Home
interviews
Culture: DogPatch
Martha Speaks Now on PBS
Q&A with the creators of the new series

Guess who’s coming to PBS? It’s Martha, the unassuming, loquacious and forthright mutt whose ingestion of alphabet soup turns her into, as one reviewer noted, the “Mr. Ed of the canine world.” Bark recently connected with Susan Meddaugh, Martha’s creator, and Carol Greenwald, WGBH Senior Executive Producer, to learn more about this milestone event.

Bark: Who is Martha? How did you develop this remarkable dog—was there a “bulb going off” moment? Did you immediately run your studio and start sketching?

 

Susan Meddaugh: Martha was our first dog. She was a stray, a real combo package of breeds. She had been on the street for a while when a friend of ours found her. Actually she found our friend, who was working in her front yard. Martha sat down beside her and refused to move, thereby cleverly forcing her to help her. After all her attempts to find Martha’s home failed (and since she had several cats and no room for a dog), our friend called us.

 

Martha was so skinny we could see her ribs, plus she had the whole flea population of eastern Massachusetts on her back. We were soon to discover that she wasn’t housebroken, and had a habit of eating the furniture. We wondered whether it had been a good idea to take her home. We named her after our friend Martha, who had been the one to call us, and was therefore responsible for our new addition to the family, however it might work out.

 

Fortunately, after a while, the essential Martha began to emerge. She was smart, interesting, expressive, opinionated and very drawable. I was writing and illustrating children’s books, and it was obvious that Martha needed a book of her own.

Which leads me to my son, Niko. I had the right occupation, the right child, the right dog and the perfect moment. I had already put Martha in some of my children’s books, usually just slipping her into the background. She had also found her first co-starring role with Helen in The Witches’ Supermarket. But she wasn’t yet talking. My son, seven years old at the time, was sitting at the table eating alphabet soup. Of course, Martha was right next to him, almost in his lap. It was his creative question—“Mom, if Martha-dog ate alphabet soup, would she speak?”—that put all the pieces together. The personality of the dog, plus Niko’s question, immediately suggested a visual image of the soup letters going into Martha’s mouth and up to her brain. Of course, this required a novel approach to the way the brain is connected to the digestive system.

I did not rush to my studio and immediately sketch out the story. This idea was just the beginning of a story, which would go through a couple of versions before it fell into place. The main question after the initial idea was, what would Martha do or say if she had the gift of gab?

B: How much of this was informed by Martha herself?

SM: Obviously, the personality of Martha is completely inspired by the real dog, and the attitude was already there. Martha would let me know what to do with the story. So what would she do, being Martha? She would be opinionated, outspoken—she would speak for the dog, letting people know what dogs are really thinking. But being a dog, she wouldn’t necessarily know when not to say what was on her mind. In Martha’s world, she is still a dog. The only thing unusual about her is her ability to speak. She’s not a person, and she will always see the world through the eyes of a dog.

B: Have you ever heard of children feeding alphabet soup to their dogs, hoping that their dogs would talk too? 

SM: I have heard of that happening, but I’ve heard it from adults who mostly are happy that their children are so taken with a story that they would try that. As for the kids, I think it’s just a wonderful possibility, sort of like the children who ask me, “Did Martha really talk?” I can tell they don’t really believe she spoke, but still, they hold on to the sliver of hope that just maybe she did. Also, it’s quite clear in the books and in the TV series that Skits cannot speak, even after many bowls of alphabet soup. So they are forewarned that even the family’s other dog isn’t bilingual, and that so far, there’s only one Martha.

Carol Greenwald: We heard from a public television colleague that when her son was four and a half, he asked to have Martha Speaks read to him, over and over. When they went grocery shopping, he reminded her to get alphabet soup; she began finding unopened cans of soup on the counter, which she put away, thinking she’d left them out by mistake. And then one day she came into the kitchen and saw her son standing with their standard Poodle, his foot holding Martha Speaks open to the page that shows the cross-section of Martha’s brain filled with letters. With one hand, he held up the dog’s earflap, and with the other, he shone a flashlight into the dog’s ear. Then he looked at his mother and said, plaintively, “But how will I know?”

B: What role does Martha have within her family? And can you tell us why you chose to make her young companion a girl rather than a boy?

SM: As I mentioned, Martha and Helen had already been paired in The Witches’ Supermarket. But although Martha’s personality has been evident since the first book, Helen’s character had to be fleshed out for the TV series. Martha will continue to be Martha: Confident, honest, loving, talking and acting before thinking, sometimes wrong but seldom in doubt. She’s learning about the world (and learning some words along the way). Helen is somewhat shy and cautious, a kid who doesn’t want to be in the spotlight, an artist, and the more sensible part of the duo, who tries to pull Martha back when she goes too far. For her part, Martha will push Helen into new situations and adventures that Helen would ordinarily be reluctant to try. It’s a loving relationship of opposites that works for both of them … usually.

CG: WGBH was attracted to the property specifically because it has a female central character. The majority of cartoons and TV shows for young children have boys at the center. We were thrilled to have a girl.

B: The goal of this series is to expand the vocabulary of its audience. How did you go about doing that? How are the words introduced so that the young viewer will understand their meanings?

CG: Surprisingly, first-grade vocabulary knowledge predicts eleventh-grade reading comprehension. So achieving our educational goal is incredibly important to us. People often assume that when you’re talking about teaching young kids vocabulary, you’re talking about words they are learning to read, like “hot,” “cat” and “top.” However, we’re focused on helping kids learn the meanings of more sophisticated words, so that when they begin reading—and particularly when they move from learning to read to reading to learn—they will understand the meaning of what they are reading. It doesn’t matter if you can sound out “aggravate,” “plot” or “custom” if you don’t know what they mean.

We worked closely with a board of academic advisors to figure out how we could use television to build children’s vocabularies. Because the vocabulary gap between at-risk kids and their more advantaged peers is so great, our advisors encouraged us to incorporate as many words as possible. Thus, we are teaching 800 words the first season (through 40 shows). They also confirmed that the best way to teach vocabulary is by providing context, so we are integrating the words and the definitions into the dialog of the stories, supporting them visually whenever possible, not teaching them in isolation. Because repetition is key to learning vocabulary, each of our words is repeated at least five times in the story, and more than that in the paired story (each episode has two stories) and across the series. We work closely with our content director, Dr. Rebecca Silverman from the University of Maryland, to both choose appropriate words and provide age-appropriate definitions.

B: Besides vocabulary building, what other lessons do you hope your viewers come away with?

CG: We have worked hard throughout the series to depict pet ownership in a positive way, to model good owner behavior. We hope viewers will come away with an appreciation for the important role dogs and all pets play in our lives. We also hope, through the series and our national partnerships, to raise awareness for animal shelters and encourage more families to adopt.

B: In one show, Martha finds herself in an animal shelter and sets out to free the other animals. How did that episode come about?

CG: Susan and her late husband, Harry Foster, have always been very supportive of shelters and humane societies, so when we were brainstorming story ideas, we knew we wanted to do a story about a shelter. Our writers loved the idea of Martha finding herself in the pound because it offered a lot of possibilities—a dog’s-eye-view of the experience. And we were particularly sensitive to the idea of encouraging shelter adoptions once we began reading about the surge in shelter pets post-Hurricane Katrina, and now with mortgage foreclosures.

B: Tell us about new developments in the “Martha Speaks” world.

CG: Houghton Mifflin is re-releasing the “classic” Martha Speaks books this fall, with new editions (the hardcover version of the original Martha Speaks book includes an audio version, and the paperback includes stickers), and they will be publishing tie-in books based on some of the TV scripts beginning fall 2009, which will include tips for families on building vocabulary.

As with all PBS KIDS series, there is a wonderful website, pbskids.org/Martha, on which kids can play games and watch short videos of Martha and her friends, and parents, teachers and caregivers can find out more about the series and curriculum and get educational support materials. All of the games are designed to support the educational goal of the series. In addition, a selection of video clips and Martha episodes is available on PBS’s new broadband service (pbskidsgo.org), so kids can watch Martha online.

The series is also supported by educational outreach activities. Public television stations are hosting community events to celebrate the premiere of Martha. Some stations will be launching “reading buddy” programs, which will pair 4th- and 5th-graders with kindergarteners to share books and vocabulary-building activities in the classroom. WGBH is also working closely with the ASPCA, Intermountain Therapy Animals, humane societies, the American Library Association and other groups to encourage local partnerships with public television stations.

Martha Speaks premiered on PBS KIDS on Labor Day, Monday, September 1. Visit Martha online for more.

 

Culture: DogPatch
Mother-Daughter Vet Graduates
Sharon Hunt Gerardo realizes her original dream

A mid-life career change is not uncommon. Nor is going back to school to get a second degree. Going back for a fourth degree, however, is more of a rarity, and graduating side by side with your daughter—well, that’s downright extraordinary. This is Sharon Hunt Gerardo’s story. In June, at the age of 51, she received her doctorate in veterinary medicine from UC Davis alongside her 27-year-old daughter, Angelina.

Both women had harbored dreams of becoming veterinarians since childhood. Angelina Gerardo, for her part, never considered another profession. Her father, Mike Gerardo, was a vet with a small animal practice—pocket pets, as he called them—and Angelina grew up steeped in the everyday drama and routine of caring for animals. But Sharon, who in Mike married her high school sweetheart, wasn’t accepted to veterinary school back in the 1980s; instead, she embarked on a career in microbiology. Following her husband’s untimely death in 2000, she started thinking about switching vocations.

By the time Angelina applied to college in 2003, Sharon’s decision was made, and she, too, sent out applications. Angelina thought it was a terrific idea for her mother to become a vet … right up to the day it became clear they’d both been accepted to the prestigious, all-consuming veterinary program at UC Davis. “I was not thrilled at first,” says Angelina. “I didn’t look forward to having classes with my mom every day.” In practice, though, things worked out very well. The two agreed to cultivate different sets of friends, and made arrangements to be in different lab groups. Their similar work habits and pace of learning made them ideal study partners, and in the end, they wound up cramming for many exams together, often over glasses of wine.

Today, Angelina’s veterinary career is well on its way. After joining the Army Veterinary Corps and finishing basic training, she is stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where she spends her days looking after hard-working military dogs and the pets of service members. Sharon, on the other hand, is back at UC Davis pursuing a master’s degree in Preventive Veterinary Medicine (MPVM). A fifth degree, if anyone’s counting, may seem excessive until seen in the context of her past education—she holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from UC Davis and a PhD in immunology from UCLA—and her years in medical research. Sharon’s career change was less an about-turn and more of a course correction. Sure, in her youthful fancies she was always the hands-on vet, rinsing ears, setting broken limbs, palpating claws and paws, and removing ingested chew toys, but for decades, her passion has been for big-picture stuff. Things like disease control and prevention in whole animal populations—large-scale projects for which the MPVM program is a direct ticket.

The MPVM program is to veterinary medicine what public health is to human medicine. Graduates might work with food safety, livestock health, or wildlife and disease ecology. One current student is investigating a mysterious neurological disease that kills horses and cattle on Easter Island, and a recent graduate has just returned to her native Uganda to work on wildlife conservation. Sharon wants to focus on epidemiology and infectious diseases. Computer modeling particularly appeals to her; this is a technique that allows scientists to calculate the impact of potential outbreaks on ecology and economy, and aids them in the preparation of a response should the worst happen.

What’s the worst? Take the looming specter of mad cow disease. Britain’s mid-1990s epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy devastated the country’s beef industry, from farmers to food manufacturers to restaurants. At least 140 people lost their lives to Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from eating infected beef, and 4.5 million cattle were destroyed—of those, less than 200,000 were confirmed as infected. The rest were simply old enough to possibly carry the disease agent.

Nothing quite so ruinous has yet befallen the U.S., but outbreaks of one kind or another happen more and more often. Think of recalls of hot dogs or beef patties or frozen chicken pizzas. Of “species jumpers” like bird flu and bovine tuberculosis, or the pet food recall of 2007, still fresh in our memories. As the world grows ever more interconnected, ever more interdependent, anything that ails another country may soon show up in our back yard. People and animals everywhere face the challenges presented by industrialized farming and food processing. So there could hardly a better time for a scientist and researcher like Sharon to return to her original career choice.

To others with dreams of new beginnings she says, “Find a way to make it happen. If it means going back to school, do it. It may not be easy, but it’ll be well worth the time and effort.” Of course, she also recommends enlisting your friends and family for support—as she did so fruitfully herself. Consider this: If one day, in the midst of Sharon’s world-saving efforts, her dogs Annie and Black-Jack or her cats Deco, Prissy and Gracie should need complicated surgery, she can simply call her daughter.

 

Dog's Life: Humane
A Team Player
An "ah-ha" moment led baseball manager Tony La Russa to establish the Animal Rescue Foundation

Tony La Russa, manager of this year’s World Series champs St. Louis Cardinals, is the only manager of any professional sport who is also a champion to rescue animals. Twenty years ago he and his wife started the Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) in Walnut Creek, California, that had its start when a liittle kitty ran out onto a baseball field… A few years ago we published this profile of the man and his shelter:

A great moment in animal rescue history took place in an unlikely venue: the Oakland (California) Coliseum, home of the Oakland Athletics baseball team. In May 1990, the A’s—managed at the time by Tony La Russa—were playing a home game against the New York Yankees when a feral cat ran onto the field. The game came to a halt until La Russa, a lifelong animal advocate, rescued the terrified feline.

After the game, he took her to a local shelter, only to learn she would be euthanized; not a single no-kill facility existed in the East Bay’s Contra Costa county. That discovery got the ball rolling, and it wasn’t long before La Russa and his wife, Elaine, founded Tony La Russa’s Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF). La Russa later said he couldn’t remember whether his team won or lost that night. (For the record, the A’s won, 5 to 1.)

ARF, the first privately funded animal shelter in Northern California, came into being in 1991. Since 2003, it has been housed in a state-of-the-art, 37,700-foot facility in Walnut Creek, California. From this lively and welcoming headquarters, ARF operates a variety of programs, including adoption, dog training and emergency veterinary assistance; it also functions as a national resource center.

Outreach programs focused on students, at-risk youth and the elderly promote humane education and animal welfare. For those who need a breather from the cuddles of dogs and cats, there’s a condo with sports and entertainment memorabilia: a 1988 World Series trophy, autographed shoes from Michael Jordan and Shaquille O’Neill, a guitar autographed by the Eagles, a Jose Canseco bat signed by (of all people) Joe DiMaggio.

La Russa, a man of action and passion, also has a law degree; (La Russa did not co-author the book but is the main subject of the book) New York Times bestseller, Three Nights in August; and has taken his teams to three World Series. Thanks to the La Russa family’s energy and compassion, more than 20,000 dogs and cats have found loving homes through ARF. It’s about teamwork, La Russa says, which is something that baseball and animal rescue have in common.

La Russa lives in Alamo, California, with his wife, two daughters and 18 rescues—12 cats, 5 and 1 rabbit. He and his family, all of whom are vegetarians (even their dogs are on meat-reduced diets), live by the ARF slogan: People rescuing animals … Animals rescuing people.

For more information visit ARF.net.

Culture: DogPatch
The Author’s Nook with Bonnie Jo Campbell
Lee Harrington talks to novelist Bonnie Jo Campbell
Bonnie Jo Campbell with her donkey, Don Quixote

Bonnie Jo Campbell is the author of several books, including American Salvage, a finalist for the 2009 National Book Award and National Book Critics Circle Award. Her latest novel, Once Upon a River (W.W. Norton), is being hailed as a “dramatic and rhapsodic American odyssey,” with a central character who’s a “female Huckleberry Finn.” We at Bark have a particular affinity for Bonnie, whom we published when she was a relatively unknown writer. Her quirky story “My Dog Roscoe” (in which a woman is convinced her boyfriend has been reincarnated as a stray dog) appeared in our book Dog Is My Co-Pilot, and her comic essay “What My Dog Has Eaten Lately” appeared in Howl, our humor anthology.

Lee Harrington: We all know you are a devoted dog lover. Tell us about some of the dogs who have appeared in your fiction.

Bonnie Jo Campbell: My first story collection, Women & Other Animals, contains two stories that feature dogs prominently. “Old Dogs” is the story of three older women who live in poverty with four older dogs (all named after Shakespearean heroes). My goal was to show how the dogs and women bring comfort and dignity to one another’s difficult lives.

In “The Fishing Dog,” a young woman without resources lives on the river with a difficult man who is much older than she is. Across the river lives a gentler, kinder man, whose dog sits by the river’s edge and hunts for fish. The narrator becomes obsessed with this dog and gradually, by extension, falls in love with the new man.

LH: I understand that this story largely inspired your now-famous novel, Once Upon a River. In the final pages of that book, Margo decides to adopt a recently orphaned dog. What does this say about Margo and her transition from child to adult?

BJC: Margo has always wanted to share her life with one or more dogs, but her situation has never allowed it. Her parents forbade her from adopting a dog while she lived at home, so she hung out with her cousins’ dogs. When she left home to make her way in the world, she was never in a stable enough situation to properly care for a dog. Finally, at the end of the story, Margo knows she is ready to care for someone.

LH: How do you decide to include a dog in a particular scene or story?

BJC: I’m a realist writer, so I try to work with what seems naturally to flow from a situation or a character. Many people need a dog in their lives to make them whole and happy, and that’s true of fictional characters as well. Many of the characters in my stories, especially the women, live their lives entwined with the lives of animals.

LH: In many works of fiction (and in life, actually) dogs are included as accessories or part of the setting rather than as characters. To me, a character is a being who has the capacity to change the direction of the story. Where do you stand on that — dogs as characters vs. accessories?

BJC: Agreed! A dog is generally too powerful a force to pose as mere decoration. I won’t address the misguided real-life situations, but it would be a shame to waste such a potentially active story element. In movies and plays, almost any dog who wanders onstage will steal the show. Of course, it depends upon the story itself — every narrative operates according to its own rules — but in general, we writers should always be looking to where the energy and empathy lie in a story, and a dog is a good place to start.

LH: Your beloved three-legged dog Rebar died a few years ago, and travel and work commitments have kept you from getting another dog. What has your new life as a successful writer and professor been like, sans chien?

BJC: I’ve missed the company of dogs desperately. I’m all over everybody else’s dogs, like a childless auntie who can’t keep her hands off her nieces and nephews. Some of what I wrote about Margo’s longing for a dog in Once Upon a River was what I’ve been feeling. I plan to stop roaming soon and find myself a new canine companion, one who can get along with my two donkeys, Jack and Don Quixote, who live on my mom’s farm. Rebar was great around the barnyard, though I didn’t like the way he chewed donkey dung. I still dream about Rebar. The writing life requires a lot of sitting quietly in a room, and that makes a lot more sense when there’s a dog beside you.

Culture: DogPatch
Q&A with Dog Sense Author John Bradshaw
Making sense of dogs

What is an anthrozoologist, anyway? Turns out it’s someone who studies human-animal interactions, and John Bradshaw, who directs the world-renowned Anthrozoology Institute based at the UK’s University of Bristol (and founded it at the University of Southampton), is pre-eminent among them. For more than a quarter of a century, he’s investigated the behavior of dogs and their people, and his findings have been widely published. In Dog Sense — his best-selling, recently released book — he expands upon his belief that “the future of the dog does not lie simply with the blunt instruments of legislation and regulation, but with better public understanding of what dogs actually are, their needs and wants.” Recently, Bradshaw shared his thoughts on evolution, training (debunking the myth behind the “dog as wolf” model), changes in breeding practices in the UK and what lies behind dogs’ attraction and attachment to us, among other intriguing ideas.

Bark: Why do you think that a proto-dog — a transition from wolf to dog — evolved?

John Bradshaw: My theory — and I have nothing to back it up — is that something happened in the brains of certain wolves that made dual socialization possible. Humans developed a propensity to take in pets, and then these particular wolves came along — these would be the protodogs. They would have looked exactly like wolves. This was not an intervention on our part, but rather, a very different cultural environment.
A key difference between dogs and wolves is not their appearance but rather, how they behave. Dogs have the capacity to socialize to both species, ours and their own, and the unique ability to continue functioning as members of their own species while simultaneously establishing and maintaining relationships with ours.

B: Most researchers refer to domestication as a one-way street. Didn’t other species, including the wolf and proto-dog, also have an effect on our own evolution?

JB: Domestication was a long and complex process; speculatively, I would [say] that there were several failed attempts. Researchers who are studying human evolution and the human brain pretty much say that our own evolution — at the genetic level — wasn’t influenced by dogs. But, of course, our culture has been profoundly influenced by them.
Dogs were, for a long time, a crucial part of our technology and their domestication marked a technological innovation that also provided the blueprint for the domestication of other animals; if we were able to domesticate dogs, why not pigs, sheep, cattle, goats? So if you are talking about evolution in the general sense of where humans are today, what we think about and how we see the world, then, yes, dogs dramatically affected that evolution. If you are talking about dogs affecting genetic evolution, we haven’t discovered that yet. I’m not saying we won’t, but we aren’t there yet.

B: Do you think it’s possible that we hunted together, or perhaps learned or honed our own skills by watching wolves hunt?

JB: I don’t think we were hunting partners, to begin with, but one of the versions of human evolution that I strongly subscribe to comes from Steven Mithen, a cognitive archaeologist and professor of early prehistory, who studies the evolution of the human mind and why we are different from the Neanderthal — why they died out and we didn’t. One of the key [dissimilarities] he points to is our ancestors’ ability to think like animals. They could put themselves in the place of an animal — that they, in fact, had a connection to the animals. So we would be able to think, “If I were a wolf, what would I be doing?” or, “If I were a deer, what would I do now?”

B: If scientists have concluded that wolf behavior is different from that of dogs, why do people still consider the lupomorph (wolf pack) model as a determinant of canine behavior?

JB: They have a good excuse, which is that in terms of their DNA, dogs and wolves are so similar. However, that doesn’t mean there is similarity in their behaviors.
Confusion about how wolves actually behave comes from observations of wolves artificially grouped in zoos. A natural pack is based on a family, but those confined in zoos and so forth are not family units. So in a zoo their behavior looks like it is one of dominance hierarchy based on aggression. The whole basis of wolf behavior [in that context] is not natural. It’s like comparing all human behavior to the behavior of humans in refugee camps. In that kind of group, behavior is distorted.
The second reason is that proto-dogs, the wolves who became domesticated, were different than other wolves. The animal who was the common ancestor of wolves and protodogs has been extinct for at least 15,000 years. Wolves in the wild are getting wilder and wilder for at least 15,000 years, probably longer.
Recent interpretations of wolf behavior have emphasized cohesive, rather than aggressive, behavior as being essential to the stability of a pack. Wolves in different packs try to avoid one another, but dogs are extraordinarily outgoing. Dogs’ sociability is even more remarkable when compared to that of their ancestors.

B: If the wolf model isn’t appropriate, what is?

JB: The behavior of feral, or village, dogs in Italy, Russia and India has been studied recently, and results show that those dogs are much closer to the ancestors of pet dogs than wolves are. These are urban feral dogs, high-density dogs, dogs in large groups. Earlier studies [of feral dogs] were conducted in environments in which the dogs were being persecuted and are like the early captive-wolf studies: not reliable.
Research recently conducted in West Bengal (where feral dogs are more tolerated by the people) has found that feral dogs are a lot more tolerant of one another than wolves are. Family bonds form, but with less correlation. They do not hunt together, but rather, forage singly, and, unlike in a wolf pack, more than one female in a social group will breed at the same time. They aren’t a pack in the wolf sense; their “pack” structure is very loose and rarely involves cooperative behavior, either in raising young or obtaining food.
The studies of West Bengal feral dogs don’t offer the slightest shred of evidence that they are constantly motivated to assume leadership of the pack within which they live, as the old-fashioned wolf-pack theory would have it.

B: You write that there is little evidence that hierarchy is a particular fixation of dogs — that dogs do not want to dominate us — but so many trainers (including Cesar Millan, as you note in the book) and others use this construct to explain dog behavior. Why is this wrong and what are its implications?

JB: Part of the problem is that confrontation makes good television, and attracts programmers, but having a confrontation in your living room with your own dog isn’t the best way to train a dog. The more effective way is to use reward-based training, which can be (by television standards) incredibly dull, since it may take hours or sometimes weeks. My colleagues and I are appalled by the popularity of this style of confrontational dog training. I don’t know what the situation is in your country, but in the UK, we have a new Animal Welfare Act, and that kind of training goes against its recommendations. The law reads, “All dogs should be trained to behave well, ideally from a very young age. Only use positive reward-based training. Avoid harsh, potentially painful or frightening training methods.”
There is little evidence that hierarchy is a particular fixation of dogs, either in their relationship with other dogs or in those with their owners.
And if some trainers believe that dogs only perceive us as if we were other dogs (or wolves), there is no logical basis for assuming that dogs [instinctively] want to control us. Domestication should have favored exactly the opposite: dogs who passionately want us to control them.

B: Have you seen any changes in breeding practices in the UK as a result of the BBC’s “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” documentary?

JB: The genetic isolation of breeds has brought about a dramatic change in the canine gene pool. Three inquiries have been commissioned: one by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, another by the government and a third by the Kennel Club itself, but there is still a great deal to be done. There are problems implementing the studies’ conclusions because the KC, like the AKC, is a federal structure made up of individual breed clubs. The federation has no power to tell the member breed clubs what to do.
There is also an unfortunate loophole in the UK legislation, in a macabre sort of way: the law doesn’t apply to fetuses so if there is a hereditary defect, it can be legal!
Top breeders, those who show their dogs, practice selective breeding to meet the latest interpretation of the breed standard, which is based on the appearance of the dog. The whole basis of judging rests on how a dog looks and behaves in the show ring.
Some of breeds’ gene pools are too small, and the answer has to be to amalgamate breeds to increase genetic variation. A group of people in Australia are taking on the breeding of pet-quality dogs, [selecting for] calm personality, trainability, freedom from inheritable disease and discomfort, people-focused and so forth. Dr. Paul McGreevy and Pauline Bennett are part of this group. Genetics can only go so far, though. You have to mold a dog’s personality — it can’t be done through genetics alone.

B: Many people use puppy testing to predict a dog’s adult character. Do you feel this is valid?

JB: Dogs are born to become friendly toward people, a process that starts in about the third week of their life and goes on for several months. This process of socialization is well charted. At 16 weeks, the window of socialization to people begins to close, though it stays open a bit longer for socialization to other dogs.
Young puppies try out different behavioral approaches; they change from one day to the next. It is more important to look at the litter’s environment — how is the female kept, for example? Puppy tests carried out at seven or eight weeks of age are being conducted when a puppy’s behavior is actually most malleable. Numerous scientific studies have failed to find any validity in puppy testing as a predicator of future character. The only personality trait that seems to be resistant to change after seven weeks is extreme fearfulness.

B: You write that dogs have been so heavily selected to form strong attachments to humans that many suffer from separation anxiety — up to 50 percent of Labs bred in the UK, for instance. On what is this finding based?

JB: It comes from my own research and that of others. We concluded that many dogs experience this anxiety at some time in their lifetime. In one longitudinal study, we followed puppies, 40 in all, litters of Labradors and Border Collies, from eight weeks to 18 months old. Over 50 percent of the Labs and almost half of the Collies showed some kind of separation distress. Subsequent studies, during which we filmed dogs left alone, showed that self-reporting by owners underestimates the scope of the problem.
We work closely with rehoming charities, instructing them on prevention and ways to train dogs so they won’t suffer when left alone. The key thing is to get new owners to train the dog to understand that they are coming back.
This is not a disorder at all, but rather, a perfectly natural behavior. We have selected dogs to be highly dependent on us. Research has shown that just a few minutes of friendly attention from one person on two consecutive days is enough to make some dogs in shelters desperate to stay with that person. Their attachment to humans is that strong.

B: One of the most controversial positions you take is that being in a shelter may damage a dog. Was consideration given to contributing factors such as the length of time spent in a shelter, the condition of the facility, the interactions a dog has with other dogs and humans there, and the dog’s personality and history?

JB: We want to understand what is going on inside these dogs, and I am not in any way blaming rescuers or shelters. Dogs who have been attached to a family may suddenly wind up in a shelter for a variety of reasons: family breakup, job loss or the dog’s behavioral problems. Dogs will be very upset by this and when they arrive in a shelter, their cortisol level [a stress-related hormone] goes sky high. We know this because when we’ve taken urine samples, we’ve had to dilute the urine to even get a measurement — it was that high. They don’t have the resources to cope and go into hyperdrive, desperate to please people. As a result, in a shelter setting, dogs actually can be easily trained.
As I mentioned, attachment can happen quickly in shelters. Of course, when dogs are unhappy, they need to be appropriately cared for, but we find that it’s important to rotate their caregivers so they don’t form an attachment to any one person.
It is also important to assess dogs for separation anxiety, predict the behavior, and advise [shelter staff and prospective adopters] on how to train them to be left alone. That is one of the most important things you can do to ensure the welfare of the dog [in terms of his or her eventual placement] in a new home.

B: Dogs clearly love us, and demonstrate that in many ways, but is this what motivates them to obey us and follow our lead?

JB: Human contact has a high-level reward value for dogs; simple attention from us is rewarding. And if that attention comes while playing with them, it can be a double reward. You can train a dog with a tennis ball, but while the game is important, it is not the only thing. The real treat is the interaction. Withdraw your attention, ignore the dog, and the dog will find this withdrawal of attention aversive.

Culture: DogPatch
Q&A With Temple Grandin
Take Three

Q: What do dogs need?
A: People, play and lots of opportunities to explore and learn.

Q: How can we better understand our dogs?
A: Dogs are sensory thinkers—they store information as pictures, sounds, smells. If you want to understand an animal, you have to get away from verbal language.

Q: Given all that we know about genetics, why choose a mixed-breed dog?
A: Mutts tend to be physically healthier, because traits like dysplasia tend to disappear after one or two generations. They’re also more likely to be emotionally stable.

Temple Grandin, PhD, teaches at Colorado State University and is the author of several books, including Animals in Translation and, most recently, Animals Make Us Human.

News: Guest Posts
Zia Needs A Home
Are you ready for an “earth goddess”?

Yesterday, we received a call from Jennifer Rabinowitz in New Mexico. She wanted to know if she could place an ad in Bark to help find a home—ASAP—for her rescue dog. Since we publish every other month, we couldn’t get the word out quickly enough. When we heard about all Jenny had been through for Zia, we were reminded of how hard it can be for some dogs to land in the right place. We were also reminded of the determination and resourcefulness of so many folks who are dedicated to doing right by homeless dogs.

  We got back in touch with Rabinowitz, a 49-year-old former development director, and asked her to tell us more about Zia, a small, 14-month-old Labrador, and the effort to find her a good home. [Editors Note: If you're interested but think Zia lives too far away, Jenny says she'll deliver the pup to pretty much anywhere in the United States, as long as she finds a good home.]   How did Zia come to you? I moved to New Mexico from Washington D.C. almost a year ago to attend graduate school in social work. My first week here I volunteered at an adoption event for dogs from the Las Vegas (New Mexico) pound, a dark place for dogs—both literally and figuratively. A crate of puppies arrived at the event, and for six hours I tried to get them adopted. By afternoon’s end, nobody had adopted them and I couldn’t bear to see the puppies go back to the Las Vegas pound, which has one of the highest euthanasia rates in the state. I thought I could easily share my rental home with the pups until I could get them adopted! The problem is that I could not find an appropriate home for them.   How did she get her name? When I brought her home (together with her brother and a puppy from another litter) she was lethargic, even limp. I thought I would have to take her to the vet. A 10-year-old girl who lived next door stopped by and scooped the lethargic puppy into her arms, holding her and rocking her. She then looked up at me and said, “This is Zia.” I asked why, and she said, “Because she is an earth goddess.”   Tell me about her. Zia is very playful, even creative in her play. She is affectionate. She is also somewhat fearful of other dogs. While she is not dog-aggressive, she is unsure of herself around dogs. I used to take her to Santa Fe’s Frank Ortiz no-leash park. She loved the park and not once did I hear a growl from her. If anything, I saw her lay down next to dogs or run alongside them. My other foster dogs, however, were less forgiving of her, and twice they went to attack her. It is no wonder that she is shy or reticent around dogs.   When I lived in the New Mexico countryside, I would take Zia to the Pecos River twice a day. In the winter, Zia liked to break the ice formed on the river. In the spring, she’d sit next to me leaning into my side, and we’d watch the water flow by. I’ll miss her.   Why do you need to find a home so urgently? I had to move about eight weeks ago because my landlord gave me an ultimatum: Get rid of some of the dogs or get out.  I moved. During my first two weeks at my new place, Zia and Blaze (also a female and the same age as Zia, but from a different litter) had a horrific fight. The experience was unnerving, and because Blaze gets along with the other two (Zia’s brother and Nick, my Mastiff), I must find a home for Zia. In short, I’m trying to weigh one dog against three dogs who get along well. It’s harder to place three dogs than it is one dog.  But, believe me, it’s a tough decision.   What have you done to find Zia a home? I’ve reached out to environmental groups (Sierra Club/Northern Rio Grande chapter, WildEarth Guardians, Northern New Mexico Law Center, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance so far), churches, synagogues, my grade school (where my flyer will be read at the noontime meeting), my high school (will email my graduating class), a meditation center in Washington DC, my yoga studio, and so on. In short, I’ve tried to identify where the kind of people I would want to adopt her would likely be. I’ve asked a church in Santa Fe if I could make an announcement after Sunday morning’s sermons—they graciously said yes! Still, I have had little luck.     It sounds like you have fostered dogs before. If so, is this the most difficult experience you’ve had placing a dog? I’ve never fostered dogs before. I’ve always adopted shelter dogs, but only dogs that were full-grown. Working with puppies while caring for an aging Mastiff with health problems has been the challenge of my life. It is something I will never forget. It has offered a profound education in ethics, morality and love.   Getting her placed has felt like climbing Everest with no oxygen. Virtually everybody says to simply dump her at the Santa Fe Humane Society (which is a kill shelter). I can’t be so insensitive to her life and her right to live it.   What’s making it so difficult? I think it is the economy. New Mexico is a poor state, and we are in difficult economic times.     How will you feel once you have found a loving, stable home for Zia? Ecstatic and relieved.       If you want to provide Zia with a stable, loving, one-dog home or if you have ideas for Jenny, contact her via email at jennifer.rabinowitz@gmail.com.

 

News: Guest Posts
Big, Fat, Free Adoptathon, June 12-13
Maddie’s Fund underwrites an unprecedented Bay Area effort

The Maddie’s Matchmaker Adoptathon isn’t your typical adoption drive. It’s big (41 participating shelters and adoption-guarantee organizations), ambitious (aiming to empty all the shelters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties), and, most important for potential adopters, FREE! Oh, and it’s a fundraiser for the participating organizations.

 

And that’s not all: The adoptathon is only a step in Maddie’s Fund’s jaw-dropping goal to save all adoptable animals in the country. We asked the organization president Rich Avanzino to break it down for us.

 

Is this the first free adoptathon Maddie’s Fund has sponsored?

It’s the largest one as far as we know in the Bay Area, bringing over 41 different shelters and adoption-guarantee groups [together] in a collaborative effort to empty the shelters to save all the healthy, treatable animals’ lives. As far as I know, it’s the first one to be done for free in the Bay Area, ever, and it’s also the first attempt to empty the shelters countywide in both Alameda and Contra Costa. It’s going to save a lot of lives.

 

Who pays for the adoptions?

Maddie’s Fund will pay $500 for every adoption [they normally range from about $50 to a couple hundred dollars] so it’s not just covering the cost to the shelters; it’s giving them a little more incentive to help save these lives. And in a tough economy like we’re suffering with today many of the not-for-profits and the municipalities are hurting for money. So this is an effort to recognize their great efforts … and to draw attention to the fact that both the rescue organizations and the shelters have wonderful pets available for adoption all the time.

 

I didn’t realize there was this stimulus side.

Yes. It’s a win-win. Obviously the people who take home a pet are going to have the opportunity to have the love of their life. The animals obviously get their lives saved, which is rather spectacular because these are wonderful beings that just need to find a home. And then it will provide a little monetary incentive for the shelters and rescue groups to carry on their great services and provide the wonderful programs that they do to save animals.

 

Why is it called Maddie’s Matchmaker Adoptathon?

This is done in the spirit of the little dog that Maddie’s Fund is named after, a miniature Schnauzer who enriched the lives of our founders Dave and Cheryl Duffield. They promised to basically do right by her by giving back in dollars some of what she gave them in love. We started with a $300 million gift to help animals in need of loving homes. We think this has the potential to be a model for the nation to get us to our goal, which is to save all the healthy and treatable animals countrywide by 2015.

 

That’s a huge goal.

It is a very ambitious goal but we think we are basically on path to achieve the result.

 

What do you think the adoptathon is going to cost Maddie’s Fund?

We’re hoping to spend well over a half million dollars. We think we have about 1,000-plus animals to save. The rescue and shelter world is very enthusiastic: Many of them have extended their hours, some of them have opened their facilities for Sunday adoptions, many of them who used to do one satellite are now doing several. So we’ve got great buy-in. We think it’s going to save at least 1,000 lives, maybe more. We hope to spend a half-million dollars but we’d love to spend a million. So it all comes down to the public and the rescues to help get us to goal.

 

Those who will be attending the adoptathon, hoping to bring home a cat or dog, what should they have in mind?

First of all, each agency has it’s own adoption criteria, so they are going to be adopting out to qualified pet owners—people who are responsible, caring, loving.

They’re not going to have to have any money—it’s a free comrade and lifetime partner. They should be prepared for the fact that it’s a lifetime commitment. They are going to take home a pet who needs food, living accommodation, toys and all that sort of stuff so the money they don’t spend on the adoption fee will give them a little extra to spend on pampering their new pooch or kitty. They are going to get unconditional love but in return this four-legged best friend/family member is going to rely on them to be taken care of and loved.

 

Are you concerned that by not requiring a fee, it communicates the animal has less value?

Absolutely not. The adoption agency and rescue groups and shelters that we’re dealing with are committed to the best interests of animal welfare, they’re doing this not for money, they’re doing this because they are focused on helping animals in need, and ending an animal’s life is not providing a great deal of assistance. The groups’ … screening programs are going to be well in place. They are going to select the best homes. We hope they have a lot of applicants from which to choose the best.

 

When will you know how many animals will be adopted?

We’re doing it hour by hour. We’ll have a running tally. We’re putting the entire Maddie’s staff (“roving reporters”) out in the field. We’re going to be capturing every placement in real time and sending it back to our Facebook page.

 

That sounds great.

The enthusiasm couldn’t be at a higher pitch. The weather’s nice. The animals are fabulous. The shelters are excited. And now we’re just hoping the public comes down and takes advantage of this.

Free adoption of dogs and cats will be offered to qualified homes throughout the weekend, June 12-13, at each participating organization, as well as many PETCO, PetSmart and Pet Food Express locations. To find hours, locations and participating organizations visit: MaddiesAdoptathon.org. 

 

 

 

News: Guest Posts
Q&A with Maren Bussey
Young author follows shelter dogs in a new book

With more than 100 books to her credit, four adopted dogs in her home and a canine-behaviorist mother, it was probably only a matter of time before Maren Bussey wrote a book about shelter dogs. Tackling the project like a journalist, the cub reporter followed dozens of dogs surrendered to Maricopa County Animal Care and Control (MCACC) in her hometown of Phoenix, Ariz., and then profiled 15 in Forgotten Friends—Stories from an Animal Shelter. Bussey’s tales of lucky—and a few not-so-lucky—pups, along with daunting shelter facts and advice on how to help, make a compelling case for adoption aimed at young folks by one of their own. (The book is published on demand through booksbymaren.com, ten percent of the $20 cover price goes to MCACC.)

  TheBark.com: Why did you write Forgotten Friends? Maren Bussey: A lot of books for kids talk about getting pets from pet stores or “buying” pets. I thought it was important to teach kids about adopting and showing them that shelters are full of good dogs.   Do you have a favorite dog among those profiled in your story? I really like Toby and Rocket. They both have intriguing stories; Toby kept getting passed by, almost didn’t find a home and then found the perfect one. Rocket was also overlooked and then someone who worked at the shelter realized how great he was so adopted him herself!   Was it hard to write about the dogs who weren’t adopted? And why is it important to include them in your book? It was sad when I heard that two of my dogs didn’t get adopted. But I thought it was important to have their stories in my book to show that there are a lot of great dogs who don’t get adopted; not everyone will find a home. This, again, shows how important it is to adopt.   Why do you think so many people still don’t choose to adopt from a shelter or rescue? And what would you tell them to change their minds? I think a lot of people think shelters are full of dogs that are there because they are “bad” or have “issues.” Also, a lot of people think that purebred dogs are better than mutts. I would tell them that shelters have great dogs; many are there because something happened to their families and they couldn’t keep their dog anymore. One of the dogs in my book had to go to the shelter because her family’s house burned down and they couldn’t keep the dog. I would also tell them that mixed breeds are often healthier than purebreds and can be just as great, too!   You knew a lot about animal welfare issues before Forgotten Friends, did you learn anything new during the project? I was surprised to learn how many dogs and cats actually do not get adopted. I thought more people adopted, than actually do.   I read that you’ve written more than 100 books, any other dog books among them? What else do you like to write about? I wrote a book about one of my dogs and how we adopted him. I also like to write fantasy and science fiction.   What’s your next book? My next book is also about one of my dogs and all the funny stuff he does. That is all I can tell you right now… but it will also benefit a rescue organization.   Do you have a favorite book or story about a dog or dogs written by someone else? I liked Nobody’s Pets by Deborah White, a fiction book about dogs and cats living in shelters. Right now I’m reading Out of Harm’s Way by Terri Crisp. She has devoted her life to rescuing animals from disasters—she rescues everything from Great Danes to little frogs named Kermit!   Do you think you might be a writer or maybe a veterinarian when you grow up? Actually, I think I want to be a detective but I’ll probably keep writing just for fun.
News: Guest Posts
Lab Crashes the Superbowl
5 Q's for prize-winning filmmaker

Did you see the “Underdog” commercial during the Superbowl XLIV? Or maybe later in its viral incarnations around the Internet? An adorable young Lab outsmarts a person (who has it coming) with the old bark collar–switcheroo in order to get a bag of Doritos. It was one of four winning commercials—out of 4,000 created by Average Joes and Janes—to air during the game.

Twenty-four-year-old Joshua Svoboda created the submission for Frito-Lay’s “Crash the Superbowl” contest in three days with a budget of $200 (including the cost of dog treats and toys), and filming at a favorite childhood park. For his efforts, he took home a second-place finish, $600,000, and a healthy respect for professional canine actors. A fledgling filmmaker from Raleigh, N.C. (check out his reel at 5pointproductions.com), Svoboda hoped success in the contest could kick start his career.  

When we caught up with the young director a few days after the Superbowl, he was—appropriately—shopping for a television. He snuck into the mattress department to answer a couple questions.

Which came first—the dog or the concept?
The idea. We were in a friend’s basement reminiscing about  electronic collars, and how as kids we would put them on.

Where did you get your dog star?
Rosie is my fellow writer/director’s sister’s puppy. She’s a Lab-Boxer mix.

When we did the test shots, she was surprisingly well-behaved. The second day [filming the actual ad], she was running around, chasing kids, barking at old people. She settled down once we threw the ball for her a few times and gave her treats.

Were those really Doritos in the bag?
Yes, she just stuck her head all the way in.

Do you see yourself directing dogs in your future?
No. I personally won’t be handling animals at all. It’s pretty difficult.

Do you have a dog?
No. I do love dogs but I live in an apartment. Right now, I have two cats.

Pages