So I barrelled over there in my car and slammed on the brakes beside her.  “Can you please stop hitting that puppy?” She looked up, slightly embarassed, and tried to excuse the hitting, since the puppy had just jumped up and bitten her child.  I told her that there were lots of great ways to get the puppy to stop biting, and I’d love to show her.  But of course, it’s hard to be receptive when a perfect stranger comes and criticizes you from their car window, so she politely walked off. At least she didn’t yell at me.

Was my request enough? I didn’t have time to mention that her puppy is not a bad dog, that almost all puppies bite, and that if she keeps hitting her dog, her child will probably do the same, and she’d end up with a real bite instead of a puppy bite. 

I’m terrified for that puppy and the family, but I think she may have been one of our new students, so there’s hope. I recognized the Freedom harness that we give away with our classes.  The puppy was young enough that she’d probably gone to only one class.  Maybe she hadn’t watched the videos that were emailed to her about biting. Maybe she just needs to be shown what to do. Our trainers will hopefully have a chance to convince her that there are better ways to keep dogs from biting kids. For starters, we teach bite inhibition, Leave It, Touch, tiring out the puppy with exercise, having kids play with dog by dragging toys on ropes so they’re further away, and teaching kids to Be a Tree (fold “branches” – arms – and turn away), among other tools.

Sigh.  I hope this puppy’s family comes around. I hope you don’t train using intimidation with hands, collars, or shock, and if you do, please stop hitting that puppy!

I could use a lot of volunteers in Seattle. Are you interested? Here’s what I need:

1. Dog-human teams that can be decoys in a set-up for BAT with a dog-aggressive dog. The goal is to have the student dog remain calm and happy around the decoy, so it shouldn’t be very stressful on your dog. Decoy dogs should not be aggressive or fearful, and should be over 2 years old. I can usually keep the sessions aggression-free, but there is a risk that your dog will be barked at. When we work up close, there is always a fence between the dogs or the dog is muzzled (when I’m feeling very confident), so there is no risk of a bite. We start very far away and move closer as time goes on. Volunteers can opt out at any time.

2. Child-adult teams that can be decoys in a set-up for a dog that is afraid of children. The dog barks but has no history of biting or snapping at any humans. Again, all attempts will be made to keep the session happy and bark-free and we will set up barriers so that there is no risk of a bite. Sessions can take place wherever you’d like. One good location is an outdoor cafe in Ravenna where you and your child just have lunch as we walk back and forth. I’ll treat you for the meal! (This is my dog, Peanut. He’s actually a therapy dog for an assisted living facility, but we haven’t done enough training with children.) Kids 0-13 would be best, since he’s fine with people over about 4′6″.

One benefit of doing this is that your child can learn more about dog safety.

3. A puppy that is afraid of people.

4. People to serve as decoys for the puppy. I’d love to have a vet’s office willing to help me with this, so if you work at a vet office and could do the set-up there, please let me know!

5. Someone interested in running the camera would also be great!

A description of the technique and some videos of what it looks like are on the Ahimsa website: http://doggiezen.com/blog/bat-posts

Benefits to participants: Information on how to use BAT plus a week of free drop-ins to our Dream Dog program. Info on the Dream Dog program is at http://ahimsadogtraining.com/dreamdog

Session times vary, but usually they are something like 15 minutes (if that’s all the child can do) to an hour.

Let me know if you’re interested in any of these volunteer spots. Thank you in advance!!!

At some point, I will be doing a research study on BAT, and I will ask for participants with human-aggressive dogs. That will probably be Fall, 2010.

That got me to thinking…what a great puppy socialization tool! Too bad I didn’t have this game 7 years ago, when Peanut was a puppy.

If dogs are raised in quiet homes without kids, they think it’s very odd when they meet them out and about, often leading to fear-based aggression.  Having a physically engaging video game like the Wii transforms quiet homes into a place where the adults occasionally jump up and down, punch the air, and giggle madly – basically, act like kids. Puppies raised in that environment will probably think that humans are crazy sometimes, and that’s ok!

To be on the safe side, it’s probably a good idea to give the puppy a chew toy, like a bully stick, once the video game begins, so that he’s got something fun to entertain him, too.  Otherwise, your puppy may end up turning the game into a chew-fest or decide that you really are scary, after all.

You could also do little short training sessions while you wait your turn. Then your puppy gets practice training in a chaotic environment. Excellent!

For older dogs getting used to the jumping about caused by the Wii (or other similar video games), you may want to give them something even tastier, like a stuffed Kong.

P.S. Don’t forget to put your remote away when you’re finished. It looks like an awfully good puppy chew toy.

Breed Ban advocates call for all pit bulls (or any dog that looks like a pit bull) to die, in order to keep their families and children safe. On the other extreme are groups that say any law specific to pit bulls is completely unthinkable. But there is a middle ground, between the two, where the pit bull owners can claim responsibility for their own dogs and keep them, all dog owners can make some changes, and the people on the street can feel safer. Even as a person who has met many, many lovely pit bulls, it’s understandable how people can be frightened when they turn on the news and get report after report of horrendous dog attacks.

To ignore this fear or downplay it is unsympathetic, unrealistic, and risky.

I am a firm believer that we need to punish deeds, not breeds. While some proposals do constitute punishment for a crime the dog didn’t commit (euthanasia, big fines), others are just restrictions (dogs must be on leash, muzzled, spay/neuter). Not all legislation is evil. I don’t want to have my bags looked through at the airport, but I want a safe flight. Have I been punished for someone else’s deed? A tiny bit, but more so, I’m contributing to the safety of myself and others, so I’m ok with it. All dog owners need to help make Seattle safer. If that means not walking their Golden Retrievers or their friendly pit bulls off leash down the street, so that it’s more obvious when a dog is on the loose, so be it!

I *do* think Seattle needs something to make the dogs and humans in it feel safer. Humans hurt each other a lot more than dogs do, making the probability of getting injured by a dog much lower than being injured by another person. But we have an innate fear of big animals with sharp teeth, and perceived threats are just as stress-producing as real ones, and the part of our brain that deals with survival isn’t looking at statistics.

Speaking of statistics, a disproportionate number of bite reports were about pit bulls, according to Seattle Animal Control. That said, are more people reporting in that case, because the dog looked like a pit bull? Is there an unusually high number of unregistered pit bulls? (Bites were compared to the number of registered pit bulls.) Was the dog reported even really a pit bull, or did it just look like a pit bull? I don’t know the truth, and I doubt anyone does. That said, we can’t just dismiss the fact that individuals in our community have been gravely injured by dogs that look like pit bulls. I’d *much* rather see a solution that’s not breed specific, so that the next trendy Tough Guy dog never has a chance to start trouble.

Breed Specific Legislation, or BSL, varies all over the map, from full-out banning of pit bulls and even suspected ones, to Toronto’s law that is a bit complicated, but basically requires all purebred pit bulls (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and some others) to be on leash and muzzled out in public, and prevents new people from acquiring pit bulls. The Toronto law was more vague about what a pit bull was, before, but has now narrowed the scope to purebred pit bulls.

I don’t know whether the best solution will be deed-based, breed specific, size specific, or just more enforcement of laws on the books right now, like leash laws. As a dog trainer in Seattle, I have met a LOT of aggressive dogs, from all different breeds, so I’d like to see a solution that applies across the board, to all breeds, based on the behavior of the dog.  Regardless, I think that people who are willing to have restrictions put on their dogs should be able to keep them.

I think the best legislation would be applied to all dogs.  Here are some ideas, just a mish-mosh, I’m not saying we need to do all of these.  And remember, this would be all breeds:

• Extra $$ penalty for off-leash dogs. Multiple off-leash violations results in owner losing the right to own a dog. Ideally, the fine would be big enough to make people want to build a fence, rather than gamble. (To report an off-leash / stray / found dog or a dog bite in Seattle, call Animal Control at (206) 386-PETS.  Now is a good time to program it into your phone.  Leash violations in Seattle can also be reported on the Seattle Animal Control website. Do something!)
• Mandatory spay/neuter for dogs of all breeds.  Exception would be dogs used as breeding dogs, which could be temperament tested. Breeders would be licensed. Show dogs that must remain intact would be considered “breeding dogs.” (this bullet point was added after original publication, see more info in 2nd comment, below this article)
• Visible Fence law – currently, dogs are just supposed to stay on a person’s property. I strongly believe that all dogs should be considered “at large” if they are off leash outside in an unfenced area or have even have access to a street at all, unless a person is walking through the door (i.e., even inside, with a door propped open, the dog could be considered “at large”. A fence would be a visual barrier that the dog cannot pass through or over.  Would *you* feel safe if a dog rushed at you from behind an invisible fence? (bullet point added after original publication)
• Dog park ban for all dogs with a history of aggression (which would need to be clearly defined & easy to report). Perhaps the dog park could be supervised like public pools are, and a fee could be charged to pay for that. Here’s one example of a supervised city-owned dog park in Fort Lauderdale.
• Visible Identification. Dogs wear a harness or collar with a very big ID # in public, making it easier to report them for violations.
• Muzzle law – all dogs over 30 pounds, say, muzzled in public.
• Hiring more animal control officers and an education campaign encouraging people to report people with dogs that violate leash laws. If we raised dog registration fees and/or got all dogs licensed, that money could be used to hire more officers. I think Seattle, the whole city, currently has only 2 animal control officers.
• Personal responsibility. Bigger fines / imprisonment for owners who’s dogs exhibit aggression directed at people.
• Mandatory for owners to pass a test on reading dog body language or other skills.
• Do a temperament test for all dogs in the city, and really make sure we get all dogs registered. If they fail the temperament test, restrictions are placed on them. If they pass, they aren’t restricted, but we may want to retest after the dog matures.

I’m not 100% against Breed Specific Legislation, if responsible owners can still keep their dogs without  suffering. I do NOT think BSL grabs the widest swath of the problem, however, and I will work to make sure that we are making Seattle safer from ALL breeds of dogs.  If Seattle does end up passing Breed Specific Legislation, perhaps people whose dog’s passed a temperament test could have a special collar their dogs get to wear, or an id card with a photo for the human, which would exempt them from any Breed Specific Legislation. The dog’s DNA could go on file somewhere as proof that it was that particular dog that passed. They might need retesting every 6 months if they are under 4 years old, say. Or the BSL restrictions could be manageable, like San Francisco’s law to fix all pit bulls.

One very sticky wicket is, how do would a law even define “pit bulls”? Does that include mixes, or only certain breeds that make up the pit bull family? That’s the way Toronto did it, mentioned above. There are those DNA tests, so that’s a possibility, though I’m not certain of the accuracy. Click here for the online quiz, “Find the Pit Bull.”  The vagueness of any definition of pit bull sets the city up for expensive lawsuits, and wastes time and energy.  If your great-great-grandmother was African American and all other relatives were white, would that make you white, or black? Do you still have to sit on the back of the bus?

These are, clearly, just some ideas, food for thought, some ways to start a conversation where we can come up with a workable solution. I welcome an intelligent conversation about this, with no opinions stated as fact and no name-calling or personal attacks from either side. Please leave your email address when you comment. I will NOT share it with anyone, but I need to be able to contact people to verify claims. If, for example, you say you’re a vet, I’d like to be able to verify that, but if you would like your place of business kept private on the web, I can do that. Comments will be monitored and spurious or anonymous comments may be deleted. I want a solution-focused discussion. Seattle needs one.

I think that unless a breeder is breeding for sociability and other good temperament traits, then they shouldn’t legally be able to sell their puppies. Not that it would stop the worst of the breeders, but in the main, we’d have better dogs for all families. If we continue to breed for looks instead of personality, we can’t be surprised at the fact that these cute dogs are biting and have too much energy!

In one well-known experiment, Dmitri Belyaev bred foxes for temperament, and in short order, got huge changes in looks (they started looking more like dogs, with floppy ears, as he bred for approachability). Looks and temperament are related, and you can’t breed for one without accidentally changing the other. As we breed for looks, we *are* changing the physical and mental health of the dog.

Anybody got a lawmaker in their pocket? Even a Seattle council member would be good, but I’d love to have a state legislator working on this (Washington or otherwise). Breeders need regulation – we need better laws for breeding dogs for temperament, instead of beauty. Or the American Kennel Club could step up to the plate and stop having “aloof,” “game,” “standoffish,” “feisty,” “protective,” or other such euphemisms to be part of the breed standard. They could stop breeding for ridiculous physical traits and reward breeders for finding two dogs with a lovely temperament and breeding them. Ah, but then the AKC would be cutting into their own profits. Or would they?

I know someone that insists on breeding her dogs. She does almost everything right – she focuses on one breed, she socialize the puppies right away, even does the Super Puppy “early neurological stimulation” protocol when they’re 3-18 days old (click to see a video of Early Neurological Stimulation). She encourages puppy socialization classes. The puppies are raised in the home, and she meticulously finds good homes for her puppies, and keeps in touch with the puppies in their new homes. She’d take them back in an instant. She only breeds her dogs every year or two. In a nutshell, everything after the conception of these puppies looks pretty good.

It’s not just nurture, though. It’s nature! I think she just has no idea that if her little dogs get into knock-down drag-out fights with each other on a daily basis, they might not be good breeding stock. These are not balanced, breedable dogs. They also growl at people and dogs that approach when they’re on the owner’s laps, and guard bones, toys, etc. Somehow, in a little dog, it’s “cute,” and breeders pass this behavior right on down the line.

It’s mitigated by socialization and training, but why can’t we just start with better dog stock in the first place? This same breeder laments that pit bulls should never have been bred to be aggressive (I’ll give you that!), while continuing to breed aggression into her own breed of choice. I think breeders ought to have some kind of license, and each dog that gets bred should have a temperament test before breeding, which shouldn’t start until the dog is 1.5 – 2 years old, so it has its adult temperament.

We could make it a reward-based system, where people who have this card are allowed to charge more, or punitive, where breeders without this card can’t sell their puppies. The market itself may reward such breeders, if the card existed.

Part of the idea for licensing the breeder is to teach them about early socialization and also about what “sound temperament” and “sociability” means. I heard about an obesity program the other day. It was failing miserably, didn’t get much interest, until they educated people about what “obese” meant. They had thought they were just fine, not obese, and that the program didn’t apply to them. After education, these people joined up and lost lots of weight. A similar thing needs to happen with breeders, to help them see, objectively, whether their dogs are of sound temperament.

My breeder friend knows that I don’t think she should be breeding her dogs, but then says the following to me: “some one has to make the puppies for you to train. Think of it as job security!” All puppies need socialization, even the ones with good genes. But even if all dogs had sound temperaments, so sound that they magically didn’t need puppy class, I’d rather have no job at all than have puppies bred to have character flaws, so that I can improve them through socialization. Besides, even Lassie needed training, so I think I’d still have a future as a dog trainer.

I think the answer to the question, “Why don’t breeders select for temperament?” is lack of motivation, lack of knowledge, and perhaps lack of breeding stock. There’s no reason not to breed the two dogs they just happen to have, or maybe they’re breeding the best of their three. They still get money, they may not know their dog isn’t sound, since all German Shepherds they know are fearful, too. It’s time to stop making excuses, and start breeding good dogs!

[You may want to read the HSUS article on choosing a breeder.]

Just don’t have a time schedule in mind, and get off of the bus before your puppy gets tired of all of the excitement. That may be one stop or your puppy may be ready for a ride to downtown Seattle. Better yet, take the bus to someplace calm, like the Washington Park Arboretum or out to the suburbs. That way, your puppy has a break to calm down and get some exercise between bus rides.

King County Metro bus system has a FAQ at http://transit.metrokc.gov/cs/faq/faq_answers_cs.html The animal policy from that page is as follows:

“Service animals for persons with disabilities ride the bus without charge, as do small dogs that will fit in their owners’ laps. Large dogs, leashed, pay the same bus fare as their owner and may not occupy a seat, but should ride on the floor of the bus next to their owner.”

“Other animals, cats, etc. that are not service animals must be carried in appropriate pet carriers.”When Peanut was a puppy, I was teaching math at Seattle U and took him to work with me every day. My dogs had their own bus passes. Bring lots of treats, be ready to use “leave it” and keep an eye on your dog. You may be amazed at how many chicken bones your dog can find on the bus in Seattle.

We have a full list of other how-to tips and dog training articles on aggression, resource guarding, puppy socialization, pulling on leash, and more, including an article about how the training on the “Dog Whisperer” is inhumane in the  Ahimsa Dog Blog.

Why it’s important to still take your puppy to a training & socialization class:

Don’t miss this chance. Your puppy is only a puppy once! Click here to read more about How to Socialize Your Puppy.