Chako Pit Bull Blog

Our therapy dog workshop

2011-11-21T09:53:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, nine Pit Bulls and their owners participated in Chako Pit Bull Rescue's therapy dog workshop in Sacramento. What an awesome group of dogs and handlers. Chako's very own Ozzie was one of the participants. We're so excited to see one of our rescued Pit Bulls taking the step toward becoming a certified therapy dog. Take a look at our photo album for more photos of our therapy dog workshops, and if you are interested in finding out about more Chako events, sign up for our Meetup!

Meet Henry: The Pit Bull pup who has gone through hell and still wags his tail happily

2011-09-26T18:19:00.000-07:00

This is Henry. He came to Chako on September 26th after a kind couple found him wandering a parking lot in South Sacramento. A very large, oozing wound around his neck tells the tale of a collar (most likely) that was never removed as he outgrew it and ultimately embedded itself into his flesh. At some point, the collar probably broke, allowing Henry to break free.

Henry also has a serious case of what is likely demodectic mange, with probably secondary skin infections. His age is hard to estimate, given his condition, but his teeth are pearly white and brand new, so it's obvious he's still a pup.

Henry exists in agony. His skin is on fire. The gaping wound on his neck oozes constantly, and he shakes his head and paws at his face, giving a low, pathetic wail of a whine. Then, he passes out, asleep.

Right now, Henry is at the Missouri Flats veterinary clinic in Placerville, being cared for by Dr. Randy Robinson, a dog lover who has a soft spot for Pit Bulls. Chako is currently seeking donations to help us get Henry the care and treatment he needs (and his course of treatment will no doubt take months).

You can chip in at http://chako.chipin.com/henrys-care

Visit Henry on YouTube to see his kind eyes and wiggling/waggling little body.

Henry: Day One, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vDAKfu7GA8

Henry: Waddles and Wags, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEA6hvBb5uw

Would You Rather Spend an Hour in a Box or on a Tether?

2011-06-20T20:02:00.000-07:00

We'll get straight to the point. Many people think tethering dogs is cruel. We don't -- if tethering is used correctly and humanely. Any containment method can be cruel if abused--especially the ever-popular crate! Before you hurl something at your screen, hear us out. If you still don't agree with us when you've finished reading, then post your disagreement in the comments. After all, Chako is all about open, reasoned discussion (versus name-calling and the throwing of rotten food).

We think a photo speaks a thousand words, so we're posting one to start off our discussion and get you thinking.

This crate is a bit too small for its occupant,
and many dogs spend time cramped in too-small crates.

Is tethering more cruel than crating? It can be. We don't think any one method is inherently better than the other, but we do think all dogs are different and responsible owners should have all options available to them. We're happy to see the trend toward animal welfare laws, but in our zeal to help animals, humans have, in many cases, made their plight worse.

We used crates to bring our dogs indoors and give them a nice, den-like space to hang out and escape from pestering children and dive-bombing cats, and then we made these same crates primary containment methods for when we're at work. We outlawed tethering in many cases, making long-term crating and kenneling more common, and we've seen ever-increasing behavior problems in dogs as people work longer and longer hours and dogs are stuck in smaller and smaller spaces....or just left alone completely all day, every day, in a yard.

We'll start with a few examples of situations where tethering, kenneling, and crating might be used--because, let's face it, responsible dog owners have to keep their dogs safely confined to their property when they aren't there to supervise, and we haven't yet created a world where everyone can telecommute or bring their dogs to the operating room with them while they perform a seven-hour surgery.

Yes, most people have to work, and often there's not someone home all the time to take care of the dog (before you say only unemployed people or those home all the time should have pets -- go visit a shelter where dogs are euthanized by the thousands every year; a kind but imperfect home is much better than death).

If you have a fenced back yard, you can leave your dog alone in the locked back yard while you're working--unless your dog digs out, eats random things (rocks, mushrooms, etc.), worries at the fence, jumps the fence, or fence-fights with the neighbor's dog (who, of course, is always the instigator). And that assumes you live somewhere where people never steal Pit Bulls -- say, Antarctica.

If you want to make sure your dog has a safe area in which to hang out while you're away, what are your options? Leave him in the house? That's great, unless your dog tends to be destructive or has a hard time holding "it" for 8-10 hours (I know I do!). And, let's hope your dog doesn't decide to burn your house down while you're away.

You can have a doggie door that gives your dog free access to the backyard -- oh but that leads to the same problems as leaving your dog alone in the house or backyard (fence-jumping, digging, arson...).

You can get REAL fancy and have a doggie door that goes to a secure kennel area (with a top and dig-proof floor). Wow. Okay, you can probably stop reading now, just make sure to dog-proof the home to avoid those accidental fires or inappropriate chewing (think: drywall, electrical cords, carpet, your Prada shoes...the usual).

But if you're one of those who got a nice, big crate to keep your dog in for 8-10 hours, five days a week (you know, you had to work late those couple of times, or traffic was a bear!), keep reading. You stuff your dog in a box because, after all, tethering is cruel. Maybe you feel guilty enough to hire a pet sitter who relieves your dog for 30 minutes at the 4-5 hour mark of his or her confinement in a 48-inch box (we assume you got the largest crate they make to give your medium or large dog plenty of room to stretch, not a shipping crate you can barely stuff the dog into).

Let me ask your dog -- Hey, Fido, do you like spending 8-10 hours (minus the 30 minute break) in a crate? (You didn't know I was a skilled animal communicator, but I am, and the dog told me "No").

So, you now feel sufficiently guilty and decide to buy a larger outdoor kennel such as a 10x10 wire mesh one. It will have a cover and be dig-proof with chew-proof bedding and a tip-proof water bowl. You're awesome. Your dog will be much happier than those unlucky crate-bound dogs. But wait! You find out you have one of those rare escape-artist dogs that learns to get out of the kennel or keeps worrying himself silly at the reinforced wire mesh, breaking his teeth. (You weren't stupid enough to try the cheap chain link ones at Home Depot or Lowes, so your dog can't easily rip through the panels, which means teeth go bye-bye).

Well, now what? You can't keep your dog in a tiny box all day. You can't keep him alone in the house because he's just not trustworthy. He'll escape the backyard if left unattended (hint: you tried the hotwire, but he can just sail right over the five-foot fence without touching it). He hurts himself in a kennel or has learned to escape. You should have named him Houdini. If he gets out of your yard one more time, it may mean the end of his life, so what are you to do?

You decide to try a tether system, and thank goodness you live in a city where tethering isn't outlawed, because then you'd just have to dump your dog at a shelter and hope he makes it out alive--either that or hire a full-time pet sitter or pay for doggie daycare every day, but your job doesn't pay you that much and allow you to also keep up on the rent or mortgage. (And, as it so happens, one of the top reasons for people dumping their dogs in a shelter--or, even worse, on the street--is problems containing the dog--we don't agree with it, but it's a reality).

Having done your research, you get a 20-foot tether, put it in an area where it cannot get tangled or caught (and where the dog cannot hang himself accidentally) and where the dog has access to both shade and sun. It's within a fenced area to keep other animals out. You give him a nice, comfy bed and dog house, a large water bowl he can't tip over, some toys, etc. He can lay out in the sun or rest in the shade. He can chew on his dog-safe toys, drink fresh, cool water, and maybe even splash around in little kiddie pool you positioned just before the end of his reach. Of course, there's still the issue of someone stealing him, but with a good tether setup, you can help minimize that risk by positioning him out of sight.

In the kennel, your dog would have had 100 square feet of room in which to live during the day. With a 20' tether, your dog has 1256.64 square feet of room. That's over 1,000 extra square feet of room, and there's no wire mesh for your dog to break his teeth on. He can stretch, relieve himself, choose the most comfy location in which to rest and watch the world go by without kennel bars obstructing his view.

Then, and most importantly, when you get home, you take him for a nice, long walk or run, play with him with his favorite toy, feed him dinner, and snuggle up on the couch inside with him while you watch T.V. or play on the computer. He sleeps in your room, and his snoring only wakes you, oh, every 25 minutes.

If you think a responsible tether set up is cruel, then we challenge you to spend one hour in your dog's crate (again, this assumes you have the largest one they make for your medium to large dog and, if you don't, get one). Then, spend one hour outside attached to a tether, with part shade and part sun and something cozy to rest on (heck, throw in a kiddie pool!). In the comments, tell me which was the better experience. One hour can't compare to the eight-plus hours dogs often spend confined (but we're not kidding ourselves you'll try anything longer). However, if you are an over-achiever and really want to get into the experience, spend a full eight hours in the crate and then another eight hours on a tether and report your experiences.We know it will be more cramped for you than your dog, but it gives you a taste of confinement (and also remember that most people don't put their dogs in the largest crates available -- they put them in the smallest crates they can get away with because large crates are generally expensive and they take up lots of room).

The point we're making is not that one containment method is necessarily better than another, and we know that most people who tether their dogs aren't doing so humanely. They do it to keep the dog out of the way--out of sight, out of mind. The dogs are, essentially, abandoned outdoors and only given barely enough sustenance to survive (and sometimes not even that). But, you know what? Dogs can be just as abandoned in kennels, the garage, or, even more horrifically, crates.

Our point is that any containment method can be abused, and not every containment method is appropriate for every dog. Dogs are all different, and some may love to spend the day in their covered kennels while others adore their crates (but very few would choose to spend eight hours a day locked in one). The key to responsible pet ownership is to make your dog a member of the family. Dogs are social creatures. They need stimulation, interaction, play, and exercise every single day. They should not be left in kennels, crates, or tethers 7 days a week, 23.5 hours a day.

Don't think we're anti-crate. In fact, we love crates. They are awesome -- when used correctly. We just don't think dogs should spend forty to sixty hours a week in them. It is, in most cases, cruel to leave a dog in a crate for eight hours, five days a week. People do that and then wonder why their dogs have such behavior problems. (We know a few of you have dogs with medical issues that require crate confinement and those couch potato dogs that are unconscious--i.e., asleep--for 16 hours a day; you're excused).

What would happen to you, psychologically, if you were left in a shipping crate 40-60 hours every week? We know, some of you think your cubicles are pretty close to that existence, but let's face it, the law makes your employer give you meal and rest breaks and allow you to use the potty. Your dog has no such luxury. And while you're checking Facebook and blogs in your cubicle, your dog has finished all the peanut butter in her Kong hours ago and is now bored out of her mind with an uncomfortably full bladder.

How do you think your dog would prefer to pass the hours?

Like this?

Or this?

If you're still pondering the merits of tethering versus other forms of humane containment, such as kenneling (in large kennels), read this Cornell study.

Join in the discussion by posting photos of yourself in your dog's crate on our Facebook page, which will totally freak out Rachele, our Social Media coordinator, because they won't be in albums, they'll just be *gasp!* on the wall! (We love you, Rachele!). Warning: We cannot be held responsible if you get stuck!

Chako founder Dawn tries out one of the larger crates.

Vanessa, Chako's events coordinator, looks far
too happy in the Vari Kennel with her bunny toy.

Jackie tries out the Doggie Condo and looks much
less happy about it than Vanessa does!

Pit Bull Friendly Toys

2011-06-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

We're often asked what kind of toys are good for enthusiastic chewers like most Pit Bulls, and we're including a list and brief review of some of the best toys out there for Pit Bulls. Keep in mind, of course, each dog is an individual, and some dogs might be more merciful to their toys than others, so not all Pit Bulls need the strongest, toughest chew toys out there.

But if you have one that does, here's a list! Remember, always supervise dogs with chew toys, and inspect the toy frequently. If you have a multi-dog household, make sure dogs are given their toys separately, away from each other, to avoid a fight.

Plush Toys

Tuffie Toys are strong, reinforced plush toys. They are not indestructible, but they do come with toughness ratings that indicate their durability. We've found even those rated 8-10 usually only last an hour or so if left as a chew toy, but the more grabbable ones do make decent tug toys.
Stuffingless toys make a great present for dogs that like to disembowl stuffies. While dogs still need to be properly supervised (as with any chew toy), the lack of stuffing yields a smaller mess and less chances of intestinal blockage (though of course dogs can still rip and swallow the fabric itself, which could lead to an expensive vet bill).
Sherpa Toys with Chew Guard Technology last about fifteen minutes for determined chewers, but a bit longer for less serious plushie slayers.

Non-Plushie Toys

Nylabone Galileo Bones come in different sizes. The Wolf size seems to work nicely for the average sized Pit Bull (40-60 pounds), but many dogs also like the Souper size. These last a few days to a few weeks for most dogs, and the edges wear down, allowing you to see when it's ready to be thrown out.
GoughNuts are fantastic toys that even the most serious chewers usually can't put a dent in, and if they do, there's a color coded interior lining that lets you see when the rubber is compromised. These are expensive, but worth the price since you probably won't have to replace it for a while. Be careful, though. These are generally heavy toys, so you shouldn't throw one at your dog.
Hurleys are another rubber-like toy that stand up fairly well to heavy chewers, though they aren't as durable as the GoughNuts and Galileo Bones. They last a few days to a few weeks for most Pit Bulls, but they are a staple around here. Dogs like the soft toys, they are easy to throw (and much lighter than the GoughNuts), and the company will replace one if your dog destroys it (but you have to pay shipping).
Black or Blue Kongs are generally decent options for chewers, but many dogs can tear through a black kong (especially if they find the "trick," which is to start at the big hole and work the rubber until pieces break off). However, black kongs are stronger than red kongs, and they are easy to stuff with natural peanut butter or other goodies to keep your dog occupied. Blue kongs have the advantage of being radio opaque, meaning if your dog swallows a piece, it'll show up on an X-Ray. Kongs come in different sizes -- Large or X-Large generally works best for most Pit Bulls.

Want more great tips and information geared specifically for Pit Bull owners? Check out our Pit Bull Owner Guide.

Getting a dog and cat acclimated to one another

2011-06-03T08:40:00.000-07:00

We've had lots of questions about how to acclimate a dog and to a cat, and we frequently refer people to a wonderful link on a great forum called Pit Bull Forum. It's just so much easier when someone else has taken the time to lay out all the information, complete with photos. We did get permission from the author (known as "Red") to post the information, and we're including a link back to the original post (which is a member-only area).

We employ a very similar method, including using very firm corrections if a dog shows aggression to a cat. We communicate firmly to our dogs that aggressive behavior toward the cat will not be tolerate while rewarding the appropriate behavior. The type of correction we normally use is a very firm verbal correction. The original Pitbullforum post is linked at the end of the article. I highly recommend that you check it out, and if you still have questions about it, then email us!

Recently I have been reading of folks having difficulties with their dogs and cats. I had experiences like that with a few dogs and especially Tigger, now mine but came here as a foster dog. Tigger tried to kill my cat on the second day she was here. I do not do any interaction so soon, my husband left the laundry room open and the cat got in Tigger's face. The only thing that saved the cat was a furniture. Both me and my husband had trouble holding Tigger and we were on top of her. She was in lalaland, all she cared about was to get the cat.

So I thought of sharing my experience and what I did, for what is worth. It was about 9 months of work, it did not happen overnight and no mistakes. Maybe it can help someone and avoid a dog to end up kicked out of the house and a dead cat. This is especially for foster homes since we are responsible for the dog we take in and our own pets.

The first rule is to know the risks of bringing home an uknown dog. Your evaluation at the shelter, AC of whatever the dog comes from is only a little snapshot of the personality, habits and genetic of the dog. Once the dog is in a different environment all the "problems" show up, things might change. If the injury or even loss of a pet (it can happen) will buy the foster dog a ticket back to the pound or worse then don't foster. It is a risk, plain and simple, but good management and commitment can save troubles.

After the accident I kept Tigger totally away from the cat for about 2 months. She knew it was in the house but I did not allow her to see it. This is to try to take her mind off of it a bit and get to know the dog.

Then I started to show the cat to Tigger trough a baby gate and not knowing if she would jump it she was also on a lead. I had treats and solid hold of the lead.I was waiting for the moment she looked at me, to praise her. The first time it took 40 minutes for a quick look. Tigger knew no commands so before this I started teaching "watch me". I like positive training to teach commands but I am also not very positive when it comes to house rules. The cat is something the dogs here cannot touch and I enforce it. I don't get physical and hurt the dog but I make it clear that they cannot eat the cat. Tigger was "corrected" with voice and pulled back when she lunged at the cat.

When Tigger looked at me the first time she got her treat and the cat was put away. I started doing this every day. Tigger would see the cat for 5 minutes every day.The beginning was quite frustrating and things looked less than promising.There was lunging at open mouth, screaming and major fits. A strong and determined dog trying to do something can be an hassle. I kept insisting on it.

In the meantime I found out that she was very food motivated so I would do the "cat sessions" before a meal.

To one look a few more followed. After a few months the baby gate came down and I would have the cat loose and Tigger on lead and I would walk her around the house. By then she knew "watch me" and associated lunging at the cat with trouble while looking at me would bring treats and ball time.

I decreased the distance very slowly since she was still trying to see if there was a way she could get a hold of the cat. That meant taking a step back and work from distance.

Tigger also saw the cat when she was crated and treats were thrown to her when she laid down and ignored the cat, along with vocal praise. When she finally stopped to lunge and pull toward the cat and I saw her focusing on me and the food I let her loose behind the baby gate and watched her, while the cat was on the other side of the gate. Tigger ignored the cat and walked away from the gate when asked.If she seemed too interested I would say "nah-ha" and she would step back and go lay down on her bed.This was around 5 or 6 months after she came here. Her body language in the cat's presence was starting to relax and she was able to play with her toys or chew on a bone behind the baby gate. With some experience we can read a dog before something happen and anticipate it and use postures to tell us what is going on.

Then Tigger was brought in the kitchen loose with the cat and me there, for 10 minutes or so each time. My husband was there also in case of problems.I had a bunch of treats and kept asking the dog to stay next to me. Each time she looked at the cat she was re directed with the voice and a treat was popped in her mouth.

Three months after that, Tigger was allowed to be loose in the living room and every room of the house with both me and the cat there.I would still offer treats and kept calling her to me but by then she wasn't showing dangerous interest in the cat.The cat was also relaxed around her.

At that point I felt that Tigger was ready to be with the cat without major problems so I increased the time they interacted.

This is how things are today, two years after the day she tried to kill my cat.Here she is asked to ignore the cat:

The same excercises were done with Jack who also try his best to get a hold of small animals. It is a year and one month that he has been here and it is about 2 months since he is allowed to be near the cat.

There are 4 dogs in this room and the cat is on the bed. Each one of them, except the little one, has prey drive and can't be trusted with any other small animal outside my house. If I leave the room the cat is not safe any more. I am very aware of it. One dog alone might not hurt the cat but with 3 of them it takes very little to get over excited, especially if the cat decides to move fast.

All this been said there is no guarantee that the dogs will never try to do something. Tigger will get any cat outside of the house, even mine. If my cat runs in the yard she will get it. Prey drive is something that cannot be eliminated on a dog. The rules only apply in my house and they are the result of months of work. I do not expect the dogs to "learn" not to be aggressive towards small animals but I do want them to follow some rules in my own house. Some dogs will never be able to be in the same room with a cat but I believe that many can get to that point, with the resident cat at least. forgetting that the way they behave inside the house is not going to affect their instincts. Outside the house it is fair game.

There is always a chance of accidents and someone can get hurt. My husband spent 4 days on IV and morphine for an infected cat bite. He had the cat in his arms and made the mistake to let him see Tigger, as he was walking outside. The cat remembered that same dog and bit my husband, trying to run for his life.

This is my experience and the way I approach foster dogs with high prey drive. It works for me, so far, granted I am willing to be patient and careful. It might not be the same with the next dog and there might be a serious accident. I am not telling anyone that it will work for you, but it is worth to give it a try at least. Mistakes can and will happen, to everyone. They teach us what we probably did not know how to manage. Sometime it is just bad luck so we have to be sure that we are ready to deal with things before we get ourselves and our own animals in trouble. And time, lots of time.

http://www.pitbullforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34479

Heartguard Plus Lawsuit: Fired for Protecting Dogs or Disgruntled Employee?

2011-06-02T10:04:00.000-07:00

Findlaw published an article today detailing a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Heartguard Plus that alleges the company fired her after she discovered "the company had intentionally utilized improper data analysis methods to ward off an FDA investigation."

She's not just any former employee, though. She's Dr. Kari Blaho-Owens, the former Global Head of Pharmacovigilance, which means she oversaw the collection and analysis of adverse reactions to drugs the company manufactured. Her lawsuit alleges that she discovered Heartguard Plus is not 100% effective, despite the company's claims otherwise, and that she was instructed to destroy documents that were relevant evidence in a class action lawsuit against the company.

Of course, her allegations are just that -- allegations. However, there are a few shady facts staining the company's reputation, including two FDA warning letters (one in 2007, available here). You can also read the earlier class action lawsuit against the company here.

Another article (scroll down) tells that when one dog contracted heartworm disease after being on Heartguard Plus, the company paid for the dog's treatment after investigating and finding that the owner's compliance with giving the preventative to her dog was substantial.

When a Cane Corso Becomes a Pit Bull: Tragedy in New York

2011-05-30T08:27:00.000-07:00

The New York Daily News reported on Saturday May 28th about the tragic death of a Brooklyn boy mauled to death by the family's Pit Bull. On Sunday, it changed the headline and story, complete with a photo, to identify the dog as a Cane Corso. The headline, which originally read, "Brooklyn boy mauled to death inside his apartment by 'violent' pit bull, chaotic scene follows" was changed to, "Brooklyn boy mauled to death inside his apartment by 'violent' mastiff, chaotic scene follows." (We note the url still includes 'pit bull').

The original first sentence of the story read, "A 4-year-old boy died after he was savagely mauled by a pit bull inside his Brooklyn apartment Friday night, cops and witnesses said."

The revised first sentence now reads, "A 4-year-old boy left alone for a minute by his mother was killed when a family dog savagely mauled him as his two terrified brothers watched helplessly, cops and witnesses said." Not until the seventh paragraph does the story identify the dog as a Cane Corso.

This reporting demonstrates not only that the media is quick to report a dog mauling as being perpetrated by a Pit Bull, but that news organizations will report differently on the same story based solely on the breed of dog involved. If the reporter believes the dog to be a Pit Bull, Pit Bull is in the headline and the first sentence. If the dog is not a Pit Bull, the reporter won't mention the breed until several paragraphs into the story.

Unfortunately, knowing what breed was involved here doesn't help the boy, who has lost his life. Nor does this story demonstrate that Cane Corsos are inherently dangerous dogs. What this story demonstrates is that any breed of dog, in the wrong hands, can be dangerous. There is no doubt this dog demonstrated dangerous propensities before this incident, and the family chose to keep the dog in the home with several young children.

I would like to make a point here about a correlation the sensationalized news story seems to erroneously make. The story reports the "killer dog" reportedly killed the family's rabbit earlier, presumably as evidence that such an act proves a dog to be dangerous to people. Educated dog people know that not to be an accurate assumption. Dogs are prey-driven animals, as are cats (who frequently kill birds and rodents when left to roam). Each dog has different levels of prey drive, but many dogs chase cats, squirrels, rabbits and other small animals, and this instinct to chase and catch/kill small animals does not indicate a dog is a danger to humans.

Certainly a dog CAN be be both aggressive to small animals and to humans, or it can be aggressive to people and not animals, or vice versa. And it is true that SOME dogs may view small children crawling on the ground as prey. Some dogs, not all. Many dogs love kids of all ages at first sight and recognize them to be youngsters of the human variety. Other dogs are more unsure, some are downright frightened of young children and others view them as a potential toys or prey. At any rate, that particular behavior would have been obvious before the mauling if the parents were paying attention and, regardless, it is never a good idea to leave any dog, especially a large one, alone with children (but even small dogs have caused death and serious injuries to young children).

Whenever stories like this make the news, the factors are almost always the same and include a young child left unsupervised with a dog capable of causing him or her serious harm. Often, the family is uneducated about dog ownership and, more often than not, outright irresponsible about owning such dogs. Large dogs are popular as "guard dogs," and those who seek out guard dogs are usually looking for dogs that WILL bite someone (presumably to protect the family's home).

But dog owners should be aware that dogs with a low bite threshold (meaning it takes very little to make them bite a stranger) are also much more likely to bite harm a member of the family.

We don't really know much about what happened other than what the story reports (and this particular news agency hasn't given me much confidence about its dedication to accuracy. However, we do know another child has lost his life because of poor parental supervision.

No doubt, the Cane Corso enthusiasts are disheartened by this story. Is the Cane Corso the next breed to be misused and misbred by irresponsible people wanting a tough, aggressive guard dog? Let's hope not. Too many good dogs and great breeds have been devastated by these dangerous humans.

[Link to the story]

Dog Safety Tips for National Dog Bite Prevention Week

2011-05-19T09:49:00.000-07:00

May 15-21 is National Dog Bite Prevention Week, and in its honor, I'm giving away free tidbits of information to help you and your family interact safely with dogs.

Don't approach a strange dog unless you're willing to get bitten. When you see a loose dog on the street, you may feel the need to round the dog up and try to find its owner. Good for you! Just realize there are RISKS involved in doing so. The dog may be disoriented, frightened, and much more likely to bite in defense than it would had you encountered it at the park playing happily with its owner.

Obviously, not all strange dogs are going to bite. Many are perfectly happy to meet new people. Some will even happily jump into your car in glee at the prospect of going somewhere fun and exciting. But if you do try to play the hero to some lost canine soul, be careful about it. Try to entice the dog to come up to you rather than cornering it (though I did once corner a little dog running in traffic and snatched her up; I did so knowing full well that if I got bit, it would be my own darn fault).

Be mindful of the dog's body language. A fearful dog is much more likely to bite, and fear can manifest in different ways. Ears back, unusual panting, head bowed, shying away, cowering, hackles raised--these are potential signs a dog is anxious or fearful. Use caution!

Dr. Sophia Yin has a free poster for download on fearful dog body language.

Don't tolerate rude or challenging behavior from your dog. Your dog growls if you or your child goes near his bowl, so you learn to leave him alone. Well, guess what. Some day, your dog will have a snack, a toy, or something of value and you won't have your eyes on your child and the dog at all times. Child strays near dog. Child gets bitten. It might be your child or the neighbors or even an adult such as an unwary pet sitter.

Yielding to bad behavior encourages it. The dog growls. You back away. The dog's guarding behavior is reinforced so when someone doesn't properly heed the warning, the dog's only recourse is to yield or bite.

Please don't take this to mean you should storm right up to a dog that's growling to defend its food or toy. If you start with a puppy, make a habit of playing the "trade" game so the dog gets used to you and members of your family trading awesome goodies for whatever he or she has and then giving the original item right back. So, if the dog's eating, stroll casually up and drop in some fresh, warm chicken. If the dog has a toy, show him some steak and let him take it as you take the toy, then give the toy right back.

You can do this same technique with an older dog, and it works nine out of ten times. For that one time, you will need to seek professional help to work on the problem, but in no case should you ignore the behavior or yield to the dog's bad manners.

Supervise all children around dogs, both for the sake of the children and the dog. Kids often hurt dogs, and dogs can easily hurt children. Do both a favor and make sure each is safe from the other. If you can't supervise, contain one is a secure, safe area away from the other (be aware most child protective agencies will likely frown on you crating a child, though most children seem to think they make the best play pens).

Ohio, Here We Come!

2011-04-24T07:15:00.000-07:00

I'm traveling to Ohio with Savvy, my Pit Bull service dog, for two screenings of the documentary Beyond the Myth, produced by Libby Sherrill. The getting here was tough. It involved a four hour flight from Sacramento to Atlanta--hich I learned on the flight over is the "busiest airport in the world." Oh, lucky me! To think I could've gone my entire life without discovering--much less experiencing--that.

Savvy's flight over was more miserable than my own. I got a coach class seat. Savvy, on the other hand, got to spend the four hours stuffed under a small seat, with me constantly readjusting him to avoid carts and feet crushing his toes or tail.

When the coast was clear, I'd let him stretch just a bit (but he couldn't block the aisle).

A pleasant surprise on the flight ended up being the passengers in the first class row in front of mine. Savvy was situated under a gentlemen's seat, and the man glanced back and down at Savvy, smiled, and asked, "Pit Bull or mix?" I said, "He's a purebred" to which the passenger asked, "Amstaff?"

Few people call a dog an Amstaff unless they know something about the breed, so with a pleasant nod, I said, "Yes," and he proceeds to whip out his cell phone and show me a photo of his two. I asked if he shows them (because of the "Amstaff" remark and the fact that the two dogs looked more like the show type). He said he used to, but it got to be too much.

A woman's voice next to him asks, "Is that Dawn?"

Huh? I wondered if suddenly I got famous and no one told me! She peeks around and says, "It is you! We have Clyde and Zsu Zsu!"

Oh my goodness! Now it all comes back to me, and I recognize both of them. I know them, they've been to my house. What a small world! So, I got to spend some time chatting with fellow Amstaff lovers!

We had a changeover flight in Atlanta, as I mentioned, which would take us to Louisville, Kentucky, our final destination for the night. I would've had an hour and a half to take Savvy outside the airport for a potty break, but since our flight was delayed a bit in Sacramento, I had less than an hour to get all the way across the airport, outside, and then back through security and across the airport again. I tried. I made it outside only to find a concrete jungle without a spot of dirt or grass anywhere.

I let Savvy mark up one of the huge planters that were out of the way and rushed back inside (hoping "number 2" wasn't on the horizon anytime soon for my canine companion). At least Atlanta has a train that gets you from one end of the airport to another, but it's not what I would call dog friendly. The only warning you get before the train takes off at light speed is a "warning, train is about to start." We humans get either a seat or a pole to hang onto. Savvy only had the leash and collar attaching him to me as he was propelled toward the opposite end of the carriage at warp speed.

Neither he nor I had eaten anything all day. By the time we got to our Louisville connection at 8:35 p.m. Atlanta time, I was starving, and I knew he was, too. I grabbed a Chevy's to go wrap from the vendor who was conveniently situated five feet from my gate (the plane had already boarded). I rushed on board and got Savvy situated and out of the way (since there was an empty space between me and the other passenger in this row, he got to stretch out a bit more).

I scarfed down my wrap at record speeds, offering Savvy a few morsels of the chicken and tortilla. The passenger in the other seat was a dog lover, so she was delighted to share the row with Savvy.

We finally landed in Louisville. Savvy was just happy to finally be outside again!

Libby and friends picked us up, and we made the drive to her friend's house where we'd get to crate and rotate dogs. I got to see Joey, a dog Libby originally adopted from us a little over a year ago when he was only about 4 or 5 months old. My how he's grown! His tan and white face finally filled out, and he looks like quite the handsome man. Then there's Fern, Libby's first rescued Pit Bull, and Sarah, the Labradoodle (owned by Gina, the host). Tanner, not seen, is Gina's Lab mix.

Poor Savvy got a potty break and then ended up stuffed in a crate to decompress and be kept separate from the other dogs (I was in no condition to do dog-dog introductions at that point).

We got up the next morning and made the three and a half hour drive (oy!) to Columbus, Ohio for the screening at Ohio State University. We stopped in Cincinnatti on the way and got something to drink at Panera while taking advantage of their wi fi network. The entire state of Ohio declared Pit Bulls to be "vicious dogs," and Cincinnati has its own anti Pit Bull law, but even though the law doesn't say it, service dogs must be exempted under federal law. So, I took Savvy inside Panera with me -- the place was packed, and we got quite a few admiring and curious looks! Although, to be honest, I still felt like a fugitive who should be in hiding, and part of me kept an eye out for police and animal control officers as I mentally prepared to pull out my lawyer sword.

Fortunately, House Bill 14 is working its way through the state legislature. If passed, it would remove the term "pit bull" from the Ohio Revised Code's definition of vicious dog. Visit the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates for more information.

We arrived in Columbus just in time to get our merchandise table set up. Savvy got a brief potty break. Libby, Savvy, and I were all starving. We'd only had 8 people buy advance tickets, so Libby was a bit concerned about what turnout we'd get, but the theater filled up nicely and seating became scarce.

Savvy and I were seated in the back row, by the door, so as folks came in, they stopped to pet Savvy. A few realized his service dog vest meant, "Please don't pet me," but for that night, I let him go up and say hi and unwind a bit. He enjoyed all the attention. In fact, when one guy offered Savvy a piece of popcorn, Savvy was more interested in licking him then taking the popcorn (though he scarfed it down as soon as the nice man left!)

I found the movie just as powerful this time around as I had the first time I'd seen it. Afterward, we engaged the audience in a one-hour question and answer session. Molly of Buckeyes for Canines and Babes for Bullies was on stage with Libby and me to answer questions.

Some of the questions were, "Should we call our dogs Pit Bulls when asked?" and "How have things changed since 1996? (when Chako started)?"

In answer to the first question, Libby said it's really up to each individual. I gave my perspective and talked about how Denver went through its animal control database to round up Pit Bulls when the ban first went into effect. So, when licensing my dog or having his/her records at the vet, my dog is a terrier mix -- which is actually true since Pit Bulls are mixes of terrier and bulldog. Folks who get their dogs from rescues or shelters really have no idea what the dog might be, so it's best not to try to label the dog and just state its breed is unknown.

One very astute woman raised the point that that may scew the statistics when legislatures say there are few Pit Bulls in comparison to the number of Pit Bull bites (meaning Pit Bulls seem more likely to bite). In fact, the percentage of dog owners who actually license their dog is pretty small in comparison to the number of dog owners. Further, the number of folks who will label their dog as a "terrier mix" when it's a purebred APBT or AST are even smaller, so statistically, the percentage won't be scewed enough to make any kind of difference in that argument. Finally, since just about every shelter says their kennels are filled primarily with Pit Bulls and mixes (and have a tendency to slap the Pit Bull label anything that looks remotely like a Pit Bull--if you have just the right lighting and squint--it's easy enough to get the shelter to produce its intake records and show that Pit Bulls and mixes make up--according to the shelter--a large percentage of the community population).

As to the second question, that was a longer answer, but basically, the media coverage of Pit Bulls has intensified, the dogs have become even more popular--especially with irresponsible owners--and of course social media has (as one woman pointed out) has changed the landscape even more proufoundly.

Afterward we signed posters, Savvy got to loosen up a bit and walk around the closed theater. We munched on some left over pizza that they'd put up for sale in the lobby (about the only real food we'd had all day), and even Savvy got to enjoy a few morsels of pizza. Then, we packed up and made the three and a half hour drive back to Louisville.

The gals from Babes for Bullies and Buckeyes for Canines with me (above) and Libby (below) (and, of course, Savvy).

Now, I'm off for another three and a half hour drive to Knoxville, TN. Next weekend, it's back to Cincinnati, then home to Sacramento! I'll need a vacation from this trip!

Beware of Irresponsible Dog Owners

2011-02-06T12:18:00.000-08:00

News10 reports that, on Friday night, a Pit Bull belonging to a young man attacked his girlfriend's toddler and then attacked the mother when she tried to intervene. The mother got herself and her son locked into a bathroom, away from the dog.

The most important part of this story is that the toddler, while seriously injured, will make a full recovery, but of course he may bear some psychological scars from the attack.

Let's take a look at the factors involved in this attack. First, the child was left alone, unsupervised, with a dog. Secondly, the dog was not neutered (apparent in a photo of the dog displayed by News10). Of course, intact dogs do not, by merely being unneutered, present a danger to people. However, people who are not showing or working to obtain titles on their dogs and who nevertheless leave their dogs intact generally are not the most responsible dog owners. Of course, a dog might have a specific health issue that makes it dangerous to place the dog under general anesthesia, but it's a rare dog that cannot be put under for surgery.

The owner of the dog, who did not want to be identified, allegedly stated the dog showed no prior signs of aggression. Unfortunately, owners of dogs that end up causing serious injury almost always claim their dogs never showed any prior signs. Who wants to admit, when facing potentially serious criminal and civil liability, that their dog did show prior signs of aggression, and they ignored those signs or, heaven forbid, encouraged them? Of course, we don't know what happened in this particular situation. We don't know much about the dog or the dog owner, since the dog owner has not been identified.
Since Will Frampton, the reporter in this case, came to interview Chako volunteers, we did have a chance to find out a bit more about the incident. Frankly, no one is truly clear about what happened. The reporter told us a few things that we wish we could publish (let's just say he smelled something specific in the house when he visited it to report on the incident), but many facts are "unverified" at this time.

The only facts that seem clear are (1) the child was left alone unsupervised with the dog, and (2) the dog was not neutered. We don't know where the boyfriend was (since she was visiting his home with her child and apparently had to get the dog off the boy herself and then lock herself in the bathroom). Firefighters had to come to rescue her.

So, where was the boyfriend? Why did he keep an intact dog? Was he showing the dog? Working it toward obedience titles? Had he even attended obedience classes with the dog? How well socialized was the dog, and where did he get the dog? We can be pretty sure, since the dog was intact, that he did not get the dog from a shelter or rescue that screens their dogs. Shelters and rescues in the Sacramento region (and throughout most of California) almost always spay and neuter dogs before sending them off to their new homes.

So, let's drill down a bit deeper on the set of facts here:

Child left alone unsupervised with a dog
Dog likely is not being shown or worked toward obtaining titles, yet is unneutered. (Why?)
Dog not adopted from a shelter or rescue that neuters them before placing them
Dog highly likely to be a product of indiscriminate back yard breeding (was not bred by someone who obtains show and/or working titles on the dog, performs full health testing -- including hips, thyroid, cardiac, and ataxia--and breeds only the dogs that have demonstrated the best temperament).

And, of course, this person just had to own a Pit Bull. We love Pit Bulls. Of course, we do. We're a Pit Bull rescue. We love them so much, we really wish these woefully irresponsible owners would just never be allowed to own a dog of any breed, period, until they fully wised up on the harm they cause, not just to the human victims of their irresponsibility, but to the canine victims, as well.

Related Content:

Chako's Pit Bull Service Dog Training Program Gets Airtime

2010-11-30T10:13:00.000-08:00

We have officially launched our Pit Bull service dog training program. We take rescued Pit Bulls and train and place them as service dogs to assist persons with disabilities. News 10 visited our pilot service dog trainee, Junior, to see him in action and learn more about this innovative program.

U.S. Military Bans Its Own Hero Dog

2010-11-25T21:00:00.000-08:00

Many have heard of the heroic search and rescue dogs that helped find survivors in the aftermath of the September 11th World Trade Center attack, or the War Dogs in Afghanistan and Iraq that have saved the lives of American soldiers. Few, however, have heard about America's first and most decorated War Dog -- Sergeant Stubby. Apparently, even the U.S. military has forgotten about him, because all across the United States, military bases are banning Stubby's kind.

Born sometime around 1916, Sergeant Stubby was a little Bull and Terrier dog (or, Pit Bull, as we call them today). He served with the 102nd Infantry in the trenches in France for 18 months and participated in four offensives and 17 battles. Stubby learned to warn his fellow soldiers of impending toxic gas attacks and incoming artillery. His captured a German spy by the seat of his pants. When he returned to the U.S., he was invited to the White House and honored as a hero.

Stubby received the following honors and awards for his heroism:

3 Service Stripes
Yankee Division YD Patch
French Medal Battle of Verdun
1st Annual American Legion Convention Medal
New Haven World War I Veterans Medal
Republic of France Grande War Medal
St Mihiel Campaign Medal
Wound stripe, replaced with Purple Heart when introduced in 1932
Chateau Thierry Campaign Medal
6th Annual American Legion Convention
Humane Education Society Gold Medal

None of this matters to the U.S. military. Instead of honoring the heritage of the American Pit Bull Terrier and the many lives Stubby saved (who knows, maybe some soldiers today would not be alive if Stubby hadn't saved their great grandfathers), military leaders have decided to embark on a full offensive against any and all American Pit Bull Terriers.

In the most recent example, Camp Pendleton has banned the breed. Duke is a gorgeous blue Pit Bull that lives on the marine base with his favorite soldier. According to pleas all over Facebook, Camp Pendleton authorities have given Duke's owner an ultimatum: Get rid of Duke, or he may be confiscated and killed.

The reason for the ultimatum has nothing to do with Duke's personality or behavior. The reason is because he is an American Pit Bull Terrier.

And apparently, American Pit Bull Terriers don't belong on American military bases. Perhaps they prefer the German shepherds or the Belgian Malinois. (Don't worry, I have nothing against those awesome breeds!)

We are sorry, Sergeant Stubby, that our military leaders today have forgotten your bravery and service to this country. We know it's not very patriotic of them to ban a breed that shares part of our nation's name. It's woefully sad that the very breed that inspired the formation of the K9 military corp has now become a victim of the very nation it has served for so many years.

R.I.P. Sergeant Stubby. If you can.

Open Letter to the United Kennel Club

2010-11-02T14:27:00.000-07:00

Dear United Kennel Club:

Since 1898 you have been serving the purebred dog community. Your charter dog was the American Pit Bull Terrier. Our respective organizations both love the breed, but we propose to you that it's time to do what's right for the breed and change its name to American Bull Terrier.

I've personally shown UKC American Pit Bull Terriers with my family since the 80s. I grew up around UKC show and weight pull events. I love the breed. The breed name American Pit Bull Terriers fills me with pride.

Unfortunately, the breed's name is a small part of its downfall. We recognize the name is not the cause of the problems the breed faces. Names don't cause owners to act irresponsibly or communities to implement bans, but the name does not do the breed justice in today's world.

Yes, we know these dogs have, as part of their history, been used for bull-baiting and dog fighting, among other things. We know changing the name is not going to end dog fighting or breed specific laws.

However, the best name for the breed is and, frankly, always has been American Bull Terrier. It's a name that is straight to the point. These are bull and terrier dogs -- derived from overseas cousins and developed on the early American frontier.

Changing the official breed name will have a great deal of positive effects. For one, every breed specific ordinance that refers to the UKC standard for the American Pit Bull Terrier will have to be, at the very least, rewritten. If the UKC doesn't have an American Pit Bull Terrier standard, than the law becomes vague and ambiguous and likely unenforceable as written.

Additionally, we send the message that dogfighting is not the end-all and be-all of this breed. In fact, dogfighting is a cruel and ridiculous "sport" that we should do our best to banish. Humans don't need to fight dogs to prove gameness or worth. There are many other avenues for demonstrating a dog's drive, stamina, endurance, and no-quit attitude.

Chako Pit Bull Rescue has been working with Pit Bulls directly for about 15 years. Our founder has owned, handled, trained and loved Pit Bulls for over 30 years. We love the breed. We know you do, too. We know a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet, and a breed by any other name will be just as wonderful. Changing the name to American Bull Terrier can only do good. At most, its effect will be neutral. At best, it will start a positive upswing for this breed by removing the fighting reference from the breed name and, in one sweep, shaking the validity of breed-specific ordinances across the United States.

Pit Bull Service Dogs Get Noticed!

2010-10-27T14:23:00.000-07:00

Two Pit Bull service dogs made the November issue of California Employer Update, a publication of the California Chamber of Commerce. Chako fans will likely find the two dogs very familiar -- one is our very own ambassadog Savvy. The second dog is named Idge and belongs to a Chako volunteer.

The article discusses the issue of animals in the workplace -- from pets to service dogs that assist persons with disabilities. In particular, the article notes that any breed of dog may be a service dog pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. To highlight that point, the article includes a photo of two Pit Bull/Amstaff service dogs laying calmly side by side during a public outing.

Download the entire article as a PDF. Reprinted with permission from the November 2010 issue of California Employer Update, published by the California Chamber of Commerce.

Leaving Lucy

2010-10-11T08:20:00.000-07:00

Well, we're packing up on our last day in Santa Clarita. Saturday, we drove from Sacramento to Agua Dulce with three dogs and three people to drop Lucy off at Villalobos. Roland, one of volunteers, was with us with his Villalobos rescue dog, Dulce. He wanted Tia to see her since it's been years since he adopted her from Villalobos.

The trip was smooth and seemed shorter than I thought it would. Lucy got a little ancy in the crate toward the end of the trip, so we made a final stop to let her potty and stretch her legs. Of course, when three Pit Bulls pile out of an SUV that has big orange "Chako Pit Bull Rescue" magnets on each side, people notice. A number of people stopped to pet the dogs, and one couple in particular loved little Lucy.

After that last stop, we made the final leg of the trip to Agua Dulce. Tia's directions were perfect, so we found it with no problem. We delivered some donations that a shelter volunteer up here had asked us to pack (those took up the very last bit of room in the car). Tia met Lucy, and I gave her the whole spiel on Lucy's history again, with some more details about what I've observed of her temperament since she's been in my custody. Tia graciously let me go back to the kennels so I could see for myself what accommodations little Miss Lucy would have, at least during the transition to their new place.

Then, we took a few photos (since dog folks are notoriously camera-happy about anything and everything they do with their dogs), and left. I have to admit I got a little teary-eyed on the way from Agua Dulce to Santa Clarita. I really wish I had a spot for Lucy myself, but all of our foster homes are full. I know Lucy is safe, and that's a lot better than being euthanized.

We checked into the very dog friendly La Quinta Inn in Santa Clarita. Our plan was to spend the next day in Santa Monica to take the dogs to the beach. Well, Santa Monica is not, apparently, a very dog friendly town. Not only do none of the patio restaurants we encountered allow dogs on the patio (except for the dive stands), but none of the beaches allow dogs...at least none that we could find. So, we ended up having to drive along the Pacific Coast Highway until we could find a place that was a little less crowded and didn't have any life guard towers.

Finally! We found a little place near a Vons and Chevron and took the dogs to the beach. We put them on long lines and let them chase the tennis ball. Vinnie got rolled in the waves a few times--butt over head--but had a blast trying to catch the tennis ball in the rolling waves. All three of the humans got pretty soaked, too, and Roland's phone might not ever recover.

The dogs pooped out when we got back to the hotel. I don't think they stirred all night, though Vinnie didn't feel very well. He probably swallowed too much salt water or maybe got a touch of vertigo, but he's much better this morning.

Now, we're off--cleaning up the hotel room, packing up, and heading down for the continental breakfast. I've got tons of video to work through and edit when I get home, and then I'll be posting Lucy's trip to Villalobos on our YOUTUBE channel. So, stay tuned!

In the meantime, I've uploaded a few seconds of the dogs' beach fun (yes, we dog folks reallly are camera-crazy). A little girl walked up to Roland and Dulce on the beach and said Dulce (who is mostly white with a few black spots along her fur), looked like a Dalmatian. Roland kind of nodded and said, "Yes, she does look a little like a Dalmation" to which the little girl replied, "You know, Dalmations are not good with children."

Roland got such a kick out of that statement, I don't think he mustered a reply. Fortunately, for the little girl, Dulce is not a Dalmation. She's a Pit Bull, and Pit Bulls by and large are very good with children. Dulce and Vinnie in particular are true to their Pit Bull heritage in that aspect.

Vinnie gained a fan, too. A father from Iran and his little girl watched us play with the dogs. The father asked what kind of dogs they are, and we told him they're "Pit Bulls." He commented that Pit Bulls are dangerous, and we did a bit of polite educating. He watched us a short while, and then asked if his little girl could throw the ball for Vinnie. Of course, we agreed, and Vinnie made two new friends that day on the beach.

The Two Pieces of Equipment Every Dog Owner Should Have

2010-10-07T16:36:00.000-07:00

I'm often asked what's the best collar and leash to buy for a Pit Bull. Every dog is different, so there is no one "best" collar for every dog, but there is one collar and leash style that every dog owner should possess.

Martingale Collar

A strong, quality martingale collar is an essential piece of equipment for just about every dog owner. A martingale collar is a collar with a chain or fabric/leather loop that constricts a little so that the dog cannot back out of the collar. (See: Wikipedia for martingale photo and full description). This collar is wonderfullly functional when used by itself for dogs that walk well on leash or as a back up to a training collar, training harness, or head halter. When fitted properly, the martingale should just barely slip over the dog's head, which will prevent the dog from being able to back out of the collar because the collar will tighten when tension is applied to the leash. The collar does not, however, choke the dog in the same way as a traditional slip collar. Martingales, like most collars, should not be left on unsupervised dogs.

European Training Leash

This lead has a clasp on each end (rather than on only one end, as with most traditional leashes). It also has one or more stationary or floating D rings along the length. Alternative names for this leash are police leash and six-way leash. (See an example of a European training leash online). This is the must-have piece of equipment for every dog owner. It is a versatile and secure leash that will allow you to attach one end to a primary collar or harness and the other end to a backup collar. You can also loop it around your body for a hands-free set-up or even use it as a temporary tether when out and about with your dog.

We talk about these pieces of equipment and others in our Pit Bull Owner's Guide, a short E-Book that covers a broad range of topics, from equipment to homeowners' insurance and beware of dog signs. Order it online. Your purchase helps us to continue our work !

Lucy, the Dog That Would be Dead Today If...

2010-09-29T16:31:00.000-07:00

...Chako had not pulled her from the Sacramento Shelter. Lucy was one of our Canine Good Citizen (CGC) training candidates at the Sacramento shelter. During her time in the shelter, she went from being a sick, lethargic dog to a happy, wiggly, healthier dog. As her health improved and days passed without anyone adopting her, she began to exhibit aggression toward other dogs. She'd bark and lunge at them as she passed kennels. She would even bark at dogs that were on leash elsewhere.

But she was and is a total sweetheart with people. Because of her developing dog reactivity, the shelter staff pulled her out of the adoption area and put her into the "isolation ward." She was slated to be euthanized. The shelter emailed us, but it pained us to tell them we were completely full. We couldn't take in another dog.

We put out several calls for help. In a last ditch effort, I contacted Tia Maria with Villalobos. I know she's full, but it never hurts to ask. Tia agreed to take Lucy, so Rachele and I went to the shelter and bailed Lucy out of doggie jail.

While Lucy waits for her transport to Tia, she's staying with me. She's borrowing Savvy's comfy indoor-outdoor run (he hardly uses it, so he doesn't seem to mind as long as she doesn't start decorated his bachelor pad with girlie stuff). So far, she has been a perfect little angel.

She hasn't snarked at a dog since she's gotten here. In fact, she seems to want to play and even had a very nice on leash introduction to Savvy. At one point, she was nose-to-nose with the cat and gave the equivalent of a doggie shrug as she sniffed briefly and then moved on. She doesn't "do her business" inside the kennel (she does it in the appropriate outdoor area). She walks well on leash. She comes when called. She sits. She stays. That CGC training really paid off! She even laid down quietly inside for some crate time. She doesn't chew up her bedding. She doesn't tip over her water bowl. She doesn't try to climb out of the kennel.

About the only thing she does, occasionally, is whine and bark when she sees one of us outside and tries desperately to make us let her out of the kennel (which I do about three times a day for play/walks). Poor gal. We'd love her to find a home where she doesn't have to spend most of her time in a kennel, but alas, this is the only temporary spot we have for her while she waits for her transport to Tia (and her spay, which is tomorrow).

Lucy wouldn't be alive right now if we hadn't been able to get her out of there. It amazes me that such a wonderful dog almost didn't get a second chance at life.

The Forgotten Dogs

2010-09-20T09:29:00.000-07:00

There's been lots of celebration about the Vick dogs finding homes and happy endings. Such joyous stories help to warm my heart, but there's a much greater sadness that wells inside me for the many other dogs who aren't finding happy endings. There are no news camera for Lucy, Pickles, Coconut, Charlotte, or Sharky. There very likely won't be a happy ending for dogs like Lucy -- a tiny Pit Bull "Terrier" gal (maybe a mix) with bat-like ears and the face of a gremlin. She's a total love bug with people--submissive, eager to please, and affectionate.

However, she's a terrier, and true to her terrier heritage, she's a little hot head around other dogs. So, she's scheduled to be euthanized--humanely of course--because of course the shelter cannot adopt out a dog that is dog aggressive. They don't have the resources to put individual attention into dogs and to screen homes and take the time to find an experienced, responsible home who will be Lucy's perfect match.

And, of course, Chako, like many other rescues, is full. We do NOT euthanize dogs (unless they pose a danger to people, and since we are so picky about that when we take in dogs--knock on wood--we haven't had to euthanize a dog for over 12 years). So, that means, when we are full, we stay full until we can find one of our dogs (like Pickles), a new home. If I did continue to take in dogs beyond Chako's capacity, I'd end up on the news as one of those "hoarder" ladies who really had "good intentions."

Lucy only has until the end of the day, today. Then, her hope of a happy ending vanishes.

She's not the only dog out there in need of a happy ending, but if you have space in your life for a dog reactive little gremlin who loves belly rubs, let us know today, as soon as you possibly can. And if you don't have room in your life for a dog like Lucy, then we urge you to consider Pickles, or Charlotte, or Coconut, or any other Pit Bull who hasn't had the benefit of news cameras to help them find their happy endings. Hopefully, the forgotten dogs in shelters and rescue will be someone's adoring companion soon.

Responsible Breeding - Is there such a thing?

2010-09-17T10:13:00.000-07:00

Chako Pit Bull Rescue does not oppose RESPONSIBLE breeding. We believe that, although there are a lot of rescue dogs in need of homes, we understand some people have specific desires to show dogs and be involved in the show community. Some people want proven "working line" dogs (recognizing that that's no guarantee a puppy from such a line will be working quality). We also recognize that responsible, thoughful, and purposeful breeding is the only way to preserve purebred dogs with consistent breed temperament and structure.

Of course, we're not saying that purebred dogs are any better than mixed breed dogs. But we recognize there are people who are true breed fanciers and want to preserve the ideal of their beloved breeds. However, we feel it important to let people know that we believe responsible breeders only breed dogs that meet the following criteria:

Have obtained a working, obedience, or show title;
Are structurally sound and mostly conform to the breed standard (recognizing no dog conforms 100% to the ideal breed standard);
Have passed all relevant health tests (hips, elbows, thyroid, cardiac and any breed specific genetic tests); and
Perhaps most importantly, have demonstrated the proper breed temperament

Responsible breeders must ALWAYS take back dogs that do not work out in their homes -- and that includes the breeders on both sides (sire and dam). Breeding a pup is a lifelong commitment to that pup. So, technically, a dog should NEVER end up in a shelter since all dogs are the result of breeders, at some point (either that dog or a prior generation was produced by a breeder). Breeders should NOT breed a litter unless they have suitable, responsible homes lined up in advance of the planned breeding.

Responsible breeders breed limited litters. They do not churn out litter after litter after litter. Those that do are called "puppy mills."

Responsible breeders avoid inbreeding close relatives and only engage in line breeding or outcrossing after much research and consideration.

Every breeder should ask the question -- WHY am I breeding? The answer should be "To better the breed" not "I need extra cash." In fact, if you breed responsibly, you will never make a living off breeding. Most responsible breeders breed not only to better the breed, but because they also want to take a puppy themselves from the planned breeding. That's different than the pet owner that wants a reproduction of "fluffy." Responsible breeders know that breeding will never yield you an exact reproduction of either parent.
Remember that when you breed, you are deliberately bringing several lives into the world. Your duty to those lives continues until each of those lives end. That's a 10-17 year commitment, generally (times however many puppies you have produced).

Going Beyond the Myth

2010-09-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

September 25th is the premiere of Beyond the Myth, a documentary about Pit Bulls and Breed Specific Legislation. It will show at The Guild Theater in Sacramento. Doors open at 6:30 and the film starts at 7:00 (and tickets are available in advance).

I've had the pleasure of meeting Libby. She flew out to California to interview me in person way back in September of 2007 (I'm pretty sure it was 2007, but it might have been 2008). I took her to an AKC dog show and we toured San Francisco, interviewing various people about the effects of San Francisco's anti-Pit Bull ordinance. We knew we were kindred souls when, on the drive back from the show in the bay area (with my Amstaff, Savvy, in tow), Libby asked me if I watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer (hey, we didn't always talk about dogs).

Heck, yeah! Gosh, I used to love watching that show. Libby said one of her favorite episodes was the musical. Well, wouldn't you know it, I happened to have the musical available to listen to in the car. So we did. And our inner geeks were released, to Savvy's dismay. (I don't think he's much of a Buffy fan, but it's hard to tell since he's perfected his nonchalance act so well).

Anyway, it's been three years (I think), and now finally the film is complete, and we get to see it on the big screen one night only in Sacramento. Don't miss it. I'm sure going to be there!

Unleashed Dog Incident in East Sacramento

2010-08-20T14:20:00.000-07:00

I am a Chako volunteer and owner of a pet sitting business. Of course,volunteering with Chako has made me ultra aware of being a responsible dog owner and the signs to look for when an owner is less than responsible.

While walking one of my doggie clients yesterday, we approached a corner house where a dog was laying out front with children playing in a tree house. The dog noticed our approach and lifted his head, stretched and laid back down. He gave no indication that he felt like moving anytime soon.

Before crossing the street, I yelled out to the kids to ask if their dog was tied up (I couldn't tell from the distance we were at).

One of the little girls called for her mother, who apparently was across the street, out of my line of vision.

The mother walked over and grabbed the dog's collar. After I had visual confirmation that the dog was contained, I walked by with my dog. At no point did the other dog bark, growl, or show any signs of distress that we were walking by.

We passed the house and were about halfway down the block when I heard paws pounding pavement and tags clanging together. I whipped my head around to see the dog was running at full speed, directly for the dog that I was walking.

Without hesitating, I jumped in front of my dog and reached for my Spray Shield (Spray Shield is a citronella-based animal deterrant) and sprayed the oncoming dog in the face from a distance of about 10 feet, while yelling "get back" in a firm voice. He slowed down with a confused look on his face for maybe a second and then continued toward us, but from the side this time which I reacted to by stepping forward and spraying him again,
this time covering his eyes with the white foam. His hesitation was long enough for the owner to finally come up behind him, grab him and walk off.

The owner said nothing to me.

This incident took place in Sacramento's famed Fabulous 40's neighborhood - not exactly the place where one would expect to find irresponsible owners. Just goes to show you that money can't buy common sense, I suppose.

Thankfully, I was prepared and had practiced this exact scenario in my head a million times before (and yes, I've practiced physically reaching for my equipment as well). I leave the safety off my Spray Shield and shake it before every walk. I was quite shaken up after the incident. I have no idea what the dog's intentions were and I wasn't about to give him a chance to show me.

Neither I nor the dog I was walking deserved to be put in this situation. Not everyone is as prepared or experienced with this kind of thing as I am; what if it had been a child or elderly person walking a dog passed this house? Would they have been able to protect their dog as quickly as easily? And if a fight had ocurred, would they have the knowledge, strength, or equipment to break it up?

Please, please, please - leash your dogs! And if you must have them out in an unfenced area with you, tether them securely. The Spray Shield worked like a charm this time, but I shouldn't have had to use it in the first place.

I think it's important to note that at no time did I feel personally threatened by this dog; the drives for aggression directed towards humans and those directed toward other dogs are unrelated, separate drives. It's very possible that because this dog does not show any ill-will towards his humans that his owner is under the mistaken impression that her dog is not a threat. Maybe she thinks that a dog that is great with humans could not possibly kill another dog. I'll reiterate that I do not know what he would have done had he been allowed to reach my dog, but clearly this owner needs to wake up to the possiblities of what could have happened. She should also consider that if her beloved family pet kills or seriously injures someone else's family pet that her dog may lose his life as well. Dog aggression, regardless of breed, can be properly managed in many instances but it should never be ignored.

~Rachele is the volunteer Social Media Coordinator for Chako and owner of Pawsitive Attention Pet Services.

$400,000 Insurance Claim from Daschund Bite

2010-08-06T13:48:00.000-07:00

I was on the phone earlier with an insurance agent looking at a new policy. The agent owns a Pit Bull and specializes in offering coverage to breeds like German Shepherds, Rottweilers, and Pit Bulls that other companies often blacklist, so the topic of dog breeds and insurance coverage naturally came up.

The agent said he's got policies for over 500 Pit Bull owners, but so far only one claim -- and it's the result of a Daschund's bite. Apparently, the dog ripped off the woman's lip. The dog had a bacterial infection in its mouth that transferred to the woman, so she ended up having serious health issues above and beyond the initial horrific injury.

The claim is now up to about $400,000. At least in this particular insurance agent's case, the Pit Bulls and Rottweilers have proven to be less of a liability than the Daschund.

Labrador and Cattle Dog Maul Three-Year Old in Alabama

2010-08-04T20:32:00.000-07:00

I'm back on the press again. Take this story from Fox News. Madisyn Shelton is a three year old girl in Alabama. She was attacked by her neighbor's dogs and bitten more than 50 times.

The news article never mentions the breed of the dogs involved. One has to watch the video to see footage of the dogs in custody. It's only then that the viewer sees a Labrador Retriever and a Cattle Dog. Breed isn't mentioned in the headline. Breed isn't mentioned in the story.

Fortunately, Alabama has an ordinance that allows it to adequately target dangerous dogs, so the dogs will likely be euthanized. Hopefully, Madisyn Shelton makes a full recovery.

And while we're on the subject of dangerous dogs and breed, Coyotes attacked a Chihuaha in Littleton, Colorado, which is just outside of Denver. Denver, of course, has a ban on Pit Bulls. Fortunately, the little Chihuahua didn't live in Denver, else he wouldn't have had Pit Bull neighbors to come to his rescue. Yes, that's right. Buster, the Chihuahua, was saved by his neighbor's Pit Bulls. They ran the Coyota off and then stayed with the Chihuahua to protect him.

"They were circling him and sitting by him. Making sure he was all right," Buster's owner said.

Photos of Concord Dogs: Not Exactly Pit Bulls

2010-08-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

I submitted a public information request to Contra Costa County Animal Services for photos of the dogs confiscated from Steven Hayashi that were reported to have fatally mauled Mr. Hayashi's 2-year old grandson.

In response to that public information request, I received the following photos that show questionable breed heritage and mixed breed dogs of undetermined origin. The photos clearly demonstrate the issues with breed identification.

The reason Chako is posting these photos is in response to debate about whether the dogs were, in fact, Pit Bulls. Apparently a cousin of Hayashi's has been on forums claiming the dogs were all mixes, not Pit Bulls. While I believe breed is irrelevant, I think it makes absolutely no sense to even comment on breed without photos.

I don't think it does any good one way or the other to distort the truth. If the dogs are purebred Pit Bulls, then denying that they are simply reduces one's credibility. If the dogs are not Pit Bulls, then labelling them as such is just another way of perpetrating a falsehood.

Unfortunately, the angle of the photos makes it difficult to tell for sure. One dog is only visible from the side, with its head turned away from the camera. At least one of the dogs is very noticeably un-Pit Bull like in its appearance and appears to be a labrador or possibly mastiff mix.

So, take a look at the photos, and if you think you can tell what breeds these dogs are, speak up in the comments section.

From my perspective (and having only the photos to go on), these dogs are mostly mixed breed dogs. One looks nothing like a Pit Bull. If I met the first dog on the street, I'd swear it had no Pit Bull in it whatsoever.

People have said that even the owner calls the dogs Pit Bulls. The owner procured his original dog from a shelter. The shelter apparently released the dog unsterilized, which is a huge "NO" in California. Anyone who has worked in rescue understands that shelters are not often accurate on identifying breed, and they tend to call anything that looks remotely like it could have some bull or terrier breeds in it a "Pit Bull" mix.

A shelter that releases a dog unsterilized is already suspect in its reputability to begin with. Therefore, it matters not what Hayashi thinks his dog may be. In actuality, he just doesn't know. He didn't see the parents, and he got his dog from a shelter that apparently called it a "Pit Bull mix." That's a designation applied to almost any dog of mixed breed origin with shorter hair in many shelter systems. It's come to mean nothing.

What is undeniable is that the media has labelled these dogs--all of them--as Pit Bulls. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, "The toddler was fatally mauled when he entered the home garage where the family kept...pit bulls."

I don't know about you, but I don't see Pit Bulls in the photos below.

One final point, just because I have to comment on it. Very few, if any, of these dogs would match San Francisco's breed checklist for a Pit Bull.

As an example, the second dog has a narrow muzzle, a narrow chest, and absolutely nothing that is well-muscled. San Francisco's checklist calls for a broad skull, strong underjaw, a heavy and muscular neck attached to muscular shoulders, a deep broad chest and wide front and muscular hindquarters. There's nothing broad, deep, wide or muscular on that dog. It matches almost nothing of San Francisco's checklist.

(NOTE THERE WERE FIVE Dogs in the household, two were outside at the time of the attack, and the photos submitted were not all high quality. One dog had its head completely turned away from the camera, on a side shot. The other dog was in poor condition and the photo was somewhat graphic so we opted not to publish it).

The cold, hard facts about the media and dog attacks

2010-08-01T07:35:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's post, I looked at how two different media outlets reported the two most recent dog-bite related human fatalities in California. Still, one example doesn't make a rule. Today, I'm going to go with some cold, hard statistics, thanks to research done by Libby Sherrill for her documentary Beyond the Myth.

Libby interviewed Carl Friedman, the former Director of San Francisco Animal Care and Control. Hardly, an opponent of breed-specific-legislation (BSL), he wrote a canine response working group report that cited Denver, Colorado as a "best practice" for breed specific legislation. Denver, of course, has an outright ban on Pit Bulls and has euthanized thousands of innocent dogs.

However, even he recognizes that the media gives unequal coverage to dog bites. In an interview with Sherrill, he stated, "When a Pit Bull, let's say, mauls somebody or a Pit Bull bites somebody, chances are you're going to see that on the first or second page of the newspaper and probably on the five O'clock news or six O'clock news. If another dog bites somebody or a different breed bites somebody, chances are it won't even be reported."

Sherrill's documentary looked at how the media reported on two significant dog-related fatalities of children. The first was Kate-Lynn Logel, killed in 2005 by her family's Malamutes. A newslibrary.com search containing the phrase "Kate-Lynn Logel" yielded 18 articles.

A newslibrary.com search containing the phrase "Nicholas Faibish" yielded 292 articles.

The study showed that 68% of news articles reporting "pit bull" or "pit bull mix" attacks mentioned "pit bull" in the headline. Only 8% of news articles reporting on attacks by other breeds mentioned the breed in the headline.

This type of inequitable reporting is not limited to dog attacks. It's so common in the media, that it has a name: agenda-setting. What agenda setting boils down to is simple. The media decides what's important to report on, and in making that choice, the media tells people what's important, and how the media reports on those issues influences how people think about those issues.

So, next time you take in a news story about a dog attack (or, really, any other issue), before you form an opinion on the subject, it might be wise to do your own research based on sources outside the media (which can admittedly be hard to do, since even the Centers for Disease Control used the media as a source in its famous 1997 dog-bite related study).

Two newspapers, two fatal dog attacks, two different styles of reporting

2010-07-31T15:11:00.000-07:00

Today, a dog killed another 2-year old child. This time in San Diego. As sad and tragic as this horrific incident is, it unfortunately stands as an example of inequitable news coverage.

California has seen two recent fatal. In one, a dog identified as a Pit Bull killed a 2 year old in northern California. Today, a dog identified as a German Shepherd killed a toddler.

Let's take a look at how two media outlets reported the attacks.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported the "Pit Bull" attack as follows:
Owner of pitbulls that killed CA boy arrested.
It even reported on a nonfatality involving a dog identified as "Pit Bull":
Pit bull bites 7-year-old Oakland girl in the face

The German Shepherd attack was headlined as, "Dog mauls toddler to death in Tierrasanta"

San Francisco chronicle also reported on the German shepherd story: 2-year-old mauled to death by family dog

But when a Pit Bull simply bit a girl in the face in the Oakland incident, the San Francisco Chronicle mentioned the breed in the headline: Pit Bull bites 7-year old Oakland girl in the face.

And the Concord fatality:
Step-grandfather talks about killer pit bulls

The unequal reporting makes an association between "Pit Bull" and attack or mauling but not other breeds because the other breeds generally aren't mentioned in the headline. Unless you clicked on the story of the German shepherd, you'd have no idea what the breed was (and may have even assumed it to be a Pit Bull because that's what people are used to seeing in headline news). The day the Oakland girl was bitten in the face by a Pit Bull, other children in the bay area were bitten by dogs not identified as Pit Bulls. It happens every day in every city in America, and yet most were not reported.

The old adage, "Dog bites man, isn't news. Man bites dog, is news," has taken a dark turn in today's society. Now, it's "Dog bites man, isn't news. Pit Bull bites anything, it's headline news."

Thanks to one prejudiced woman and an anti-Pit Bull shelter, Chako was founded

2010-07-30T18:30:00.000-07:00

Today I met with a nice gal interested in volunteering for Chako. She asked me how and why I founded Chako, so I told her The Story. I've told it only a handful of times, but it's both sad and amusing at the same time.

I was a graduate student at Texas A&M in 1996. I bought a house there, since Texas real estate was ridiculously cheap at the time (a shock to someone like me from California). Being young and naive, I decided I'd get a dog (nevermind the instability of a college student's life, budget issues, etc.). I grew up around Pit Bulls. My parents owned champion show and weight pull dogs. I knew I wanted a Pit Bull. I wasn't going to show my dog, however. I just wanted a companion.

So, I eagerly strolled into the only shelter in the small duet town known as Bryan-College Station. That was the Brazos County Animal Shelter.

I walked up to the lady at the counter and said, "I'd like to adopt a dog. Do you have any Pit Bulls?"

She looked at me like I was about to pull out an Uzi and pepper the place with bullets. Her eyes went narrow and she replied, "No. We don't adopt out vicious dogs."

Of course, I knew Pit Bulls had a bad rap, but not quite that bad. "Pit Bulls aren't vicious," I told her.

"Why do you want a Pit Bull? Only drug dealers have Pit Bulls."

I found the conversation very strange. Only drug dealers have Pit Bulls? What the hell did that make my parents? Would I have to start checking their sock drawers?

I took a breath. "I'm not a drug dealer. I'm a doctoral candidate at Texas A&M University."

She shrugged. "Sorry, but we don't adopt out Pit Bulls."

"Well, what do you do with them when you get them?" I asked.

"We euthanize them," she responded, matter-of-factly.

I was astonished. "What do you do with puppies?" I mean, they had to have some kind of system for puppies.

"We euthanize them, too."

"Even puppies?!" What kind of sick, cruel, twisted organization would kill puppies? I wondered.

"Yes. We don't adopt out vicious dogs," she repeated.

"Well, if you get one that you're going to euthanize, can you call me?"

Her eyes narrowed again, and she tilted her head. "What? Do you mean like a rescue?"

I had never heard about "rescue" before, but I figured out what it must be from the context. "Yes," I replied, without hesitation.

She pushed a ledger book toward me. "Put your information into the rescue book."

I did.

Then, I went home and researched Pit Bull rescues on what counted as the Internet at that time. There were virtually none. The United Kennel Club had a national rescue, but that no longer existed.

So, I formed the Chako Pit Bull Rescue Association (what it was called back then) and started pulling dogs from the Brazos County Animal Shelter.

Soon thereafter, I got a call from a woman named Deirdre about a dog in a shelter. The name of the shelter escapes me. The dog was a Pit Bull, and it was scheduled to be euthanized because the shelter had a policy that mandated all Pit Bulls be killed. She volunteered at the shelter.

I became a woman on a mission to save that dog, writing faxes, making phone calls -- you name it. It was so long ago, I can't remember for sure what the outcome was, but I think they ended up transfering the dog to another shelter that did not have a "kill all Pit Bulls" policy. (Oh, how I wish I could remember for sure.)

Anyway, Deirdre ended up adopting a dog from Chako. That dog was named Carla. Her name today is Carla Lou, and she just celebrated her 16th birthday. Oh, and she happens to be the mascot for the wildly successful Pinups for Pitbulls, which Deirdre founded.

People often ask me how I came up with the name "Chako." It's in honor of my childhood dog, Chako. He was the greatest dog that ever lived. I swear. Yes, I know everyone's childhood dog is the greatest dog, but really he was! (Apologies to my current dogs, Tauri and Savvy, who thankfully cannot read this blog).

I had a vision in my head of Chako somehow falling into different circumstances, through no fault of his own, and ending up in one of those "no Pit Bulls" shelters. I imagined him in a concrete cage, alone, until finally someone went into his kennel, snapped a leash on him, and walked him to a room where he'd be killed...for no other reason than he happened to be a Pit Bull.

I get teary eyed just thinking about it, and it never even happened. So, for all the "GREATEST DOGS IN THE WORLD" out there who have found themselves--through no fault of their own--homeless, Chako Pit Bull Rescue exists. Unfortunately, we cannot save them all, but we can save one at a time.

And that is the story behind Chako Pit Bull Rescue.

Top 15 fatal or serious dog attacks in recent U.S. history that were not caused by Pit Bulls and not heavily reported in the media

2010-07-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of talk in northern California lately about Pit Bulls and possibly banning them because, frankly, "we only really hear about Pit Bulls killing people."

Of course, we know that's not true. In 1980, the first year the CDC study covered fatal dog bites, Great Danes topped the list of dogs that killed people.

But the issue isn't about breed. It's about making sure that people who own dogs choose to own dogs that are SAFE around people and managed responsibly -- regardless of breed. It's about not having a false sense of security because one owns a Labrador or a Golden Retriever or a Border Collie (all of which have been involved in fatalities or serious dog attacks on human beings).

It's about preventing deaths from any dog, regardless of breed.

We are going to take a moment and remember the victims of fatal dog bites from dogs other than Pit Bulls, to remind people that, if we really care about public safety and making sure people aren't seriously hurt or killed by dogs, that we cannot and should not just focus on one breed of dog.

Below are 15 recent fatal or VERY serious dog attacks across the United States that have not made national news:

Chako advocates euthanizing dogs, of any breed, that are vicious or have demonstrated that they are a danger to human beings. We believe in tough laws that hold people criminally responsible if they keep a dog they know to be dangerous, and that dog hurts a human being. We want to have all dogs treated humanely and to be kept as family pets, not isolated in small kennels, back yards, or kept on chains their entire lives. We don't want a single child to die from a dog bite, ever -- regardless of the breed of dog involved. We want to see all dog owners be held equally responsible for their pets and equally accountable for any injuries their dogs cause.

We hope the media reports responsibly on this issue, and gives comparable coverage to dog bites of all breeds, based on the severity of the bite and the injury, not the breed involved. We care about all dogs and all people, and we want to see society deal responsibly with this issue, for all dogs and all human beings.

Heroism forgotten, mauling not

2010-07-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

His name is Thor, and despite the toughness of his name, he's a marshmallow. When a fire started in Thor's home, he barked to wake his family, and then he grabbed the bassinet where the family's three-month old baby lay and dragged it to the front door.

"It sounds like the real hero here is the family pit bull," said Frank Connolly, assistant executive director of the Elkhart County Red Cross. Source: WSBT-TV

If not for Thor, the family, including the baby, would have died.

But Thor didn't make major headlines. Hardly anyone remembers him or what he did so very recently.

The nation, however, is talking about dogs (identified as Pit Bulls, but we don't know for sure what they were yet) that mauled a two year in Concord, CA -- dogs that rarely (if ever) got to sleep inside a home with the family. They were left outside or in the garage, isolated, undersocialized, nervous around strangers since they weren't walked outside and rarely exposed to new people or new places.

Because some other dogs, somewhere else, that were never really treated as family pets killed an unsupervised child that wandered into his grandparents' garage (a child that was almost a stranger to the undersocialized dogs, especially the dog described as most aggressive), dogs like Thor who get to sleep inside and, in their spare time, save families and babies from burning buildings, will pay a horrific price... as will their owners.

Dogs are simply dogs. It is up to the Human species to do right by them, since we have chosen to bring them into our world. Embarking on a campaign to villify creatures that are incapable of truly understanding right from wrong and completely rely on us for their housing, feeding, training, and socialization is not only wrong, it's cruel and stupid.

The Human species needs to get its act together -- and not by banning or villifying animals that aren't as intelligent as we think we are. We need to ensure that children like Kate-Lynn logel (killed my malamutes), Kyle Holland (killed by a labrador/husky mix), Krystal Brink (killed by sled dogs), and Nicholas Faibish (killed by a Pit Bull type dog) are remembered, not because of the breeds they were killed by, but because of what they have tragically demonstrated.

Animals are animals. If we don't do right by them, if we don't treat them humanely, socialize them, train them, and (if need be) humanely euthanize the ones that just aren't safe, then both species will pay the price.

Dog Reactivity

2010-07-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

We finished our second Dog Reactivity Workshop (well, four sessions total, if you want to be technical, since each was broken up into two small groups). I want to give a big round of applause to the students (both human and canine) who completed the workshops.

For those who did not attend, here are some tips to managing dog reactivity in your dog. First, try to determine why your dog is reacting to other dogs (in a way you disapprove of, we assume). Is the dog excited, wanting to play? Anxious? Fearful? Dominant? Acting out of prey drive?

If your dog is fearful, avoid harsh corrections whenever possible. Imagine that you have a phobia. Say it's spiders or snakes or bees or enclosed spaces. Then imagine that you're confronted with that thing you're afraid of. The spider is crawling toward you. It's big. It's black. You can see its eyes and hairy ickiness. Then imagine that while you're about to freak out, someone starts slapping and yelling at you.

Obviously, they won't be helping your situation. The better way to deal with fear is through prolonged, slow desensization. You see a photo of a spider. Then you look at a spider from across the room. Etc. All the time, you're working on relaxation techniques or getting positive reinforcement (dollar bills, chocolate, whatever your particular lust is). If you got a five dollar bill just for looking at a spider across the room, you might not mind looking at one so much.

That's not to say correction isn't appropriate at times. Let's say your dog isn't particularly fearful but is prey driven. The dog is acting on instinct wanting to go after an animal. It could be a squirrel or a cat or whatever. In those situations, your dog may or may not want to take a reinforcer (like a treat or even a toy). It's focused on the smaller thing. That squirrel consumes its vision. You want to combine some desensitization work (seeing squirrels in the distance) with correction and reinforcement...but the key is to make sure the correction is approrpriate for your dog. A verbal correction such as "eh-eh" may often do for softer dogs. Once you get your dog out of the "zone" and looking at you, reward it. Give it a very tasty treat. Its favorite toy. A butt scratch. Whatever your dog really likes. Rinse and repeat.

Then work toward reinforcing your dog for choosing to look at you (rather than being prompted). Maybe you see the squirrel across the street. You've already practiced getting your dog out of the zone. Now see how your dog does on his or her own. Don't say or do anything, just be a pole. Wait your dog out. At some point, your dog is probably going to get over it and look at you. The moment he or she does! Bingo! Reward! And make sure you've got a super duper special reward. No, I don't mean kibble. No, not a dog biscuit. I'm talking about cooked steak or chicken. Something smelly and tasty and yummy (this assumes your dog is motivated by food or treats, and make sure he's hungry). Even "jackpot" the dog for choosing to look at you (that means give him a handful). Bestow verbal praise. Then end on that positive note.

It takes work. It takes repetition. But soon you will likely have a dog that, when it sees another dog or a squirrel, automatically looks at you and asks, "Where's the treat?" (or ball or...whatever).

Use correction to remind a dog that behavior isn't tolerated and as a consequence for a dog that blows you off after it knows what is expected (and, yes, they do). Dogs are creatures of consequence. They learn that behavior equals consequences, so you want to give positive consequences for desired behavior and negative consequences for undesired behavior. A negative consequence can be as simple as not getting a treat, being ignored, or not moving forward--if that is appropriately "unpleasant" for your dog. I won't go into correction too much in a blog, because it's really the most misused form of dog training and benefits more from demonstrations. Otherwise, you risk doing more harm than good.

However, if you focus on trying to reward desired behavior, you can't do a whole lot of harm, even if you mess up and reinforce the wrong behavior. It's a lot easier to recover from wrongly reinforcing a dog than wrongly correcting a dog, especially with sensitive or soft dogs.

Hunger Strike to Protest BSL

2010-05-31T16:35:00.000-07:00

During the month of June, Chako's founder will be joining two other woman on a hunger strike to protest breed-specific legislation across the United States.

Auburn Attacks Pit Bulls

2010-05-11T16:55:00.000-07:00

Will Wong, Auburn's Community Development Director, today released the draft dog ordinance that the city council has been pondering for months. Despite the fact that several city council members expressed their belief that all dog owners should be held equally accountable for their dog, the city is now considering an ordinance that singles out Pit Bulls.

In an email to one of our supporters (who kindly forwarded it our way), city councilmember Bill Kirby stated, "I support the spay and neuter of all dogs except licensed breeders and certified show dogs."

City Councilmember Keith Nesbitt told the supporter, "Staff will be bringing back recommendations for a stronger ordinance. I do not believe it will be breed specific."

When we directly asked city council member Mike Holmes whether Auburn would be considering a Pit Bull specific ordinance, his response was a succinct, "No."

That leaves a clear majority of the city council who have said they will not support a Big Brother government by enacting breed specific legislation. So what happened? Well, apparently, a few of them flip-flopped, but we'll find out for sure during the May 24th city council meeting.

Read the full draft ordinance via our Google Docs account.

Procter & Gamble purchases Natura -- Bye, Innova and Evo!

2010-05-07T11:29:00.000-07:00

Procter and Gamble has purchsaed Natura Pet Products, which sells the premium dog food brands Innova and Evo. Innova has been a privately held company based in Davis, CA. Procter and Gamble also sells California Natural and Karma, among other brands.
Procter and Gamble has a very spotty record when it comes to putting the health of its customer pets over its bank account. A few years ago, Proctor and Gamble lowered the recommended feeding guidelines for its Iams and Eukanuba brands in order to claim its products were cheaper to feed. Pet owners and a competing manufacturer sued Procter and Gamble. According to the Dog Food Report, "The suit claims that Iams misled consumers by lowering the portion sizes. It also refers to five independent studies testing Iams feeding instructions and statements made by the company. In all five studies, the humane officer terminated the study because of 'significant weight loss suffered by the dogs following Iams' feeding instructions.'"

Visit the Washington Post to read more about what Proctor and Gamble did with Iams and Eukanuba after purchasing those brands.

Another nationwide class action suit against the company filed in 2007 claimed that Proctor and Gamble and other dog food companies misled customers about the quality of its dog food, stating, "Millions of euthanized cats and dogs are 'rendered' and ultimately made into pet food. Drugs used in the euthanasia process have been detected in pet food because the drugs are not destroyed by heat." You can download the complaint via our Google Docs account.

How To Get Your Dog Banned in One Easy Step

2010-05-06T14:39:00.000-07:00

Auburn, California, as we've previously blogged, had an incident a few months ago where a small group of Pit Bulls attacked a teenager. After that attack, Auburn was looking at drafting a new anti-Pit Bull ordinance. Originally, council member Kevin Hanley wanted to ban Pit Bulls (Auburn Journal report), but he later discovered that banning Pit Bulls is illegal in California.

After many hours of advocacy and education attempts, it appeared that we had been successful in showing most of the Auburn City Council members that any new dog law should target irresponsible owners of all breeds, not Pit Bulls as a breed. Will Wong, Auburn Community Development Director, has been working on some draft ordinances to submit to the city council, and we've been in close contact with him about when these draft ordinances might be ready for review.

Just before the draft ordinances were finalized, a dog that the Auburn Journal identified initially as an 80-pound male Pit Bull escaped its owners yard, went into the neighbor's hard, and attacked a 91 year-old man, doing serious damage to his hand. A responding police officer chased and ultimately shot and killed the dog.

As it turns out, the dog is not a purebred "pitbull" (as Auburn spells the breed). The dog was identified by animal control as a Rottweiler / Pit Bull mix. What that means is, unless the owners have both parents on site (which doesn't appear to be the case), there really is no way to determine with any degree of accuracy the breed of the dog. Pit Bulls, as educated people know, generally do not reach the 80 pound mark (unless they are very overweight!). The breed standards for the various registries that recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier generally call for a dog between 40 and 65 pounds.

In a followup article, the Auburn Journal changed the breed reference from "pitbull" to "pitbull cross," referencing once in the second paragraph that the dog was identified as Rottweiler-Pit Bull mix.

Although, according to News10, the dog in question was actually a record-breaking, 80-pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Now that is one really, really big Bull! (For those who don't know, Staffy Bulls are generally between 24 and 38 pounds).

Of course, even though Pit Bulls are usually smaller, that doesn't mean they don't get up to 80 pounds. Sure they do, just like human beings sometimes reach seven feet in height. However, 80+ pounds is not typical of purebred Pit Bulls (of course, there are many mixed breed dogs identified by bystanders as either "Pit Bulls" or "Pit Bull" mixes).

Not that it really matters what breed the dog was in this case. What matters is that an irresponsible owner who, according to some reports, had a dog known to act aggressively in the past, continued to keep this dog and -- even worse -- keep it in an unsecured back yard from which it was easily able to escape.

Pit Bull owners (and owners of dogs that look like they might possibly have touched a drop of Bully Breed in their lineage), if you really want to make sure that anti-Pit Bull laws come to your town, all you have to do is let your dog roam loose--bonus points if your dog is aggressive and injures a person!

Of course, we have to point out the obvious once again -- the Auburn Journal has only, thus far, reported on Pit Bull attacks. The only mention of anything even resembling a non-Pit Bull dog attack is in a letter to the editor when a man states a good Samaritan tried to return a wallet when his Rottweiler "almost attacked" the good Samaritan. The other mention is a brief photo caption of a person holding out money as a reward for a dog that attacked a horse.

If you read The Auburn Journal, you'd think that Pit Bulls are the only dogs that bite in Auburn, which is obviously not true. The truth is that The Auburn Journal simply doesn't care to report on bites by other dog attacks. The old adage "Dog bites man isn't news, but man bites dog is!" remains true--except if the dog happens to look like it might be a Pit Bull or Pit bull mix.

To test this theory, we had one of our supporters contact The Auburn Journal to tell a reporter all about an attack by a Labrador Retriever. The Auburn Journal hasn't yet bothered to return that message.

Author: D Capp

The Dangerous Dogs of Bloor

2010-03-27T16:25:00.000-07:00

If you needed even more proof that one should “blame the deed, not the breed”, I’d like to introduce you to Jason Bloor of the United Kingdom.

You see, Mr. Bloor is not exactly a stand-up kind of guy.

In 2003, Mr. Bloor was suspected of conspiracy to rob a victim of domestic violence, Tania Moore. Her former fiancé, Mark Dyche, allegedly hired Mr. Bloor and 3 other men to rob and assault Ms. Moore. Mr. Dyche ended up standing trial for the murder of Tania (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article383400.ece)

In June of 2009, Mr. Bloor admitted to allowing his 3 Rottweilers to attack a woman and kill her poodle. (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/man-21-bled-death-after-alsatians-bit-him-51-times) He was charged under the “Dangerous Dogs Act”, “given a 12-month supervision order, sent on an offending behaviour scheme and had to pay £250 compensation…” (http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/)

After that conviction, Mr. Bloor moved on to Alsatians (German Shepherds). It was those 3 dogs that mauled Andrew Walker to death in May of 2009. (http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/cheadle/news/Lodger-killed-fighting-pet-dogs/article-1566859-detail/article.html)

But what does this all really mean?

For one thing, a person of less than moral character will find a way to do whatever vile thing he or she wants to do. Ban him from Rottweilers, he’ll move to German Shepherds. Ban him from assault rifles, he’ll move to handguns. Take away his drivers license, and he’ll simply drive illegally.

Jason Bloor is just flat out not the kind of guy I’d want to see in a dark alley, period. He wasn’t a responsible owner with the Rottweilers, and he surely wasn’t responsible with the German Shepherds. I have no doubt that if he had a pack of 3-legged Pugs, we would hear about them attacking someone. Keep in mind, neither Rottweilers nor German Shepherds are banned under the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act, so I’m assuming that all those that voted in favor (favour?) of the Act were absolutely dumbfounded that despite all their well-intentioned banning, there are still reports of fatal dog attacks.

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, if the Dangerous Dogs Act focused on irresponsible ownership and criminal behavior instead of a dog’s physical traits, Mr. Walker would still be alive today.

It’s a travesty that Mr. Walker’s death was ruled an accident. The only accident here is that Mr. Bloor will remain a free man, free to own more dogs that will no doubt kill again.

Author: Rachele L.

Pit Bull Attacked in Dog Park

2010-02-23T14:34:00.000-08:00

Recently, a woman wrote to the Auburn Journal that Pit Bulls were ruining the dog park she frequents. According to her, when a Labrador Retriever collided with a Pit Bull, a fight ensued, costing about $400 in veterinary bills. Apparently, she thinks Pit Bulls are the only dogs out there capable of getting into fights at dog parks. Never, of course, would a LABRADOR fight at a dog park (if you believe that, read on).

First, I'll tell you one sad story the media hasn't reported on, but if the headline read, "Pit Bull Attack in Dog Park," you can bet it would have made news (the Auburn story did, after all). It's the story of two dogs at a northern California dog park. One dog, an eight to nine month old Pit Bull, was romping around the dog park chasing after his ball. The other dog, a much larger golden-colored animal with a medium coat (the owner called it a Redbone Coonhound mix) charged across the dog park and attacked the Pit Bull.

The Coonhound latched on to the smaller Pit Bull, and both owners tried desperately to get it to let go. The Coonhound bit the owner of the Pit Bull (likely accidentally) during the scuffle. Off to the vet they went. To his credit, the owner of the attacking dog went with the Pit Bull owner to a veterinarian's office and paid the bill, which amounted to over $1,000 after surgery to repair an internally mangled ear.

Another case comes out of Miami-Dade, Florida and involves two Labrador Retrievers. (In perfect irony, Miami-Dade banned Pit Bulls). One dog -- we'll call him Brody to protect the innocent -- was happily playing with his ball when another Labrador Retriever went after the ball. The two dogs got into a fight, leaving the interloping Labrador Retriever with puncture wounds in his mouth and lip. Yes,that's right, two Labrador Retrievers got into a fight at the dog park. Oh my! What will "Pit Bulls are evil, Labradors are salt of the earth" Auburn lady say about that?

Let this be a lesson to everyone. Dog parks aren't the greatest idea, even for perfectly friendly dogs like the Pit Bull in the first story. Lots of bad things can happen. If that's the only place you can run your dog off leash, go during non-peak hours when it's nearly deserted, and leave when others start to arrive. It's great that cities and towns want to provide off leash spaces for dogs to run, but unfortunately, people bring dog selective or even dog aggressive dogs to dog parks, and that can spell disaster for your best friend. And for those who think it's "Pit Bulls" that are the problem at dog parks, this should be just ONE wake up call for you. Get over the delusion that only Pit Bulls have dogs among them that can be aggressive to other dogs. Dog aggression is an inherent trait in the canine species. It exists in all breeds. In fact, intraspecies aggression -- that means aggression toward members of one's own species -- is rather prevalent throughout the animal kingdom...even, and perhaps most especially, in the group of animals known as humans.

Read the vet's bill below showing what it costs to fix the poor Pit Bull's ear. Even worse than the financial cost is the pain the incident caused an impressionable young pup.

You can read the Auburn letter online at http://auburnjournal.com/detail/141250.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=pit+bulls&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Report: Auburn City Council meeting 1/25, No Peace for Pit Bulls

2010-01-26T07:21:00.000-08:00

I and other responsible dog owner advocates attended last night's Auburn City Council meeting. I took the opportunity to speak to the council after listening to a report by city staffmembers who said that breed-specific legislation is burdensome and likely to be ineffective. In particular, they looked at San Francisco's ordinance mandating spay/neuter of Pit Bulls and found that, after the ordinance, a little over 50% of all dog bites were caused by animals that were spayed or neutered. Their conclusion: spaying and neutering does not reduce a dog's aggression toward human beings. We told them that during the November city council meeting, by the way. Removing a dog's reproductive organs does not turn an unstable, vicious dog into a sweetheart. Using spay/neuter to solve public safety issues won't work. Rather, the city should focus on targeting all irresponsible dog owners -- of all breeds.

Kevin Hanley who originally proposed the anti Pit Bull ordinance (in fact, he wanted to ban them entirely at first), said he wants Animal Control to keep a record of all Pit Bull owners in Auburn so that police can periodically drive by their houses. By the way, he wasn't entirely alone in his sentiments. Dr. Bill Kirby, another city councilmember (he's the bald guy on the right in the photo below) said he wanted to make sure everyone knew there would be no peace or love for Pit Bulls.

Yes, he really said that. You can hear his statements on our youtube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vYva_Q6CC0

But before you head off to youtube, take a look at our photos from last night's meeting!

The City Council

A silent protester

A pit bull service dog attends

Now you can check out our youtube video from last night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vYva_Q6CC0

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Eco-Footprint? Get Rid of the Child and Keep the Dog!

2009-12-22T09:56:00.000-08:00

According to two New Zealanders, owning a pet dog is worse than owning a sports utility vehicle in terms of the eco-footprint. The declaration in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale goes over the numbers. Taking into account the land required to generate its food, a medium-sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 global hectares (2.07 acres). Compare that to the mere 0.41 global hectares required to drive a sports utility vehicle 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year (the number includes the energy to build the car). Some experts, however, disagree with that "dog" number.

"When I saw the study I ran some quick numbers," Clark Williams-Derry, chief researcher at a the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability thinktank, told the Seattle Times. "The average dog has to eat at least twice as much as the average person for this to be right. People are just heavier than dogs so, I just had to scratch my head at that."

But, heck, forget pets. They are mere blips on the radar. By taking a quick jaunt over to Wikipedia, I was able to deduce the average eco-footprint of a human being. "In 2005, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 2.1 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.4 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.0 gha per person, while China's was 2.1 gha per person. The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%. Wackernagel and Rees originally estimated that the available biological capacity for the 6 billion people on Earth at that time was about 1.3 hectares per person, which is smaller than the 2.1 global hectares published for 2005, because the initial studies neither used global hectares nor included bioproductive marine areas." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint)

Dogs have many eco-advantages to human beings. They do not drive cars, buy bottled water, burn fires in chimneys, buy plasma televisions, get new clothes every season, turn on the air conditioner, use computers, buy cosmetics, water their lawns, insist on the newest goodies for Christmas and birthdays, or commit any number of other human eco-sins. Humans are, of course, far worse for the environment than even the most anti-environmentalist of canines.

Just to see what my footprint was, I tested out this nifty footprint calculator at http://www.footprintcalculator.org/ and came up around 4 gha per year. So, for each child a U.S. resident foregoes, he or she can own approximately 62 medium-sized dogs--a fair trade, in my assessment. That number takes into account the comparative lifespans of each species, with dogs at about 14 years and humans at approximately 78 years. Dogs have other advantages to children that aren't directly related to their environmental impact. For example, a child isn't going to bark at a strange noise, alert me to smoke in my home, or even--in the case of my dogs--carry my laundry upstairs, get my shoes or slippers, and turn on or off the lights when needed.

So, Robert and Branda Vale, forget having any(more) kids...get a dog!

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

The "imposter" Pit Bull - Part 2

2009-11-10T20:20:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, we showed a couple of News10 stills depicting what looks to be a Doberman/German Shepherd mix near a police cruiser. The dog is running loose around the vehicle. This footage aired during the story of two dogs, allegedly Pit Bulls, that were running loose. At least one of the dogs bit two people. Witnesses said there might have been a third dog as well, but police could only find (and shoot) two dogs.

I contacted News10 and asked them where they got the information that both dogs were Pit Bulls. Who identified the black and brown Shepherd-like dog as a Pit Bull? News10 responded that Sacramento County animal control identified the dogs as Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes. I then contacted the county animal control, and their PR representative Annie Parker informed me that animal control officers identified the dogs as Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes.

Well, the whole thing made my head spin. I've seen breed misidentifications before --even by veterinarians and animal control officers -- but only once have I ever seen an animal control agency so badly mess up the "Pit Bull" label... on a Shepherd? Really? So, I dug further and laid it out on the table....

Either Sac County AC is flat-out wrong about the dog's breed, or the black and brown dog was not one of the dogs shot by police. I emailed Parker the photos, and she informed me that the dog was, in fact, NOT one of the dogs shot by police. It happened to be another loose dog, apparently in the area at the same time. It was wearing a collar. It's not clear whether the mystery dog was the "third" dog spotted or whether it was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Parker wrote, "Yeah, we are assuming it was out loose at the same time. We’re not sure. Supposedly a third dog was called in, but only one person saw it, and neither the ACR officers or the Sherriff Deputies saw the third dog. ACR did spend almost two hours afterwards canvassing the neighborhood looking for the third dog but it was never located."

It does leave me wondering, though, if witnesses reported two to three dogs, and this dog was running around loose in the area at the same time... why did none of the law enforcement officers seize the dog? And why did News10 show such prominent footage of this dog in its "Pit Bulls attack" broadcast? Did News10 believe this dog was one of the "Pit Bulls?"

Well, about the only thing I'm sure of now is something I've known for many years -- media stories are sometimes misleading, and breed identifications should always be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism.

(But NEWS10 isn't quite as bad as FOX news splicing together footage from two different protests, on two different days, to make a crowd appear significantly larger! http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2009/tv-news/daily-show-calls-out-fox-news-for-flubbing-footage/)

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

When City Council Members Go Bad

2009-11-10T07:30:00.000-08:00

Auburn, CA wants to revise its dog ordinances. Last night, I had the pleasure of sitting through agenda Items 1-8 about property tax assessments and the like before getting to Agenda Item 9--the agenda item just about everyone in the room (including the news media) wanted to hear.

What is Auburn going to do about dogs?

The mayor, who had previously emailed me with reassurance Auburn was not looking at any breed-specific ordinance, including a spay-neuter one, opened his remarks by stating that they would not be discussing a breed ban, acknowledging that bans violate CA law. The council went on to discuss dog incidents and statistics with animal control and law enforcement staff. By the end of the evening, it seems most of the city council would love to target Pit Bulls, but the mayor and the city attorney and some of the animal control/law enforcement folks aren't too eager to start trying to enforce a breed-specific ordinance. We'll have to wait to see what the draft ordinance actually says.

During last night's meeting, Councilmember Hanley read a statistic that "90% of all dog attacks are committed by intact dogs." Well, actually, the statistic often quoted is 90% of all fatal dog attacks are committed by intact males (the percentage is actually less when you look at dog attacks in general). So, Councilmember Hanley, the statistic is male dogs and fatal attacks, and as we all know, statistics are...well...only that. They do not generally prove cause and effect. In fact, almost all idiot dog owners own intact dogs (which, as anyone who has taken a logic course knows, does NOT mean that all intact dogs are owned by idiots -- i.e., "all cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats." But I digress!) So, even if the statistic is valid, does it show that having testicles causes dogs to turn psycho, or does it show that irresponsible owners who fail to properly contain, train, and/or socialize their dog, or are attracted to a "tough" image, by and large, and want to keep intact males? It's no surprise these might be many of the dogs that end up causing problems in communities, not by virtue of the reproductive organs, but by virtue of the idiots who own and breed them.

And as for the topic of sterilization and aggression, by the way, studies have correlated spaying females to increased aggression). (http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1880/4/1_3.pdf).

However, there are benefits of spaying and neutering. Neutering males CAN lessen a dog's desire to roam, mark, and hump -- but then again, my parent's Pug, neutered at the age of 5 1/2 months can be quite the little marker -- as my mom's couch can testify! Neutering males, especially younger, can lessen the degree of same-gender DOG aggression (i.e., neutered males can be a little less testy with other males over territory/resource issues).

But as for human aggression -- no chopping off testicles does not miraculously turn an unstable, aggressive dog into a gentle, passive one. Behavior problems need to be dressed directly, through intervention, training, and diligence... a trip to the vet to chop off reproductive organs isn't going train and socialize you. (And if those methods don't work, just euthanize the dog for everyone's sake!)

Oh, and let us not forget the two neutered dogs in Napa a year or so ago that broke out of a yard and attacked a passerby.

I will leave you with the following photos from last night's meeting:

Author Dawn Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

The "imposter" Pit Bull

2009-11-06T21:57:00.000-08:00

These days, Pit Bulls are so cool, other dogs are pretending to be them! Take one Sacramento Doberman/Shepherd-like mix strolling down the street, biting people, and getting shot by police.

This black-and-tan dog with vaguely shepherd-like ears, a thick tail, and lab-like coat was apparently proclaimed a "vicious Pit Bull" by bystanders, animal control, the police, and even News10.

I've posted the image here for all to see. If you think this is a Pit Bull, you need glasses. What I find scary is... did animal control think this was a Pit Bull? (I say "was" because apparently law enforcement shot the dog dead after it bit/attacked several people).

You can see the News10 video here http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=85071

UPDATE: KCRA, which originally reported the dogs as "Pit Bulls" has changed its online story to reference them merely as "dogs." We presume this change is because one of the dogs is obviously NOT a Pit Bull and the other's breed is still undetermined. http://www.kcra.com/news/21544090/detail.html

Author Dawn Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Out of the mouth of City of Sacramento Animal Control

2009-10-25T08:07:00.000-07:00

News10 did a story about a Pit Bull Attack. Immediately following that story, it aired another story about National Pit Bull Awareness Day in Sacramento (October 24th). In the middle of talking about the Pit Bull walk, News10 interjected the interview of an Animal Control officer from the City of Sacramento. The officer's name is Clinton Nelms, and he apparently adopted a Pit Bull from the shelter that had behavior issues. (Incidentally, News10 misspelled his name as Melms). Nelms states in the interview that he tried to rehabilitate the dog, but the behavior was not eliminated. Nelms, wearing his animal control uniform and standing in front of the City of Sacramento animal care building, goes on to say he believes that, unless Pit Bull ownership is regulated (think: Breed Specific Legislation!), all Pit Bulls will be banned.

During this interview, News10 shows footage of a white Pit Bull-looking dog in a kennel -- presumably at the very same animal care and control agency. The dog is in a kennel with a sign that says "keep fingers out of cage." The dog also wears a thick chain collar around its neck that's held in place by a large padlock.

The entire interview with Nelms and the background footage is disturbing, and we wonder why having an image of a barking Pit Bull wearing a ridiculous and intimidating collar was chosen as a backdrop for this story. We have questions we'd like answered. You'll have to watch the video (link below) to understand our criticisms and concerns.

First, why is the shelter adopting out dogs with aggressive behavior issues in the first place?

Secondly, does the agency want to ban Pit Bulls -- currently in violation of state law? Do they really and truly think Pit Bulls are inherently aggressive with (unspecified) "behaviors" that can emerge at any time?

Thirdly, why is News10 showing a dog wearing a thick chain collar with padlock? Did News10 ask to see a "scary" Pit Bull? Or did Nelms or another worker choose to show them this particular dog? Was the footage News10's way of "juicing" up the story with the most sensationalized image it could find? Or is the City of Sacramento intentionally selecting negative images to show News10?

Fourth, what was the full context of Officer Nelms' statements. In a preliminary statement, a shelter worker stated that Nelms' interview was heavily edited and "not entirely accurate." Just how heavily edited was his interview? Was News10's editing fair, careless, or intentionally misleading? We're asking News10 to supply Officer Nelms' entire, unedited interview for comparison.

Finally, and most curiously of all, why in the hell is there a dog in the City's kennel that has a thick chain link collar and padlock? Did the dog just come in off the street and no one had five minutes to spare to get the collar off (and if so, why did they then let News10 back to view THAT dog)? Or is this some new policy with the City of Sacramento? Are they now advocating keeping Pit Bulls on thick chain collars with padlocks?

Take a look at the footage (of the relevant portion of the clip) HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrhXl_taWN8

We'll be interviewing Carol (and Idge) later, so stay tuned for THAT enlightening video!

We implore all Pit Bull advocates to contact the City of Sacramento Animal Department of General Services to express your opinion about Nelms' ' interview. You can go to their online form here: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/generalservices/contact-us/

Or you can call the animal control agency directly at 916-808-7387

After all, everyone who pays taxes and the mandatory dog licensing fees should have a say in what this agency is doing with all our hard-earned money!

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Slanted online polls

2009-10-24T19:57:00.000-07:00

I think it's about time we talked about the entire regime of online news polls. You know the kind--a news story prompts an Internet media agency to post a poll asking a yes-or-no type question, and then provides a list of selectable answers. Instead of the answers being simple and objective such as "yes," "no," or "I don't know/have no opinion," they are often phrased in a way that makes at least some people have to "say" things they don't really mean (or choose not to vote at all).

The following News10 poll caught our attention tonight:

Following Friday's death of a Delhi child from a pit bull attack, do you think pit bulls should be allowed in homes with small children?Yes. Pit bulls are only dangerous if they are not trained properly.No. Pit bulls are too naturally aggressive to be around children.

I know many of our members wanted to vote, but some just couldn't bring themselves to select either answer. Both answers mandate that, in order to vote, one must assert that Pit Bulls "are dangerous."

Yes. Pit Bulls are no more potentially dangerous than other dogs of similar size.

That, at least, is a true statement. (At least if you believe the National Geographic bite force tests which show the Pit Bull's jaw strength is less than that of both the Rottweiler and the German Shepherd).

And anyone who wants to say, "But German Shepherds don't kill babies." Um. Yes, they do. In fact, there were at least 27 human deaths caused by German Shepherds between 1979 and 1998 in the United States (and deaths caused by police dogs are NOT included in this number). Great Danes caused 8 human deaths during this same time period.

These numbers come from the CDC Report, and unfortunately, it's impossible to tell how many deaths were caused by Pit Bulls during this time period, because the CDC study only references "Pit Bull type" dogs (it doesn't say "German Shepherd type" dogs, in comparison). So, we have no way of knowing what "Pit Bull type" dog includes. Does it include Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Boxers and American Bulldogs and all the other breeds commonly mistaken for Pit Bulls (like Presa Canarios, Bandogs, Dogos, and anything else that has short hair)?

We'd like very much to see News10 and other agencies change they way they craft their online polls to include more neutral (and factually correct) statements as answer options. We don't mean to pick on News10 because, after all, we LIKE News10 (especially after their exceptional story on Continental Airlines and its horrible breed discrimination policy):D (Of course, we're totally objective on that point!)

But, come on... enough is enough with the slanted online news polls!

Should you wish to send your POLITE comments to News10, you can email the agency at comments@kxtv.com

CDC Report: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Continental says NO to Pit Bull puppy

2009-10-22T18:25:00.000-07:00

Joey is a 4 month old Puppy rescued by the Chako Rescue Association in Sacramento. When Libby Sherrill, the filmmaker creating the documentary BEYOND THE MYTH, came out to California for an event, she met Joey and bonded with him. Joey is rambunctious and full of energy, though as happy go lucky as any pup could be. His energy level, however, makes him a harder placement because he needs a very active home. Thankfully, Libby is a very active woman and lives in the country in Knoxville, TN.

Well, Libby needed to fly home to TN, and she wanted to take Joey with her (in the Cargo hold of the Continental plane, with the little pup safely in a kennel). Continental, it turns out, doesn't like Pit Bulls and won't fly any Pit Bull over 6 months of age or over 20 lbs. Joey is about 4 months, but he just misses the weight limit at about 27 lbs.

Continental explains that "safety concerns" have led it to adopt this policy, which prohibits even "mixed" breed dogs that may be part Pit Bull (though their website says they allow "crossbreeds," the representative on the phone told us that information is wrong and the website simply has not yet been updated).

So, Joey had to stay in Sacramento while Libby flew home, without him, to TN.

Continental's policy is not driven by safety. What can a 4 month old puppy do that a 90 lb German Shepherd or Rottweiler could not do? Are they afraid that little Joey will break out of his kennel and damage the aircraft?

Well, I'd like you to meet this rescued German Shepherd from the bay area.

His name is Greylin, but it really should be Houdini. He's busted out of three kennels (destroying them in the process), escaped an enclosed dog run, and sailed over a 7 foot privacy fence. Continental will fly him, no problem, in a standard plastic Vari-Kennel in the Cargo hold of its aircraft which would no doubt prove as ineffective a containment device as the other three kennels he managed to demolish.

And he is not alone. Take a visit to Captains Kennels (a boarding kennel) that declares on its website, "Escape proof kennels, specifically German Shephards. If you own a German Shepherd, you know what we mean."

So maybe Continental should ban all Pit Bulls and German Shepherds. But wait! Border Collies are also often escape artists! "High intelligence does mean they learn quickly - but that includes how to do anything they set their minds to. They are master escape artists who can virtually pick the lock on your gate." http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/bordercollies.html

And the list goes on. Jack Russell Terriers, Malinois, Akitas, Huskies, Malamutes and many other breeds are well known for their abilities to escape confinement -- whether it be a fence, a crate, or an outside kennel; but for some reason, Continental has deemed a 4 month old Pit Bull pup weighing a mere 20-something pounds to be more of a menace than a high-drive, chew crazy, kennel-destroying German Shepherd about four times his size.

Apparently, it's only a secret to Continental that many different breeds of dogs can get out of SOME kennels. In other words, if Continental was really concerned about safety, it would mandate that all dogs be transported in secure, escape-proof kennels. But, no, Continental has chosen to discriminate against Pit Bulls, even little pups confined securely in crates -- even escape-proof crates -- and blissfully allow all other breeds on its aircraft.

CHAKO says "Shame on Continental" and urges everyone to contact Continental airlines at 800.WE.CARE2 (800.932.2732)(Apparently, they don't REALLY care -- at least not about a little rescue puppy needing a lift to his new home)

See Joey's story on the news at http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=69027AND Beyond The Myth's site at http://www.beyondthemythmovie.com/

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

California officials harassing dog fanciers through AKC website

2009-06-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

The California State Board of Equalization has been visiting the AKC website and searching out breed clubs. Any person who has his or her name and address listed there or at the breed club's website is subject to harassment by the California State Board of Equalization. The Board uses this information to send out letters advising people they need a seller's permit to sell dogs or puppies and demanding they respond within 30 days. A copy of one of these letters is depicted at the end of this blog entry.

CHAKO called Jenny Chau with the Board and asked her about these letters. She confirmed these letters have gone out, and her supervisor (Bermudez) instructed her to send them. We asked Ms. Chau, since the government has the burden of proof and citizens have a constitutional right not to incriminate themselves, what would happen if someone did not respond to the letter.

Ms. Chau confirmed there is no penalty for not responding to the letter, but people who fail to respond would get a second notice and the matter might be referred to the Board's district office for further review and possible investigation. She stated several times the letters were sent out as part of an "outreach" program. (Yeah, a Big Brother outreach!) If you are required to hold a seller's permit because you meet the criteria, but you do not have a permit, then CHAKO recommends that you seek an attorney to assist you with the board. If you sell no more than two pets or other non-food animals during a twelve month period, you are not required to hold such a seller's permit. You do not have to prove YOUR innocence. The government has to prove its case. Therefore, you are not obligated to respond to the letter.

CHAKO has contacted various media organizations and legislators with this information and recommends that anyone who has received such a letter do so as well. You can find your legislator by visiting the following link http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Proof that Racism is at the heart of Breed Discrimination

2009-03-19T18:01:00.000-07:00

Donald Butler, a member of the Public Safety Committee for Horicon, Wisconsin, believes that Horicon should ban Pit Bulls. His rationale for wanting Pit Bulls out of Horicon is simple, if shockingly discriminatory.

"Horicon is not a ghetto. This is one breed of dogs we do not need."

Many educated dog advocates, attorneys, and scholars have stated that breed discrimination is often a guise for classism. Never before, however, has a public official come right out and admitted such a thing!

We applaud Donald Butler for his bravery. It takes guts to admit that the sole motivation for wanting to get rid of Pit Bulls is because one believes that only "ghetto" people own Pit Bulls. Is it possible that Mr. Butler believes that, by banning Pit Bulls, all the people with darker skin will leave Horicon with their beloved Pit Bulls?

Mr. Butler, despite his bravery, made quite the ass of himself for such assumptions. Even if true, he has shown himself to be a racist, pure and simple. However, Mr. Butler's belief that Pit Bulls are "ghetto" is, of course, erroneous. People like Helen Keller, Michael J. Fox, and John Stewart own Pit Bulls.

The author of this blog happens to hold three degrees and has authored several serious works, including a law review article, a scientific journal article, and a nonfiction book.

Well, if Pit Bulls are "ghetto," then Pit Bulls sure have improved the "ghetto!"

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Portis - penitent and perlexed

2009-03-19T17:59:00.000-07:00

Clinton Portis recently expressed regret that he'd made comments trivializing dog fighting.In a May 21 interview with WAVY-TV in Norfolk, Portis said of accused dog fighter Michael Vick, "It's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

After a firestorm of public criticism, Portis backtracked, stating, " "I didn't know it would affect that many people, didn't think what I said was that offensive....I've never been into dogs, never dealt with dogs, don't like playing with dogs. But at the same time, there's a lot of people who are crazy over pets."

It seems Portis just doesn't know how to spin very well. What he's made clear by his latest comments is that he doesn't find dog fighting offensive, but he's sorry he opened his mouth because there are a lot of crazy pet lovers out there who found his comments offensive and said so. Portis has revealed the lesson he's learned from all this.

"From now on, I don't comment on nobody."

You're a stand-up guy, Portis. Just please stand far, far away from me

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

The Government as Micromanager

2009-03-19T17:39:00.000-07:00

Imagine you wake up in the morning, shuffle into the bathroom, turn on your faucet and eye the digital counter on the faucet that regulates your water use. You brush your teeth quickly, staying within your allotted water usage for that activity, then hop into the shower, which is timed to provide exactly four minutes of moderately warm water. You get out, quickly dry off and dress, then head out into the living room where you wake your 39-pound dog (dogs 40 pounds or over have been banned) and put some food in his bowl, which he eagerly devours. You open the backdoor and venture outside with your pooch, waiting for him to do his business. It's cold, and you're impatient, and you roll your eyes as he moves from place to place, sniffing. A slight drizzle begins, and you cross your arms for warmth. When your four-legged friend finally does his business, you pick it up promptly with the pooper scooper, then deposit it in an environmentally-friendly and sealed, county-approved bin for animal waste, then you let your dog back inside and follow him in, closing the door behind you. You eye the living room and hope it looks the same way when you return, since it's illegal to keep your dog in a crate, on a tether, in a kennel, or alone in the backyard.

With a sigh, you grab your wallet, biodegradable cell phone, and keys. You hop into your compact, fuel efficient vehicle and drive to your work three miles away (the sale of SUVs and vans were banned long ago, and only those who use a wheelchair or have two or more children may apply for an exemption. Also, since the law now places a $3,000 tax penalty on anyone who commutes to work more than five miles each way, you had to accept a less-than-ideal job closer to home). You stop for coffee on the way, but you're only able to get decaf (caffeine was banned years ago), and as you view the selection of fruit and vegetables that comprise the breakfast offerings behind the counter, you find yourself missing the occasional bagel or muffin. With a sigh, you pick up your drink and make your way to the building. You've made sure you aren't wearing any cologne or perfume, because those are prohibited since some people have chemical sensitivities, and as you get out of your car, you quickly sniff your armpits (since deodorant is banned, too, and you didn't have time toput a whole lot of time into that area earlier in the shower). On your way to your office, you stop in the breakroom and add some hot water to your coffee. The only vending machine offers unsweetened juice, low fat milk, or unsalted nuts and dried fruit for sale. You put in a hard day at the office and, on your way home, you stop at a drive-through and order a bottle of water (soda is a thing of the past), a grilled, trans-fat free chicken sandwich on whole grainbread (white flour was banned a year ago), and a side of apple slices, which you plan to feed to the 39-pound dog. You have to be careful with what you feed him because, if he gains a pound, you'll have to euthanize him.

If that reality seems far-fetched, it isn't. Legislators in America are quickly becoming micromanagers of our lives, and while some ofthe above regulations might seem like a good idea, others clearlyfall into the area of unwarranted intrusions into personal lives.

Let's rewind to today. A cluster of new California laws are set totake effect July 1. These new laws include a ban on junk food and soda in schools, recycling programs for plastic bags, and increased fees for bottles and cans that are recyclable.

The ban on junk food arose from Senate Bill 12, passed in 2005, and details the type and number of calories food items must contain in order to be sold. It also specifies how foods must be prepared (or how they must NOT be prepared). Senate Bill 965, passed the same year, limits the type of drinks schools may sell to the following:

1) fruit-based drinks that are composed of no less than 50 percent fruit juice and have no added sweetener,

2) Vegetable-based drinks that are composed of no less than 50 percent vegetable juice and have no added sweetener.

3) Drinking water with no added sweetener.

4) Two-percent-fat milk, one-percent-fat milk, nonfat milk, soy milk,rice milk, and other similar nondairy milk.

This year, Assemblymember Sally Lieber proposed a law that would make it illegal for parents to spank their children. Another law will prohibit drivers from talking on their cell phones without using ahands-free device. Yet another pending law would require all dogs in the state to be sterilized by the age of four months. Still another law makes it a crime to leave a dog tethered in the yard for more than three hours, even if the owner is present with the dog (say,working in the front yard on the car with the dog on a long line) or camping with the dog. It doesn't stop there, another proposed law would regulate what type of lightbulbs we use.
These laws slowly chip away at the personal freedoms upon which this country was founded. Every year, more laws add to the ones already in existence, managing what we can wear, drive, and eat. Many places already limit (or are proposing to limit) the type and number of pets you can own, how high your fence should be, what size or breed of dog you can own, whether you can leave your car parked on the street overnight, sleep in a parked vehicle, or even wear baggy pants. Personal choice is on the verge of being obsolete, because the government has decided it knows what is best for us and our children,and like a good little proactive parent, the government is involved in every facet of our lives.

It will soon become time to change our nation's motto. America was once the Land of the Free. Now, it is the Land of the Over-regulated.

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Media Bias: 'The BLACK defendant' syndrome

2009-03-19T17:36:00.000-07:00

Is the media truly objective and unbiased? How media agencies report stories show their prejudices (and, no, we are not talking about FOX News!)

Let's take this example --Pittsburgh Live! In this story, published May 12, 2007, about a dog attacking another dog, the headline reads: Pit bull attacks dog in Brackenridge (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_507284.html)

In the following story, dated July 25, 2008, the headline reads: Dog attack in Erie County kills toddler (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_579353.html)

At no time, in the second story, does the paper mention the breed of the dog. Other papers describe the dog (and include photos) as an Old English Sheepdog.

In April of 2005, News 10 of Sacramento reported a story where a Queensland Heeler and Pit Bull attacked another dog. (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/kxtv/TSVHC0RFNGIKUT9UI). The headline only referred to the PIT BULL. In response to this obvious bias in the reporting of the story, we sent the following email to News 10:

"Regarding this tragic story, we are almost as saddened by the bias displayed in the headline as we are by the horrible event itself. Why, if a Queensland Heeler AND a Pit Bull both attacked and killed the dogs was only the PIT BULL mentioned in the headline? That is akin to telling a news story about a white man and black man who rob a store together but having the headline read: Black man robs store."

To News 10's credit, they recognized the bias in the headline and responded as follows (in an internal email copied to us):

"The reader has a point. How about we change it to something like: Roseville Woman Mourns Pets Killed in Dog Attack?"

They subsequently changed the headline.

People who report the news are as subject to bias as the rest of society, but as the watchdogs of society, it is crucial that news professionals make a concerted effort to recognize their prejudices and report the news in as objective a fashion as possible. Bias in the media harms society by causing people to perceive issues in a certain way that may not represent reality, and these perceptions often find their way into laws that affect millions of people...and animals.

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

Guest Blog: Who cares about THOSE dogs? by Jackie Marshall

2009-03-19T15:59:00.000-07:00

For a year and a half, I have been dreading the inevitable: the criminalization of dog ownership.

At first, I approached the members of my German shepherd training club and asked them to support my pit bull friends by opposing SB 861. They would have no part of it. "It's just THOSE dogs; it'll never happen to our breed." No matter what I wrote or said, such as "I guarantee that our dogs are next," nobody would support me in my anti-BSL campaigning because nobody would bother with a bill that didn't affect them personally.

Then, all of a sudden, the powers that be wanted to criminalize dog breeding in Sacramento County (with Sac City close behind), but this time it isn't breed specific; it's dogs of any breed. I spent quite a bit of time opposing that, too, but I couldn't get any of my German shepherd buddies to support those efforts either. This time they said, "That law will never pass." And of course it's no surprise that it did. None of the dog people at those meetings would support each other; they just bickered in a "Well, why would I support poodle/spaniel/mutt breeders? Those dogs are useless anyway." In other words, who cares about THOSE dogs, and who cares about the people who love them?

So now California wants mandatory spay and neuter laws statewide, which everybody says will never pass. It does not make exception for ranch dogs, unless they are registered AKC, which pretty much guarantees that they won't work. All the people who swear by mutts will be out of luck forever. Breeders will have to pay fees. Breeders will have to get permits. Dogs will have to have paperwork about their shots, breeding, and residence addresses formally registered with the State. All of a sudden, again, no surprise, the German shepherd people are up in arms! Please, everyone, take action! They are going to make laws about breeding OUR dogs! Please help immediately! Fight this new bill!

But I for one do not care to participate any more. I have no sympathy for dog owners who don't care a damn about other dog owners. Maybe the "Nazi" in German shepherd lineage has finally kicked in...well sure, make those dogs illegal, they are just show dogs or family pet mutts! Uh huh. Not the important kinds of dogs: OURS.

The ranchers with long lines of working dogs find them important, and so do people like me who have had a blessed experience with a mutt, and all the people who swear that their best dogs have been of indecipherable lineage and they'll always adopt mutts from the shelter. It's my opinion that MY dogs are important, as they are police K9 candidates (which may not matter to you if you're a criminal). But it sure as heck is also my opinion that the State shouldn't be determining what kinds of dogs THEY will let US find important. Who cares? It won't be happening to MY dogs, because everybody wants my dogs. In fact, it just drives my puppy prices up, as they will be in demand when only Germans can breed them.

So the rest of the GSD people are out of luck, as far as finding support here. They let too many pit bulls go under the needle, so I no longer care about their rights to hobby breed. As far as I'm concerned, they're on their own, like pit bull people have been for a long time. And I've learned a valuable lesson in modern self-centeredness.

Author: Jackie Marshall

When Public Officials Go Bad

2009-03-14T07:04:00.000-07:00

Kory Nelson has declared War on Pit Bulls. He's Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, and he has made it his personal mission to eradicate Pit Bulls from the United States, even going to far as to call up Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to give him unsolicited tips on how to exterminate this breed of dog.

Nelson even wrote an article for Municipal Lawyer titled, "Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed Specific Legislation is Justified." He is a man with a passion for killing Pit Bulls. In 2002, Denver euthanized 338 Pit Bulls.

A study reported in a 1994 Pediatrics article titled, "Which Dogs Bite? A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors" sought to determine dog-specific factors independently associated with a dog biting a non-household member. Cases were selected from dogs reported to Denver Animal Control in 1991 for a first-bite episode of a non-household member in which the victim received medical treatment.

The study found that children aged 12 and under comprised over half of the victims. The breed of dog responsible for the most bites -- the German Shepherd Dog.

Kory Nelson's article advocating the mass killing of dogs contains a small biographical blurb about the man who has made exterminating a breed he considers dangerous his personal mission in life. That blurb contains one very interesting piece of information.

Kory Nelson owns a German Shepherd.

Since German Shepherds were responsible for the most dog bites resulting in medical attention in the aforementioned study, we suggest Denver ban German Shepherds next. Of course, after German Shepherds, Denver will have to ban Chow Chows because they were second on the list of biting dogs (then Labrador Retrievers, Cocker Spaniels, and Akitas).

German Shepherds, often bred for protection work, have frequently made the news for attacks. An 8 year-old Chicago boy was attacked by a neighbor's two German Shepherds on Christmas Eve (2005). A Lancaster, PA police dog mauled a girl on a school playground. Little six year-old Bailey Prosser was mauled by a German Shepherd in 2005.

Kory Nelson proves himself to be the worst kind of hypocrite -- one that uses the law as a weapon to embark on his own personal crusade to exterminate a breed he personally despises while owning a breed of dog that ranks #1 on the list of biting dogs for his own County.

German Shepherds, of course, are not banned in Denver, and Kory Nelson has no interest in banning them since he owns one.

Of course, CHAKO does not advocate a ban on German Shepherds, Pit Bulls, or any other breed. In fact, one of CHAKO's most active volunteers is a German Shepherd Dog enthusiast. However, we believe that persons who are public servants and have authority and power to affect the lives of citizens should not be allowed to yield that power as a weapon to act on their own personal prejudices. They should not use the law to target others while exempting themselves. They are public servants, not dictators.

Kory Nelson should be removed from his position. He is a disgrace to lawyers, and an affront to a free and just society. He is a hypocrite on a personal mission of destruction.

"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They believed the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth... that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government.... "

-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.

The Science of Breed Discrimination

2009-03-13T16:03:00.000-07:00

It is often said that some breeds are genetically prone to aggression. A dog's behavior is determined by genetics. Human beings, however, are intelligent, sentient creatures who have free will. Dogs, of course, are also intelligent and sentient creatures, but being 'lesser' animals, different genetics apply to them...somehow.

Of course, genes are genes, whether in humans or canines. So, when politicians start banning breeds under the rationale that some breeds are more inherently vicious than others, they engage in breed profiling. If these same politicians were to say, on the other hand, that black people need to be eliminated because they commit the majority of crimes, that would be racial profiling. Racial profiling is wrong. Breed profiling is, however, somehow thought of as different. Dogs are not people, after all.

Dogs are not people, that is obvious, but humans, especially those called politicians, are perhaps a bit too arrogant and naive. If the argument is sound that some breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to aggression, then the argument is equally sound that some ethnicities within the human species are genetically predisposed to aggression. Dogs may be dogs, but science is science, and science is both objective and universal.

Sir Francis Galton, born in 1822, was the first scientist to study heredity and human behavior systematically. Since then, the science of behavioral genetics has advanced. There are several indications that behavior is genetic.

Behaviors can be altered in response to changes in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can transform a shy, quiet person into a loud, aggressive jerk, and doctors routinely treat behaviors caused by mental illness with drugs that affect brain chemistry. Geneticists have even created or abolished specific mouse behaviors by inserting or disabling certain genes.

In humans, some behaviors run in the family. For example, mental illness tends to cluster in families.

Behaviorial similarities run across similar species. Chimpanzees are humanity's closest relative, sharing 98 percent of oru DNA. The two species also share behaviors that are very much alike. For example, both are highly social creatures. Both nurture, cooperate, demonstrate altruism, and even share similar facial expressions.

Recently, the science of behavioral genetics has shown that many human personality traits that most people see as a product of will are, as it turns out, products of genes. Novelty-seeking, for example, shows a strong genetic influence. In fact, studies demonstrate that certain behaviors such as alcoholism are related to growth hormone release. Another study looked at 124 unrelated subjects and showed that "higher than average novelty seeking test scores were significantly associated with a particular exonic polymorphism, the 7-repeat allele at the locus for the dopamine receptor D4 gene." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=601696) What that means, basically, is that novelty-seeking is likely linked to a particular genetic variation in humans.

Genes affect a variety of human behaviors, whether or not individuals like to believe they do. Dog behavior is also influenced by genetics. In fact, humans share more of their ancestral DNA with dogs than with mice. Dogs and humans are so genetically alike that scientists study disease in dogs to learn about disease in human beings. ""When compared with the genomes of human and other important organisms, the dog genome provides a powerful tool for identifying genetic factors that contribute to human health and disease," according to Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Scientists also have evidence that genes influence aggression. Researchers at the University of Virginia, for example, published information indicating that sex chromosomes (those X and Y shapes of DNA in our cells) influence maternal and aggressive behavior in humans. Emilie Rissman, PhD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Virginia remarked on her research, "It is our hope that these data could lead to the discovery of new genetic bases for aggression and parental behavior in other animals, including humans."

So, beware. If you believe that certain breeds of dogs should be exterminated because they are genetically prone to aggression, then it follows, logically, that certain human races or even genders are more prone to aggression than others. In other words, if you support breed profiling, then you must, according to science, also support racial profiling.

Welcome to the brave, new world.

Author D. Capp holds an M.S. in medical science (biochemistry and genetics), a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and a law degree.