#TongueOutTuesday

This is my English Bulldog friend "Willie" ... the perfect ambassador for #TongueOutTuesday  :)

Is It Wrong To Share Your Bed With Your Dog?

"Is it 'wrong' for my dog to sleep on the bed with me?" That's a question I get asked a lot.

It appears that people are increasingly sharing their bed with their dog, as documented by a recent study in the UK.

And my answer is always this: It's not a case of it being 'right' or 'wrong'... instead, it's about preference. If you enjoy having your dog on the bed with you... if it gives you comfort and doesn't interfere with you getting sufficient sleep... if there is no issue with resource guarding... then why not?

Of course that's assuming your dog doesn't have an incontinence issue, flea infestation, etc., and then it's just a matter of your dog not keeping you awake with snoring!


.

Myth Busting - Don't Coddle Your Fearful Dog

There are a lot of stubborn myths that surround the world of dog training and behaviour, and, in particular, the "Don't Coddle Your Fearful Dog" is a common one.

The prevalence of this myth can probably be attributed to how many dog trainers (including one particular 'celebrity' dog trainer on television) aren't aware of it's myth status, and then, in turn, spread this misinformation to a greater audience.

A Couple Of Definitions:

If you're not familiar with the word "coddle" it's an abbreviation of the word "mollycoddle" which means to baby, favor, humor, etc.

The behavioural definition of "reinforcement" is to 'increase the likelihood' of a behaviour being repeated in the future. This myth is about the belief that coddling provides positive reinforcement of the dog's fear.

Basically, this "don't coddle" myth is based on a belief that ‘coddling’ a fearful dog reinforces the dog’s fearful state of mind which, in turn, further validates the dog's fear in a "Yes, you're right to be afraid." type of way.

Click here to read the rest of this article.

.

Will Guilt Make You Adopt A Shelter Dog?

I just read some information published by Best Friends Animal Society (which I will refer to as B.F.A.S.) which made me think twice about how some Animal Welfare groups promote the idea of adoption and rescue.

B.F.A.S. conducted a survey of young adults aged 18 to 34, and found that those surveyed were more likely to purchase a pet from a pet store or from a breeder, than to adopt a pet from a rescue organization or shelter.

This is because they believe rescue/shelter dogs to be 'damaged goods'.

• 46% of the young adults deemed rescue/shelter animals to be "less desirable" than animals obtained from a "breeder".
• 40% of the young adults believed that "homeless" animals will remain in the shelter until they are eventually adopted (though in fact, approx 4 million homeless animals are killed each year in the USA). 

Mark Cushing, founder of the Animal Policy Group, made a very interesting point about this topic. He stated that fund-raising campaigns that feature animals-in-distress may be an effective way to "guilt" people into opening up their wallets and donating to a very good cause, but showing sick and injured animals promotes the notion of shelter and rescue animals are "damaged goods".

I think his point is a valid one. In other words, supporting a worthy cause by donating to an animal welfare organization is one thing but, for many of those people, their desire to welcome so-called 'damaged goods' into their homes is quite another. 

Accordingly, animal welfare organizations will need to determine the best overall strategy for reaching their goals, both in fund-raising and promoting animals for adoption, as it's crucial that efforts for one doesn't negatively impact the other.

From my own experience, part of my desire for volunteering at my local SPCA branch was to take appealing photographs of their adoptable animals (which were predominantly cats, dogs and rabbits) to increase their 'adoption appeal'. Knowing that 'attractiveness' is a high ranking criteria for most people, the idea of volunteering my time in this way came from seeing so many shelter photos that were poor quality and/or featured an animal in an unfavourable way.

To be fair, shelter staffers have a tough enough job already, and I wouldn't expect photography skills to be a mandatory part of their skill-set, but quickly snapping the photo of an animal during the intake process is not going to do enough to provide the necessary appeal to make most people think, "Yes, I want THAT dog!" 

Let's face it, an animal that has just arrived at a shelter is already frightened and stressed; could be wet or dirty, and in dire need of bathing and/or grooming. So yes, in that state, many animals might appear to be so-called 'damaged goods'.

I have to say that taking photographs of the adoptable dogs, cats and rabbits was a very rewarding experience for me. It definitely took time and patience to get the right shot, and due to the distance from my home I could only arrange to visit once each week, but on my volunteering day the shelter staff would regularly tell me, "It's working... people are seeing the photos and are calling us!"

A great example of the adoption appeal generated by an appealing photo is a dog named "Balloo" (the black dog shown above, with the basketball). A shelter staff member told me that a call was received within hours of the photo being published on their adoptables website. The man who called asked, "Is the black dog shown with the basketball still available?" He was told "yes" and he said that he was on his way to meet the dog and begin the adoption process. Balloo was a healthy and well-mannered dog, and I'm happy to report that the adoption process went well: Balloo was adopted by the approved family the very same day his photo went online. Obviously I'm pleased for Balloo and his new family, but I am also proud to have played a role in that success.

Having said all of the above, there will always be a percentage of shelter/rescue animals that have suffered mistreatment from humans which can result in health problems and/or behaviour issues. Certainly such animals will be considered 'damaged goods' and 'undesirable' by some people but that's not a bad thing, because an animal needs to be placed in an environment where it can succeed. To put an animal with specific 'needs' in the care of well-intentioned humans who don't have the time, resources and/or knowledge how to properly tend to those needs is a losing proposition for both the animal and the humans.

Note: All of the photos featured on this page were taken by me during my volunteering, and were used to promote the animal for adoption.

Happy "National Black Dog Day"

Happy "National Black Dog Day"!

I jokingly refer to all my pets as dogs: "Groucho" is my little dog, "Nova" is my medium sized dog, and "Jet" is my big dog... and, yes, they are all black!

Are you familiar with Black Dog Syndrome? It's a phenomenon where black dogs are passed over for adoption in favour of lighter or more colourful-coated dogs. While some people might dispute this, everyone I've spoken to who are involved with shelters have agreed that "black" is not a particularly popular colour.

Perhaps not coincidentally then, black cats are known to suffer from the same phenomenon. Rather than refer to Black Dog Syndrome or Black Cat Syndrome, in our Western culture I think we should simply refer to it as "Black Animal Syndrome".

The reason for black-coated animals being less popular could be tied to one of a variety of different reasons or, more likely, a combination of different reasons. I tend to think that, these days, people think of black-coated animals as 'ordinary' and, instead, want a more unique or brighter colour in the same way that people seem to want more unique breeds: It's more about the aesthetic than anything else. Just my personal opinion though...

The Staying Power of the Dominance Theory Myth

Dominance Theory... the impetus for me to write about this topic (again) comes from social media posts I've seen from a veterinary clinic in the U.K. which provides inaccurate information about the social order and motivations of domestic dogs.

In part, their blog post reads, "... your dog has natural pack instincts that have been handed down from his wolf ancestors. This is why some dogs end up being too dominant or naughty – they’ve been led to think they’re higher up in the pack than other family members. A well behaved dog sees itself as a lower pack member – that means he doesn’t get to eat when you eat, sleep in your bed, or jump up on furniture."

Simply put, the information provided in this quote is out-of-date and incorrect. 

Most pet guardians have an inherent trust for veterinarians and have an expectation that, as professionals, their knowledge base is up-to-date as are their practices and techniques. Accordingly, I find it very troubling when professionals provide outdated information (such as the blog post I've mentioned) for general consumption.

The way I look at it, based on the possible implications, providing inaccurate information on behavioural science topics isn't that much different than providing inaccurate information on medical science topics.

Having said all of the above, and to be fair to this same veterinary clinic, their social media posts do recommend positive reinforcement practices rather than 'punishment' based practices for dogs. I definitely do thank them for that.

. 

Dog Kissing Booths - Nice In Theory But Bad In Practice

In this, my second recent post about people interacting face-to-face with dogs, I have to comment on something that I'm bumping into more and more often these days: Dog Kissing Booths.

I don't want to come across as a downer or kill-joy, and would hate to be thought of as some type of internet 'hater' who is always ready and willing to disapprove of just about anything, because my goal is this: 

• To promote dog bite risk awareness.
• To promote appropriate and safe interactions with dogs.

Quite unknowingly, people (especially children) regularly put themselves in a position to be bitten by a dog, and it just so happens that interacting face-to-face with a dog is a common cause for people to get bitten. When a dog bites it will likely never be fully trusted again or perhaps it will be 'given up on' of in one way or another, so when a dog bite happens, everyone loses... including the dog.

Education Is the Best Prevention

Education is generally accepted to be the best form of dog bite prevention, and one of the important steps within that process is to promote appropriate and safe interactions with dogs. However, by doing so we also need to point out inappropriate and risky interactions... which leads me back to the topic of dog kissing booths.

For many organizations and not-for-profit societies it's an absolute necessity to fund-raise. Simply put, it's just an economic reality and there are all sorts of ways this can be done, however, somewhere along the line, the notion of changing the occupant of the old fashioned 'carnival kissing booth' from human to canine popped into someone's head.

Nice In Theory But Bad In Practice

On the surface I totally get the appeal of the "dog kissing booth" idea because it's chock-full of warm-and-fuzzy feelings and cute photo opportunities. It's a nice idea in theory but it's bad in practice.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's a "bad idea" because I think the people lining up to be smooched are in an immediate risk of being bitten (that is, assuming the dogs being chosen are exceptionally social, exceptionally tolerant of being approached face-to-face, and being closely watched for signs of stress). What I am saying is that it's a bad idea because the kissing booth promotes and perpetuates the notion that face-to-face interactions with dogs are appropriate and safe. 

Among the strongest proponents of dog bite prevention education are animal welfare groups and dog rescue organizations, so you can imagine my astonishment when I see some groups within the welfare/rescue community promoting dog kissing booths for their own fund-raising purposes. 

Is It Just Me... Or... ???

I have made efforts to contact some welfare/rescue groups to express my concern about their promotion of face-to-fact interactions through their kissing booths but I was unable to make much headway. They either couldn't understand my point or didn't want to acknowledge it. The conversations went something like this:

Me: I think that having a kissing booth sends the wrong message about face-to-face interactions with dogs.

Typical response: "Oh you don't have anything to worry about. The dogs we're using are completely bomb-proof. We're really careful about that."

Me: Yes I'm sure the dogs are wonderful and will do well, but my point is that the kissing booth sends a message to people that face-to-face interactions with dogs are appropriate and safe.

Typical response: "Well with these dogs there's really no risk. We make sure they are really social and well-adjusted, and we've never had any issues at all in the past."

You get the picture...

Most Dog Bites Come From 'Known' Dogs

I know, I know. You're probably thinking, "I've had dogs all my life and this would never happen with my dog." but there's interesting statistical evidence that should provide a well-meaning 'wake up call' for all dog guardians:

• In the majority of dog bite incidents, the dog was either the family's own dog or it was a dog that the victim knew (ie: belonging to a neighbor, friend or other family member, etc.).

In my mind, this information points to people employing a more relaxed set of rules around their own dogs (or dogs they are familiar with) thus allowing more 'liberties' to be taken when interacting with the 'known' dog as opposed to more strict rules for interacting with an 'unknown' dog.

In closing, I'm going to repeat some information from my previous post "People Going Face-to-Face With Dogs: Adorable or Dangerous" as published in the Animals and Society Institute policy paper entitled "Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions (Revised 2014)":

• Statistics indicate that the majority of dog bite victims are children.
• 67% of injurious dog bites to children have been shown to be preventable by changing the child's or the caregiver's behaviour in interacting with the dog.
• One study about dog bites to children found that there was no adult present in 69% of the cases studied.
• A study in 2008 published in Journal of the American Veterinary Association (2008) found that parents generally lacked knowledge of factors that were likely to increase the risk of dog bites to children, even when they were supervising child/dog interactions.

So, in the light of those statistics, education to promote appropriate and safe interactions with dogs is so very important, even if it means risking being labelled as the 'no fun police' when pointing out which interactions are inappropriate and risky.

 .