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.

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.

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.

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.

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.