I still do it the old-fashioned way, and it is a very simple method, tried and true for over 20 yrs now. All you need is a rolled up newspaper, preferably more than one, easily and quickly available in any room in the house that the puppy is permitted into.
Hopefully, you will be quick enough on the draw to pick up on the signals that your pup is about to 'go;' the sudden stoppage in the middle of play to go circle the floor with the head down; the low, urgent whimper; etc. If this happens, then pick your puppy up, take it outside while saying "Do you need to go OUTSIDE? Let's go Outside!" and praise furiously when it goes. Voila! mission accomplished!
However, inevitably you will get busy, and there will be an 'accident.' Whenever this happens, your reaction must be swift and sure. Any time you come upon 'the evidence,' reach for one of those rolled up newspapers you thoughtfully provided at strategic locations. Grasp the newspaper firmly, and whack the offender sharply across the head as you say in a stern, disapproving voice, "BAD owner!" #WHACK!# "WATCH the puppy!" #WHACK!# "BAD owner!" #WHACK!# "WATCH the puppy!" #WHACK!#
The redhead
The official Blog site for the Castle at Heartland Keep. This is the heart of the Dragon's Lair, and the eclectic ramblings found here will center on issues dear to the heart of D'Sorceress, the Mistress of Sword & Sorcery Kennels and Enchanted Oaks Farm.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Loading the Dice
The following essay resulted from a spirited discussion about inbreeding co-efficients, is it possible to have too much of a good thing, and related questions.
Commentator: There is a lot of controversy about how high is too high. Many geneticists believe very strongly in diversity being essential for optimum health, but breeders want to put a personal stamp on what they produce so tend to linebreed rather than outcross. I'd love to hear what others think on this matter!
The Witch: Wish Granted!
Here is the quick and dirty answer: as the coefficient numbers go up (meaning more inbred) the consistency of production in the get for the attributes you are breeding for also increases. In other words, the more inbred the litter, the more consistent the puppies are. However, the trade-off is that the higher the coefficient, the greater the chance of health weakening, if it is taken to extremes. This is not an absolute, there are healthy lines of dogs that are very inbred indeed, but over time as you continue to inbreed, you lose diversity in the histamine complexes and certain of the cascade antigen sets, and you begin to see problems inherent in this sort of depletion, such as poorer overall immune response and attendent allergies as well as other immune type problems cropping up. Some of these disorders can be weird, and some are deadly, such as rare cancers, etc. The overall increase of these disorders within the breeding population is not drastic, even in VERY inbred stock, but it is significant enough to warrant notice. This is the downside of inbreeding. There are other more obvious problems as well, such as the greater likelihood of meeting up with deleterious recessive genes in closely related kin.
However, it is a very fine line to walk, when you begin with the premise that ANY breed is a closed subset of genes, and that setting aside any gene set inevitably creates these kinds of problems to a greater or lesser degree. Linebreeding is the same sort of dilemma on a smaller scale, nothing more. The good news, which no one wants to focus on, is that it is very simple to fix these 'doubling' problems when they occur; a judicious outcross will fix almost anything in that regard. The bad news is that outcrossing will also muck up the consistency of the get; and you are right back to square one in a very few generations, with very inconsistent get.
A great deal of the issue hinges on that term, 'optimum health.' We all want to 'breed for' good attributes (like health, or good hips, or what have you) and 'breed away from' bad ones (like allergies or osteo) but the PROBLEM is, in order to do so CONSISTENTLY, you have to limit the gene sets. Which means: line or inbreeding. It is pretty much the only way to 'set' type, and that is the same whether the 'type' you are trying to fix is a particular type of head or a particular type of hip socket. So, to improve health we must outcross, but to optimize and 'set' the health benefits of strong dogs, we have to line breed on their stellar qualities. It is a pretty pickle...
So you see, line and inbreeding is not really the evil that many insist; if you are going to maintain anything of value you have to select FOR it...and that means AWAY from other things, and that ALWAYS means limiting the gene pool to a greater or lesser degree. The trick is to limit the genes for the good attributes while not losing the necessary diversity to maintain health.
I personally opt for once-out-twice-in (more or less, not particularly strict here) and if I am seeing too many problems that make me nervous (allergies, etc) I go twice-out instead. It has seemed to work pretty well for me over the long haul. I think that too many people believe breeders make their choices for really frivolous reasons; and it IS true that there are the occasional fluff brains and kewpies that breed to the Number 1 dog because he is Number 1, not because he has anything to offer their bitch; or who won't touch a dog unless it has some of Old Rip or whatever flavor-of-the-month they are misty-eyed about; but in my experience those types are not average. MOST of the breeders I am acquainted with are doing the best they can, using the tools of inbreeding and linebreeding and outcrossing, to improve on the overall quality of their dogs over time. I also think it is important to look at the big picture, not focus only on your own breeding program to the exclusion of all else, and see what the BREED is in need of, as well as your personal line. I mean, what do you bring to the table that can advance the Staff or enhance the quality of life for the dogs you breed? I think that most breeders actually DO this, whether they realize it or not; but too few get any credit for the hours they spend studying pedigrees. The key? MODERATION in all things...especially moderation. <|;o)
And as always, the foregoing is only my opinion; with that and a dollar or so, you can get a cup of coffee in your favorite restaurant.
Lenna
Commentator: There is a lot of controversy about how high is too high. Many geneticists believe very strongly in diversity being essential for optimum health, but breeders want to put a personal stamp on what they produce so tend to linebreed rather than outcross. I'd love to hear what others think on this matter!
The Witch: Wish Granted!
Here is the quick and dirty answer: as the coefficient numbers go up (meaning more inbred) the consistency of production in the get for the attributes you are breeding for also increases. In other words, the more inbred the litter, the more consistent the puppies are. However, the trade-off is that the higher the coefficient, the greater the chance of health weakening, if it is taken to extremes. This is not an absolute, there are healthy lines of dogs that are very inbred indeed, but over time as you continue to inbreed, you lose diversity in the histamine complexes and certain of the cascade antigen sets, and you begin to see problems inherent in this sort of depletion, such as poorer overall immune response and attendent allergies as well as other immune type problems cropping up. Some of these disorders can be weird, and some are deadly, such as rare cancers, etc. The overall increase of these disorders within the breeding population is not drastic, even in VERY inbred stock, but it is significant enough to warrant notice. This is the downside of inbreeding. There are other more obvious problems as well, such as the greater likelihood of meeting up with deleterious recessive genes in closely related kin.
However, it is a very fine line to walk, when you begin with the premise that ANY breed is a closed subset of genes, and that setting aside any gene set inevitably creates these kinds of problems to a greater or lesser degree. Linebreeding is the same sort of dilemma on a smaller scale, nothing more. The good news, which no one wants to focus on, is that it is very simple to fix these 'doubling' problems when they occur; a judicious outcross will fix almost anything in that regard. The bad news is that outcrossing will also muck up the consistency of the get; and you are right back to square one in a very few generations, with very inconsistent get.
A great deal of the issue hinges on that term, 'optimum health.' We all want to 'breed for' good attributes (like health, or good hips, or what have you) and 'breed away from' bad ones (like allergies or osteo) but the PROBLEM is, in order to do so CONSISTENTLY, you have to limit the gene sets. Which means: line or inbreeding. It is pretty much the only way to 'set' type, and that is the same whether the 'type' you are trying to fix is a particular type of head or a particular type of hip socket. So, to improve health we must outcross, but to optimize and 'set' the health benefits of strong dogs, we have to line breed on their stellar qualities. It is a pretty pickle...
So you see, line and inbreeding is not really the evil that many insist; if you are going to maintain anything of value you have to select FOR it...and that means AWAY from other things, and that ALWAYS means limiting the gene pool to a greater or lesser degree. The trick is to limit the genes for the good attributes while not losing the necessary diversity to maintain health.
I personally opt for once-out-twice-in (more or less, not particularly strict here) and if I am seeing too many problems that make me nervous (allergies, etc) I go twice-out instead. It has seemed to work pretty well for me over the long haul. I think that too many people believe breeders make their choices for really frivolous reasons; and it IS true that there are the occasional fluff brains and kewpies that breed to the Number 1 dog because he is Number 1, not because he has anything to offer their bitch; or who won't touch a dog unless it has some of Old Rip or whatever flavor-of-the-month they are misty-eyed about; but in my experience those types are not average. MOST of the breeders I am acquainted with are doing the best they can, using the tools of inbreeding and linebreeding and outcrossing, to improve on the overall quality of their dogs over time. I also think it is important to look at the big picture, not focus only on your own breeding program to the exclusion of all else, and see what the BREED is in need of, as well as your personal line. I mean, what do you bring to the table that can advance the Staff or enhance the quality of life for the dogs you breed? I think that most breeders actually DO this, whether they realize it or not; but too few get any credit for the hours they spend studying pedigrees. The key? MODERATION in all things...especially moderation. <|;o)
And as always, the foregoing is only my opinion; with that and a dollar or so, you can get a cup of coffee in your favorite restaurant.
Lenna
Just One More...
I listen, sometimes, to the news, and what I hear is often so different from what is *said.* Maybe this is because my father was a news man, and he taught me early to read between the lines. Maybe some of it is hard lessons learned by life, that often things are presented in a certain way or framed in a certain light to forward a particular agenda. Nowhere is this tendency more pronounced, than when discussing animal 'neglect' on the news. Many times, I hear these tales of 'filth' and 'squalid' conditions when a raid is held on an animal breeder or a hoarder, but what I see in the camera's lens is not at all what is being described; what I see are animals in reasonably good health and weight, who seem to be fairly clean and socialized. And when this happens (and it is happening ever more often) I try, like my father taught me, to read between the lines, and ignore the hype to get to the meat of the situation. Was this about neglect, really? Do those animals really need to be 'rescued?' Or is this the result of an angry neighbor with an axe to grind, a competitor trying to end someone's breeding program, or an animal rights activist on a mission from God? Maybe things are not as 'nice' as they could be, but were the animals really in any danger? Perhaps the owner got in over their head. Perhaps they were suffering from health issues and things just got away from them. Perhaps a lot of things, but my mind just does not automatically flow to the default "people suck" and just assume that it is what is being portrayed; a case of abuse and neglect. I don't watch, and hate on those targeted without waiting to hear their side of the story; I wonder what really happened, and how much of the circus is smoke and mirrors, intended to give a very distorted view of the reality. Because there but for the love of God go many of us, these days. Trust me, if you are a dog breeder, someone can pull into your driveway tomorrow and END your meaningful involvement in the sport you have spent your life devoted to. And it will not matter one iota whether you are good to your animals or not. You can be made to look like a freak show. Believe it. And even for those who may not live up to your expectations, often the reason they get where they are is not from any mean-spiritedness or lack of regard; it is not from benign neglect, no. It is from being dragged into the crucible of caring too much, of being susceptible to the ever-present danger of 'just one more.'
Sometimes, it is a case of too much of a good thing. There are people who do not have any resistance to desire; their ability to reason simply flies out the window when they see a nice pup, and they can manage to find room for 'one more.' It is the same sort of fractured reasoning that makes people spend money they do not have on dog show entries, while letting the house payment slide. It is a failure of self control, in some respects. They fail to realize the hardship it puts on the others, this inability to live within your means. And it manifests itself in more than just shortages of cash flow. When a person has more dogs than they can reasonably spend time with, both they AND THE DOGS suffer for it. And despite the cuteness of the little poem, there is a dark line of truth lurking in the back of it. It puts the unwary and undisciplined in the position of being slave to their 'habit' like any other junkie. They cannot enjoy the dogs any longer, it is a full time job just housing and feeding and exercising them; no time left for long walks in the park and playing with Frisbees. And like any other junkie, they seem oblivious to the damage their 'fix' does to the animals they profess to care for. The dogs themselves who DO love them, but need so desperately to be DOGS, not living trophies.
There is another side to this illness, however, and an even darker thread that can take hold. Sometimes, it happens for all the RIGHT reasons. People who show are not the only ones who can succumb to this illness. Those who get into breed rescue are at an even greater risk. The difference here is that when a breeder has presence of mind enough to play with the puppy, but not take it home, they leave knowing that someone else will take that beautiful baby home and love it and show it. But the rescue worker knows that, if they walk out that dog pound door, the light in THOSE eyes will go out...forever. It can be a terrible bargain with the Devil, that knowledge. You leave, knowing you are condemning that dog to an early and generally undeserved death. And so, in too many cases, rescue people continue to make room for 'just one more' until they are wall to ceiling dogs and cats, and still weep for the ones they CANNOT save. It is this dire knowledge that causes 'rescue burnout,' and it is also the terrible frustration of standing helpless while worthwhile animals are put to death because of apathy on the part of their 'owners' and poor or no screening of homes by their 'breeders.'
This reasoning is of a piece with the mindset of cops who have been on the job for a while. When you live day to day staring at the dirty, stinking underbelly of Society, the stench and the misery get to you after a while, and you begin to lose your ability to believe in good. In time, the rescue worker has heard all the pitiful excuses, and the lame rationales from people who 'wanted' a puppy, but not a dog. And a new, and more insidious sickness can result. This sickness is called 'shelter mentality,' and it manifests itself in behavior that can lead to being a 'collector.'
We all know these people; they are good hearted, caring people who have just been exposed to too much suffering, too many excuses, and have decided that NO ONE is going to be as good to the animals as they can. And so, they refuse to allow anyone to adopt their foundlings, or inflate their adoption criteria until Saint Francis himself could not apply....and in the meantime, they can't allow any other animals to suffer, so those kittens in the dumpster at the grocery store come home, and the puppies in the shopping cart in the Wal-Mart parking lot that were WAY too hot, what were those people THINKING but of course if they'd had any brains in the FIRST place they would have spayed their dog and not been out there at ALL, and of course that wee little scruffy thing on the side of the road must come home too...and before you know it, the home is a warren of cages floor to ceiling, and dirty litter boxes spilling into the narrow corridors between cages, in a house that used to be pristine but there is just too many to care for to keep on top of it, yet at least here they are fed and warm and SAFE goes the logic, and the phone rings and the vet's office who knows they will want this cute tiger kitten calls to say they are sorry, but if someone doesn't come get him by 3 today, they will be forced to put him to sleep, so room must be found for yet one more.....and one day comes the knock at the door, it's the Health Dep't acting on complaints from the neighbors about the noise and stench. And they come in despite tearful pleas, and confiscate the animals, and on the news at 6 there's the announcer, calling the home they used to think of as a loving refuge, a 'filthy stinking hovel' and threatening to condemn the premises due to the stench...and the poor 'collector' is soooo confused, all they wanted to do was help the poor little animals, but it all just got out of hand somehow.....it was only one more...one more....one more........
*sigh* yes, it is sooooo easy to look at the conditions those animals are kept in, and think to yourself, 'they should have realized...' but then, if you consider that most, if not all of those animals would be DEAD now if they had not been 'rescued,' you can begin to understand the sickness, at least a little. They can always clean up the house, they figure (if only they could find the TIME, between rescue runs and working to pay for the kibble;) the animals can exist with dirty feed bowls, and small cramped living quarters, and litter boxes that runneth over. Yes, exist is the word, but to the mind of the collector, it beats Death by a wide margin. It is a difficult situation to judge. But at the very least, it calls for a better effort than a knee-jerk response and critical condemnation. Because the bottom line is, those people are responsible for saving more lives than you or I probably will in a lifetime of association with the fancy. Who are WE to judge?
And the fact is, these people have LOTS of help getting to that position, by people who behave as if they are shocked when the truth comes out. The vets who are sick of cleaning cages of dumped kittens and abuse the rescue chain with threats to 'euthanize by 3 pm' if someone doesn't come get them; the well-meaning friends who 'don't have space' themselves, but know that 'Kathy will always take one in,' the grateful club members who know JUST who to call when someone calls the local kennel club with a foundling....
I do rescue. This is a situation I find myself in constantly. I just moved to a new house out in the country, where I have a lot more room and no close neighbors. And so, I am the OBVIOUS choice to many people who have a 'really special one' they want me to take in; they just KNOW with 'all this room' out here I must be able to squeeze in this dear little Jack Russell, or the three legged kitty, or what have you....never considering the fact that I need KENNEL RUNS to put them in, and food to feed them; and that these facilities cost money and time to build and maintain. That if I took in all the foundlings I am asked to rehome, 'all this room' out here would be overrun with dogs I could barely manage to get fed daily, never mind cleaned or worked with in order to make them sutiable for rehoming. But you HAVE to, comes the pleading voice on the phone; the vet office sez they can't keep him any more, and they are gonna put him down tomorrow...and so the round of phone calls begins anew. This is not my dog, or even my breed; and yet, I too feel the tug; even tho I never saw, may never see, this dog. I know if I do NOT get involved, it may well die. THIS is the hook that creates collectors.......and every ONE of us is part of the chain.
I know my limits. I have refused absolutely to take in ANY animals here until I can get my new house in order, and my new runs finished, and have things well enough under control that I can provide adequate time to my OWN dogs before I bring in any fosters. But...in the face of the threats of destruction, and the tearful pleading in the voices on the phone, voices to whom your name was held out as a last hope, to hear that hope fading, and the hopelessness, the bitter frustration, leach in; to hear that trembling that signals a person who is going to dissolve into hopeless tears when they put the phone back in the cradle...those voices haunt me. And so often, I sit, and look at that phone, long after I have given the caller another list of numbers to try, and I feel so bad. I do as much as I can; I tell myself, I DON'T have any more runs to spare; I don't have the time, the money to feed any more; I am stretched so thin now that it is a tightrope walk to get the new puppy a workout every day. I have a house, a business to run; a small child who needs my time and attention; a mate who is understanding and helpful, but who needs to connect with me too. They NEED my time, my attention; I can only do what I can do, and I am at my limit.
But I sit, and I look at that damned phone, while the tears slip down my cheeks one by one, and I wonder...maybe I COULD have made room...for just one more......
The Evil One
Sometimes, it is a case of too much of a good thing. There are people who do not have any resistance to desire; their ability to reason simply flies out the window when they see a nice pup, and they can manage to find room for 'one more.' It is the same sort of fractured reasoning that makes people spend money they do not have on dog show entries, while letting the house payment slide. It is a failure of self control, in some respects. They fail to realize the hardship it puts on the others, this inability to live within your means. And it manifests itself in more than just shortages of cash flow. When a person has more dogs than they can reasonably spend time with, both they AND THE DOGS suffer for it. And despite the cuteness of the little poem, there is a dark line of truth lurking in the back of it. It puts the unwary and undisciplined in the position of being slave to their 'habit' like any other junkie. They cannot enjoy the dogs any longer, it is a full time job just housing and feeding and exercising them; no time left for long walks in the park and playing with Frisbees. And like any other junkie, they seem oblivious to the damage their 'fix' does to the animals they profess to care for. The dogs themselves who DO love them, but need so desperately to be DOGS, not living trophies.
There is another side to this illness, however, and an even darker thread that can take hold. Sometimes, it happens for all the RIGHT reasons. People who show are not the only ones who can succumb to this illness. Those who get into breed rescue are at an even greater risk. The difference here is that when a breeder has presence of mind enough to play with the puppy, but not take it home, they leave knowing that someone else will take that beautiful baby home and love it and show it. But the rescue worker knows that, if they walk out that dog pound door, the light in THOSE eyes will go out...forever. It can be a terrible bargain with the Devil, that knowledge. You leave, knowing you are condemning that dog to an early and generally undeserved death. And so, in too many cases, rescue people continue to make room for 'just one more' until they are wall to ceiling dogs and cats, and still weep for the ones they CANNOT save. It is this dire knowledge that causes 'rescue burnout,' and it is also the terrible frustration of standing helpless while worthwhile animals are put to death because of apathy on the part of their 'owners' and poor or no screening of homes by their 'breeders.'
This reasoning is of a piece with the mindset of cops who have been on the job for a while. When you live day to day staring at the dirty, stinking underbelly of Society, the stench and the misery get to you after a while, and you begin to lose your ability to believe in good. In time, the rescue worker has heard all the pitiful excuses, and the lame rationales from people who 'wanted' a puppy, but not a dog. And a new, and more insidious sickness can result. This sickness is called 'shelter mentality,' and it manifests itself in behavior that can lead to being a 'collector.'
We all know these people; they are good hearted, caring people who have just been exposed to too much suffering, too many excuses, and have decided that NO ONE is going to be as good to the animals as they can. And so, they refuse to allow anyone to adopt their foundlings, or inflate their adoption criteria until Saint Francis himself could not apply....and in the meantime, they can't allow any other animals to suffer, so those kittens in the dumpster at the grocery store come home, and the puppies in the shopping cart in the Wal-Mart parking lot that were WAY too hot, what were those people THINKING but of course if they'd had any brains in the FIRST place they would have spayed their dog and not been out there at ALL, and of course that wee little scruffy thing on the side of the road must come home too...and before you know it, the home is a warren of cages floor to ceiling, and dirty litter boxes spilling into the narrow corridors between cages, in a house that used to be pristine but there is just too many to care for to keep on top of it, yet at least here they are fed and warm and SAFE goes the logic, and the phone rings and the vet's office who knows they will want this cute tiger kitten calls to say they are sorry, but if someone doesn't come get him by 3 today, they will be forced to put him to sleep, so room must be found for yet one more.....and one day comes the knock at the door, it's the Health Dep't acting on complaints from the neighbors about the noise and stench. And they come in despite tearful pleas, and confiscate the animals, and on the news at 6 there's the announcer, calling the home they used to think of as a loving refuge, a 'filthy stinking hovel' and threatening to condemn the premises due to the stench...and the poor 'collector' is soooo confused, all they wanted to do was help the poor little animals, but it all just got out of hand somehow.....it was only one more...one more....one more........
*sigh* yes, it is sooooo easy to look at the conditions those animals are kept in, and think to yourself, 'they should have realized...' but then, if you consider that most, if not all of those animals would be DEAD now if they had not been 'rescued,' you can begin to understand the sickness, at least a little. They can always clean up the house, they figure (if only they could find the TIME, between rescue runs and working to pay for the kibble;) the animals can exist with dirty feed bowls, and small cramped living quarters, and litter boxes that runneth over. Yes, exist is the word, but to the mind of the collector, it beats Death by a wide margin. It is a difficult situation to judge. But at the very least, it calls for a better effort than a knee-jerk response and critical condemnation. Because the bottom line is, those people are responsible for saving more lives than you or I probably will in a lifetime of association with the fancy. Who are WE to judge?
And the fact is, these people have LOTS of help getting to that position, by people who behave as if they are shocked when the truth comes out. The vets who are sick of cleaning cages of dumped kittens and abuse the rescue chain with threats to 'euthanize by 3 pm' if someone doesn't come get them; the well-meaning friends who 'don't have space' themselves, but know that 'Kathy will always take one in,' the grateful club members who know JUST who to call when someone calls the local kennel club with a foundling....
I do rescue. This is a situation I find myself in constantly. I just moved to a new house out in the country, where I have a lot more room and no close neighbors. And so, I am the OBVIOUS choice to many people who have a 'really special one' they want me to take in; they just KNOW with 'all this room' out here I must be able to squeeze in this dear little Jack Russell, or the three legged kitty, or what have you....never considering the fact that I need KENNEL RUNS to put them in, and food to feed them; and that these facilities cost money and time to build and maintain. That if I took in all the foundlings I am asked to rehome, 'all this room' out here would be overrun with dogs I could barely manage to get fed daily, never mind cleaned or worked with in order to make them sutiable for rehoming. But you HAVE to, comes the pleading voice on the phone; the vet office sez they can't keep him any more, and they are gonna put him down tomorrow...and so the round of phone calls begins anew. This is not my dog, or even my breed; and yet, I too feel the tug; even tho I never saw, may never see, this dog. I know if I do NOT get involved, it may well die. THIS is the hook that creates collectors.......and every ONE of us is part of the chain.
I know my limits. I have refused absolutely to take in ANY animals here until I can get my new house in order, and my new runs finished, and have things well enough under control that I can provide adequate time to my OWN dogs before I bring in any fosters. But...in the face of the threats of destruction, and the tearful pleading in the voices on the phone, voices to whom your name was held out as a last hope, to hear that hope fading, and the hopelessness, the bitter frustration, leach in; to hear that trembling that signals a person who is going to dissolve into hopeless tears when they put the phone back in the cradle...those voices haunt me. And so often, I sit, and look at that phone, long after I have given the caller another list of numbers to try, and I feel so bad. I do as much as I can; I tell myself, I DON'T have any more runs to spare; I don't have the time, the money to feed any more; I am stretched so thin now that it is a tightrope walk to get the new puppy a workout every day. I have a house, a business to run; a small child who needs my time and attention; a mate who is understanding and helpful, but who needs to connect with me too. They NEED my time, my attention; I can only do what I can do, and I am at my limit.
But I sit, and I look at that damned phone, while the tears slip down my cheeks one by one, and I wonder...maybe I COULD have made room...for just one more......
The Evil One
Why Own a Dog?
This particular comment comes from musing about a discussion concerning a poem, called "Why Own a Dog?" It goes like this:
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,
You can't own just one, for the craving will grow;
There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger;
While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.
And so on and so forth; a very cute little poem that talks about what happens when one becomes a 'dog person' and the love of your pets turns your life upside down.
The poem does have a dark side, though. A friend of mine commented about it thusly: "This cute little ditty hides a real danger - too many dogs languishing for years, warehoused in crates or tiny enclosures, begging for attention while their owner lavishes all their attention on the up and coming show dog, or the lucky "house" dog."
*sigh* I gotta be me....
And of course, it means waxing philosophical.... some would say pontificating.
But sometimes it is necessary to look at a situation more than once before rendering judgment.
Or sometimes, it is not so much the looking but the direction of your view....
OK. On the subject of dogs 'warehoused in crates'... I'll begin with AGREEING with the comment that no dog should have to live such a life. Let's get that off the table first, before the screaming begins.
The subject of 'animal cruelty' is one that causes much screaming and tearing of hair. Yet there are few subjects that are quite so difficult to pin down. Everyone has their own beliefs about how much attention and care is 'enough.' The problem is, no one wants to stop at discussing it as a philosophical exercise; everyone lately seems to be on the 'There oughta be a LAW!" bandwagon. When you start wanting to quantify 'acceptable' care with legal jargon about accountability, it gets really hairy really fast. And everyone is just SURE that they know where that magic grey line is where benign neglect crosses over into genuine, criminally accountable abuse, but here is the problem: Even though everyone says this, no two of us can AGREE as to where that line lies. And that makes for very bad, and unenforceable, laws. Laws drafted with all the best intentions, but then we all know that good intentions pave the way to, where? Yeah.
The hardest thing about trying to protect animals against genuine abuse and neglect is to try and identify where that slippery slope starts. It seems that it should be fairly simple; all animals deserve adequate food, water, and protection from the elements, and for most legal definitions, that would truthfully suffice. But the problem comes down to the fact that many pet people are convinced that this is just not enough; that animals require 'enrichment' and the 'right' to behave like animals. That sounds really good on its face, but the problem is in practice. How many 'normal animal behaviors' should we be fostering? Fighting and destructiveness are 'normal' dog behaviors; should we foster those? So is indiscriminate mating. Which behaviors do we determine are desirable to encourage, does this change from breed to breed or depend on the size of the dog? How do we enforce the idea that all animals must be 'enriched' when not everyone agrees this is needful, or what that 'enrichment should, or must, entail? Who gets to decide what actually is needful care, and what is pampering? The commercial 'breeder' who throws the cheapest feed he can at his charges, giving them the bare essentials of vaccinations and veterinary care, and cleaning them only occasionally; does he get to decide? Or, the crazy cat lady who spends every penny of her retirement on her charges, dresses all her cats in Victorian pinafores and hand feeds them individually cooked bites of salmon from a silver spoon; should her criteria be the ones we must all live up to or be labeled 'neglectful?' Both have very strong opinions about how much care is 'enough,' but who among you wants to live up to either of those models? A lot of hard questions, very few clear answers.
The slope from barely maintained to spoiled and indulged is both long and broad, and there are many stops along the way. And any number of screaming matches at each and every stop. Many dog breeders will get into fisticuffs over differences of opinion on this issue, but I have yet to meet two individuals who actually see eye to eye about how their dogs should be maintained... yet each and every one is certain their way is the best. And few of those impassioned souls have given a moment's thought to how a *legal* description of 'proper care' might look. Yet, this is a subject that we all need to consider, and a conversation that we MUST have, because if we do not come to some kind of reasonable compromise, we are going to still be standing here shouting at one another while the 'animal rights' folks, who are long on 'loving' animals but short on any practical management experience, will force changes that may make them feel good, but mean nothing good for the real live animals. And as their stewards, it is crucial that we stop demonizing everyone who fails to see things our way, and realize that animal care exists on a bell curve, and that not all animals can, or even really should, exist on the beneficent side of that curve. Because we really do need to be the ones driving these discussions, and they do need to be discussions not screaming matches.
What we 'imagine' plays into this discussion, and many of us, especially loving pet owners, have a regrettable tendency to engage in anthropomorphism; believing that our pets 'feel' like we would, in similar circumstances. Yet this is often not true. For example, many people are absolutely convinced that putting a dog in a kennel cage is 'cruel,' because they would be miserable in such a circumstance. What they fail to take into account is that dogs dig dens and feel safe in small enclosed spaces, so for them this is not any form of torture. Many dogs will choose to spend much of their day in such a kennel, snoozing or playing with toys, because they feel comfortable there. Yet activists demand that this is 'abuse' and insist these dogs are unhappy. This is only one part of that conversation, and it has its own slippery slope of those who rationalize their own choices as 'healthy' for their pets.
Sometimes, those lines between adequate care and benign indifference are more clearly defined than others, but it is still very difficult to make a definitive decision about who is actually right. On one end of that confinement slope, for example, are the poor li'l guys who live in a home where there are too many dogs for the owner to give them adequate one on one time to just be dogs. Living 23 hours out of every day in a 2'x 3' enclosure; going out to potty on a rigid schedule. Eating, sleeping, and watching life pass by through the grilled door. On a REALLY good day, they get to stretch their legs on a lope around a show ring, or ease their frustration in an act of copulation. But then it's back in the crate till the 9 o'clock exercise cycle. Yep; I'd call that a pretty miserable and pathetic excuse for a life. And I'd be willing to bet that most folks would feel that such an existence would be worse than death; that euthanasia would be preferable for such a dog.
Then again, we can't really ask the dog about that, can we...? And, what about boarding, training, injury rehabilitation, rescue fostering...? For how LONG can a dog maintain that stultifying schedule before it begins to suffer from lack of enrichment? Easy to say it's wrong; easy to say a lot of things. Harder to accept that in some situations, this might be the best of a bad situation.
On the other end of the slope is the one-dog household with multiple acres and a dog port on the house; this pet lives the life of Reilly. He goes where the people go, he eats with them, he shares their every waking moment, he sleeps at the foot of their bed. The high spot of his owner's day is the afternoon Frisbee session. Wow! What a life....idyllic, isn't it? What we ALL want for our pups....
And reality is--the vast majority of us live somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Just as most of us live somewhere between Donald Trump and Oliver Twist in the financial department. The similarities there are more relevant than you might at first think, too.
There are two great truths to animal husbandry. The first is: it is easy to denigrate someone who is doing it poorly compared to you. Your love for your animals makes it inconceivable to you that others either can't or won't meet your expectations. That they can't see how important it is to manage things as well as you do, for the good of their pets. This righteous indignation can manifest itself in furious rage, or icy disassociation, or simply a sad shake of the head as you contemplate the Hell their animals must live in.
And the second great truth? Somewhere is someone else looking sadly at YOU, and thinking the same thoughts......
The Irascible Redhead
who undoubtedly thinks too much
Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,
You can't own just one, for the craving will grow;
There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger;
While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.
And so on and so forth; a very cute little poem that talks about what happens when one becomes a 'dog person' and the love of your pets turns your life upside down.
The poem does have a dark side, though. A friend of mine commented about it thusly: "This cute little ditty hides a real danger - too many dogs languishing for years, warehoused in crates or tiny enclosures, begging for attention while their owner lavishes all their attention on the up and coming show dog, or the lucky "house" dog."
*sigh* I gotta be me....
And of course, it means waxing philosophical.... some would say pontificating.
But sometimes it is necessary to look at a situation more than once before rendering judgment.
Or sometimes, it is not so much the looking but the direction of your view....
OK. On the subject of dogs 'warehoused in crates'... I'll begin with AGREEING with the comment that no dog should have to live such a life. Let's get that off the table first, before the screaming begins.
The subject of 'animal cruelty' is one that causes much screaming and tearing of hair. Yet there are few subjects that are quite so difficult to pin down. Everyone has their own beliefs about how much attention and care is 'enough.' The problem is, no one wants to stop at discussing it as a philosophical exercise; everyone lately seems to be on the 'There oughta be a LAW!" bandwagon. When you start wanting to quantify 'acceptable' care with legal jargon about accountability, it gets really hairy really fast. And everyone is just SURE that they know where that magic grey line is where benign neglect crosses over into genuine, criminally accountable abuse, but here is the problem: Even though everyone says this, no two of us can AGREE as to where that line lies. And that makes for very bad, and unenforceable, laws. Laws drafted with all the best intentions, but then we all know that good intentions pave the way to, where? Yeah.
The hardest thing about trying to protect animals against genuine abuse and neglect is to try and identify where that slippery slope starts. It seems that it should be fairly simple; all animals deserve adequate food, water, and protection from the elements, and for most legal definitions, that would truthfully suffice. But the problem comes down to the fact that many pet people are convinced that this is just not enough; that animals require 'enrichment' and the 'right' to behave like animals. That sounds really good on its face, but the problem is in practice. How many 'normal animal behaviors' should we be fostering? Fighting and destructiveness are 'normal' dog behaviors; should we foster those? So is indiscriminate mating. Which behaviors do we determine are desirable to encourage, does this change from breed to breed or depend on the size of the dog? How do we enforce the idea that all animals must be 'enriched' when not everyone agrees this is needful, or what that 'enrichment should, or must, entail? Who gets to decide what actually is needful care, and what is pampering? The commercial 'breeder' who throws the cheapest feed he can at his charges, giving them the bare essentials of vaccinations and veterinary care, and cleaning them only occasionally; does he get to decide? Or, the crazy cat lady who spends every penny of her retirement on her charges, dresses all her cats in Victorian pinafores and hand feeds them individually cooked bites of salmon from a silver spoon; should her criteria be the ones we must all live up to or be labeled 'neglectful?' Both have very strong opinions about how much care is 'enough,' but who among you wants to live up to either of those models? A lot of hard questions, very few clear answers.
The slope from barely maintained to spoiled and indulged is both long and broad, and there are many stops along the way. And any number of screaming matches at each and every stop. Many dog breeders will get into fisticuffs over differences of opinion on this issue, but I have yet to meet two individuals who actually see eye to eye about how their dogs should be maintained... yet each and every one is certain their way is the best. And few of those impassioned souls have given a moment's thought to how a *legal* description of 'proper care' might look. Yet, this is a subject that we all need to consider, and a conversation that we MUST have, because if we do not come to some kind of reasonable compromise, we are going to still be standing here shouting at one another while the 'animal rights' folks, who are long on 'loving' animals but short on any practical management experience, will force changes that may make them feel good, but mean nothing good for the real live animals. And as their stewards, it is crucial that we stop demonizing everyone who fails to see things our way, and realize that animal care exists on a bell curve, and that not all animals can, or even really should, exist on the beneficent side of that curve. Because we really do need to be the ones driving these discussions, and they do need to be discussions not screaming matches.
What we 'imagine' plays into this discussion, and many of us, especially loving pet owners, have a regrettable tendency to engage in anthropomorphism; believing that our pets 'feel' like we would, in similar circumstances. Yet this is often not true. For example, many people are absolutely convinced that putting a dog in a kennel cage is 'cruel,' because they would be miserable in such a circumstance. What they fail to take into account is that dogs dig dens and feel safe in small enclosed spaces, so for them this is not any form of torture. Many dogs will choose to spend much of their day in such a kennel, snoozing or playing with toys, because they feel comfortable there. Yet activists demand that this is 'abuse' and insist these dogs are unhappy. This is only one part of that conversation, and it has its own slippery slope of those who rationalize their own choices as 'healthy' for their pets.
Sometimes, those lines between adequate care and benign indifference are more clearly defined than others, but it is still very difficult to make a definitive decision about who is actually right. On one end of that confinement slope, for example, are the poor li'l guys who live in a home where there are too many dogs for the owner to give them adequate one on one time to just be dogs. Living 23 hours out of every day in a 2'x 3' enclosure; going out to potty on a rigid schedule. Eating, sleeping, and watching life pass by through the grilled door. On a REALLY good day, they get to stretch their legs on a lope around a show ring, or ease their frustration in an act of copulation. But then it's back in the crate till the 9 o'clock exercise cycle. Yep; I'd call that a pretty miserable and pathetic excuse for a life. And I'd be willing to bet that most folks would feel that such an existence would be worse than death; that euthanasia would be preferable for such a dog.
Then again, we can't really ask the dog about that, can we...? And, what about boarding, training, injury rehabilitation, rescue fostering...? For how LONG can a dog maintain that stultifying schedule before it begins to suffer from lack of enrichment? Easy to say it's wrong; easy to say a lot of things. Harder to accept that in some situations, this might be the best of a bad situation.
On the other end of the slope is the one-dog household with multiple acres and a dog port on the house; this pet lives the life of Reilly. He goes where the people go, he eats with them, he shares their every waking moment, he sleeps at the foot of their bed. The high spot of his owner's day is the afternoon Frisbee session. Wow! What a life....idyllic, isn't it? What we ALL want for our pups....
And reality is--the vast majority of us live somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Just as most of us live somewhere between Donald Trump and Oliver Twist in the financial department. The similarities there are more relevant than you might at first think, too.
There are two great truths to animal husbandry. The first is: it is easy to denigrate someone who is doing it poorly compared to you. Your love for your animals makes it inconceivable to you that others either can't or won't meet your expectations. That they can't see how important it is to manage things as well as you do, for the good of their pets. This righteous indignation can manifest itself in furious rage, or icy disassociation, or simply a sad shake of the head as you contemplate the Hell their animals must live in.
And the second great truth? Somewhere is someone else looking sadly at YOU, and thinking the same thoughts......
The Irascible Redhead
who undoubtedly thinks too much
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



