Should dog-care workers be required to take competency tests?

(You mean they don't?)

Dog owners trust a variety of "professionals" to care for their dogs - veterinarians, vet techs, groomers, kennel workers, pet sitters, dog walkers, shelter/rescue workers, pet store clerks, trainers and behaviorists. Most dog owners - I know I made this assumption - think the people caring for their dogs are well trained and will give their dogs the same quality of care they receive at home.

In reality, the only animal care professionals who are required to be licensed are veterinarians, vet techs and nurses. Other dog-care workers may belong to an association - or not, may have received formal training - or not, may have received GOOD training - or not, may stay abreast of current developments in their field - or not.

This is not to say that certification or formal education guarantees that someone is qualified to work with dogs, as the case of Spork has shown us. It certainly doesn't mean mistakes won't happen - even the most qualified and conscientious professionals don't always do everything perfectly. And of course, accidents do happen.

But what dog owners - all pet owners - need to be aware of is the number of under-qualified, disinterested and even unscrupulous people who may be "caring" for their dogs. Even in professions where you would assume there would be some level of formal education - grooming or training for example - there are many self-taught, over-confident and under-qualified individuals passing themselves off as knowledgeable professionals.

And despite their claims of success and promises to fix or rehabilitate your dog, they may not really have the knowledge, the empathy or the personality to do what they claim they can do.

So how do you find someone you can trust? Find someone who belongs to an respected association. Get references. Check those references. Ask about experience and education. Ask about their training philosophy. Ask about how certain situations are handled. Make spontaneous visits to check on how your dog is being handled.


And if you suspect your dog has been a victim of poor handling, for example if they suffer from a drastic personality change after a visit to a kennel, groomer or trainer, don't assume the problem was caused there, BUT, do ask some pointed and direct questions.

In defense of Spork

I find myself getting caught up in new issues and causes on an almost daily basis since I've begin social networking. The latest is the case of Spork, a little Doxie who bit a veterinary technician, and who has subsequently been labeled a dangerous dog.

As with most things on the Internet, there's a lot of misinformation, hysteria, emotional outburst and a lot of weirdos have crept out from under the rocks they should really stay under.

But I digress....

It's wasn't easy getting through to the heart of the matter, but from what I've pieced together, Spork was at the Jasper Animal Hospital, where he's a regular patient, for a bit of dental work. The technician either reached to take him from the arms of his owner, or leaned too close to the dog's face with a pair of scissors and Spork bit the tech on the chin. The wounds were serious enough that the tech required a trip to the hospital and treatment from by a plastic surgeon.

The veterinarian says the dog had been nervous in previous visits, but that the dog did not have a record of aggressive behavior.

The incident was reported to officials by the hospital where the tech was treated - a legal requirement - and an animal control officer was sent to investigate. Spork's owners, Tim and Kelly Walker, received a ticket charging them with owning a "vicious dog" and have spent over $6,000 defending him.

Colorado state law prohibits animal care workers from filing charges against animal owners, but Lafayette officials say city laws permitting such charges apply.

The technician decided to "pursue charges" (one report says "file a report with the Police Department") an action the veterinarian supported, although he claims the veterinary hospital "has not advocated for, or participated in any way in subsequent decisions by the City of Lafayette to prosecute Spork's guardians".

A hearing is scheduled for sometime in April to decide Spork's fate.

If you're tempted to side with the technician in this case, here are a few things you need to keep in mind:

- Animal-care professionals know that animals frequently react badly (bite, kick, scratch or head-butt) when nervous or stressed.

- One of the earliest chapters in vet-tech text books involves safely restraining and handling nervous and/or potentially dangerous dogs.

- Many Dachshunds (along with many other little dogs) have a track record of being snappy.

- Experienced dog handlers never try to take an unfamiliar dog, especially a nervous dog, out of the owner's arms.

- You never stick your face in a dog's face unless you trust them explicitly.

- Legalities aside, if you work with dogs, and especially if you've actually been trained to work with dogs, you know the risks and accept them as a normal part of the job.

- An animal (or a person) is most dangerous when cornered.


Why this case is important...

Despite my concern for a little dog and the distress his family is experiencing, there's one reason every animal owner should be concerned about this case - it sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for other animal care professionals to pursue charges against owners if a pet injures them, whether the animal has a track record of "aggressive" behavior or not.


What you can do...

Following the story on Facebook or Twitter is fine, but if you're as concerned as I am, write to the veterinarian (snail mail) and to the Lafayette city officials. You might also consider making a donation to help cover the Walkers' legal costs - if such a fund is established, I'll be sure to post it.


What I don't recommend...

If you write letters or post to the fan page, please, resist the temptation to rant or name-call, as many of Spork supporters seem tempted to do. If we're going to save Spork, indeed if we're going to change the perception of dogs and of dog owners, we must remain rational and unemotional.

In particular, although I disagree with the Veterinary Technician's actions and Veterinarian's support, I don't believe that personal attacks will convince them to change their minds about pursuing the charges against Spork and the Walkers. I'm sure this person feels pretty trapped right now, and may even regret their actions. Let's give them some room and a few reasons to back down from what must be a very uncomfortable situation.


Facebook: Save Spork

City of Lafayette contacts

Jasper Animal Hospital
1361 Forest Park Cir Ste 107
Lafayette, CO 80026

Right Juris: Spork

Veterinarian's press release

Dr. Dodge's Editorial Letter, 25 February

Pet Docs on Call: A veterinarian's perspective

Animal Law Center (ACL) Tim and Kelly Walker's statement

Police report, including vet bill (ouch!)

"It's been told a photograph says a thousand words. This one united a thousand hearts." Thus starts an article on a remarkable rescue story, the story of Nico.

I wish the pictures, before and after, could touch everyone's heart.

I won't talk about the photos or the dog or his rescuers. I will talk about all the hundreds of thousands - millions - of dogs and cats and other animals who are in the same situation Nico was in, and who could have the opportunity for the same happy ending. The problem is, we won't see their faces. We won't know their names, species, or breeds, we won't hear their stories - we won't even know how many of them there are.

For most of them, we don't want to know their fates - a bullet in the head in Alaska, the gas chamber in Michigan, a puppy mill in Missouri, a dog-fighting ring in Georgia, laboratory experiments just about everywhere. There will be too few happy endings.

Nico is now an official poster child for millions of homeless and unwanted animals. But these animals don't need to be homeless. Without doing a lot of fancy math, I figure that if every single-pet home took in one "Nico", the overpopulation problem would be just about eliminated. If all the cats and dogs were fixed, the future problem would be prevented. If everyone turned from the cute puppy or kitten in the pet store and found a "Nico" in the local shelter who needed a bath, a few trips to the vet, a bit of EFFORT, I would be out of a job - and so would the backyard breeders, "free kitten" farms and puppy mills.

Nico's story says in two pictures more than any words can say - even the most dejected and miserable creature can triumph, given a home and someone who cares.

So for all the Nicos and Nicas that won't have their pictures go viral, please, open your heart and your home to a homeless animal.....

Update, 31 August 2010: Nico has been diagnosed with an aggressive cancerous tumor in his ear, and will start treatment soon. Please keep him in your thoughts. You can follow Nico on Facebook, he may be deaf, but he's a great typist!.

Petco Scoop: Nico's Story

Nico's Facebook Page

On the horns of a dilemma.....

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."—Dr. Suess

I have a dilemma on Twitter. As an advocate of adopting homeless pets rather than buying puppies from breeders, I follow a lot of other rescue groups and like-minded individuals. In my articles, I regularly slam breeders and kennel clubs for not doing enough to crack down on bad breeders and puppy mills.

However, the other day a breeder started following me, out of the blue - in fact they breed Blue Pit Bulls. According to my boss, who's been in the dog business for years, the Blues make the best fighters. I believe this breeder is in the south, and there's a lot of dog fighting in the south. I wondered how many of these puppies will end up dying in a fight....

Here's my problem - do I support them by following back (which I do like to do with anyone who has something to say, in this case champions of a breed I love) or do I just ignore them? Do I follow them and snipe at their tweets? Do I try to convert them to my cause? Do I do nothing? Do I moderate my views so as not to offend them...?

I make my money writing, and hope to hit the big time if someone picks up one of my blogs, zones or articles and gives me a regular gig on a prominent site or a magazine. By having a breeder follow me, I risk alienating a whole assortment of possible revenue sources, who might not agree with my views on breeding dogs, but might buy an article on housetraining a puppy.

Alienating breeders isn't the only dilemma. While I fully support reward-based training, I am a fan of a certain TV personality who is not too popular with behaviorists (I hasten to add that I do NOT use or advocate most of his methods). I can see alienating rescue groups with my views on hospice and rescue efforts for terminally ill animals. I get after veterinarians for charging too much, pushing unnecessary drugs and expensive dog food. I'm not a vegetarian.

And I can't wait to see the nasty remarks I get with the April Fools Blog I'm planning.....

But sometimes Fate hands you just what you need when you need it - I spotted the quote at the top of this post. So, I apologize if I offend anyone, but I have to stay true to what I believe - then again, I might just convert someone too.....

What are you doing with the gift cards you received for Christmas?

This one is shorter... I promise!

It occurred to me while eating a meal in a restaurant, thanks to a gift card from a generous relative, that many people are giving gift cards - the ones that look like credit cards - in place of other gifts. I've received several cards myself, to restaurants or stores that I rarely frequent, and they've languished lost in the junk drawer or have taken up space in my wallet. With the cards I did use, there was always a small remainder.

While gift cards are convenient for gifter and giftee, they do have two major drawbacks. First, they're for a round number $50, $25 or $100, and your meal, sweater or shoes may only cost $47.98, $19.99 or $89.98. Do you save the balance for next time, buy something else you may not need or loose the card when the balance is no longer enough to make a purchase?

The second problem arises if you don't use the card at all or if you let the remainder lapse. Most companies only allow you to carry the balance for a few months or a year before they start charging a monthly maintenance fee. Eventually the $2.02, $25.00 or $10.02 goes back to the issuing company.

What if we could donate those unwanted cards or that small balance to our favorite charity? It would be a win, win, win, win - the gifter knows the full dollar value of their gift was appreciated, the giftee gets to make a donation to their favorite charity, the issuing company gets good press for being charitable and the charity gets a few dollars. (If we all donated just a few dollars this way, it would add up...)

If you received a Visa, Mastercard or PayPal gift card, you can donate the balance quite easily - simply log onto your favorite charity's website and click the "donate" button. You might even consider doing this with the unused balance of a travel credit card - those non-re-loadable cards issued by banks instead of travelers checks.

For the hundreds of business-specific gift cards we have a different problem. We need to convince Applebee's (that's where I was when I had this particular brainstorm), Sears, American Eagle Outfitters, eBay - every major and many minor business offers them - to allow the real owners of that small amount of money (you and me) to use it the way we want to.

We want to donate those few dollars to a worthy cause, the charity of our choice.

Of course for me that will be an animal charity - there are plenty to choose from. You may choose another charity, and that's fine by me...

The End is in Sight - The Five Year Plan

I'm a big fan of the "five year plan" - a medium-range strategy to solve a seemingly insurmountable problem. I believe that by taking the right steps, getting everyone involved and by setting sensible deadlines, with the right commitment, any problem, including the problem of animal homelessness, can be solved. (I'm a bit "Crazy Eddie" too.)

And I believe that if everyone who has anything to do with animals works together, concentrating on just three areas of the problem, we could end animal homelessness in just five years. Here's how:

1) A Moratorium on Breeding

If all breeders - official "proper" AKC members, puppy mills and backyard breeders - would stop letting their animals reproduce, even every other "cycle", the number of available animals would drop dramatically. People looking for a new puppy or kitten could be encouraged to turn to shelters or breed rescue groups, adopting older animals in need of a good home.

Good breeders don't create litters to make money - they often loose money - their major concern is creating good puppies and maintaining good bloodlines. While I'm not a huge fan of purebred dogs, having spoken with breeders, I can understand their point of view. I can also believe they would be valuable allies in this effort, if approached correctly.

- The Problem:

Backyard breeders, puppy mills and irresponsible owners all need to be convinced that what they are doing is no longer economically or legally viable.

- The Solution:

Education, taxation and fines are the only way these people will be convinced - AND if potential owners stop buying or taking the puppies and kittens produced. The AKC and breed clubs must take an active role too, by not giving carte blanche registration to anyone breeding dogs with papers - only genetically sound animals should be registered and given proper papers and registration. The creation of new unofficial breeds like cocka-poos and labra-doodles should be discouraged as well.

2) EVERY Pet Spayed or Neutered

If everyone responsible for an cat or dog had their animal spayed or neutered (apart from proper AKC/breed club registered breeders), unwanted litters would soon be a thing of the past. In most areas, a spayed or neutered animal's yearly license is less expensive but this is only a start. More education and more incentive is going to be necessary.

- The Problem:

Many people love their animals, but think they can't afford or they won't take the time to have their pets fixed. In many areas "that's just how we do it" - unloading their yearly litter of kittens on whoever stops by is the social norm, and this way of rural (and urban) life needs to stop. Even with the best will in the world, accidents happen and litters of puppies and kittens are the result.

- The Solution:

Low-cost/no-cost clinics need to be setup, using students and graduates who have benefited from government subsidized loans to complete their veterinary medicine degrees. Companies that benefit from using animals in their advertising could donate money and products to support the effort.

Other incentives could be offered too - coupons for discounts on food products, kitty litter or flea control products, would encourage people to have their animals "fixed".

Homes and farms where the yearly 'free kittens' sign appears could be targeted by mobile spay/neuter clinics, using live traps to capture feral animals.

3) Placing Homeless Animals

Finally, if everyone who wanted a pet adopted a stray from a shelter or rescue, rather than adopting a puppy or kitten from a breeder, I believe that within five years there would be so few strays, our shelters and rescue groups would be almost out of work.

- The Problem:

First, puppies and kittens are just too cute. Second, older animals often come with problems that may need expert help to resolve - and finding help isn't always easy. Neither is working out the issues.

- The Solution:

First, by heavily, actively publicizing the five-year-plan, people considering pet adoption may seriously start to consider adopting an older animal, rather than buying a puppy from a breeder or a puppy mill - especially when fewer young animals are available. Reducing the number of easy-access puppies and kittens would help steer people towards rescues too.

Second, help needs to be accessible to anyone willing to take on a rescued animal, for a reasonable cost. Many rescue groups and animal rescue 'heroes' have a wealth of knowledge and experience which could be turned to this purpose. Potential pet-parents need to be willing to ask for help and must be willing to work out the issues. It isn't easy, but turning a troubled animal around is one of the most rewarding things I have ever done.

Third, by properly evaluating animals and prospective pet-parents, good matches could be made, to reduce or eliminate "adoption shock". Too often problems are played down in the hopes of finding any home, and that isn't the best option - proper evaluation and placement is the solution to finding "forever homes".

This 'five year plan' is dependent on EVERYONE in the animal rescue world working together towards the same goal, eliminating the infighting between the various rescue groups and concentrating on the longer-term solutions, stressing education and owner responsibility. Breeders, trainers, vets, rescue groups, animal activists, foster parents, behaviorists, Animal Control, legislators and companies that produce pet products, as well as potential pet parents need to set aside their differences, preconceived notions and monetary concerns for this to work.

And the five-year-plan can work.

The problem of unwanted animals isn't going to be solved in a day, a week or a year. It isn't going to be a hundred-percent solution, but it will be better than the current tactics of a handful of people trying to save thousands and thousands of unwanted, badly bred and genetically unsound animals every year.

But maybe if ALL of us who love animals, if all of us who earn our money from animals work together, we can reduce the problem of unwanted animals from a crisis of epic proportion, to a manageable, minor irritation in as little as five years.

It's worth a try, isn't it?