Mum?

What are you to your dog?

It seems many otherwise apparently rational people are defining themselves as "mum" in this dog-human relationship. Can we just think about that for a second?

I am not a parent. Nor am I a "dog parent". I have utmost respect for those who are parents, and I would never presume to compare the responsibility of owning a dog with the responsibility of having a child. I would never say the relationship I have with one of my dogs is comparable to the relationship between me and my parents - I think that concept is fairly insulting whichever way you look at it.

Any parent who routinely left their child home alone for several hours, put a tag on their neck in case they got lost, refused to let them on furniture, hosed them off after running naked in the mud, fed them off the floor, and made them travel in cages in the car would have some pretty serious questions to answer.

I confess I cringe when I hear trainers say "go to mummy" or "listen to your dad". The other day someone told me my training advice was not relevant as my lifestyle was "different to Benji's mum". Well I should darn well hope so, as Benji's mum was a dog.

I am not my dogs' mother, I did not give birth to them and I do not expect them to grow up to carry on the family name or organise family birthday parties. I do not expect them go to university, vote, get jobs or National Insurance numbers. They are dogs. I expect them to act like dogs, look like dogs, think like dogs, play like dogs, sound and smell like dogs. Do I even need to start listing the ways your children should not act, look, think, play, sound or smell like dogs?

So what am I? What are my dogs to me?

Legally I am an owner. My dogs are possessions, chattels; I can sell, give or will them to whoever I choose. Legally I am responsible for their behaviour, and I am not permitted to let them out alone - does that make me their keeper?

Legally and morally I am also responsible for their welfare and wellbeing - a concept that cannot be applied to your car, even if you give it a name and insist it has a personality.

Dogs are capable of their own thoughts, feelings and decisions, and capable of responding to my emotions. Ethically I could never view something that interacts in a two way relationship as merely a possession. They know if I am happy, sad, disappointed, tired, excited, nervous, and in turn their emotions can influence mine. I let them run free, and they choose to return home with me, they like being with me, they feel safe with me.

I am not a pack leader, as my dogs are not a pack, but I must be some kind of a leader. I control access to resources - the freezer, walks, toys. I decide where and when we walk or play, when and what we eat, and what we watch on TV. But I am a benevolent leader, I think; I certainly aim to respect my dogs' preferences and feelings wherever possible. I aim for them to trust me and to cooperate without force, I negotiate not dictate.

I am also a playmate. Long before we get anywhere near agility my dogs play with me. We invent our own rules, each dog plays differently, they have their own quirks, but so do I, they learn to share toys, they learn there are boundaries, and I love to see them having fun.

In agility, well that is just another game, but when it goes well, we are a team. The level of communication in getting a dog accurately around a tricky course at full speed is an amazing feeling, it does not happen overnight, and it certainly doesn't happen every time I step into the ring.

What else is my relationship with my dogs? I hope, most of all, a friend. When Alf leans on my legs and tips his head back to gaze at me, when Basil curls up in the non-existent gap between me and the chair arm just to be close, I think it is because they love me, and they know I love them.

My dogs, my friends.

Alan Titchmarsh

I don't make a habit of watching Alan Titchmarsh's afternoon show - apart from anything else I am normally at work - but even as an ambivalent non-viewer I was sorry to hear he was having the notorious Cesar Millan as a guest on his show.

As someone who finds Cesar Millan's programmes, methods and influence an ongoing and depressing problem in both my work rehoming rescue dogs and my hobby teaching pet dogs, I was disappointed to hear that another TV show was giving him airtime.  I assumed he would use this time to blind us with his white teeth (certainly not with science), and to promote his upcoming arena tour.

That may well have been Cesar's intention, but what happened was something quite different, and quite unexpected.

If it hadn't been for the heads up on various dog forums I would not have watched it at all.  But from the comments I was seeing from people I know and trust, I knew I had to see it and finally at 7pm I got onto Youtube to see what all the fuss was about.

I sat through the first few minutes unimpressed, this was standard Cesar, his humble beginnings, his journey to the USA, his belief that he has a natural understanding of dogs, his psychology centre.  He is charming, he has a(n allegedly) cute accent, he smiles a lot.  Usually I would have switched off by now.

Then fluffy, cuddly, mild little Alan Titchmarsh surprised me, surprised a nation of dog lovers, and quietly stood up for dogs everywhere.  When Alan described what he had seen in videos, dogs being punched and kicked, he mentioned spike and electric collars, and from his actions and body language I could tell he had watched the footage and watched the dogs, and he had felt for those dogs being hurt.

Alan came across as very genuine, very sincere, and that is what worked.  He is not an expert on dogs or dog training, he spoke as "normal bloke" who likes dogs, has a pet dog, he found what he saw to be "unacceptable" and the methods "barbaric".  He hardly raised his voice, he used no jargon, and he asked some very straightforward questions.

Cesar failed to give any meaningful answers.  My favourite part was when asked why he didn't use food rewards, he offered a totally random anecdote about a parrot.

By the end I was tearful, choked up, something totally unlike me.  I went and posted a thank you on the show's facebook page - again something totally unlike me.

Thank you on behalf of my dogs?  What kind of soppy bunnyhugging nonsense is that? 

When you have personally worked with so many dogs who flinch away from hands, who are scared of having any collar on, who run away from the sight of a clicker thinking it is a shock collar remote control, when you see a puppy pinned for hanging on to a toy, dogs who have been taught not to growl, taught that no-one listens when they are scared, who have been labelled aggressive, unrehomable, and when you have seen how hard it is to rebuild their trust, and still years down the line there is a memory and a fear, and you know it was all absolutely avoidable, then you might understand. 

People who copy Cesar's methods damage dogs.  I know this first hand.  I have never met a dog Cesar himself has worked with, but I know that despite what it says on the screen people do try the things they see him do, they try their own interpretations, and their relationship with their dog suffers.  I have met plenty of dogs damaged by his methods.

Often the owners damage themselves too, as they do not have his quick reactions and instinct to protect themselves - often they get bitten.

This is not a hate campaign, this is not personal, and unlike the vocal minority on certain newspaper websites today, I certainly don't want to torture Cesar Millan or even shout at him.  I want to educate him.  This is about making a choice to use humane, scientifically proven, kind, effective training.  In conjunction with good management, it works. 

Yesterday could be the turning of the tide, it is time society saw through these outdated ways of training dogs, not just the scientists, the trainers, the experts, but all of us, dog owners and non-dog owners alike.

Well done, Alan, very well done!

New house

It is now nearly two months since we all moved to the new house.  The stress on the humans was considerable.  Everything takes so much longer than you think it possibly could, packing things, carrying things, sorting things, folding things, putting things in a safe place and never being able to find them again, cleaning things, breaking things, wondering why you even have so many things!?!

Eventually all our possessions were in the new house, and all we wanted to do was sleep, but my brain refused as the wall was in the wrong place.  So was the door, the window, oh and the stairs, which shouldn't even exist according to my bungalow-acclimatised logic.  We solved the wall/door thing by moving the bed, but the stairs I just had to get used to.

The dogs had to (re)learn a few new rules. 

Thou shalt not barge thy furry self past me on the stairs.  How is this different to thou shalt not barge thy furry self past me in doorways or corridors?  I have no idea, I guess you have to be furry to know, but thankfully that one sunk in very quickly.

Thou shalt sit in thy appointed spot while thy dinner is prepared and served.  Different kitchen, different spots.  Confusion reigned.

Thou shalt not chase cats in the garden.  Not convinced we have solved this, as such, but the neighbourhood cats appear to have opted out of the training process.

The good news is, three dogs have settled wonderfully.  But as I feared, Alf struggled.  He was fine for the first couple of weeks, after all, he is used to travelling with me, he has stayed in hotels, caravans, tents, holiday cottages and visited different friends and family with me for all the time I have had him. 

But after about ten days, he started to wonder when we were going home. 

His anxiety levels continued to rise, he was following me to the loo and waiting outside for me in case I flung myself out of the window.  Of course, not all dogs who follow their people around indoors are a cause for concern, and many people have perfectly well-balanced dogs who like to accompany them at all times but it is not normal for Alf to be a velcro dog at all.

It is not usual for him to sit on my feet in case I move, leap off his bed if I look at the front door, or lie across the bedroom doorway at night in case I leave home under cover of darkness.  Even when I'm driving along I can feel his gaze drilling into the back of my head.  

He came out in flakes on his legs, and a rash on his face, and was itching himself to bits.  Although I was convinced it was mainly stress, he went back on all the allergy treatments from last year, as well as what felt like all the herbal anxiety treatments in the world - poor rattling dog!

He is not the only dog to find moving house stressful.  I know of dogs who have started fighting, dogs who forget their housetraining, dogs who destroy sofas... oh no hang on, the sofa was Alf last time I moved.

Thankfully, his flakiness and itchiness has almost gone now, and he has started to settle down and relax more.

Hopefully soon he will accept we are all staying put, and won't feel he needs to keep such a close eye on me.  I do keep promising him I am not about to run away to sea - I don't even have a passport!

Lennox

The Save Lennox campaign came to an end yesterday, as Lennox was "humanely put to sleep" by Belfast City Council, a sad end to over two years of legal wrangling, accusations and counter-accusations, leaks, politics, protests and petitions.

Was Lennox dangerous?  Was he a Pit Bull type?  I don't know the answers, and that is almost no longer the point.  Lennox has become a poster boy, in his death he will be turned into a martyr for a cause, and his case has brought BSL to the attention of many people who neither knew nor cared about the legalities of the shape of dogs before this.

First and foremost, Lennox was a victim of a short-sighted law that caused him to be seized purely on the basis of his appearance.  Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 banned certain breeds of dog.  In the case of "Pit Bull types", the document used was published in the USA in 1977.  Pit Bull Terriers have never been recognised by the UK Kennel Club as a breed, so there is no UK documentation that could have been used, and this is why the law refers to a type not a breed.  Bear in mind, at this time six month quarantine rules had been in force for nearly 100 years for dogs entering the country, and it seems to me extremely unlikely that the UK population of "underground" pitbulls would have had much genetic overlap with the USA population of show bred American Pit Bull Terriers.

Even supposing the ADBA description of a pedigree show American Pit Bull Terrier was appropriate for an unregistered fighting-bred pitbull type on a different continent, that 1977 description was 14 years old at the time of the legislation, and a further 21 years have passed since then.  I would not be surprised if in dog fighting circles 21 years equates to about 21 generations of dogs.

21 generations of selective breeding in any species can reap huge changes in both temperament and physical characteristics.  Where is the evidence that the law is even looking for the right thing in 2012?

People tend to assume the look and character of a dog breed is a fixed thing.  They think if you breed a Spotted Flooping Hound with another Spotted Flooping Hound, they will all look the same, forever.  This is not true, as not all Spotted Flooping Hounds will have the same number of spots, and within a few generations a breeder could easily select the most or least spotted examples, and the kennel down the road could do the opposite.  In a few years you could have a new breed, the Lesser Spotted Flooping Hound.  The debate on whether this is a breed, a line, a strain or even a crossbreed comes down to paperwork and politics, and is a complete red herring for this discussion, as anyone breeding pitbull types or other illegal fighting breeds in this country is not going to be attempting to register them with the Kennel Club anyway.

In show breeding, breeds tend towards physical conformity, and a line up in the breed ring can be like a house of mirrors where the same image repeats and repeats.  In many breeds, the focus on aesthetics has distracted from temperament and the original qualities of the breed have been lost.  Not all terriers show an inclination to kill small furry things.  Not all gundogs show hunting or retrieving instincts.  Not all collies show herding instincts.  In the same way, breeds originally used for fighting, bear-baiting or bull-baiting are generally accepted to now be perfectly safe pet dogs to own, as this temperament has been bred away from (e.g Boxer, Bulldog, Mastiff).

In contrast, when breeding working dogs, breeds tend towards a generally similar appearance, but working strains show far more variety in coat and type than their show counterparts - look at the working sheepdogs you see on farms or at trials, and they are all different.  They would be mostly black and white and medium sized, but not all symmetrically marked, not all one type of ear set, not all one coat length, but all selected and valued for their working ability and aptitude.  Put a working sheepdog in the show ring and you would get laughed out of town, but if you need some sheep fetching, many show collies would not have a clue.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this.  I find it very unlikely that fighting rings would see any benefit in breeding dogs to correspond with a description of a show dog from 1977.  I suspect it is much more likely that they would breed for working ability, and in this case, this means selecting for a certain amount of size and muscle, an unpleasant, aggressive, stubborn temperament, and not fine detail of their physical appearance such as length or width of head, shape of tail, thickness of legs.

The "ideal" fighting dog could have changed immensely in the 21 generations bred since 1991, it could be a cross of any number of breeds, with or without pitbull, and could end up measuring up nothing like any of the breeds banned in the DDA.  It may still end up in court on the grounds of its behaviour, but that does not excuse the "incidental" killings of staffie crosses, lab crosses, mastiff crosses, who just happen to grow up to measure similar to a pitbull type. 

There is no proven correlation between aggression and any specific physical characteristics.  The DDA is therefore fundamentally flawed.

Lennox was only one dog, but literally hundreds of dogs have died under the DDA since 1991, most of which had never bitten anyone and were arguably not dangerous.  They died due to a hastily written law that says they look wrong, and takes no account of their parentage, or most importantly their behaviour.  Whatever the rights and wrongs on either side in the Lennox case, let the focus be on the fact that his first mistake was that he looked wrong, and in the end that is why he died.