy is he is from Taiwan. I still feel a little strange about this. A rescue group in Edmonds imports dogs into rescue. . . small dogs, of course, because they are in demand. To save myself the heartbreak of visiting multiple shelters (there aren't a lot of small dogs in shelters around here), I went to Petfinder to look, and there I found Teddy (then known as Duke). The only other small dogs were a couple of Maltese (deemed too small by Judy - yay! - I would have constantly worried about stepping on them), a whole bunch of Chihuahuas (not a candidate for either of us), and an older Shih Tzu. The only local dog was the Poodle/Bichon mix who took a chunk of hair out of my dog Nestle when they met. So that left Duke/Teddy, and the way things fell into place (the phone call inviting us to meet him came during the only 5 minutes we were home and indoors that day, we had just seen and rejected the local dog) made it seem fated.
But it still feels strange to have a dog from Taiwan. His Chinese exportation papers are fascinating. A veterinarian asked about the possibility of importing disease (as the post-Katrina dogs helped spread heartworm around the country). But the papers list a variety of diseases/parasites not seen in Taiwan, plus other diseases/parasites for which Teddy tested clear. So it doesn't seem like a problem.
I spoke the few phrases of Chinese I know to him, and he did seem to perk up. But he is fitting in well, and appears to be quite happy with his new digs. Yesterday, when he came home (Judy is still in class, so is taking him with her, leaving him crated in the car, and taking frequent breaks to walk him) Nestle and he greeted each other with nose licks (Teddy has to stand on his rear legs to reach Nestle's nose), and then they had their first indoor play session, and Teddy grabbed a fuzzy squeaky toy for the first time. So it seems like a good fit all around. I regret not helping a local dog out of rescue, but there just isn't much choice. In fact, I took a look at ALL the local dogs on Petfinder and only found one that would suit my own less-stringent requirements as far as size and type. Rescue seems to be inhabited by Chihuahuas, Pit mixes, Lab crosses, German Shepherd crosses, and perhaps hounds right now.
Monday, March 15, 2010
New Dog Reminders
It has been nearly 12 years since we brought in a new dog, so though I know all the things we need to pay attention to, it still comes as quite a shock to have to do the work. New dog Teddy has already (1) gotten out of the car when a front door was opened (teaching "wait" rose to the top of the training program) (2) gotten through the fencing around the yard (admittedly not totally secure, but unchallenged by previous dogs -- it became the work goal of the weekend) (3) done a little digging in the yard (time to rebuild the digging pit, but that got delayed by the fencing issues).
Teddy is already signed up for the next available Pet Dog Manners class, starting at the end of the month. But we are working on "wait" and a recall in the meantime. I also have to dig out my nylon tracking line to have on Teddy whenever he is outside the secure dog yard, because he is far too fast and nifty for us to be able to catch him without a drag line. Fortunately, running away from him back into our yard worked, and he followed like a shot. . . after investigating much of the neighbor's acreage.
But he has had no problems with housetraining (he's two years old, and though he was in a shelter in Taiwan and then in rescue here, he has experience with living in a home), he rides well in the car (aside from zipping out any open door), he learned at some point that sitting up will get him a treat (not with us, but he's still trying), he and Nestle played for the first time this weekend (before Teddy left the yard), and he's generally settling in well. He did not object to being brushed, and we will try teeth brushing and nail clipping soon. He will see our veterinarian on Thursday, so we'll get an idea of how he responds to that.
We are all tired from keeping up with this youngster! Once we were settled for the evening yesterday, Nestle disappeared into my office and slept in his bed away from all of us. I think he wanted to be sure he wasn't interrupted!
My roommate hasn't decided yet if she wants to do pet therapy with Teddy. He seems like a fine candidate, so there shouldn't be any problems if she does.
On a side note, the AKC is offering a discount on signing up for its mixed breed program right now, so even though I don't plan to compete (well, maybe in Rally if the opportunity presents itself) I think I will sign up Nestle and Teddy just to support the program.
Teddy is already signed up for the next available Pet Dog Manners class, starting at the end of the month. But we are working on "wait" and a recall in the meantime. I also have to dig out my nylon tracking line to have on Teddy whenever he is outside the secure dog yard, because he is far too fast and nifty for us to be able to catch him without a drag line. Fortunately, running away from him back into our yard worked, and he followed like a shot. . . after investigating much of the neighbor's acreage.
But he has had no problems with housetraining (he's two years old, and though he was in a shelter in Taiwan and then in rescue here, he has experience with living in a home), he rides well in the car (aside from zipping out any open door), he learned at some point that sitting up will get him a treat (not with us, but he's still trying), he and Nestle played for the first time this weekend (before Teddy left the yard), and he's generally settling in well. He did not object to being brushed, and we will try teeth brushing and nail clipping soon. He will see our veterinarian on Thursday, so we'll get an idea of how he responds to that.
We are all tired from keeping up with this youngster! Once we were settled for the evening yesterday, Nestle disappeared into my office and slept in his bed away from all of us. I think he wanted to be sure he wasn't interrupted!
My roommate hasn't decided yet if she wants to do pet therapy with Teddy. He seems like a fine candidate, so there shouldn't be any problems if she does.
On a side note, the AKC is offering a discount on signing up for its mixed breed program right now, so even though I don't plan to compete (well, maybe in Rally if the opportunity presents itself) I think I will sign up Nestle and Teddy just to support the program.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Author Signing
Just in case anyone reading this is local to my area, I will be doing an author signing on March 27 at Edmonds Bookshop (in Edmonds, WA) along with about a dozen other local authors. My latest book, The Trick Is in the Training second edition, will be there with others.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Dog Camps
I saw a posting today about Canine Club Getaway at Roaring Brook Ranch in Lake George, New York. I don't know the ranch itself, but Lake George is a popular New York getaway. This camp says it offers agility, swimming, lure coursing, hiking, frisbee, flyball, tricks classes, barks and crafts, plus seminars by trainers, behavior experts, veterinarians, and canine nutrition professionals. For the owners, there's horseback riding, country line dancing, gourmet dining, and a spa.
There are plenty of other canine-centered gatherings every year, including Dog Scouts and Camp Gone to the Dogs. They seem to be increasingly popular, although our attempt to have one here on the Olympic Peninsula was a total failure. At the Dog Scouts camp I attended (sans dog), the attendees seemed to be evenly divided between returnees and new campers.
So I have to ask, what's the deal? Who actually attends these camps? Somehow I don't think it's the average dog owner (or there would be WAY more of them). Some are for specific sports, so those are easy to figure out. But the general camps, who do they attract? We tried to penetrate the Seattle market to draw from the nearest population center, but apparently failed, or maybe Seattle-ites just aren't interested.
I haven't got a handle on this, and I find it perplexing. Would you attend a camp for dogs? Would anyone you know? Just who do they attract? They were popular before stay-cations, so that isn't it.
There are plenty of other canine-centered gatherings every year, including Dog Scouts and Camp Gone to the Dogs. They seem to be increasingly popular, although our attempt to have one here on the Olympic Peninsula was a total failure. At the Dog Scouts camp I attended (sans dog), the attendees seemed to be evenly divided between returnees and new campers.
So I have to ask, what's the deal? Who actually attends these camps? Somehow I don't think it's the average dog owner (or there would be WAY more of them). Some are for specific sports, so those are easy to figure out. But the general camps, who do they attract? We tried to penetrate the Seattle market to draw from the nearest population center, but apparently failed, or maybe Seattle-ites just aren't interested.
I haven't got a handle on this, and I find it perplexing. Would you attend a camp for dogs? Would anyone you know? Just who do they attract? They were popular before stay-cations, so that isn't it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Positive versus Negative Training
The dog lists are all abuzz with debate over the wisdom of Premier Products (purveyors of the Gentle Leader, Manners Minder, click sticks, and other dog-related products considered acceptable or admirable by most positive trainers) selling themselves to Radio Systems (purveyors of electronic fences and shock collars).
Some well-respected names in the dog training and dog biz are involved in this acquisition, and say that the merger will encourage Radio Systems to develop electronic devices for positive trainers, and thus push the agenda of positive training. I wish them luck, and I wish it were so, but the Manners Minder itself is the most applicable case in point.
Originally marketed as the Treat n Train through the Sharper Image catalog, it is a remote rewards device that was sold along with a DVD of how to use it to teach a dog to "go place" (i.e., lie down and stay in a specific location). It did not sell well. It went through a slightly modified version and still didn't sell well, and then went to Premier as the Manners Minder. Quite a few trainers have one of the old or new version -- I have one myself. But it never made anything like a wave as far as selling to the general public.
On the other hand, electronic fences and shock collars are wildly popular. I cringe at ads by a local radio host I thought knew better, enthusiastically promoting an electronic fence. I try to ignore the lovely display of shock collars when I visit the local Petco. Most of the pet supply catalogs I receive have a whole section of electronic devices such as shock collars, Scat Mats, electronic fences, bark breakers, all based in punishment. I'm sure they sell or they wouldn't continue to be carried by the catalogs.
I'm a realist. I understand that some people may have covenants that prohibit them from building actual solid fences, but still need some way to contain their dog. But I also know that as a species, humans tend to find punishment rewarding. Sound contradictory? It isn't. There have been a fair number of studies demonstrating that humans are quite willing to punish other beings, sometimes to a rather horrifying extent.
Don't people find rewarding other beings rewarding themselves? That seems to be a less common characteristic of our species. Add that to the often-expressed sentiment that the dog is "doing it for spite," and you've got a real tendency toward using and accepting punishment.
So do I think that Premier will change Radio Systems for the better? No. Do I wish them all the luck in the world with their efforts? Yes.
Some well-respected names in the dog training and dog biz are involved in this acquisition, and say that the merger will encourage Radio Systems to develop electronic devices for positive trainers, and thus push the agenda of positive training. I wish them luck, and I wish it were so, but the Manners Minder itself is the most applicable case in point.
Originally marketed as the Treat n Train through the Sharper Image catalog, it is a remote rewards device that was sold along with a DVD of how to use it to teach a dog to "go place" (i.e., lie down and stay in a specific location). It did not sell well. It went through a slightly modified version and still didn't sell well, and then went to Premier as the Manners Minder. Quite a few trainers have one of the old or new version -- I have one myself. But it never made anything like a wave as far as selling to the general public.
On the other hand, electronic fences and shock collars are wildly popular. I cringe at ads by a local radio host I thought knew better, enthusiastically promoting an electronic fence. I try to ignore the lovely display of shock collars when I visit the local Petco. Most of the pet supply catalogs I receive have a whole section of electronic devices such as shock collars, Scat Mats, electronic fences, bark breakers, all based in punishment. I'm sure they sell or they wouldn't continue to be carried by the catalogs.
I'm a realist. I understand that some people may have covenants that prohibit them from building actual solid fences, but still need some way to contain their dog. But I also know that as a species, humans tend to find punishment rewarding. Sound contradictory? It isn't. There have been a fair number of studies demonstrating that humans are quite willing to punish other beings, sometimes to a rather horrifying extent.
Don't people find rewarding other beings rewarding themselves? That seems to be a less common characteristic of our species. Add that to the often-expressed sentiment that the dog is "doing it for spite," and you've got a real tendency toward using and accepting punishment.
So do I think that Premier will change Radio Systems for the better? No. Do I wish them all the luck in the world with their efforts? Yes.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Indians and Dogs and Horses
Just a quick post today, as it's once again sunny and while I have a break in desk work, I need to go out and tackle some of the tons of yard work that need doing.
There was a long article about wild horses in the March issue of Smithsonian. That in itself was interesting, but one line really caught my eye: "By the mid-1600s, Plains Indians were capturing and taming horses--which the Lakota called sunka wakan, or sacred dog. . ."
It's pretty obvious what the sudden availability of horses meant to Native Americans, but calling them "sacred dog" certainly brings up the thought, just what did DOGS mean to them? Dogs were used for many things, from pulling travois from camp to camp, to helping keep predators out of camp, as a food source, as a clothing source (wool dogs were specifically bred, separate from camp dogs, for their coats, which were shorn like sheep). Truly fearless braves were called dog warriors. So it appears that dogs were held in high esteem (despite their ending up in the stewpot at times), and invoking their name to give to the horse just makes that even more evident.
There was a long article about wild horses in the March issue of Smithsonian. That in itself was interesting, but one line really caught my eye: "By the mid-1600s, Plains Indians were capturing and taming horses--which the Lakota called sunka wakan, or sacred dog. . ."
It's pretty obvious what the sudden availability of horses meant to Native Americans, but calling them "sacred dog" certainly brings up the thought, just what did DOGS mean to them? Dogs were used for many things, from pulling travois from camp to camp, to helping keep predators out of camp, as a food source, as a clothing source (wool dogs were specifically bred, separate from camp dogs, for their coats, which were shorn like sheep). Truly fearless braves were called dog warriors. So it appears that dogs were held in high esteem (despite their ending up in the stewpot at times), and invoking their name to give to the horse just makes that even more evident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
