News: JoAnna Lou
Pups stolen under the pretense of board and train
For me, finding the right trainer, dog walker, or veterinarian is complex process. I want to make sure we agree on training and health care philosophies, that they have enough experience and knowledge, that they genuinely care about their clients, and that others are happy with the service they've received. After all, you're putting a great deal of trust in these people to help you raise part of your family. Several people on the East Coast had that trust broken when the man they paid to board and train their dogs disappeared with their pups, leaving them heartbroken. Investigators identified a man named James Randel Whitten as the one responsible, but he's still missing. The scam has been run in multiple states, including North and South Carolina and Delaware. James advertises his "business" on websites like Craigslist and convinces people to board their pets with him. He then takes the money and dogs and disappears. James was last seen in Tarboro, N.Car. and has gone by multiple aliases. Not only is he kidnapping animals, but he's also neglecting them. Before James left Tarboro, he left a Pit Bull and French Mastiff without shelter, food, or water. Fortunately both pups are safe and back with their families, but there are countless dogs still missing. For more information, the affected families started a Facebook page and web site to help get the word out. They're hoping to find the remaining dogs and prevent other families from being scammed. This case does highlight the importance of choosing a reputable dog trainer, especially if it's a board and train situation (I much prefer situations where the trainer teaches people to train their dogs). A good starting point is to ask friends or local veterinarians for recommendations. Verify trainers by searching online for reviews and asking them for a few clients that you can contact for references. The Association of Pet Dog Trainers has more tips on their web site for choosing a trainer. Hopefully James will be caught before he moves on to other states and the remaining pets will be reunited with their families.
News: Karen B. London
Conflict among scientists who study it
Research about canine genetics and the domestication of dogs is an exciting area of study with many players, so it should surprise nobody that there is disagreement within the field. Multiple groups of researchers from around the world have compared the genomes of dogs and wolves. While they generally agree about the genetic changes that have produced differences between dogs and wolves, their conclusions about the domestication of dogs vary wildly.
The disagreement concerns fundamental aspects of the evolution of dogs such as where, when and why dogs evolved from wolves. So, the location, the timing, and the reason for domestication that various groups propose are not even close.
One group suggests domestication occurred around 10,000 years ago in the Middle East and that it was the development of agriculture around that time that was the catalyst for domestication. Another group claims that it happened around 32,000 years ago in the south of China and related to scavenging alongside the people living there. A third group narrows the time frame for domestication to between 16,000 and 11,000 years ago, and believes that the wolf population from which dogs arose is extinct, making it hard to determine the location of domestication. This third group believes that dogs became domesticated near hunter-gatherers rather than in the presence of an agrarian society.
Much has been made about the discord among scientists studying the domestication of dogs, but it’s hardly surprising. The cutting edge of science is always marked by strongly held opposing views. In the best situations, the intense disagreement among people working in the same field is a crucial part of making progress. Competing hypotheses are critical for the advancement of science. As people challenge each other’s views, all are spurred to study the subject more deeply and design experiments to investigate that which has been called into question. From the ongoing work, the conflicts are eventually resolved as some ideas fall by the wayside and others gain increased support from new data and discoveries.
Sometimes the conflict is cordial and in other cases, it can be very bitter. At this point, the scientists studying dog domestication say that though there is a certain amount of rivalry, they get along and enjoy talking with each other. That may be harder to maintain as people move to the next phase of research into dog domestication and seek to sequence DNA samples from ancient dogs and wolves. The availability of archaeological bone samples is extremely limited so there will be a lot of competition among scientists for both funding to conduct the research and access to the material necessary to do so.
In other words, we can expect a lot of fights over bones in the near future.
Today we received notice that Dogswell "voluntarily" withdrew select jerky treat from the market. This is rather ironic because just a couple days ago we visited the Dogswell's booth at Superzoo, a huge pet trade show in Las Vegas, and asked them about their new marketing campaign "Live Free." When asked what that means, a salesperson told us that not only does it refer to their ingredients (i.e. the chickens are supposedly raised cage-free, even though they source the meat from China!), but also that their products are free of corn, soy and fillers, etc. Plus, it means dogs can live free of harmful, unnatural ingredients! Oh my. Obviously this "voluntary" (a misnomer if there ever was one) withdrawal belies that assertion. Note this is the same "antibiotic residue" problem that happened with the Chinese jerky that we reported on here.
This notice is from the Dogswell site.
Dear Fellow Pet Parent:
At Dogswell, our number one priority is the safety of our products and the health of our canine and feline customers. We strive to make and sell only the highest quality treats and food with added vitamins that provide great taste and functional benefits such as improved hip health, skin and coat health, and other benefits.
During routine testing of our products, the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (NYSDAM) discovered that a sample of our Dogswell Happy Hips Chicken Breast Jerky contained trace amounts of an antibiotic residue that has not been approved for use in the United States. It is important to note that this antibiotic is accepted for use in other countries (including the European Union), and there is no evidence that products containing trace amounts of this antibiotic pose a health risk for pets or humans. Since we were notified by the NYSDAM the week of July 22nd, we have made the decision to voluntarily withdraw Chicken Breast and Duck Breast jerky under the Breathies, Happy Heart, Happy Hips, Mellow Mut, Shape Up, Veggie Life, Vitality, and Vitakitty brands that are labeled with a “Best Before” date of January 28th, 2015 or any earlier date. The vast majority of these products were distributed before March 1st of this year. No other products are affected.
Since January, we have been using state-of-the-art testing procedures to ensure that our chicken and duck products do not contain these or other unapproved antibiotics. All chicken and duck breast jerky products with a “Best Before” date of January 29, 2015 and later have been fully tested for and do not contain these antibiotics.
It is important that you know that all Dogswell and Catswell products remaining on the market are safe to feed as directed.
We have issued a press release to make our consumers like you aware of the situation. We also identified the stores that received the product, and contacted them to destroy any affected products in their possession (if any).
We are doing everything we can to resolve this situation quickly and ensure that our consumers like you can feel confident feeding Dogswell and Catswell products to their companions, as we do here.
To learn more about the affected product, we invite you to read our “frequently asked questions” below. If you would like to speak with someone live, you can call us at 1-888-559-8833 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. If we are unable to get to your call or it is after hours, please leave us a message and we will get back to you as quickly as possible.
We thank you, our valued customers, for your understanding, and we hope to be able to regain your trust.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are Dogswell and Catswell withdrawing these treats?
Have there been any reports of pets getting sick from eating treats that contain this antibiotic?
How can I tell if I have a product that is affected by the withdrawal?
If your package does say Chicken Breast or Duck Breast, you should turn the package over. In the bottom right hand corner of the package printed in black ink on the seam, you should find the words “Best Before”. After “Best Before” is a series of eight numbers, such as:
07262015 or 07/26/2015
This number would be translated to the date July 26, 2015 (07 for July, 26 for the day of the month, and 2015 for the year). The products affected by this withdrawal are for “Best Before” dates of January 28th, 2015 or any earlier date (which would read as 01282015 or 01/28/2015). Any product with a “Best Before” date after that time has been tested for unapproved antibiotics and has been cleared.
If you find that you have a product that is affected, please call us for a full refund at 1-888-559-8833.
If you are having trouble determining if you have the product that was affected, or if you would like to speak with us directly about a full refund, please contact us directly at 1-888-559-8833 or email us at email@example.com.
I just went to the store and saw your products there. Why is there so much Dogswell product on the shelf there if it has been withdrawn?
Call us directly if you have any concerns or questions about DOGSWELL® products. We're here until 5:00 PM PST Mon-Fri 888-559-8833.
What does DOGSWELL do to make sure its products are safe?
Where are your products manufactured?
Why are the jerky treats made in China?
How do you test your products?
How do you prevent salmonella from contaminating your jerky products?
What is the Cage-Free Difference?
To view our Quality Assurance Brochure, please click here
News: Karen B. London
Dogs who adore their water frozen
When an extra piece of ice fell from the freezer and onto the floor, the dog acted like I had just dropped a steak. He startled, gazed at it longingly, and looked up at me as if asking for permission. He was wagging from the shoulders back and drooling a little. It was news to me, but it could not have been more obvious that he liked ice.
A lot of dogs love ice and seem to consider it a high quality treat. There are a lot of great things about ice for dogs. It provides hydration without any gulping, it’s fun for the dog, it’s relatively easy to clean up (at least compared to gooey treats like pig’s ears and peanut butter), it’s a no calorie way for a dog to engage in chewing and that can be important for dogs who are watching their figures, and it can help cool a dog down.
Of course, ice has its down side, too. There is a choking risk, and dogs can damage their teeth on ice. Though it doesn’t likely leave as big a mess as the water bowl can, it’s portable, so there’s no telling where a puddle may form if the dog leaves it unfinished and lying around.
What do you consider the positives and negatives about having an ice-loving dog?
News: JoAnna Lou
The House passes legislation allowing rescue workers to break into hot vehicles
Earlier this summer I wrote about a veterinarian's experiment to bring awareness to the dangers of leaving pets in hot vehicles. It's well known that cars can heat up to dangerous temperatures in a matter of minutes, yet these deaths continue to happen--even to those who should know better. In June, Worthy, a dog in training with a North Carolina service animal organization, died after one of the program's managers left him in a hot car. These deaths are extra tragic because they are so easily preventable. North Carolina has since moved towards signing a law that could help dogs in Worthy's position. Last week the House passed legislation that would give rescue workers permission to break into cars to remove animals at risk because of heat, cold, inadequate ventilation, or other circumstances. Some local ordinances already let police officers break into locked cars to save animals, but this amendment would make that action legal statewide. It would also extend permission to animal control officers, firefighters, and other rescue workers. If the law is passed, North Carolina would join 11 states in passing this type of legislation. Representative Pricey Harrison, who sponsored the amendment, was hoping for a stronger law but ended up drafting the current version when the initial legislation failed. 14 states have laws that specifically prohibit leaving an animal in a car that would endanger their safety. The penalties range from a $25 fine to a felony for repeat offenders (go New Hampshire!). Although North Carolina's amendment will not specifically prohibit leaving dogs in hot vehicles, people who do so can still be changed under the existing animal cruelty statutes. The woman who left Worthy in the car was charged last week with misdemeanor animal cruelty. While the car laws are certainly important, ultimately we have to spread the word on the dangers of hot cars so that dogs aren't put into these situations in the first place. Education is key to prevention.
News: Karen B. London
Unfavorable behavior compared to other puppies
In a study of over 6000 puppies, researchers found that the behavior of puppies purchased from pet stores was less desirable than the behavior of puppies obtained form noncommercial breeders. Specifically, there were 12 areas in which pet store puppies’ behavior was unfavorable compared with puppies from noncommercial breeders and two areas in which their behavior was similar. There were no behavioral areas in which the pet store puppies’ behavior was preferable to the comparison group.
In a recent study called “Differences in behavioral characteristics between dogs obtained as puppies from pet stores and those obtained from noncommerical breeders" used guardian observations of their dogs to compare the behavior between the two study populations. Observations were quantified using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire, which uses ordinal scales to rate either the intensity or frequency of the dogs’ behavior
The biggest differences between the two groups of dogs related to aggression with dogs from pet stores being far more likely to be aggressive towards their guardians, to other dogs in the household, to strangers, and to unfamiliar dogs. Among their other unfavorable comparisons with dogs from noncommercial breeders were that they were more likely to have house soiling issues, to be fearful, to have touch sensitivity problems, to be harder to train, and to have issues with excitability.
As a person who has long opposed the selling of puppies in pet stores for humane reasons as well as behavioral, it is with open arms that I welcome this objective study about the undesirability of this practice. It’s heartbreaking for me to think of all the people I have seen professionally over the years who have been emotionally devastated by the serious behavioral issues they have faced with a dog from a pet store. Of course, there are people who have lucked out and obtained a wonderful dog from a pet store, and I am very happy for such dogs and their people. However, it’s important to remember that overall, buying a dog from a pet store does not put the odds in your favor.
The authors of this study sum their research up with this important point: “Obtaining dogs from pet stores versus noncommercial breeders represented a significant risk factor for the development of a wide range of undesirable behavioral characteristics. Until the causes of the unfavorable differences detected in this group of dogs can be specifically identified and remedied, the authors cannot recommend that puppies be obtained from pet stores."
Reunion with a soldier and the dog who loves him
This is one of the best reunion videos of all time. A soldier returning home after six months, greeted by so much love. I wonder what people who don't believe dogs have emotions would say watching this! My dogs joined in when they heard her whimper, seeming to express their empathy. There is something so tender about this shared love and happiness.
My friend who showed it to me said she thought the dog was saying at the end, “Don't ever do that again! Promise!” What do you think? How did your dogs reaction when they heard it?
The video can be viewed here.
News: Shirley Zindler
I recently wrote about Take Your Dog to Work Day and how I enjoy having my dogs along with me on the job. Often they help me coax insecure stray dogs in so that they can be safely reunited with their owners or adopted out. I recently had the unique experience of having one of my dogs help me rescue a cat in distress.
I usually have Sundays off but a fellow officer, Justin, called me on a Sunday afternoon to ask for help with a call. He had a report of a cat with a jar on its head and when he arrived, the panicked animal ran into a culvert. It was too small for him to climb into and he knew that if he tried to push her out from one end she would run out the other and be lost. He was wondering if I could bring one of my dogs and help him? Of course I would. This is so much more than a job to me and I have always told my co-workers to call me anytime. I loaded up Hula the Golden Retriever and Breeze the Doberman and headed out. Half an hour later we pulled up behind Justin’s truck and he showed me the culvert. My flashlight beam found the unfortunate cat smack in the middle of the pipe, plastic jug still firmly attached.
With Justin situated on one end of the pipe and ready with a net, I took Hula to the other end. Hula is as mellow and easygoing as they come and she’s also gung ho for any adventure. I showed her the pipe and told her to “go get the kitty.” Hula isn’t very tall and the narrow pipe was a tight fit but in she went. Justin called to her from the other end as she made her way through. The kitty didn’t see her at first due to her jug and Hula walked right up and sniffed her before the cat realized it and went bonking down the pipe with her burden. Hula followed her as she darted right into the net and was safe.
I put Hula on a sit-stay as we dealt with the cat who acted quiet feral. She appeared healthy and had a tipped ear (meaning that she had been trapped and spayed) so we planned to just remove the jar and release her but I asked Justin to scan her first. To our surprise she had a microchip so we took her back to the shelter.
Once there we carefully removed the jug and settled her in while waiting to hear back about the chip. Soon the couple who had trapped her and had her spayed and chipped came for her. The cat was truly feral but had kind people to care for her and it was great to see her returned home safely.
I would love to hear how our reader’s dogs have helped another animal.
News: Karen B. London
It matters more than brightness
One of the most persistent errors about dogs is the claim that they are colorblind. It has been known for decades that dogs can see colors, but research into the details of how they use their color vision can still reveal new information. In a recent study called “Colour cues proved to be more informative for dogs than brightness”, researchers asked the simple question, “Do dogs attend to color or brightness when learning the cues that indicate the presence of food?
In the experiment, researchers trained dogs to make a choice between boxes concealing food. The boxes were each marked with a colored paper, and the dog had to learn which one indicated a piece of meat was inside. Dogs were trained to discriminate between either light yellow and dark blue or between dark yellow and light blue. Then the dogs were tested to see if the cue they used to make correct choices was the color of the paper or the brightness of the paper.
For example, a dog who had learned to choose the box marked by a dark yellow piece of paper was tested with a choice between a box marked by light yellow or a box marked by dark blue. The experimenters were asking whether the dog had learned that “dark” indicates the presence of meat or whether “yellow” does. They found that dogs were making choices based on color, not brightness, in the majority of cases. It was a small sample size of only 8 dogs, but it suggests that dogs not only see color, which has long been known, but that they pay attention to it more than to the depth of color.
It is not surprising that if dogs have the ability to see color that they would use that color functionally in various situations. Asking whether dogs distinguish dark from light when the opportunity to distinguish by color is also present may be an important preliminary step in understanding what dogs attend to. However, I would be even more interested to know whether dogs favor color over shape, color over size or even color over various sounds to make their choices, as all of these seem more biologically relevant to dogs seeking food than brightness does.
Worth tuning in
A friend of The Bark’s just told me about BBC Radio 4’s marvelous series called Dog Days. You have only a few days left to listen to them. Each runs around 15 minutes, and discusses various aspects of dogs behavior and dog culture. Interviews with researcher, John Bradshaw, and other British dog aficionados. From My Dog Tulip and Flush to current research on dog love. As the programs’ presenter, Robert Hanks (along with his Whippet Timmy), describes it, “When we tell stories about our dogs, we are also telling stories about ourselves.” Give a listen.
Copyright © 1997-2016 The Bark, Inc. Dog Is My Co-Pilot® is a registered trademark of The Bark, Inc