Been reeling over Lennox today... 


There was a part of me that really didn't believe they'd actually go through with it against the weight of worldwide opinion.  It's bad enough feeling so sad about it but my heart really goes out to Sarah Fisher, who actually spent time with him.  


It reminds me of a dog I worked with that was also destroyed for no good reason...


Every dog I work with, I form a bond with.  It's unavoidable.  A couple of years ago I was asked to assess a dog for a breed rescue. He had come in for showing aggression towards a small child, but the child had been trying to hug the dog while he was eating.  I was told that the dog had been subjected to non-stop chasing and hugging from the child since it had been born a couple of years previously, and 'without any warning' had snapped at the child... 


To cut a long story shorter, I assessed the dog as having some slight proximity issues around food (to be expected), calm, quiet, gentle and just wanting to have his own space and bumble about without being pestered.  He'd have been the perfect companion dog for someone who just wanted a bit of company while they were working at home or doing the garden; perhaps a retired / semi-retired person or couple without any visiting children.  I'd have had him in a shot, but then I was used to mastiffs and although this dog wasn't a mastiff, his temperament was very similar.  He'd have made someone a very loving companion.


I received an email just a few hours after my assessment from the foster carer telling me that the dog had been destroyed.  When I asked why, it was because his temperament was not indicative of his breed and he would be un-rehomeable.  In other words, because he wasn't bouncy and bright with a constantly wagging tail he wasn't to be given a chance.  Another dog who had lost his life due to breed 'type', but this time  because he WASN'T typical of type.


I only spent an hour or so with him but I still remember the quiet, gentle way that lovely dog had about him.  I remember his quiet, thankful eyes and how restful and at peace he seemed now that he was in a quieter environment without being pestered all the time and used as a plaything or child's toy.  I will never forget him and how needless his death was.


So my heart goes out to Sarah tonight as she also remembers a dog that has been lost for no good reason.  


I wish that humanity's obsession with 'breed' could simply die and we could see dogs as individual as we see ourselves.  Perhaps Harvey and Lennox would be sleeping on a sofa somewhere now.  

Gavin Grant's Blog on Responsible Dog Ownership

Regardless of what you may think of the RSPCA as a whole, the outlines for the overhaul in legislation in Gavin Grant's blog make sense EXCEPT for making people responsible for the actions of their dogs within their own home...  In gardens?  Yes; we have to protect postal workers and other people who have valid access to our front door, but behind the front door?  No.  For me, this is a sacrosanct, private, family area in which every member of the family - INCLUDING THE FAMILY DOG - should be able to feel safe.  


I know that the proposed legislation changes allow for the event of a dog biting someone with unauthorised access to the house (i.e. a burglar), but we already know that ambiguous wording of an Act can give clever lawyers a chance to take advantage, especially where dogs are concerned.


Contrary to popular opinion there is ALREADY perfectly usable legislation in place to prosecute owners of dogs who harm people within the home.


The Dogs Act 1871


I deter visitors to my home as much as possible because I'm looking after a dog that needs to have one place in the world where he feels safe.  On the rare occasion I have to allow workmen into the home for essential works, I take the day off work and sit at my desk working with the dog at my feet or in his bed behind a closed door to 'show' him that there's no need to be anxious.  At no point do I 'allow' him to make a mistake and put someone with approved access to our home into fear. However, what I would not tolerate, and would resent enormously, would be someone who ignored my advice as to how to behave in MY home to keep the dog calm and stress-free and then felt they could have me charged under some law because THEY made the mistake that made the dog feel threatened.


I may be in the minority, but members of my family - even temporary ones like foster dogs - come first in their own home.  


I'm just worried that a blanket law stating that a dog is guilty until proved innocent is going to lead to exactly the same problems as we now have with the DDA...

Trainers, Behaviourists... Unite! (Please!)

I've been a fan of the internet now for over 15 years and have watched it grow and develop exponentially.

I've been involved in dogs for over twice that long and watching the two fields merge has been an eye-opening experience.

I use the internet for research, for education, for updating knowledge and for simple amusement and many of the sites I regularly visit are dog-orientated.  In recent years I've observed a sinister turn in the way that dog-people interact with each other on the internet, particularly when it comes to the dog training and behaviour industry.

I'm told that the 'divide' between dog trainers and behaviourists is non-existent these days; however I've just had to close down a discussion page on the topics related to these fields because of narrow-minded and childish retorts attacking the work of professionals involved in canine behaviour modification.

I am really disappointed at how people attack things they do not understand.  I have ENORMOUS respect for dog trainers (I was one for many years!); their skills, their knowledge, the hard work required to  teach dogs to do amazing things.  However, when trainers do not reciprocate that mutual respect for behaviour consultants and the work we do it saddens me greatly.  We all work for the same thing, to improve the life of The Dog, and the energy used to attack others could be so much more usefully used...  There are good and bad examples in ALL professional fields; the wise realise that the way forward is to work together with colleagues from all fields in the dog training and behaviour industry with a sense of mutual respect, not suspicion and contempt.

In my ideal world, professionals like myself who devote their time to the analysis and modification of behaviour would work seamlessly and without prejudice with their canine training professional colleagues.  Trainers would work with behaviour professionals in the same way, acknowledging the years we spend in academic research, studying the way the canine brain works in order to have a better insight into problems such as aggression and anxiety.   I can honestly say that when I moved from dog training into behaviour, I was simply blown away by the sheer amount of stuff that I simply didn't know.  I did a good job with dogs and had many successes training dogs with the experience that I'd gained and applied, but learning WHY dogs behave the way they do, from the problems caused by hormonal imbalance to learning now neurotransmitters affect emotion, gave real depth to my work.

The division currently appearing in the UK regarding the regulation of dog training and behaviour roles is a representation of everything that saddens me as a professional in this field.

Yes, there ARE differences between the roles of dog trainers and dog behaviourists, the same way there are differences between a dentist and an orthodontist!  What I simply cannot understand is why individuals cannot simply accept and respect each other's professional fields.  

What is often mentioned is the difference in the fees charged to owners.  Well, if you have proven academic qualifications, have spent thousands of pounds on gaining them, given years of your life in studying for them, it is generally accepted that clients must accept this is what they are paying for, in ANY professional field.  I do accept that with the lack of regulation in this country, it is worrying that people with academic qualifications but little hands-on-experience are practising as behaviourists, but there ARE professionals out there who have both - and they aren't THAT difficult to find.

I have to risk touching a nerve and suggest that there is an element of jealousy in non-qualified people questioning the validity of academic qualification in dog behaviour and training.  If you feel yourself recoiling and reacting with an emotional reaction to this suggestion, just try halting yourself and think about WHY you have reacted that way...  Be honest, even if only to yourself.  If you are reacting out of a fear of academics taking your livelihood that you have spent 20 years working on, then own that reaction and think how about positive actions you can take to stop that happening before slamming out an angry email from an instinctive defensive posture.  If it's because you are doing a great job with your clients and their dogs and don't see why behaviourists are needed, ask yourself whether there's a slight chance that one of your client's dogs has an issue that could be explained by someone who has studied how the biomechanics of the brain affect emotion and behaviour? It doesn't lessen the work you do.  It doesn't take anything away from your own credibility... 

You never know, it might just help the dog, and isn't that the ultimate objective here?

It's an enlightening experience to step out of an automatic reaction to something and look at yourself objectively.  And it makes you a better professional.

Behaviourists are not 'better' than trainers, its a different role, that's all.

My plea to ALL people involved in helping people with their dogs is to put aside judgement and open yourselves to the possibility that other professionals with other talents, either learned or borne, just may be worth shaking hands with...

Dog Breeding in the UK

Independent Dog Breeding Inquiry

I've just spend the day burrowing into the report on the Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding by Professor Sir Patrick Bateson FRS, published at 10am this morning.

The report can be downloaded and read by clicking the link above so I won't discuss the whole 64 page report.  I do however want to say things about some of the findings presented as many of them I recognise as laments of those of us working 'at the sharp end' of breeders' mistakes!

Firstly, I'm happy to see behavioural welfare being a topic fairly well represented.  Those of us that work with puppies see first-hand the kind of socially unbalanced examples from breeders who either don't bother with socialisation and habituation programmes or, as the report describes... 

"...reckon that they have nothing to learn and resent bureaucratic interference"

I am no fan of selective breeding or showing for very definite reasons;  the minute either ego or money enters the equation, the worst possible side of humanity shows through.  If animals are involved, they are the innocent victims and I'm really pleased that this report is quite strongly-worded in places regarding the lack of integrity they have noted in breeders, albeit accompanied by the disclaimer that this is a generalisation and does not apply to all, of course.

I fully expect to be reading and hearing the all-too-familiar complaints regarding the feasibility of implementing the recommendations etc but for me, the whole process of the Kennel Club and breeders finally taking responsibility for their past (and present) actions has to start somewhere.  

Yes it's going to be tough-going.  

Yes it's going to involve us dog professionals keeping this ball rolling and getting passionate about it.  

Yes, it's going to take time.

Complaining about it is merely taking up more of that time!  We have got to get the Kennel Club, Breed Clubs and individual breeders to listen and learn without prejudice.  We need a common motivator such as that provided by Cesar Millan in the recent coalition of major European canine health & welfare charities and organisations to pull together and condemn aversive techniques (link below)

Welfare in Dog Training

That common motivator should be animal welfare, but unfortunately as previously said, ego and money are often the primary motivators in dog breeding and showing and I believe that these are mutually exclusive to canine welfare.  

As said earlier, the Inquiry has discovered things that many of us have known for ages.  I've been trying to change breeder attitudes for many years; here's a link to an article I wrote back in 2006.

The Breeder's Legacy - Laying the Foundation 

I'm still astounded at the sheer volume of the general public who have NO IDEA about choosing the right dog for them.  I was speaking to someone today who has bought a historic fighting breed for the first time and when I asked why they bought it, they replied that 'they just like the look of the breed'.  Yes, I'm taking them under my wing and will be helping them as much as possible, especially as this is the 20wk pup's THIRD home...

Bottom Line:  (In this the Inquiry agrees with what I've believed for years) if the public are better informed and educated, they will ask the right questions and hopefully stop buying from the breeders and other outlets that are not complying with the rules and regs which are there for the welfare of the dog.  Let's pull together as dog-lovers, professionals and enthusiasts to help the general public help the welfare of the dog.

We can't do it without them.

They can't do it without us.