lost dog found, but already adopted

[Cate]

Have you heard this story? It infuriates me. What doesn't make any sense
is that the original owners were at the shelter every day looking for
Bella--and she was there the whole time. If the Humane Society has
explained how that can happen, it hasn't been reported. The cynical side
of me thinks a shelter volunteer was holding Bella for a friend, keeping
her out of sight, out of the kennels.

S.J. WOMAN LEARNS PAINFUL LESSON ON ANIMAL SHELTERS' RULES
By Connie Skipitares
Mercury News

This lost-dog tale almost had a happy ending.

Niki Karanastasis couldn't believe her luck at finding her 2-year-old
golden retriever, Bella, at the Humane Society six days after the dog
escaped her San Jose yard. But the reunion turned to heartbreak when she
learned her beloved pet had been adopted by a new owner just hours
before.

Officials at the Humane Society Silicon Valley offered a brief apology,
but said five days is the limit they shelter stray dogs picked up
without ID tags before putting them up for adoption.

``I couldn't believe it. How could this happen?'' Karanastasis, a 44-
year-old hairdresser, asked as she broke into tears. ``I was looking at
her, playing with her, but I couldn't have her. How could they tell me,
`You don't own this dog?' ''

Humane Society officials say they understand Karanastasis' anguish, but
their hands are tied.

``This is a difficult situation and I do feel bad for the owner,'' said
Christine Benninger, president of the Humane Society. ``But we're
following state law here. After five days, the Humane Society becomes
owner.''

full story:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7745335.htm

Cate

[shelly]

Post by Cate
Have you heard this story? It infuriates me.

the thought of that happening to either of my dogs makes me
feel sick.

Post by Cate
What doesn't make any sense is that the original owners were
at the shelter every day looking for Bella--and she was there
the whole time.

the story doesn't say she looked every day, but it does say
she looked multiple times. i would be beyond furious if i'd
checked the shelter multiple times and my dog was there the
whole time, even if it weren't adopted by someone else.
where *was* the dog? and, presumably the shelter knew what
sort of dog the owner was searching for. surely they should
have shown her every GR currently there?

i can understand why the shelter can't take a dog away from
it's new adopters just because the former owner waltzes back
into the picture, but why can't there be a fail-safe for when
the shelter messes up? i realize the new adopters' ownership
rights need to be protected, but this seems hideously unfair
to me.

all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!

[Gwen Watson]

Post by shelly
all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!
--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

Thanks for the reminder Shelly. Reznor's next conformation
show has a microchip clinic as well as an eye clinic. I plan
on doing both.

Gwen

[shelly]

Post by Gwen Watson
Thanks for the reminder Shelly. Reznor's next conformation
show has a microchip clinic as well as an eye clinic. I plan
on doing both.

good! considering the good arguments against keeping collars
on unattended dogs, it makes good sense to chip (and/or
tattoo).

now *i* need to remember to order new tags from the AKC for my
dogs. elliott's still got his original rubbery yellow tag,
but the number is bleeding pretty badly. harriet lost hers,
and now has her number written in Sharpie on her collar.

[David H]

Post by shelly
good! considering the good arguments against keeping collars
on unattended dogs,

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why are you not suppose to keep a
collar on unattended dogs?

David

[Gwen Watson]

Post by David H

Post by shelly
good! considering the good arguments against keeping collars
on unattended dogs,

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why are you not suppose to keep a
collar on unattended dogs?
David

I do. But there is a chance/possibility that your dog could choke
to death in a case in which the collar got hung. One thing that
recently went around was two dog households in which
one of the dogs while playing gets their teeth/mouth
hung in other dogs collar. The other dogs chokes to
death because the owner can not get the collar off
in time.

Gwen

[Shelley]

I don't have a collar on Rusty at all anymore. I put on his prong collar
when we walk, but other than that he never wears one. When Rusty was 6
months old we went through 5 or 6 different collars trying to find one that
didn't chafe at his neck. We tried nylon buckle, nylon with the clip,
leather, leather with deerskin backing, and a couple others and all of them
left scabs on his neck from where they rubbed and ever since he has had no
fur on the under side of his neck. We gave up with collars when we moved to
our new house and knew that he'd be safe in our back yard - it's the first
place we've lived where it is completely fenced in (although we never leave
him out there when nobody's around - we still watch him out there). Finally
starting about a month ago we noticed that a little bit of fur is starting
to come back in. We certainly will think twice before putting a collar back
on him again, though.
--
Shelley & Rusty
http://www.bump.us/rusty

Post by Gwen Watson

Post by David H

Post by shelly
good! considering the good arguments against keeping collars
on unattended dogs,

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why are you not suppose to keep a
collar on unattended dogs?
David

I do. But there is a chance/possibility that your dog could choke
to death in a case in which the collar got hung. One thing that
recently went around was two dog households in which
one of the dogs while playing gets their teeth/mouth
hung in other dogs collar. The other dogs chokes to
death because the owner can not get the collar off
in time.
Gwen

[Cate]

Post by David H
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why are you not suppose to keep a
collar on unattended dogs?

I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a personal decision.

In addition to the two-dog scenario--which I posted about here last month,
I think--I once came home to find my dog attached by his collar to a
heating vent on the floor. I've no idea how long he was like that.

So now my dog doesn't wear a collar when inside.

Cate

[shelly]

Post by Cate
I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a
personal decision.

yep. it's something each owner is going to have to weigh the
pros and cons of.

Post by Cate
I once came home to find my dog attached by his collar to a
heating vent on the floor. I've no idea how long he was like
that.

i was trying to remember whose dog got stuck that way! i've
been waffling on whether take my dogs' collars off when
they're indoors. i worry about the safety aspect
(specifically, that i have loose, worrisome floor vents), but
i also worry about them getting out while they're nekkid.
they're good about waiting, but all it takes is seeing one
rabbit for them to lose their branes.

[Tee]

Post by shelly

Post by Cate
I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a
personal decision.

yep. it's something each owner is going to have to weigh the
pros and cons of.

Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons is that if the
dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence gates, an uncollared dog is often
viewed, by both the public & animal control, as a street walker/stray.
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in and never
reporting it to the authorities.

[Cate]

Post by Tee
Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons is that
if the dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence gates, an uncollared
dog is often viewed, by both the public & animal control, as a street
walker/stray. Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the
dog in and never reporting it to the authorities.

I think that's why this story has me in such a lather--because this could
happen to me. Luckily, Orson doesn't count escaping the yard or the house
among his goals.

Ok, there was the time in the early days he got out (it only took that one
time for DH to learn to latch the back gate) and held the mailman at bay in
the street.

Cate

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Tee

Post by shelly

Post by Cate
I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a
personal decision.

yep. it's something each owner is going to have to weigh the
pros and cons of.

Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons is that if the
dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence gates, an uncollared dog is often
viewed, by both the public & animal control, as a street walker/stray.
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in and never
reporting it to the authorities.
--
Tara

And there in lies the pro I view as the most important. Even though non
of my dogs are very likely to bolt out the door and take off. One never
knows. And since Reznor is intact and will remain so for quite a while
I certainly am not willing to take that risk. But he is also getting
microchipped
in a few weeks too.

Gwen

[Paula]

Post by Gwen Watson

Post by Tee

Post by shelly

Post by Cate
I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a
personal decision.

yep. it's something each owner is going to have to weigh the
pros and cons of.

Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons is that if the
dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence gates, an uncollared dog is often
viewed, by both the public & animal control, as a street walker/stray.
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in and never
reporting it to the authorities.
--
Tara

And there in lies the pro I view as the most important. Even though non
of my dogs are very likely to bolt out the door and take off. One never
knows. And since Reznor is intact and will remain so for quite a while
I certainly am not willing to take that risk. But he is also getting
microchipped
in a few weeks too.

Just thinking out loud here, but if JQP finds him and doesn't turn him
into a shelter, a microchip might not help. I would tattoo as well.
Would that affect showing at all?

I still miss the boxer girl we had here for a short time, but I can't
totally regret returning her. Even if it wasn't the best dog home,
they did miss their dog.

[Judy]

Post by Paula
Just thinking out loud here, but if JQP finds him and doesn't turn him
into a shelter, a microchip might not help. I would tattoo as well.
Would that affect showing at all?

Every show dog I know is tatooed. Our dogs' breeder does it before the
litter leaves for any new homes.

You can ignore it if you want to keep the dog anyway. Usually it's high
inside a hind leg. Doesn't take much hair before it's not noticeable unless
you look.

~~Judy

[shelly]

Post by Tee
Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons
is that if the dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence
gates, an uncollared dog is often viewed, by both the public
& animal control, as a street walker/stray.

absolutely, which is why i'm still waffling. my dogs don't
bolt (and are good about "wait"ing), but they *do* tend to
lose their branes when they see critters.

Post by Tee
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in
and never reporting it to the authorities.

yes, but after hearing people who *ought* to know better
support keeping loose dogs (both here and IRL), i'm pretty
pessimistic about the chances of someone finding my dog and
returning it, whether it's got ID or not.

so, i'm still waffling.

[Gwen Watson]

Post by shelly
yes, but after hearing people who *ought* to know better
support keeping loose dogs (both here and IRL), i'm pretty
pessimistic about the chances of someone finding my dog and
returning it, whether it's got ID or not.
so, i'm still waffling.
--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

Yep. I am almost certain no one who found Reznor would return
him.

Blade OTOH would be returned ASAP, I am fairly sure. He is such
a handful. Though there is that mentality around here that might just
see that as a grand ole asset to have being quite the handful and stick
him outside on a 6' chain.:(((((((((

Clovis depending on who took her, and what other animals
they had in the house as well as kiddos depends. Some may
be likely to keep her and others would bring her back ASAP.

Gwen

[Debbie S]

From: ***@ig.utexas.edu

<Blade OTOH would be returned ASAP, I am fairly sure. >

Not necessarily. <EG>

Signed,
No one you know.

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Debbie S
<Blade OTOH would be returned ASAP, I am fairly sure. >
Not necessarily. <EG>
Signed,
No one you know.

LOL, now I know I need to be on the lookout for him too.

Gwen

[Michelle]

Post by shelly

Post by Tee
Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons
is that if the dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence
gates, an uncollared dog is often viewed, by both the public
& animal control, as a street walker/stray.

absolutely, which is why i'm still waffling. my dogs don't
bolt (and are good about "wait"ing), but they *do* tend to
lose their branes when they see critters.

Have you considered the breakaway collars? I have the fear that my new
dog may bolt out of the door if we are not really careful (he hasn't fully
learned his manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on them when
they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will use regular
collars for walks etc.

Post by shelly

Post by Tee
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in
and never reporting it to the authorities.

yes, but after hearing people who *ought* to know better
support keeping loose dogs (both here and IRL), i'm pretty
pessimistic about the chances of someone finding my dog and
returning it, whether it's got ID or not.
so, i'm still waffling.

I live in an area where most ppl have dogs and a lot of them are left out
during the day in 4 ft. cyclone fences (old military town) and I can't
imagine keeping loose dogs. I have had over a dozen escapees here in the
last year and I make the calls to owners ask about shot status and keep them
until the owners can get here. There is nothing unusual about dogs at large
here and I have only called AC once about a Chow mix that would not come to
me and jumps fences like they are not even there.

A loose dog does not mean an uncared for dog, don't these ppl consider how
they would feel if someone kept their pet?

Michelle

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Michelle
Have you considered the breakaway collars? I have the fear that my new
dog may bolt out of the door if we are not really careful (he hasn't fully
learned his manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on them when
they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will use regular
collars for walks etc.

I have considered these
collars, until I heard from several persons in my Agility Club that they
work too good, ie they don't stay on.

Gwen

[Paula]

Post by Gwen Watson

Post by Michelle
Have you considered the breakaway collars? I have the fear that my new
dog may bolt out of the door if we are not really careful (he hasn't fully
learned his manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on them when
they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will use regular
collars for walks etc.

I have considered these
collars, until I heard from several persons in my Agility Club that they
work too good, ie they don't stay on.
Gwen

I use them and they are okay. I have only lost one or two. I wasn't
there either time, so I am not sure what they were up to when they
lost one. I have always figured they were wrestling or something and
losing it was a good thing. It may or may not be true, but it makes
me feel better about replacing collars. :) I don't use them for
walking dogs who are not really calm and good with recalls because I
don't want to chance a pull turning into a chase. I think they are
well worth it. My kids are a lot better now about doors and such and
the dogs are pretty good about waiting, but I am still not a hundred
percent sure that the kids won't leave a door ajar when something too
interesting is going on outside. Better safe than sorry, so I'll
replace them if I have to.

[shelly]

Post by Michelle
Have you considered the breakaway collars?

no, i hadn't, but that's what we call a $4 idea! i just took
a look, and they aren't at all what i was picturing. i
assumed they were like break-away cat collars (IOW, you
couldn't walk the dog with one). they're not, though. thank
you!

http://www.keepsafecollar.com/

Post by Michelle
I have the fear that my new dog may bolt out of the door if
we are not really careful (he hasn't fully learned his
manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on them when
they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will
use regular collars for walks etc.

i like to leave collars on mine when they're playing outside,
because that's when they're at the greatest risk of getting
loose. a certain dog who will remain nameless thinks that
digging out under the fence is barrels of fun. i've secured
it, but i still worry. and then there's little miss "i
*could" jump the fence if i wanted to." so far, she hasn't
wanted to. (knock on wood)

Post by Michelle
a Chow mix that would not come to me and jumps fences like
they are not even there.

shhh, or elliott will overhear you. i don't think it's
occurred to him that he could go *over* the fence, and i like
it that way.

Post by Michelle
A loose dog does not mean an uncared for dog, don't these
ppl consider how they would feel if someone kept their pet?

you'd think so, wouldn't you? i'm amazed at how many people
think it's perfectly okay to keep a loose dog. after all,
accidents *never* happen to responsible owners, right? blech.

[Michelle]

Post by shelly

Post by Michelle
Have you considered the breakaway collars?

no, i hadn't, but that's what we call a $4 idea! i just took
a look, and they aren't at all what i was picturing. i
assumed they were like break-away cat collars (IOW, you
couldn't walk the dog with one). they're not, though. thank
you!
http://www.keepsafecollar.com/

I am hoping they work well, if not it is a fairly inexpensive
experiment, as long as I don't lose a dog...

Post by shelly

Post by Michelle
I have the fear that my new dog may bolt out of the door if
we are not really careful (he hasn't fully learned his
manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on them when
they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will
use regular collars for walks etc.

i like to leave collars on mine when they're playing outside,
because that's when they're at the greatest risk of getting
loose. a certain dog who will remain nameless thinks that
digging out under the fence is barrels of fun. i've secured
it, but i still worry. and then there's little miss "i
*could" jump the fence if i wanted to." so far, she hasn't
wanted to. (knock on wood)

I worry as they wrestle like a couple of angry bears and I would hate for
them to get hurt. I am lucky in the sense that I have five windows facing
my back yard so I can keep an eagle eye on them and they do not even stand
on the fence (yet) and I hope they never learn..

Post by shelly

Post by Michelle
a Chow mix that would not come to me and jumps fences like
they are not even there.

shhh, or elliott will overhear you. i don't think it's
occurred to him that he could go *over* the fence, and i like
it that way.

Post by Michelle
A loose dog does not mean an uncared for dog, don't these
ppl consider how they would feel if someone kept their pet?

you'd think so, wouldn't you? i'm amazed at how many people
think it's perfectly okay to keep a loose dog. after all,
accidents *never* happen to responsible owners, right? blech.
-- Exactly, I am thankful that when I did have an escapee (wolf/mal x)

years ago the one time someone tried to put him in their van the dogcatcher
saw them and recognized my dog and rescued him.... I call owners and have
been know to stop traffic etc. to retrieve dogs as I hope others would do
that for me..

By the way your dogs are ADORABLE!!! And both had sad beginnings but it
is obvious they are very loved now!!!
Michelle

[shelly]

Post by Michelle
I am hoping they work well, if not it is a fairly
inexpensive experiment, as long as I don't lose a dog...

exactly. i figure, for that price, i can afford to buy
replacements if they do lose their collars. better safe than
sorry.

Post by Michelle
I worry as they wrestle like a couple of angry bears and I
would hate for them to get hurt.

yeah, mine like to do WWF wrestling. they've even managed to
wear down a "wrestling mat" in the center of the yard, where
the grass is ground down into tiny nubs. they also drag each
other around by their faces and necks, which is what concerns
me most.

Post by Michelle
they do not even stand on the fence (yet) and I hope they
never learn..

hopefully! mine have been taught to keep their feet off the
gate, but i haven't been as diligent about making them keep
their feet off the fence. i used heavier livestock fencing
this time, though, and it holds up better to that sort of
abuse than the welded wire type fencing. the only problem
with livestock fencing is that the dogs think they should
stick their heads through it to graze on the grass on the
other side. they look like an itty bitty herd of cows <G>.
*very* silly.

Post by Michelle
Exactly, I am thankful that when I did have an escapee
(wolf/mal x) years ago the one time someone tried to put him
in their van the dogcatcher saw them and recognized my dog
and rescued him.... I call owners and have been know to stop
traffic etc. to retrieve dogs as I hope others would do that
for me..

yep. when i lived in town, i was a terrible busy body when it
came to wandering dogs. i'm not as apt to stop and pick them
up now, because i know where most of them live and their
owners just don't care that they're out in the road. right
now, there's a little buff Cocker who's tugging at my
heartstrings. his family lives on a bad curve, and they
refuse to keep him contained. i've almost hit him on a couple
of occasions, and have told the owners about it (hint:
you're dog's in danger!), but they said they didn't have any
use for a dog who's too stupid to stay out of the road.
aaargh!

Post by Michelle
By the way your dogs are ADORABLE!!! And both had sad
beginnings but it is obvious they are very loved now!!!

thank you! they're (mostly) a lot of fun to live with. at
least i know that i'll never be bored!

[The Puppy Wizard]

I don't now whether Peach is dead or alive.
I do know she's not here with us. I really
can't blame anyone here for her loss.
I'm the one who ignored your advice. I did
it because of how you write/wrote. I was
unwilling to accept the idea that my using
a shock collar could have any bearing on
Peach not wanting to stay home.
Up until I started using it my main concern
had been keeping my dogs in their own yard.
Once I started using the e-fence...well, then
my concern became how to keep them from
running off for days on end.
I lost valuable training time becoming
embroiled in the anti-shock debate and
the "Jerry sux" tirades.
I lost one dog but I have the bestest dog in
the world now <g>
A Wits End Trained dog, one who is
completely housetrained, doesn't chew
up stuff, stays in the yard, and doesn't bark
all the time.
IOW a great companion and friend.
Thanks Jerry!

=====================

We just installed a PetSafe brand fence
this Spring. Two dogs, two collars We
now have one dog and no collars.
Peach and Zelda would run thru the fence,
not want to come back in the yard and would
run for days. The last time, Peach didn't come
back home.
I used the Wit's End Training Manual to learn
how to train my dog. She is now border trained.
A few minutes each day reinforces her desire to
stay in the yard.
She no longer runs out into the road, I can
stop her from chasing cats and she no longer
cringes when we walk around the yard.
I can not say loud or long enough how much
I hate the e-fence and its collars. If you can't
get a regular fence then you need to train your
dog. I will never rely on an electronic collar to
keep my dog in our yard again.
The price was too high:-(
~misty

============

Post by shelly

Post by Tee
Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons
is that if the dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence
gates, an uncollared dog is often viewed, by both the public
& animal control, as a street walker/stray.

absolutely, which is why i'm still waffling. my dogs don't
bolt (and are good about "wait"ing), but they *do* tend to
lose their branes when they see critters.

Have you considered the breakaway collars? I have the fear

that my new

dog may bolt out of the door if we are not really careful (he

hasn't fully

learned his manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on

them when

they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will use regular
collars for walks etc.

Post by shelly

Post by Tee
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in
and never reporting it to the authorities.

yes, but after hearing people who *ought* to know better
support keeping loose dogs (both here and IRL), i'm pretty
pessimistic about the chances of someone finding my dog and
returning it, whether it's got ID or not.
so, i'm still waffling.

I live in an area where most ppl have dogs and a lot of them are left out
during the day in 4 ft. cyclone fences (old military town) and I can't
imagine keeping loose dogs. I have had over a dozen escapees

here in the

last year and I make the calls to owners ask about shot status

and keep them

until the owners can get here. There is nothing unusual about

dogs at large

here and I have only called AC once about a Chow mix that would not come to
me and jumps fences like they are not even there.
A loose dog does not mean an uncared for dog, don't these ppl consider how
they would feel if someone kept their pet?
Michelle

[The Puppy Wizard]

Meeting Scientific Critterier In A Death Match - Re:
Do people actually still advocate the Koehler method?

HOWEDY lt. joel,

Wayne,
The short answer is yes.

The even shorter answer is to not answer at all, lt. joel.

Door barging can be prevented by teaching your dog
to sit and heel through the door.

Yeah? What happens when you remove the leash? HOWE
long does it take to train a dog not to barge through
a door when you're not walking IT on a leash?


Takes my students maybe twenty minutes to train a
GREEN dog not to go through a doorway. ANY doorway,
lt. joel. Or not to do ANYTHING else... it's all the
same same, lt. joel. That is, if you know HOWE to
train a dog, lt. joel.

Make sure you manage your dog so he never has the
opportunity to run through the door off leash.

You mean, AVOID the door barging...

If he does: getting outside, running around, having his owner
chase him, etc. can all be tremendous rewards.

You worry about "self rewarding behaviors" because you
got no MOORE effective REWARDS than your measley
treats, lt. joel.


Perhaps THAT'S HOWE COME for the dog, getting loose is
MOORE rewarding than staying in his HOWES? The dog KNOWS
you're gonna BRIBE him to come back.


That in itself is enough REWARD to train the dog
to RUN AWAY so you can catch him and offer your
REWARD for gettin him back. If he's HUNGRY, that is.

Acts that result in big rewards are hard to change.

Is that so, lt. joel? You think BONANZA rewards are
valued MOORE than chintzy rewards, like "GOOD BOY?"

Management is the first step.

You mean AVOID the problem, lt. joel.

If you train your dog in a positive reinforcement method

Positive reinforcement, lt. joel?


You mean FOOD BRIBES, lt. joel.

(lure&reward, clicker, SOAR),

BWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I've never bribed nobody,
lt. joel. I figger if I can't convince them,
then I got to get the heel outta there... or fight.


That's HOWE COME we're here, lt. joel. I can't
convince our EXPERTS that bribing and choking
and shocking dogs is DEAD WRONG.


So, since I'm not fixin to throw nobody no bones,
and since I'm not fixin to get the heel outta here,
we got to discuss the issues.


Seein as I'm the only one willing to reply to the
ISSUES, you got your choice, to either FIGHT,
or get the heel outta here.


Stick around, lt. joel. You're on the spot now.
Runnin will only prove The Puppy Wizard's case.
You can't avoid this DISCUSSION, lt. joel. At
least, you can't avoid this discussion without
making your place in the HISTORY of INCOMPETENT
DOUBLE TALKING DOG ABUSING THUG COWARD TRAINERS,
lt. joel.


You ain't like our captain hagartey's and uncle matty's
and janet boss'es and booby maida's, are you, lt. joel?
You're a EXPERT PET PROFESIONAL. Let's TALK dog trainin.

you develope a relationship with your dog that makes
it likely he will be more interested it looking to you
for rewards

Like GOOD BOY, lt. joel? No. You mean BRIBES, like pieces
of cheese and liver, the same kind of crap the dog will
find in any garbage can he passes? Perhaps THAT'S HOWE
COME you're worried about the self rewarding behavior
of ESCAPE, lt. joel?


HOWE COME a dog would WANT to RUN AWAY from his pack,
lt. joel? Would it be to find BETTER TREATS? No, lt.
joel, it's to find BETTER OWNERS.


Dogs run away from their HOWESES for the same reasons
children run away from their HOWESES, lt. joel.

rather than the environment.

Bribing dogs makes them greedy and usurps the trainer's
authority and lower's the dog's esteem for his trainer.

Relationship is the next step.

A relationship based on bribery and restriction?

And of course teaching your dog using a positive method
is the education your dog needs,

Oh, INDEEDY! We all KNOW that, lt. joel. Ask our good
professor " 'almost always TRY to use positive reinforcement'
SCRUFF SHAKE and SCREAM 'NO!' into its face for 5 seconds"
dermer.


HOWES my punctuation, professor?

you need and Koehler trainers need to see. Education!

INDEED? We'll see. You an me, lt. joel. Let's SEE HOWE
advanced your training methods are, lt. joel. I'll grant
you all the courtesy, bandwidth, and resources, of Your
Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training Method forum.


You got the floor, lt. joel.

You can find more about the MRE System (Management,
Relationship and Education) in both of my books listed below.

Mrs. Puppy Wizard is on her way to the library. I'm SHORE
we'll have PLENTY to DISCUSS once I've got your text in
front of me.


Meanwhile, I've done a little research on YOUR methods
and articles on the web, and WE are DISCUSSING them now,
on account of YOU refused to reply to my initial posts
CONDEMNING your methods and EXPOSING you as an incompetent
blowhard, lt. joel.


Prove Your Puppy Wizard wrong, and join him in the
fight to put our incompetent, vicious, dog trainers
like uncle matty and booby maida and captain haggerty
and john richardson and janet boss and the rest of our
Gang Of Lyin Dog Abusing Thug Cowards the heel outta
this business.


There's no compromise, lt. joel. Your methods will
prove themselves right here, or be exposed as ineffective
and problematical, as we've just done with your puppy
mouthing bullshit.


We're not gonna settle for half assed advice and compromise.

best,
Lt. Joel Walton, CPDT
http://www.joelwalton.com
Walton Family Dog Training LLC
aggressive behavior cases Washington DC area
author of: Positive Puppy Training Works
Labrador Retrievers for Dummies

That's real impressive, lt. joel. On your website I noticed
you've had a seminar with one or our world leaders in
child and dog rearing, our own beloved harold hanson.


See my post "Meeting Scientific Critterier In A Death Match."


There's NO escape from Your Puppy Wizard, lt. joel. Your
Puppy Wizard is going to hound our EXPERTS right straight
to the gates of heel and leave them behind under the watchful
eye of a FREE WWW Wits' End Trained Guard Dog.


Here's your LIST OF EQUIPMENT from your renowned
CPDT / APDTA doubletalkers:


V. EQUIPMENT


A. Basic Training Equipment (Purpose, Safety and Fit)
1. Buckle collar
2. Halter
3. Slip and limited collars (choke chain, Martingale, snap chokes)
4. Pinch/prong collar
5. Harness
6. Fixed length leash
7. Long line
8. Retractable leash
9. Clicker
B. Ancillary Equipment (Purpose and Safety)
1. Bark collar (shock, citronella, sound)
2. Containment system (shock, citronella, sound)
3. Remote collar (shock, citronella, sound)


Sounds like you sorry bastards have done gone an shot
yourself in the goddamned foot right outta the gate,
eh lt. joel? Tough break. Better LUCK next time.


Nuff said about your sorry apdt Thug Coward pals.

Pulling on leash

Takes my FREE Wits' End Dog Training Method manual
students MINUTES to train a dog not to pull, without
choking or bribing them:


On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 14:42:33 -0600, "Greg M. Silverman"

You are so full of shit!!

ENJOY YOUR PROBLEMS!!!

Hey, Mr. Wizard, or Alchemist or whatever your alias
of the day is, have to say that our dog heels much
better than she did. This is after reading and
implementing the bit in your "Wits End" treatise.
And she's a royal nutter (but then again, aren't
they all?).
Cheers!
Greg--

-------------------------------------
Pulling on leash is caused by mishandling...

Many dogs pull on leash.

INDEED?

Solution: Teach the dog to walk on a loose leash.

Shazam?
Really, lt. joel? You gonna discuss trainin with Your Puppy
Wizard?

Pulling on leash is a long-established problem.

Not for Your Puppy Wizard, it ain't. Your Puppy Wizard
raises Danes and English Mastiffs. There's no pullin them
dogs. So we don't pull, neither does the dog.

Many dogs pull on leash.

Only because the handler is mishandling the dog and leash.

Many trainers have lots of great ways of teaching dogs
not to pull on leash.

INDEED???


Is that so, lt. joel? Your assosciation recommends pronged spiked
pinch choke collars, GL neck breakers, and shock and aversive
spray devices, lt. joel. That's just part of the necessary
equipment
for professional humane dog trainers, according to the website for
your apdt CPDT whatever bullshit certification you're sellin.


Bye the bye, lt. joel. We didn't notice any of YOUR books
on the recommended CPDT bullshit site list of recommended
reading. Perhaps your work is so STELLAR, they're waitin
for their pubic to get over the rush before adopting
your expert techniques and promoting it to the whole
wide world, lt. joel?

Some dogs persist in pulling on leash after we have exhausted
the positive methods of teaching dogs not to pull.

Is that so, lt. joel? Sounds to me like your positive methods
are INEFFECTIVE, lt. joel, or you wouldn't NEED to rely on
MOORE INEFFECTIVE methods.

Listed below are the many ways that Joel Walton recommends
you teach your dog to walk on a loose leash.

Well, la, di, da! Well see exactly HOWE excellent our lt. joel's
methods really are, and we'll DISS-CUSS them, eh lt. joel?

(NOTE: Please carefully read and implement all of the positive
methods before you attempt to use the Leash Belt Technique
which I introduced to dog trainers on July 9th 2002.

Gee, ain't it too bad I missed that auspicious occasion?
We could have put this bullshit to rest right then and there.
Perhaps you'll invite me to your next seminar in the central
FL vicinity?


Or perhaps I'll make a point to come visit one of your
seminars as a eager student? I'm all ears, of course,
lt. joel. Just please, no pinching.

To the best of Joel's knowledge,

We're about to put that to a TEST, lt. joel. Aren't we.

he developed this technique.

That so?

He has been using this on many dogs for the last couple of

years.


If the method isn't in your FREE copy of my FREE Wits' End
Dog Training Method manual, the method is probably PROBLEMATICAL.

Update 8/31/2002: Frances Dauster, CPDT referred
me to Urban Dog by Cis Frankel which has a great
picture of a leash used in the manner I recommend
on page 87.

Of course, there's only one right way to handle a lead.
Perhaps we'll get to review your methods when Mrs.
Puppy Wizard returns with your excellent book, which
Your Puppy Wizard will review and serve to our dog
loving communtiy with appropriate modifications, warnings,
reprimands, or praise, should we find ANYTHING of value.


Stick around, lt. joel.

Thanks Frances! (Note added July 29th: For pet owners: I
submitted this information to 700 plus dog trainers and so
far have found a few trainers who have been using a leash in
this manner.

IMAGINE?

I have not had any negative comments towards this use of
the leash (Altho, I suspect there will be some (smile)).

Perhaps. Perhaps we'll address your methods, and THEN,
I'll adjust your smile? Or I'll smile with you. Wouldn't
THAT be NICE, lt. joel? That could happen if you do not
use or recommend any fear, force, confrontation, or punishment.

For pet dog trainers: Please feel free to send me any
reference to this technique in a published book or published
on a website before July 9th 2002.

As stated. If it's not in your FREE copy of my FREE Wits'
End Dog Training method manual, it's probably problematical.

I agree with Dr Ian Dunbar

With all due respect, dr dunbar only knows HOWE
to bribe dogs. He's an incompetent BLOWHARD,
like you, lt. joel.

when he says 'there is nothing new under the sun'.

That so? I think we'll be finding a whole bunch of NEW
DOG TRANIERS once I give this industry a good enema...

As noted above,

Cleanliness is next to G-dliness, ain't it, lt. joel?

this technique is described and illustrated in The
Urban Dog by Cis Frankel. The purpose of this article
is to help pet dog owners with their dogs that are
pulling on leash. Please feel free to carefully
use this technique if you think it will help your

student/client.)

If you need to learn how to use any of the following four
methods, please read Positive Puppy Training Works by
Joel Walton (available from JoelWalton. com and
knowledgeable purveyors of positive puppy dog
training books).

WE'LL SEE, lt. joel. I wouldn't be in such a hurry, was I you.

1. The Simply Observe And Reward (SOAR) Method.
Walk your dog on a six-foot leash in your yard or another
area with minimal

Firstly, lt. joel, it sez in your FREE copy of my FREE Wits'
End Dog Training Method manual that we're not to train
our dogs extensively in their backyard, for several reasons.

Chief concern, dogs don't LIKE working in their play area,
lt. joel. It frustrates and makes them ANGRY, and CAUSES BEHAVIOR
PROBLEMS, including AGGRESSION.

distractions.

Distractions are not to be avoided, lt. joel. Distractions
HELP the dog LEARN by maximizing their brain activity.

Whenever your puppy dog is next to you, reach down and
give her one piece of her dry kibble.

Instead of just giving priase...

2. The Zen Method. If the leash is loose, walk. If the
leash is tight, become a tree.

No lt. joel. That's the dr dunbar's method, and it don't work
no better than the rest of his and your BULLSHIT methods, lt.
joel.

3. The Simply Train And Reward (STAR) Method.

You mean bribe the dog, lt. joel.


Let's talk about REWARDS, lt. joel? HOWE can you
reward a behavior AFTER the fact, lt. joel? If you
can't PUNISH a behavior unless CAUGHT IN THE ACT,
HOWE can you justify rewarding a behavior AFTER
THE FACT, lt. joel?


You think dogs work for CREDIT???


You care to DISS-CUSS your REWARDS method, lt. joel,
with Your Puppy Wizard? HARDLY. You'd be proven DEAD
WRONG.


Now that we got THAT straight, the rest of this article

With your puppy dog sitting in the heel position (on your
left side with her collar next to the seam in your pants),
say: "Billie, heel." Step off on your left foot and reach
down with your left hand and give her one piece of dry
kibble,

Youi mean her regular dog food? Your Puppy Wizard doesn't
recommend regular dog food, lt. joel. And Your Puppy Wizard
never gives treats as bribes.

after you say "good heel."

You mean AFTER THE FACT, lt. joe.? Care to disccuss
TIMING? Your Puppy Wizard insists REWARDS are to
be given for THOUGHTS, IN ADVANCE of the behavior,
as the dog is THINKING about the command, lt. joel.


PERHAPS THAT'S HOWE COME "Pulling on leash is a
long-established problem?"

Continue to build up distance and add turns as she
improves in her ability to heel next to you.

So long as you got a handful of kibble. HOWE does
the handler jerk the leash if he's got a handfull of cookies?

(NOTE: After many years of experimenting with
loose-leash walking,

Ain't it about time you stop EXPERIMENTING and just
LEARN HOWE to TRAIN a dog without fear force
intimidation confinement and bribery?

it is apparent that having the dog heel is a great way
to prevent pulling on leash!)

That so? Shazam? Just like that? "Heeling is a great
way to prevent pulling on leash?" IMAGINE?


What happens if you run outta treats or pass a
nice smelly garbage can, lt. joel? You got BONANZA
treats?


Suppose a kid walks by eatin a weenie? Is the dog gonna
go off to heel with a stranger holdin his weenie?

4. The Clicker Method. If you do not achieve results soon
enough with the first three methods

Certainly there's no reason HOWE COME clicker training
won't work. IF it's used puperly.

or if you are an experienced clicker trainer,

Would a experienced clicker trainer be having difficulty
training the dog to heel using the clicker method, lt.
joel???


That doesn't sound CONSISTENT with SCIENTIFIC METHODS,
lt. joel. Does it? Of curse not! Therefore, if someone
is using the clicker method and are unable to train the
dog to heel, the METHOD MUST BE BEING USED INCORRECTLY.


Wouldn't it make MOORE sense to TROUBLESHOOT
the METHOD, than GIVE UP the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
because YOU FAILED IT by not following all of the protocol
correctly?

do the following: a. Use the SOAR method, clicking when
your puppy dog is in the heel position and rewarding with
one piece of dry kibble. b. Use the STAR method, replacing
the "good heel" with a click. NOTE: Many dogs seem to
respond to the unique sound of the clicker after not responding
to verbal requests and verbal praise.

Yeah? That's on account of our CLICKEROO'S rely on BRIBERY.
Perhaps THAT'S the fly in the clickeroo's ointiment, lt. joel?


The clicker method is only reliable if we can control
the entire environment and withold food... That's the
goddamned clicker method, lt. joel...

5. Leash Belt Technique. With your puppy dog sitting on your
left side, attach your six-foot leash to your puppy dog's

buckle

collar, placing the end of the leash around your dog's middle
and then gently pulling the end of the leash through the leash
loop you have created. Start using the four methods above to
teach your puppy dog. It is important to understand that the
Leash Belt Technique is to prevent your dog from pulling so
hard that you are pulled down.

You mean like when you're training a really big dog you
can't force using just jerking and pulling its pronged
spiked pinch choke collar or GL neck twister, lt. joel?

It does NOT take the place of training.

Oh. O.K. We'll just SKIP it then?

My experience over the past couple of years is that dog's
that pull hard, do not pull as hard when they have the leash
around their middle.

Is that so? HOWE COME, lt. joel? Is that on account of
it's UNCOMFORTABLE, lt. joel? Your Puppy Wizard cannot
condone the use of fear force or intimidation, lt. joel,
on account of THAT'S HOWE COME you can't EFFECTIVELY
train a dog, lt. joel.

This is a management technique

By "MANAGEMENT," you mean FORCED CONTROL,
AVOIDANCE, and CONFINEMENT, not training,
not science, not nuthin but FEAR and INCOMPTENCE.


And DOUBLETALK.

that may also have some benefit in teaching the dog that
loose-leash walking works best!

You mean it teaches dogs the being UNCOMFORTABLE
is not preferable to NOT being made uncomfortable by
the trainer?


IOW, you HURT the dog if IT tries to move away from you.
And you REWARD IT if IT doesn't get hurt or when it
STOPS HURTING ITSELF???


That's the SECRET, ain't it, lt. joel? That the dog
HURT HISSELF, not YOU hurtin IT.

If your dog pulls very hard, stop using the Leash
Belt Technique!

Catch22, eh lt. joel? What's next? You COULD just get the
heel outta this business like the rest of your pals are
fixin to do... on account of they're INCOMPETENT DOUBLE
TALKIN FRAUDS, like yourself, lt. joel.

The idea is not to create pain or discomfort.

Right. What's the leash doin around the dog's middle?

Because your dog is feeling something unique,

Like diddler's kat gettin his intestines run through
a baited snare noose the size of a dime, lt. joel?

she will stop pulling long enough for her to realize that
you are very rewarding when she is on a loose leash.

I think I UNDERSTAND, lt. joel. Care to GO OVER THIS
AGAIN, REAL CAREFUL, just to make SHORE I got your
number?

Please consult your veterinarian before using this technique
so that you are sure that you will cause no harm.

That so? Let's just DISS-CUSS your METHOD in DETAIL,
and we'll OBVIATE the NEED to have the dog physically
examined before continuing the lt. joel walton family
of GENTLE training techniques?

Copyright July 2002 Walton Family Dog Training LLC

BWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!


Subject: Relationship Of Behavior Problems


HOWEDY People,

If [one] gets the dog to open his mouth by itself it is
not forcing the dog [...]?

Selective editing, because I'm not at all interested in
the "win- lose game" aspect you keep belabouring: This
part caught my eye.

I have not been able to follow this entire thread, but I
would like to comment on the "force" issue. As a
behaviorist, I don't believe that there is "free will" or
"choice" which determines behavior. From my philosophical
standpoint all behavior is forced or determined.
In some cases the force is quite clear as when presenting an
eliciting stimulus which immediately elicits a response
(such as shining a light into a mammal's eye and the pupil
contracts) and in other cases the force is quite obscure (as
when your dog gets up off the floor, jumps on the couch, and
settles at your side).
In the method I posted for training a retrieve, it is true
that I opened my dog's mouth and I understand why compared
to other methods, like the one that accompanied my post by
Diane Blackman, people could describe what I did as using
force. But again, from my standpoint, all behavior is
forced; from my standpoint volition is an illusion. As
Cindy, cogently noted above, "force" is a difficult concept
to address.

Well, we'll just FIX that, professor.

My point here is that any such discussion involves deep
philosophical and religious issues.

BWWWAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAAAA!!!

1) effectiveness--does it work?
2) efficiency--does it work quickly and with minimal
resources?
3) relationship--does it strengthen or weaken the extent
our
pet/friends will bond with us? [That's
why we try to almost always use positive
reinforcement rather than punishement.]
Jerry, the Merchant of the Magic Box, always considers 3)
whereas we sceptics always consider 1) and 2). ;-)
--Marshall

O.K. doc, grab a ringside seat and have some cotton candy to
enjoy, while watching the death-defying high wire act,
performed without a safety net...


Let's have a go at it, shall we? I'm going to explain a couple
of things to you that I'd kind of like you to keep in mind,
even though you probably won't understand what it is that I'm
saying. Otherwise, you'd have understood by now. Ferstaisch?
It would have been obvious to you, had you read my manual.


Your words, doc: "Jerry, the Merchant of the Magic Box,
always considers 3)"relationship--does it strengthen or
weaken the extent our pet/friends will bond with us?
[That's why we try to almost always use positive
reinforcement rather than punishement.]


This con man is so smart, he's going to put himself out of
business, by giving away free training information that will
obviate the need for his machine and cost him sales, in many
cases. Good competition is good for business, so why not
compete with my own interests? I'd have a hard time finding a
more worthy adversary. Wouldn't you agree? The motivation for
such a poor business decision isn't sheer stupidity, doc, it
is indeed, number three.


As a simple uneducated professional dog trainer, doc, I'm very
aware of the urgent need to bring harmony to dog's and their
people's lives.


I realize the need for people to improve the quality
of their FAMILIES and their dogs' lives, through
learning proper handling and training techniques.


Dogs' lives are at stake here, doc... As a professional
dog trainer, doc, I don't settle for second rate advice
for my dogs or my students. There is no excuse for
anything less than excellence in one's field, especially
my fields of expertise... Wouldn't you agree professor?


1) effectiveness--does it work?


The methods in my manual doc, are scientifically and
psychologically based. The techniques are precise,
and the results are repeatable consistently, on any dog,
even wolves.


The effects happen almost instantly, certainly within three or
four repetitions, if done correctly. Many other animals can be
handled the same way (my rats would come when called, and no,
I didn't use food bribes on them either), all you gotta do is
be bright enough, observant enough, and be accurate in your
timing, to use the tools properly. A five year old child could
do it, with a little help from mommy.


You'd have been able to learn a lot from reading my text, doc.
You would have learned by now (after wasting eight months),
that the Wits' End Dog Training Method has as much to do with
family, as it does with training dogs.


There is little difference between properly raising a child,
and properly raising a dog. The ideology taught in the manual
applies to your kids, your wife, and anybody important in your
life. The concepts of respect and consideration as taught in
my manual, will have significant inferences on the way we
raise our children, work, think, live, govern ourselves, and
will positively impact our society and eventually the entire
world.


The FREE Wits' End Method is not just a HOWE to manual,
it was written to make you THINK! Think about what you are
doing with your dogs, kids, mates, employers, employees,
co-workers, neighbors, government, and the entire world.


2) efficiency--does it work quickly and with minimal
resources?


Even better than that, doc. It' FREE! And no other method
works as quickly and effortlessly. HOWE COME I don't just sit
down, write a book and send it out to an editor, and put in
some old photos, and sell it and get fat?


For one thing, doc, I don't need to get fat. My machine will
make me fatter than you could ever conceive of. The
information in my manual is unsurpassed, and cannot wait for
me to polish it up and do it up so you can say it looks pretty
and reads like Louisa May Alcott wrote it. All the information
is in there, it's solid and vital, and timely...


3) relationship--does it strengthen or weaken the extent our
pet/friends will bond with us? [That's why
we try to almost always use positive
reinforcement rather than punishement.]


Number three, (of course?), needs no further explanation, doc,
cause you already agree that it is important. That's where you
are dead wrong, once again, doc. Just because you agree with
the point, does not mean you understand HOWE COME and HOWE
important it IS.


You still qualify "always use positive reinforcement," by
preceding it with "try to almost." That's because of your
limited appreciation and tremendous misunderstanding of what
is really happening. You are like a recalcitrant little child,
doc. That's HOWE COME I'm here, and you're there.


And that's HOWE COME you got to get the heel outta here, you
and your Gang Of Lying Dog Abusing Thug Cowards.


Here's what you fail to understand. The fundamentals of
properly handling and training a dog are not whether we can
make the dog stop jumping, or teach him to heel. The first
point that must be considered is the holistic concept, does
the dog want to work with us.

HOWE COME does he want to work?

He must want to work because he enjoys your company, because of
the quality of the bond you've formed, because
YOU asked him.


What is MOST IMPORTANT, is what we need to
accomplish in the big picture, not the micro aspects
of stopping the dog from peeing on the floor.


You people get so goal oriented, you focus on the pp on the
floor, instead of trying to address the true reason the pp is
there. When you do try to figure it out, you only go one level
up: too much water, didn't walk him in time, never thinking
about what may really be causing the problem. Or, you go one
level down: should have crated him, should have kept him
restricted, should have walked him every hour.


You're missing the boat.


Usually stress and anxiety, and negative attention getting
devices, are the cause. The reason they exist in the dog, is
primarily mishandling and miscommunication, and lack of
patience, anger, and frustration, and the negative methods of
communication you all endorse and use, even ever so slightly.
I've been hurt more from a harsh word from a lover, that from
any man or beast who has ever thumped me.


Sure, I get lots of people that ask me, "Jerry, HOWE COME
you won't just tell me HOWE to get my dog not to pee on the
floor?


My answer is inspired, and won't allow me to bastardize it to
make life simple for someone who will otherwise never learn
the difference between right and wrong in the handling and
management of their dogs.


This kind of people, good people just like yourself, doc,
will never develop their necessary and proper potential as
appropriate dog owners and trainers, until they are taught
the very basics of proper handling, to effect the macro of
their relationship with their dog. I'll be dealing with this
in the retrieve thread, so be there, or be square...


I could give tips all day long to help solve behavior
problems. That will put a finger in the dike, but other
problems will keep popping up in their place, because the dog
never quite learns, because he's dealing with freaking morons
like you, doc.


It seems that when you got to the point in my manual where I
criticized the universities and behaviorists for having failed
us, and paraphrased the following quote, is when I lost you.
Not surprising, doc. That's exactly HOWE COME it was there, to
separate the wheat from the chaff in this dog behavior news
group.


I wrote the entire manual specifically for this group, because
of the desperate need for decent dog training information that
was previously nonexistent here.


I've been around these guys patching up their wounded dogs all
my life, doc, and I'm sick of it. That's HOWE COME I'm here,
to facilitate some long overdue changes in the dog training
industry. Training the dogs here is secondary to solving the
problem of HOWE COME we have problem dogs.

That reason is almost exclusively: rotten training methods
used by incompetent trainers and dog abusing descartean
university trained behaviorists like professor SCRUFF
SHAKE;

"At this point, "No" does not have any behavioral function.
But, if you say "No,"pick up the puppy by its neck and
shake it a bit, and the frequency of the biting decreases
then you will have achieved too things.

First, the frequency of unwanted chewing has decreased;
and two, you have established "No" as a conditioned punisher.

How much neck pulling and shaking? Just the
minimum necessary to decrease the unwanted
biting.

**********IS THAT A CONSISTENT 5 SECONDS?************

When our dog was a puppy, "No" came before mild
forms of punishment (I would hold my dog's mouth
closed for a few seconds.) whereas "Bad Dog" came
before stronger punishement (the kind discussed above).

"No" is usually sufficient but sometimes I use "Bad Dog"
to stop a behavior. "Bad Dog" ALWAYS works," marshall
dermer, professor of ANAL-ytic behaivorISM at UofWI.

That's HOWE COME your dog has OCD behaviors
and is deathly ill from The Puppy Wizard's SYNDROME.

You have been tested, doc. And you have failed miserably, doc,
as did most of the other regular posters here. It's time to do
or die. Dog's lives depend on it. You are either part of the
problem, or part of the solution. Your bloomers are showing,
doc... Here's the words you fear, doc, read 'em an' weep:


"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems
of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to
admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others, and which
they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives."
Leo Tolstoy


Here's another quote, doc: "Dogs do in a way, wear their
hearts on their sleeves, so that only a scientist could
misunderstand their true feelings." Nick Dodman DVM, author
Dogs Behaving Badly.


And next? BOBO The Harlequin! Revv up the tiny but spectacular
clown car, Bring on the clowns! It ain't over
till the Fat Lady sings, and she's up right after the clowns!


Here's the lowdown on our ''EXPERTS,'' the LIARS and

Nope. That "beating dogs with sticks" things is
something you twisted out of context, because you
are full of bizarro manure.

LIAR. I'll just copy a direct quote or two or three or
four or five or six... HOWE many direct quotes would
you like???


Amy lyingfrosty dahl LIES with a straight face and
says:


"I don't beat dogs, twist ears, or pinch toes. For the
benefit of anyone who is in doubt, and who chooses
not to read the article (SHE'D REALLY LIKE IT IF
YOU DON'T READ IT!), there is NO mention in it of
"twisting ears (INDEED, SHE PINCHES THEM WITH
SPIKES).


I would never slap a dog (SHE TEACHES PEOPLE TO
BEAT DOGS WITH STICKS TO MOTIVATE THEM).


I would never advise anyone to slap a dog
(SHE'S A PROVEN LIAR AND DOG ABUSER, do you
expect her to ADMIT THE TRUTH???).


I do not believe there is a single circumstance, ever,
where slapping a dog is anything but destructive."


RIGHT. She PINCHES, not twists... and chin cuff
doesn't mean hit, it means slap. amy lyingfrosty dahl
continues:


"Get a stick 30- or 40-inches long. You can have a
helper wield the stick, or do it yourself. Tougher, less
tractable dogs may require you to progress to striking
them more sharply.


With your hand on the collar and ear, say, 'fetch.'


Immediately tap the dog on the hindquarters with the
stick. Repeat "fetch" and pinch the ear all the way to
the dummy.


Repeat, varying how hard you hit the dog,


Now you are ready to progress to what most people think of
as force-fetching: the ear pinch.


Make the dog's need to stop the pinching so urgent
that resisting your will fades in importance.


but will squeal, thrash around, and direct their
efforts to escaping the ear pinch


You can press the dog's ear with a shotshell instead
of your thumb;


even get a studded collar and pinch the ear against
that


Say "fetch" while pressing the dummy against its lips
and pinching its ear.


if the dog still does not open its mouth, get out the
shotshell.


Try pinching the ear between the metal casing and
the collar, even the buckle on the collar. Persist!
Eventually, the dog will give in"


AND HERE'S THE REST OF THE ROUNDUP, the
posters our own respected lyingdoc doermer,
assholeciate professor of behavior at U of Wisc., who
RECENTLY endorsed the koehler method:


Diane Blackman,
Yes, diane... She's as confused and deceitful as they
come. She knits cover-ups for pronged choke collars
so she can train dogs illegally on akc showgrounds,
and so that people won't SEE the prongs and think
the less of her... She twists words better than you
can, BECAUSE SHE HASN'T GOT BAGGED FOR
LYING, LIKE lyingdoc dermer DID.


She's got a dog who's been a chronic puller for five
years, and she day boards her dogs because she can't
trust them at home alone.


Her links page has lots of lousy advice, but diane
won't edit the lousy ones that teach HURTING dogs,
because she says she doesn't know enough about
training to discern good from bad information...


Whaddaya thaink of that?


Janet Boss,
Jerks dogs around on pronged collars to make them
friendly. She's as incompetent a creature as G-D
could possibly create. I'll be throwing THAT in HIS
face when I get there... She has no business telling
people to kill their dogs because their only option is
to jerk the dog around and keep him confined for
the rest of his life.


See the thread ''interested in hearing'' and you'll see for
yourself HOWE you bums mishandle and kill dogs
because you don't have any IDEAS, and can't outwit a
puppydog...


Take a look at the thread "interested in hearing" where your
pal janet boss overlooks TWO SHOCK
CONTAINMENT DEVICES, and tells the people to jerk
and choke the dog on a pronged choke collar, and
lock the dog up at any time he can't be jerked and
choked....


The consensus of opinion of our "EXPERTS" here was
to KILL THE DOG TO BE FAIR.


Susan Fraser,
susan twists and pinches ears and toes and shocks
and chokes dogs on pronged choke collars. But she
doesn't hurt them.


Avrama Gingold,
Our Professora... She got her damned teeth knocked
down her throat when her dog finally figured out
HOWE to hurt her back, and make it look like an
accident. That's called allelomimetic behavior.
avrama had a habit of jerking him to make him heel
or come, but always made it look like the dog did it to
himself.


Dogs are smart. Don't take my word for it, that's in
the Wits' End Dog Training Method manual.


Lynn Kosmakos,
Our pathological liar? She jerks and chokes and
hangs dogs according to the koehler method. She
justifies force because there are so many dogs to
HELP and such little time to HELP them all, at the shelter
she kills dogs at.

For barking in the crate - leave the leash on and
pass it through the crate door. Attach a line to it.
When he barks, use the line for a correction.

A CORRECTION? You're going to JERK and CHOKE
the dog out of being AFRAID... that's CORRECTION?


lyinlynn says: "I LOVE KOEHLER," and in the next
breath denies being a 'koehler trainer.' Is that because she
ALSO shocks dogs, and koehler never had a shock collar?


Pity that he was born too late to benefit from such a wondrous
teaching tool, ISN'T it???


BESIDES, WHAT'S SO WRONG being a koehelr
trainer, THAT lyinglynn AND CINDYMORON BOTH
DENY USING THE KOEHLER METHODS THEY USE and TEACH???


Or is it just that lying is in vogue???


Bob Maida,
What advice? "Don't let him do that?" Killfiles is all he
writes about. He can't talk dog training because he is
a violent dog trainer. If he opens his yap, I shove his
foot in it for him and hammer on top of his head till
he's craping toenails... He's no dog trainer.


He said he recommends cindymoron's Website to his
''students'' and they tell him HOWE much they've
benefited from it... cindymron's site has instructions
for sticking your fingers down puppies throats to
choke them out of mouthing, kneeing the dog in the chest,
shocking, throwing the dog down by his ears
and climbing on him like a wild animal, pinching and
twisting ears, choking, jerking, and sticking dog's heads
under water you've filled into a hole he's dug to break dogs
of digging.


I guess boob's student's only learned the jerking and
choking from him...


Your pal boob had been begging his ''teacher'' cap'n
fagotty to debate me here, and smarten me up. He
sent his little girl to write me a threatening letter
saying she'd sue me if I told the truth here...


Then, your pal boob suggested there would be a
motorcycle gang paying me a little visit... Do you ride,
lyindoc? I may be able to get you a good deal on some
dead bikers machines.


Cindy Tittle Moore,
A true sadist. She gets pleasure for dominating and
hurting dogs. Read her forced fetch page, that will
show you HOWE excited she gets just at the thought
of hurting dogs.


Did you see my STAY-OUT-OF-JAIL CHALLENGE to
cindymoron? Here's the deal... We get her to force
fetch train three dogs in front of a childs playground,
and I'll train three protection dogs in the same site,
and we'll see who the children are disturbed by, and
who the parents are going to call the cops on... And
then I'll show up as expert witness for the
prosecution, and we'll demonstrate her forced fetch
in front of a criminal judge and jury...


HOWE'S that for a FAIR TEST???


Denna Pace,
Says she sees a lot of value in koehler... She's got
PLENTY of problems with her own dogs running away
and being disobedient.


John Richardson,
He only hurts dogs to save them from the needle.
He's as abusive and immature as they come. He's a
clone of dogman. The dogs he can't hurt into being
friendly, he KILLS in the shelter he HELPS in. Unlike
yourself, he's too stupid to be evil. He's just doing
what koehler taught him.


Ludwig Smith,
Another koehler trainer. He's too cowardly to come out and
say what he believes. He throws around lots of non advice,
and then tells us we can get more help in koehler's books.
He's got a link to cindymoron's page on his sig file...


and Terri Willis.
The psycho clown. She wants to hurt dogs because
she is compensating for her inferiority complex. She
WANTS TO HURT DOGS.


HOWE does varying HOWE you are HURTING the dog
make it more INTERESTING?


You can't do something that's WRONG, right, NO
MATTER HOWE hard you try. Dogs DIE because of
inappropriate handling and training techniques.
There is NEVER any need to jerk and choke and
shock or pinch and twist dog's body parts or beat
dogs with sticks to MOTIVATE them.

Your pal, Jerry "The PHONY," Howe,
The Puppy Wizard. <{}TPW ; ~ } >

Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons
is that if the dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence
gates, an uncollared dog is often viewed, by both the public
& animal control, as a street walker/stray.

absolutely, which is why i'm still waffling. my dogs don't
bolt (and are good about "wait"ing), but they *do* tend to
lose their branes when they see critters.

Have you considered the breakaway collars? I have the fear

that my new

dog may bolt out of the door if we are not really careful (he

hasn't fully

learned his manners) and I also do not like leaving collars on

them when

they are out playing so I am ordering these collars and will use regular
collars for walks etc.

Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in
and never reporting it to the authorities.

yes, but after hearing people who *ought* to know better
support keeping loose dogs (both here and IRL), i'm pretty
pessimistic about the chances of someone finding my dog and
returning it, whether it's got ID or not.
so, i'm still waffling.

I live in an area where most ppl have dogs and a lot of them are left out
during the day in 4 ft. cyclone fences (old military town) and I can't
imagine keeping loose dogs. I have had over a dozen escapees

here in the

last year and I make the calls to owners ask about shot status

and keep them

until the owners can get here. There is nothing unusual about

dogs at large

here and I have only called AC once about a Chow mix that would not come to
me and jumps fences like they are not even there.
A loose dog does not mean an uncared for dog, don't these ppl consider how
they would feel if someone kept their pet?
Michelle

[Judy]

Post by Tee
Something else to take into account when weighing pros & cons is that if the
dog likes to bolt out open doors & fence gates, an uncollared dog is often
viewed, by both the public & animal control, as a street walker/stray.
Therefore it *may* be more prone to someone taking the dog in and never
reporting it to the authorities.

That's certainly the case around here. An obviously purebred dog would make
for second thoughts but someone finding a lost dog would look for a collar.
And a collar has the advantage of being visible from a distance - across a
yard. If there's no collar, they assume stray, not lost.

I've never had a problem with a collar. And that includes with hunting dogs
working in all the hazards of the field. And there's someone home with the
dogs most of the time, so I don't have to weigh that possibility as heavily
as someone who is gone more. If they were being shown, I'd also have to
consider damage to the coat from a collar. Since they aren't, I'm opting
for doing everything I can possibly do.

Which is why my dogs have collars with ID tags, microchips and tattoos. If
someone doesn't return them to me, it's obviously intentional on their part.

~~Judy

[Melinda Shore]

Post by shelly
i was trying to remember whose dog got stuck that way! i've
been waffling on whether take my dogs' collars off when
they're indoors. i worry about the safety aspect
(specifically, that i have loose, worrisome floor vents), but
i also worry about them getting out while they're nekkid.

You can get tags that attach directly to the collar with
rivets: http://www.boomerangtags.com/store/list.php?A=S&ID=3
(They also have ones that slide onto the collar).

[Cate]

Post by Melinda Shore
You can get tags that attach directly to the collar with
rivets: http://www.boomerangtags.com/store/list.php?A=S&ID=3

Someday we'll likely have kids and Orson will have to wear a collar because
I foresee having less control of doors leading outside. That's when I'll
use this kind of tag or the collars with sewn-on info.

Cate

[shelly]

Post by Melinda Shore
You can get tags that attach directly to the collar with
rivets: http://www.boomerangtags.com/store/list.php?A=S&ID=3
(They also have ones that slide onto the collar).

ooh, i really like their slide-on tags. i'm going to get
KeepSafe collars for general wear, but i may get slide-on tags
for their "dress-up" collars. thanks! (dog "tack" is
addictive.)

[Melinda Shore]

(dog "tack" is addictive.)

It sure is. Emmett has a new *purple* harness that looks,
um, different against his red coat. It has a belly band, so
he can't back out of it while I'm fetching another dog (one
of his favorite tricks).

[shelly]

Post by Melinda Shore
It sure is. Emmett has a new *purple* harness that looks,
um, different against his red coat.

i like Emmett's fashion sense. as a red-head, i've been told
i shouldn't wear purple. i say, screw 'em. i'll wear purple
if'n i feel like it.

Post by Melinda Shore
It has a belly band, so he can't back out of it while I'm
fetching another dog (one of his favorite tricks).

uh-oh. what does he do when he gets loose?

[Melinda Shore]

Post by shelly
uh-oh. what does he do when he gets loose?

He's never gotten loose. I'm a belt-and-suspenders person
(although I wear neither, come to think of it), so when I
hook him up I make sure that his collar is clipped to
something before I walk away from him.

[shelly]

Post by Melinda Shore
He's never gotten loose. I'm a belt-and-suspenders person
(although I wear neither, come to think of it), so when I
hook him up I make sure that his collar is clipped to
something before I walk away from him.

heh. i'm overly cautious about that sort of thing, as well.
even when i'm loading the dogs into the car, i'm paranoid
about making sure they're harnesses are secured before i
unhook their leashes from their collars. i don't know why,
because they're so excited about getting in the car that they
wouldn't notice a Harvey-sized rabbit if it whacked them on the
head, but still.

[Judy]

Post by Melinda Shore
You can get tags that attach directly to the collar with
rivets: http://www.boomerangtags.com/store/list.php?A=S&ID=3
(They also have ones that slide onto the collar).

Riveted tags are the only kinds I have used for years. PA even has rivets
available for dog licenses rather than using the S-hooks. I don't fasten
their licenses to their collars - the ID tag should be enough and doesn't
have to be changed every year.

I *have* thought of getting different tags printed up for when we're
travelling and visiting friends. Adding their phone number to the tag so
people would have a more local place to call. (And these are friends who
would drive across the country to pick up our dogs if necessary.)

~~Judy

[CaptRon]

Post by Judy
I *have* thought of getting different tags printed up for when we're
travelling and visiting friends. Adding their phone number to the tag so
people would have a more local place to call. (And these are friends who
would drive across the country to pick up our dogs if necessary.)

We are signing the boys up for a lifetime ID service. It is through Foster
and Smith and I think that the AKC might have a similar program as well. I
know that Ive seen them advertised at different places.
You get an ID number for your dog as well as a 1-800# If you go on
vacation, move, or whatever you can put in a temp. contact number. You can
have up to 5 numbers listed depending on the service you sign up with.
Once I get the ID numbers, I am ordering the riveted tags with the info of
them (it comes with an S-hook tag) I think it is $13 for lifetime service.
But, we are planning on moving in a couple years so it should pay for itself
in just that! LOL

dainerra

[shelly]

We are signing the boys up for a lifetime ID service. It is
through Foster and Smith and I think that the AKC might have
a similar program as well.

yep. both of my dogs have Home Again chips and are registered
with the AKC's CAR program. they'll register tattoos or any
brand of microchip, for any type of animal.

http://www.akccar.org/

[FurPaw]

Post by Cate

Post by David H
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but why are you not suppose to keep a
collar on unattended dogs?

I wouldn't say you're not *supposed* to, but that it's a personal decision.
In addition to the two-dog scenario--which I posted about here last month,
I think--I once came home to find my dog attached by his collar to a
heating vent on the floor. I've no idea how long he was like that.

Was he ok?

And I thought I was the only one...

Now bear in mind that we did a very stoopid thing - Dylan had a choke
collar on, and somehow the loop on the end of the collar dropped into a
slot and turned, so she couldn't pull free. Damn dog ripped the three-foot
long aluminum strip right out of the floor. She was gated in a 10x10 room,
with a metal gate. Her clanging the heat vent against the gate was enough
to set off the burglar alarm, and we and the cops arrived at our house
about the same time. It was only after determining that no one had broken
in and seeing the vent on her collar that we figured out what had happened.

We were extremely lucky - she wasn't hurt. And that was the last time she
wore a choke collar.

FurPaw

[Cate]

Post by FurPaw
Was he ok?

Oh yeah, totally fine. Except it was hard to get into the front door,
because he was trapped, laying down in front of it.

Post by FurPaw
And I thought I was the only one...
Now bear in mind that we did a very stoopid thing - Dylan had a choke
collar on, and somehow the loop on the end of the collar dropped into
a slot and turned, so she couldn't pull free. Damn dog ripped the
three-foot long aluminum strip right out of the floor. She was gated
in a 10x10 room, with a metal gate. Her clanging the heat vent
against the gate was enough to set off the burglar alarm, and we and
the cops arrived at our house about the same time. It was only after
determining that no one had broken in and seeing the vent on her
collar that we figured out what had happened.
We were extremely lucky - she wasn't hurt. And that was the last time
she wore a choke collar.

Wow. Glad she was ok. The way I look at it, sometimes it takes a relatively
mild incident like this one to teach you the lesson that you could've
learned a much harder way.

My husband's childhood dog hanged himself by his collar in a preventable
way--but of course how it could have been prevented never occurred to
anyone in the family until it happened. Poor DH, age 10, discovered him.

Cate

[Tee]

Post by shelly
i can understand why the shelter can't take a dog away from
it's new adopters just because the former owner waltzes back
into the picture, but why can't there be a fail-safe for when
the shelter messes up? i realize the new adopters' ownership
rights need to be protected, but this seems hideously unfair
to me.

But the shelter wouldn't be taking the dog away from the adopters because
the adopters didn't take possession of her yet. They may have paid the fee
and been told to wait until the dog is vetted before picking her up but if
they had possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been playing
with her at the shelter. It was a simple matter of phoning the adopter and
telling them what happened then offering their money back. Sounds like this
may be more a case of the shelter not wanting to give a refund or have a
refund showing on their books *or* someone at the shelter really wanted that
dog so he/she gets preference over the former owner. No shelter, anywhere,
can tell me their hands are tied if they are still in physical possession of
the dog. That's a crock.

Post by shelly
all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!

That helps but certainly isn't fullproof. Alot of shelters have scanners
but don't use them.

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Tee
That helps but certainly isn't fullproof. Alot of shelters have scanners
but don't use them.
--
Tara

And alot of microchips move. And if one is as close to Mexico as I am
then I dog could go south of the border and never be found again. And
stranger things have occurred.

I don't see microchipping as full proof or even that grand. Too many
podunk towns with shelters in Texas that wouldn't even have a clue
how to locate a microchip, let alone what to do with the number if
the did. And I fairly serious about the above.

Unless your dog is lost in Austin, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio
and possibly Corpus Christy I wouldn't expect the itty bitty towns to have
a clue that microchips even exist. Sad but true.

Gwen

[shelly]

Post by Gwen Watson
Unless your dog is lost in Austin, Houston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, San Antonio and possibly Corpus Christy I wouldn't
expect the itty bitty towns to have a clue that microchips
even exist. Sad but true.

unlike a tag, a chip is fairly permanent. if you *do* find
the dog, you can prove it's yours. no, it's not perfect, but
nothing is. doing nothing, because nothing is perfect, is not
acceptable to me.

[Gwen Watson]

Post by shelly

Post by Gwen Watson
Unless your dog is lost in Austin, Houston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, San Antonio and possibly Corpus Christy I wouldn't
expect the itty bitty towns to have a clue that microchips
even exist. Sad but true.

unlike a tag, a chip is fairly permanent. if you *do* find
the dog, you can prove it's yours. no, it's not perfect, but
nothing is. doing nothing, because nothing is perfect, is not
acceptable to me.
--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

I definitely agree. Which is why Reznor is gonna get chipped
Feb. 14.

Gwen

[Melinda Shore]

Post by Gwen Watson
I don't see microchipping as full proof or even that grand.

I think it's a good idea to do what you can to 1) help
people reunite you with your dog, and 2) be able to prove
ownership. There's no downside to microchipping.

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Melinda Shore

Post by Gwen Watson
I don't see microchipping as full proof or even that grand.

I think it's a good idea to do what you can to 1) help
people reunite you with your dog, and 2) be able to prove
ownership. There's no downside to microchipping.
--
In 2004, 37% of all non-Social Security federal spending will
be paid for with borrowed money

You are right Melinda. I definitely did not word that correctly overall.
I do see microchipping as that grand. If I didn't believe they were that
grand I certainly wouldn't be having Reznor microchipped on Feb. 14th
at the show.

Gwen

[shelly]

They may have paid the fee and been told to wait until
the dog is vetted before picking her up but if they had
possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been
playing with her at the shelter.

true. i hadn't thought about that, but you're right.

Sounds like this may be more a case of the shelter not
wanting to give a refund or have a refund showing on their
books

which would be a ludicrous excuse IMO.

*or* someone at the shelter really wanted that dog so he/she
gets preference over the former owner.

which would be *very* unethical IMO, but it sounds like the
most logical explanation to me. it just seems to me that
we're missing some important pieces of the puzzle. even in a
large shelter, i have trouble buying that an owner would miss
seeing their dog on multiple occasions. if the owner is
telling the truth, then the dog had to have been kept away
from public view.

No shelter, anywhere, can tell me their hands are tied if
they are still in physical possession of the dog. That's a
crock.

it sure sounds like one to me.

That helps but certainly isn't fullproof. Alot of shelters
have scanners but don't use them.

i realize that, but in a case like this, they'd have a *hell*
of a time rationalizing why a chipped pet was placed with a
new owner instead of being returned to it's original owner.

[Tee]

Post by shelly

Sounds like this may be more a case of the shelter not
wanting to give a refund or have a refund showing on their
books

which would be a ludicrous excuse IMO.

Sounds ludicrous but isn't that farfetched really. Shelters who exist on
county funding, particularly in a county that doesn't devote much money to
the shelter, often face cutbacks depending on their quarterly reports. I
know of shelters who lose a portion of their funding each year if their
"return" rate exceeds a certain number per quarter. I think they are
allowed 5 returns every 3 months, anything over that looks bad. Some lose
funding based on how many euthanizations they did, the rationale supposedly
being that the shelter isn't make a strong enough effort to place the
animals. Most shelters have to fight, tooth & nail, for every little bit of
funding they get and unfortunately numbers on their books can negatively
impact them.

Post by shelly

*or* someone at the shelter really wanted that dog so he/she
gets preference over the former owner.

which would be *very* unethical IMO, but it sounds like the
most logical explanation to me. it just seems to me that
we're missing some important pieces of the puzzle. even in a
large shelter, i have trouble buying that an owner would miss
seeing their dog on multiple occasions. if the owner is
telling the truth, then the dog had to have been kept away
from public view.

I don't know if you remember but I recounted a story once or twice of when
Pebbles the Min. Dach. and Katie the GSP, dug out of my backyard (while I
was home) and were picked up in front of my *neighbor's house* almost
immediately..had to be because I noticed them missing fairly quickly.
Umpteen calls to AC and the shelter left me clueless. Supposedly no one had
seen my dogs. At the time I didn't know they'd been picked up by AC so we
searched well into the night for them and this happened in the morning. It
got so bad that we were searching the roadside drainage ditches. More calls
the next day also proved fruitless. Finally I went up to the shelter just
to be certain and there were my two dogs except that the girl upfront didn't
even know they were there. My description of them & their breed names
didn't ring any bells for her so I insisted to go back and see for myself.
They were in general population, the shelter here has the immediately
adoptable dogs on the right side & the stray-hold dogs on the left but all
are open to public viewing. Turns out AC forgot to log my dogs and the
shelter hadn't recorded the previous day's incoming yet. Back then it was
only a 3 day hold and this was day 2. I could have easily lost my dogs if
I'd kept taking other people's word that they weren't there. You'd *think*
that of the 2 departments solely responsible for taking in dogs that *one*
of them would have had a freakin clue.

Post by shelly

That helps but certainly isn't fullproof. Alot of shelters
have scanners but don't use them.

i realize that, but in a case like this, they'd have a *hell*
of a time rationalizing why a chipped pet was placed with a
new owner instead of being returned to it's original owner.

Yes, it certainly would have been insurance for the owner.

[Suja]

Post by Tee
only a 3 day hold and this was day 2. I could have easily lost my dogs if
I'd kept taking other people's word that they weren't there. You'd *think*
that of the 2 departments solely responsible for taking in dogs that *one*
of them would have had a freakin clue.

Around here, if you call in asking about whether they've found a lost
dog, they'll tell you to come down and look for yourself. And you have
to ask them to see the ones in quarantine, being vetted, etc. Turns out
they've had way too many cases of people giving descriptions (big, black
dog turns out to be a medium sized dark brown dog, for example) that
don't fit the dogs, and then got all upset that the shelter wasn't able
to ID their dog.

Suja

[shelly]

Post by Tee
Most shelters have to fight, tooth & nail, for every little
bit of funding they get and unfortunately numbers on their
books can negatively impact them.

*believe* me, i know how financially strapped county offices
are. it seems to me, though, that the "returned to owner"
stats would be pretty important. and, IME, most shelters
require that the original owner pay a fine when picking up a
found dog, so the shelter wouldn't be out any money if it had
to return the adoption fee to the adoptive owner.

Post by Tee
Back then it was only a 3 day hold and this was day 2. I
could have easily lost my dogs if I'd kept taking other
people's word that they weren't there. You'd *think* that of
the 2 departments solely responsible for taking in dogs that
*one* of them would have had a freakin clue.

that's a sobering thought.

the shelters i've dealt with have *insisted* that the owner
come in person to look at the dogs, just to avoid that sort of
situation. the old director (and staff) of the Muncie shelter
wouldn't even hazard a guess as to whether or not your animal
was there, no matter how well you could describe it.

[Cate]

Post by Tee
Sounds like this
may be more a case of the shelter not wanting to give a refund or have
a refund showing on their books *or* someone at the shelter really
wanted that dog so he/she gets preference over the former owner.

The latter possibility makes me feel sick to my stomach, that someone could
earmark my dog for themselves or their friends, and adopt him out after
hiding him from me.

Cate

[Debbie S]

From: ***@yahoo.com
<The latter possibility makes me feel sick to my stomach, that someone
could earmark my dog for themselves or their friends, and adopt him out
after hiding him from me.>

Well-meaning people working in rescue and shelters sometimes like to
think they *know* what the dog's life was like, based on how the dog
presents itself. If the dog is thin, he obviously wasn't loved and/or
was dumped. If the dog has wounds, he obviously was abused.

A couple of months ago, I got a call on my cell {grrrrr!} from someone
who had found a pit bull four days previous. The dog was thin, and had
'road rash' on it's chest. This nutcase took the dog in for shots and
*neutering*, he and the *vet* decided that this dog's owner obviously
dumped the dog out of a moving car. I told him that he had no right to
neuter that dog, as he was under the obligation of our law to report
having found the dog, and that the owner had a right to reclaim it. I
suggested that the dog could have been stolen, been part of a 'custody'
battle, the owner could be in the hospital with someone else looking
after the dog. But nooooo, this idiot with his all-knowing attitude
just KNEW that the owner was unfit, yet wanted *me* to take the dog.
Fat chance, that. I told him there was no way in hell I was getting
involved in the mess he'd created, that he'd have to dig himself out.
The he got mad at _me, saying it would be MY fault if he put the dog
down. ;-)

People suck.

Debbie

[Cate]

Post by Debbie S
The he got mad at _me, saying it would be MY fault if he put the dog
down. ;-)

What an ass.

Post by Debbie S
People suck.

'Hell is other people.'

Cate

[sionnach]

Post by Debbie S
Well-meaning people working in rescue and shelters sometimes like to
think they *know* what the dog's life was like, based on how the dog
presents itself. If the dog is thin, he obviously wasn't loved and/or
was dumped. If the dog has wounds, he obviously was abused.

Hell, they do that even with the dog's owner standing right there!

When Pepper- the beagle/cocker/terrier I had before Brenin- was one of
those very active dogs who, once past early puppyhood, went through an
extended adolecent phase of alternating between lean and skinny. She would
hit a point where she almost looked "just right", then she would put on a
growth spurt and get thin, then she'd fill out a bit, then she'd grow again.
She was also naturally a bit shy with people she didn't know; like a
lot of dogs, she preferred people who let HER make the advances, and/or who
got down on her level.
More than once, I had people assume that she was a recent adoptee and ask
"Oh, the poor doggie- how long have you had her? Oh, she's scared of me- was
she abused??" (as Pepper ducked away from their pushy/looming attempts to
pet her).
When I told them no, I'd had her since she was six weeks old, they'd
start looking at ME funny.
Once she reached a bit over two years old, she filled out a bit more, and
we stopped having these encounters.

And I know I've told the story before about being at the park, throwing
Brenin's ball while Morag (who was about 14 months at the time) busied
herself hunting chipmunks in the underbrush, and being approached by a woman
who asked indignantly "Does anyone know who owns that poor skinny dog that's
hiding in the bushes?".
When I told her Mw was MY dog, she drew herself up and opened her mouth,
very obviously about to start lecturing me. Just then, Brenin returned and
dropped his ball at my feet, and Morag - having lost the chipmunk- ran over
wagging her tail cheerfully. The woman's face was a study, as she stood
there with her mouth open, looked at Bren, then back at Morag (who, though
"skinny", was obviously happy), then back at Brenin.... then (to give her
credit) said "Oh, is she part Greyhound or something?".

And THAT is better than the member of the Shagility list, who - after
doing barn work, wearing old clothes- had her vehicle break down on the way
home. Whilst waiting for her husband to arrive with the tow truck, she
walked her dogs (IIRC one was a Scottish Deerhound and the other a lurcher)
on a strip of grass next to the parking lot where she'd pulled in when her
truck started acting up.
A well-dressed couple hurried by, averting their eyes, and one said
loudly to the other "Isn't it a shame that the city lets homeless people
keep dogs and STARVE them like that?".

[Debbie S]

From: ***@msn.com (sionnach)

<=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A well-dressed couple hurried by, averting their eyes,
and one said loudly to the other "Isn't it a shame that the city lets
homeless people keep dogs and STARVE them like that?". >

Wish I could say that surprises me. :-/

Debbie

[Lynn K.]

Post by Tee
But the shelter wouldn't be taking the dog away from the adopters because
the adopters didn't take possession of her yet. They may have paid the fee
and been told to wait until the dog is vetted before picking her up but if
they had possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been playing
with her at the shelter. It was a simple matter of phoning the adopter and
telling them what happened then offering their money back.

They could offer their money back, but the adopter is under no
obligation to accept that offer. That actually sounds very much like
what happened. The problem is that the dog becomes the legal property
of the new adopter at the point where they sign the adoption papers
and pay for the spay (to be done the next day).

This is a tragedy, of course, but it does point out some important
things that have to be done if a dog is lost. It seems pretty clear
to me, knowing that shelter's layout, that the owner went through the
shelter a couple of times looking for her dog, but didn't fill out a
lost report or talk to a volunteer.

Lynn K.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Post by Lynn K.

Post by Tee
But the shelter wouldn't be taking the dog away from the adopters because
the adopters didn't take possession of her yet. They may have paid the fee
and been told to wait until the dog is vetted before picking her up but if
they had possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been playing
with her at the shelter. It was a simple matter of phoning the adopter and
telling them what happened then offering their money back.

They could offer their money back, but the adopter is under no
obligation to accept that offer. That actually sounds very much like
what happened. The problem is that the dog becomes the legal property
of the new adopter at the point where they sign the adoption papers
and pay for the spay (to be done the next day).
This is a tragedy, of course, but it does point out some important
things that have to be done if a dog is lost. It seems pretty clear
to me, knowing that shelter's layout, that the owner went through the
shelter a couple of times looking for her dog, but didn't fill out a
lost report or talk to a volunteer.

It seems to me if the owner can document that she was there looking
for the dog, the burden of proof is on the shelter to demonstrate that
they did not willfully hide the dog so they could give it to some
rich-bitch contributor. I hope they get their pants dragged off 'em
in court, and I think they will, too. I'll bet lawyers all over the
area are volunteering their services.

Don't you think it's ironic that the rightful owner was suddenly able
to find her dog at the shelter -- as soon as it was too late and the
wait period had elapsed by one freaken day?

Charlie

[Emily Carroll]

Post by Charlie Wilkes
It seems to me if the owner can document that she was there looking
for the dog, the burden of proof is on the shelter to demonstrate that
they did not willfully hide the dog so they could give it to some
rich-bitch contributor. I hope they get their pants dragged off 'em
in court, and I think they will, too. I'll bet lawyers all over the
area are volunteering their services.

Not knowing this particular shelter, but knowing (3) others...

If you don't tell the staff that you are there looking for a stray, you are
very likely to miss at least a few animals of either species (cat/dog) that
are either in quarantine or being treated.

I can browse all three shelters that I've worked in under 10 minutes--if the
dog was removed for treatment, put in a crate to wait for a few minutes,
treated, put back until the staffer came back--it could be upwards of a hour
before the dog was back in the stray runs.

Secondly, without telling a staff member that you have lost a dog, you are
also missing out on any stray calls they may have received, as well as any
pickups that are in the trucks or scheduled for later in the day--or even is
in the "roadkill" pickup pile or was euthanized due to injuries.

Thirdly, the friend that came through. Now, I have one relatively
identifiable dog (while the breed is common, the color and markings aren't,
he's still a puppy, he has decent conformation which most shelter Labs
don't, and he's microchipped). I doubt that even my closest friends (and
I'd wager parents, if the dog's recognition wasn't taken into consideration)
could pick my other two out if they were in a lineup of four or five others
of their breed & color & relative age.

In all truth, the original owners should be thankful that their dog is in a
home that cares about her--the other options are really either dead or in a
research lab.

--
Emily Carroll
Fluttervale Labradors: www.fluttervale.com
CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/
4-H Club: www.geocities.com/woofsandwiggles/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:44:58 -0500, "Emily Carroll"

Post by Emily Carroll
In all truth, the original owners should be thankful that their dog is in a
home that cares about her--the other options are really either dead or in a
research lab.

Is that how you would feel if you lost Rusty and someone else ended up
with him? It's a pretty harsh POV, and I don't think the public
agrees with you about this. I think the public believes strongly that
the rightful owner should get her dog back.

Charlie

[Emily Carroll]

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:44:58 -0500, "Emily Carroll"

Post by Emily Carroll
In all truth, the original owners should be thankful that their dog is in a
home that cares about her--the other options are really either dead or in a
research lab.

Is that how you would feel if you lost Rusty and someone else ended up
with him? It's a pretty harsh POV, and I don't think the public
agrees with you about this. I think the public believes strongly that
the rightful owner should get her dog back.

Yes, it is. I would do what I could to get him back--but in the end, I
would be happy that he was alive and safe if he still couldn't be with me.

HOWEVER, it is not a risk--he is microchipped, and so long as he doesn't
wander into Canada it would not be difficult to find in my favor in a court
of law. (Heck, probably even easier in Canada...)

--
Emily Carroll
Fluttervale Labradors: www.fluttervale.com
CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/
4-H Club: www.geocities.com/woofsandwiggles/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004

[The Puppy Wizard]

BWEEEAAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

You better up your dose of anti psychotics.

Post by Lynn K.

Post by Tee
But the shelter wouldn't be taking the dog away from the

adopters because

Post by Lynn K.

Post by Tee
the adopters didn't take possession of her yet. They may have paid the fee
and been told to wait until the dog is vetted before picking

her up but if

Post by Lynn K.

Post by Tee
they had possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been playing
with her at the shelter. It was a simple matter of phoning

the adopter and

Post by Lynn K.

Post by Tee
telling them what happened then offering their money back.

They could offer their money back, but the adopter is under no
obligation to accept that offer. That actually sounds very much like
what happened. The problem is that the dog becomes the legal

property

Post by Lynn K.
of the new adopter at the point where they sign the adoption

papers

Post by Lynn K.
and pay for the spay (to be done the next day).
This is a tragedy, of course, but it does point out some

important

Post by Lynn K.
things that have to be done if a dog is lost. It seems pretty

clear

Post by Lynn K.
to me, knowing that shelter's layout, that the owner went

through the

Post by Lynn K.
shelter a couple of times looking for her dog, but didn't fill

out a

Post by Lynn K.
lost report or talk to a volunteer.
Lynn K.

[Cate]

Post by Lynn K.
This is a tragedy, of course, but it does point out some important
things that have to be done if a dog is lost. It seems pretty clear
to me, knowing that shelter's layout, that the owner went through the
shelter a couple of times looking for her dog, but didn't fill out a
lost report or talk to a volunteer.

Lynn, since you know the shelter's layout, maybe you know this: Are there
clear signs or instructions that say a person must fill out a lost report
or talk to a volunteer when looking for a lost pet?

Cate

[Paula]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:04:08 -0500, "Tee"

Post by Tee

Post by shelly
i can understand why the shelter can't take a dog away from
it's new adopters just because the former owner waltzes back
into the picture, but why can't there be a fail-safe for when
the shelter messes up? i realize the new adopters' ownership
rights need to be protected, but this seems hideously unfair
to me.

But the shelter wouldn't be taking the dog away from the adopters because
the adopters didn't take possession of her yet. They may have paid the fee
and been told to wait until the dog is vetted before picking her up but if
they had possession of her then the former owner wouldn't have been playing
with her at the shelter. It was a simple matter of phoning the adopter and
telling them what happened then offering their money back. Sounds like this
may be more a case of the shelter not wanting to give a refund or have a
refund showing on their books *or* someone at the shelter really wanted that
dog so he/she gets preference over the former owner. No shelter, anywhere,
can tell me their hands are tied if they are still in physical possession of
the dog. That's a crock.

I can't believe that they wouldn't talk to the new adopters about it,
either. Tied hands are not tied hands, if you know what I mean. How
many new adopters who haven't even taken the dog home are going to
look those owners in the eyes and insist on taking the dog? I would
be willing to bet that most would be happy to wait for another dog to
be available before they have bonded with the dog in their home rather
than do that to people who had bonded to the dog in their home. Also,
wouldn't they want the shelter to do the same for them? I do wonder
about the idea of someone at the shelter wanting the dog. That would
explain the hardcore attitude as well as the dog not showing up in any
kennels when it was being looked for. Probably convinced he or she
was doing the best thing for the dog, too, since how could a dog loose
without a collar be well cared for? I hope that isn't the case, but
if it is, I hope it all comes out and the shelter is humiliated for
helping someone do that to frantic people searching for their dog. I
hope they at least have to come up with some explanation for why these
people never saw their dog in repeated visits to the shelter looking
for it.

[Cate]

shelly <***@bluemarble.net> wrote in news:***@tesla.bluemarble.net:

i would be beyond furious if i'd

Post by shelly
checked the shelter multiple times and my dog was there the
whole time, even if it weren't adopted by someone else.
where *was* the dog? and, presumably the shelter knew what
sort of dog the owner was searching for. surely they should
have shown her every GR currently there?

I agree. This part of the story sounds very fishy. Even if the dog was
temporarily removed from the facility--at an off-site vet visit, say--IMO
the shelter had an obligation to tell the owner 'Oh, and we also have this
*other* GR that might be yours. Come back at 3pm when she'll be back.'

Post by shelly
i can understand why the shelter can't take a dog away from
it's new adopters just because the former owner waltzes back
into the picture, but why can't there be a fail-safe for when
the shelter messes up?

i realize the new adopters' ownership

Post by shelly
rights need to be protected, but this seems hideously unfair
to me.

It seems to me that the prospective adopter's rights should be negated if
the shelter is acting against its published policies or against municipal
code to have strays on display. I'd hope so, anyway.

I'd consider suing in this case. I hope the original owner does, if nothing
else but to get some answers from the shelter about where her dog was
during the times she visited but didn't see her.

Cate

[shelly]

Post by Cate
I agree. This part of the story sounds very fishy. Even if
the dog was temporarily removed from the facility--at an
off-site vet visit, say--IMO the shelter had an obligation to
tell the owner 'Oh, and we also have this *other* GR that
might be yours. Come back at 3pm when she'll be back.'

yep.

Post by Cate
It seems to me that the prospective adopter's rights should
be negated if the shelter is acting against its published
policies or against municipal code to have strays on display.
I'd hope so, anyway.

i would hope so, but i wouldn't want to assume anything. i
can see how protecting the adopter's rights, regardless of
whether or not the shelter was acting appropriately, *could*
invalidate the original owner's claim to the dog. yucky, but
i can see how it could happen.

Post by Cate
I'd consider suing in this case. I hope the original owner
does, if nothing else but to get some answers from the
shelter about where her dog was during the times she visited
but didn't see her.

oh yeah. i'm not sue-happy, but if something like that
happened to me, i'd *definitely* take whatever legal action i
could. if nothing else, i'd want to stop the same thing from
happening to anyone else.

[Cate]

Post by shelly
i would hope so, but i wouldn't want to assume anything. i
can see how protecting the adopter's rights, regardless of
whether or not the shelter was acting appropriately, *could*
invalidate the original owner's claim to the dog. yucky, but
i can see how it could happen.

Orson was on a 7-day hold (maybe it was 5--I can't remember) before we
adopted him. Even after we brought him home, I had fears of someone
recognizing him, because I knew that I couldn't keep someone else's dog if
he was wanted. I would've had the law on my side, but not my own morals. It
would've broken my heart, but I'd have given him back.

(This does not, however, negate my course to Malebolge, or whatever circle
of hell I qualified for by cheating on the quiz.)

Post by shelly
oh yeah. i'm not sue-happy, but if something like that
happened to me, i'd *definitely* take whatever legal action i
could. if nothing else, i'd want to stop the same thing from
happening to anyone else.

Yep. I'd get sue-happy in a jiffy in this case.

Cate

[shelly]

Post by Cate
Orson was on a 7-day hold (maybe it was 5--I can't remember)
before we adopted him. Even after we brought him home, I had
fears of someone recognizing him, because I knew that I
couldn't keep someone else's dog if he was wanted. I would've
had the law on my side, but not my own morals. It would've
broken my heart, but I'd have given him back.

yep. or, at the very least, i'd be willing to discuss it with
them. OTOH i had to wrestle with a similar problem when
elliott's owner showed up, a month after i'd found elliott,
and admitted that he'd known all along that i had his dog.
um, *no*. i did discuss it with the guy, but if he hadn't
given in, i can't say i would've handed elliott over to him.

Post by Cate
(This does not, however, negate my course to Malebolge, or
whatever circle of hell I qualified for by cheating on the
quiz.)

naturellement!

[Cate]

Post by shelly
yep. or, at the very least, i'd be willing to discuss it with
them. OTOH i had to wrestle with a similar problem when
elliott's owner showed up, a month after i'd found elliott,
and admitted that he'd known all along that i had his dog.
um, *no*. i did discuss it with the guy, but if he hadn't
given in, i can't say i would've handed elliott over to him.

Yeah, after I posted on this I realized I hadn't qualified it with a time
limit. On that I'm not sure. But a month might be excessive for someone to
expect the dog back--*especially* if it was legally adopted.

I know I've said this here before, but a few months after we got Orson a
neighbor, living in self-created squalor, claimed it was her dog, Onyx,
that she'd surrendered to the SPCA. She seemed happy to see him. The times
didn't match up, so it wasn't the right dog, but it creeped me out no end
that someone would say 'Hey! I know that dog! I didn't think he was worth
keeping. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheerio!'

Cate

[Gwen Watson]

Post by Cate
but it creeped me out no end
that someone would say 'Hey! I know that dog! I didn't think he was worth
keeping. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheerio!'
Cate

That is quite creepy. And I can't imagine someone not wanting to
keep lovely Orson.

Gwen

[shelly]

Post by Cate
Yeah, after I posted on this I realized I hadn't qualified it
with a time limit. On that I'm not sure. But a month might be
excessive for someone to expect the dog back

yeah. at some point, even if there are seriously extenuating
circumstances, i think it's probably best to leave things as
they are.

Post by Cate
--*especially* if it was legally adopted.

i never turned elliott in to the shelter (and i'm not sure i
would if i had it to do over again today), but i *did* file a
report with them, along with two photos, put an ad in the
paper, put up flyers over a pretty large area, and notified
*every* vet in town. i did everything i could to find his
owner, barring actually taking him to the shelter. i'm not
sure it's worth the risk of disease exposure to a pup to do
that, though, especially if the finder is willing to keep the
dog and does everything reasonable to find the owners.

Post by Cate
but it creeped me out no end that someone would say 'Hey! I
know that dog! I didn't think he was worth keeping. Just
thought I'd let you know. Cheerio!'

heh. when you put it that way, it *is* pretty weird. if i'd
given up a dog, i don't think i'd wander around telling the
"new owners" about it. that's pretty clearly a "need to know
basis" sort of thing, and you didn't need to know. people are
strange.

[Melinda Shore]

Post by Cate
I'd consider suing in this case.

*Consider*? I'd be all over that mess in a heartbeat.

[Cate]

Post by Melinda Shore

Post by Cate
I'd consider suing in this case.

*Consider*? I'd be all over that mess in a heartbeat.

Ok, I was being generous. You're right. The more I think about what I'd do
if it were me, the more angry I get.

Cate

[FurPaw]

Post by Cate
I'd consider suing in this case. I hope the original owner does, if nothing
else but to get some answers from the shelter about where her dog was
during the times she visited but didn't see her.

The problem with a lawsuit is that the costs of defense will come out of
the shelter's budget (I assume). Win or lose, the ones that really get
hurt by a lawsuit are the animals (less money availble to care for them).

What a fkuced up situation... I really feel for the owner.

FurPaw

[Christy]

Post by shelly
all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!

Also, don't leave your pets unattended in the yard when you aren't home.
She's fortunate, at least, that her dog is ALIVE - I know of three agility
dogs in recent times that escaped from yards and were killed by cars, and
I'm sure that's a small percentage of the overall number of pets that are
killed when out loose. It is sad and scary that one could lose their dog to
another person, but at least she knows the dog is safe.

Christy

[shelly]

Post by Christy
Also, don't leave your pets unattended in the yard when you
aren't home.

amen!

Post by Christy
She's fortunate, at least, that her dog is ALIVE - I know of
three agility dogs in recent times that escaped from yards
and were killed by cars, and I'm sure that's a small
percentage of the overall number of pets that are killed when
out loose.

my neighbors have a dog door and give their dogs 24/7 access
to their dog yard. there's no way i could do that. granted,
their dogs are very different than mine temperamentally (not
as creative/driven/focused/whatever), but still, it's not
something i could *ever* be comfortable with. heck, the one
time elliott managed to get out of my yard, i was beside
myself until i found him. all i could imagine is him getting
shot by a neighbor, hit by a car, or forever lost in the
woods. thank the gods none of those things happened.

Post by Christy
It is sad and scary that one could lose their dog to another
person, but at least she knows the dog is safe.

true. it may not be much of a consolation, but it *is* better
than never knowing what happened to your dog.

[Rocky]

Post by shelly
my neighbors have a dog door and give their dogs 24/7 access
to their dog yard. there's no way i could do that.

Yup. For the very same reasons that my dogs stay in my yard
(even with the gate open, I've discovered) while I'm at home, I
wouldn't trust them in the yard while I'm not there.

[dejablues]

It's about time that dog was spayed, too. Unaltered dogs are more likely to
roam.

Post by Christy

Post by shelly
all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!

Also, don't leave your pets unattended in the yard when you aren't home.
She's fortunate, at least, that her dog is ALIVE - I know of three agility
dogs in recent times that escaped from yards and were killed by cars, and
I'm sure that's a small percentage of the overall number of pets that are
killed when out loose. It is sad and scary that one could lose their dog to
another person, but at least she knows the dog is safe.
Christy

[Paula]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:47:33 GMT, "Christy"

Post by Christy

Post by shelly
all i can say is, microchip your pets!!!

Also, don't leave your pets unattended in the yard when you aren't home.
She's fortunate, at least, that her dog is ALIVE - I know of three agility
dogs in recent times that escaped from yards and were killed by cars, and
I'm sure that's a small percentage of the overall number of pets that are
killed when out loose. It is sad and scary that one could lose their dog to
another person, but at least she knows the dog is safe.

I had to go to a home to drop something off over the weekend and I
took my daughters with me. The home was in a pretty rural area, and
as we went to the door, two dogs came from across the street to greet
us. My daughters were horrified that the dogs got out and were
wandering around where "they might get hit by a car!" When I told
them that the dogs had not "got out" but had been out in the front
yard, which was not in any way fenced off from any back yard, when we
drove up, they were really horrified. They couldn't believe that
people would let their dogs run around where they might get hit by
cars because dogs don't know any better, you know! I guess they have
been completely indoctrinated in my attempts to teach them to be
careful of doors and gates and dogs. When I was growing up, though,
in a not rural area at all, most of the neighborhood dogs roamed the
streets, getting into trash cans of people who hated dogs enough to
poison them and chasing kids on bikes. It's a wonder they lived to
old age.

[Judy]

"Cate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@130.133.1.4...
How could they tell me,

Post by Cate
`You don't own this dog?' ''
Humane Society officials say they understand Karanastasis' anguish, but
their hands are tied.
``This is a difficult situation and I do feel bad for the owner,'' said
Christine Benninger, president of the Humane Society. ``But we're
following state law here. After five days, the Humane Society becomes
owner.''

Okay, either dogs are property or they aren't.

If I lose my wallet, even the money in it doesn't become police property
five days later.

I agree, the dog is a little more perishable a product than cash in my
wallet. And I'm really glad that they were able to place the dog and that
she was going to what we assume is a great new home.

But they didn't have the dog yet. She was still at the shelter. At the
very least, they could treat the owner as an adopter with priority rights
and let her pay the same fees to the shelter that the new adopters were.

How could this new family feel good about what has happened? Don't they
realize they could be in the same situation?

~~Judy

[Sunflower]

This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant. Not saying that
*isn't* the truth, but do remember that papers are in the business of
creating shitstorms where none exist sometimes and not reporting *TRUTH*.

She *says* she went to the shelter several times and didn't see her dog.
Could it be that she did make the trip but didn't look at at *all* of the
kennels? I don't know how this particular shelter is staffed, but at ours,
it's darn difficult to see that everyone coming through the door to wander
about has a personal escort. Without that guidance from a staff member,
isn't it possible that she didn't realize that there were two separate areas
for the dogs? Isn't it possible that her three previous trips might have
been phone calls instead to whomever answers the phone there and who
doesn't have a great familiarity with the new dogs? Is it possible that Ms.
Karanastasis *isn't* really the owner of this animal and has no paperwork to
back up her claim of ownership? Or that there *were* reasons to deny her
readopting the dog in favor of someone else?

All of this *may* be possible, or none of it. None of the comments from the
Humane Society representatives shed enough light on the situation at all. I
know that they are on the defensive here and trying to limit any information
exposure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are at fault. It just
means that they are a public organization whose image is being damaged
severely in the media at this time.

Similar situations have occurred at our shelter with different results
depending on each individual situation. Generally, our *first* priority has
been to reunite the pet with the rightful owner, but it isn't always a
simple black and white issue. Occasionally, the "rightful owner" can't
produce any type of paper work to show the dog is really theirs, not even a
shot record at a low cost clinic. We've both denied the owner readoption
rights and also readopted to the owner after some education and assistance.
Yes, we have similar city laws to deal with as it sounds this Humane Society
does. But, we try to treat each situation as individual cases, keeping the
best interests of *the animal* in mind. The best interests of the animal do
not always coincide with the "rights" of the owner, unfortunately, as anyone
in rescue well knows.

It's entirely possible that this is one of those cases where the animal was
better rehomed than with the original owner, thus the dogmatic stance on
"this is the law and we're following the law". It's hard to form an opinion
with the minimal and biased facts reported in that brief artical, and they
certainly wouldn't want to face a libel suit by saying, "My 88 year old
grandmother could have dug out of that fence. And, there was just a plywood
doghouse with no shade and scummy green water. The dog had fleas so badly
that you couldn't spot a square inch without them. Etc." All I can say is
that I'd prefer to keep an open mind, and for once have the less cynical
response that politics and favortism don't seem (at this time) to have
anything to do with the decision that was made. (Or would it be even more
cynical to think that Ms. Karanastasis might not totally be the "wronged
party" here?)

I could, of course, be completely wrong, but I would hope that animal
welfare advocates would at least be aware of enough potential problems with
setting the blind precedent that they seem to want to adopt. Most have
enough personal animals and have experienced enough of "escapes" and "ran
out the doors" to not call the kettle too darn black---at least without a
smidgen of darn negative fact behind it.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.

They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.

Charlie

[Sunflower]

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.
They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.
Charlie

"> They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted

Post by Charlie Wilkes
it. " is a *fact*, and NOT "merely speculation"? Neither of us is close

enough to the situation to have any personal firsthand information. I
acknowledge that, and offer a different possible spin than the newspaper
did, merely from my perspective as a shelter worker. Have you personal
experience of a shelter doing as you've claimed that colors your
perceptions? If not, then why do you seem to have an out of proportion
emotional response to a very brief and slanted newstory?

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:33:04 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.
They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.
Charlie

"> They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted

Post by Charlie Wilkes
it. " is a *fact*, and NOT "merely speculation"? Neither of us is close

enough to the situation to have any personal firsthand information. I
acknowledge that, and offer a different possible spin than the newspaper
did, merely from my perspective as a shelter worker. Have you personal
experience of a shelter doing as you've claimed that colors your
perceptions? If not, then why do you seem to have an out of proportion
emotional response to a very brief and slanted newstory?

My emotional response is based on my strong attachment to my own dog.
Have you ever been attached to a dog? How would you feel if you found
out your dog had a new "owner" less than a week after it went missing,
and the system was siding with the new "owner" rather than yourself?
If it happened to me, it would fuck up my life in a BIG way.

Charlie

[Sunflower]

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:33:04 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.
They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.
Charlie

"> They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted

Post by Charlie Wilkes
it. " is a *fact*, and NOT "merely speculation"? Neither of us is close

enough to the situation to have any personal firsthand information. I
acknowledge that, and offer a different possible spin than the newspaper
did, merely from my perspective as a shelter worker. Have you personal
experience of a shelter doing as you've claimed that colors your
perceptions? If not, then why do you seem to have an out of proportion
emotional response to a very brief and slanted newstory?

My emotional response is based on my strong attachment to my own dog
Have you ever been attached to a dog? How would you feel if you found
out your dog had a new "owner" less than a week after it went missing,
and the system was siding with the new "owner" rather than yourself?

Emotional attachment to any animal in no way equates to the ability to care
for that animal responsibly. Children become emotionally attached every
single day to animals in our shelter, but they aren't the ones we interview
as potential owners. THe parents are. And, sometimes they aren't any more
responsible than the kids.

Declining to defend one's self or organization in the media is NOT an
admission of guilt or wrong doing. Just because the shelter offers little
other than a basic "we're following the law" no comment type of comment
doesn't mean a thing. Presumption of innocence is still a tenet in criminal
law, if not civil. If Ms.Karanastasis believes that the shelter acted in a
criminal matter, she should see her district attorney. Or retain a lawyer
and sue in civil court.

Bear in mind that judges and juries in many civil courts have come up with
some doozies of ridiculous verdicts that bear no relation to the facts of
the case that was tried. My girlfriend was sued by her next door neighbor
because her dog barked at the lady's elderly cat and it later died the same
day. No necropsy, no vet report, no witnesses or anything, but her insurance
company is appealing the $3000 verdict and she's shopping for a new
insurance company for when this one finally cancels. The law is as full of
whackos as is any other profession--and not all of them are the clients.

I>f it happened to me, it would fuck up my life in a BIG way.
Well, *something* has obviously *already* happened.

[Rocky]

Post by Sunflower
Emotional attachment to any animal in no way equates to the
ability to care for that animal responsibly.

It relates very closely. I think that Charlie wrote well on
this, and I agree with him.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Post by Rocky

Post by Sunflower
Emotional attachment to any animal in no way equates to the
ability to care for that animal responsibly.

It relates very closely. I think that Charlie wrote well on
this, and I agree with him.

Thank you Matt. I hope this story doesn't fade until someone does the
right thing and returns that dog to its rightful owner.

Charlie

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:06:49 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
Emotional attachment to any animal in no way equates to the ability to care
for that animal responsibly.

Do you have any reason to think this dog was not cared for properly?

Post by Sunflower
Children become emotionally attached every
single day to animals in our shelter, but they aren't the ones we interview
as potential owners. THe parents are. And, sometimes they aren't any more
responsible than the kids.

So what?

Post by Sunflower
Declining to defend one's self or organization in the media is NOT an
admission of guilt or wrong doing. Just because the shelter offers little
other than a basic "we're following the law" no comment type of comment
doesn't mean a thing. Presumption of innocence is still a tenet in criminal
law, if not civil.

This isn't a criminal case, yet. Right now, it's a case of someone
who wants her dog back.

Post by Sunflower
If Ms.Karanastasis believes that the shelter acted in a
criminal matter, she should see her district attorney. Or retain a lawyer
and sue in civil court.

I'll bet it will happen if she doesn't get that dog back. And she'll
have lots of support from dog lovers. I'll be good for a donation if
someone sets up a legitimate fund.

If this were my dog, I'd pull out all stops and discovery would
already be under way -- including depositions of shelter employees and
a close look at the relationship between the new "owner" of this dog
and the shelter.

Charlie

[Michael Snyder]

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.
They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.

Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can actually
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:42:43 GMT, "Michael Snyder"

Post by Michael Snyder

Post by Charlie Wilkes
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:06:51 GMT, "Sunflower"

Post by Sunflower
This is a very one sided reporting, slanted to make Ms.Karanastasis the
sympathetic beat up on by a beauracracy poor immigrant.

I wouldn't say that at all. The reporter interviewed the people from
the shelter, who could have made any of your speculative arguments but
made none of them.
They kept this dog out of sight because one of their patrons wanted
it. That has the ring of truth, and it will continue to be my working
assumption unless someone introduces new information -- of which you
offer none, merely speculation.

Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can actually
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

Yes. I am speculating with respect to ~why~ things happened. BUT, we
all know who didn't end up getting their dog back.

Keep in mind that the shelter hasn't offered any "arguments" for their
position except the bland technical assertion that the law is on their
side. No one, for example, has suggested that the rightful owner
mistreated the dog, or failed to take an interest when it went
missing. In fact, it is a well-socialized pet that arrived in
beautiful condition, which is why it is desirable for an upscale
family in Los Gatos.

They probably don't want to have to bother house-training a puppy
because of their expensive rugs etc.

Charlie

[Bo Raxo]

Post by Michael Snyder
Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can actually
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

Exactly what crime occurred? What would you charge them with? Denial of
dog?!?

[Michael Snyder]

Post by Bo Raxo

Post by Michael Snyder
Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can actually
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

Exactly what crime occurred? What would you charge them with? Denial of
dog?!?

Theft, you bozo raxo!!!

[Bo Raxo]

Post by Michael Snyder

Post by Bo Raxo

Post by Michael Snyder
Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can actually
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

Exactly what crime occurred? What would you charge them with? Denial of
dog?!?

Theft, you bozo raxo!!!

So they went on these people's property and took their dog?

Tell me Michael, if I am walking down the street and lose my watch, and you
find it, is that theft? How about if you own a pawn shop, and I come in
the pawn shop looking for my watch, but you don't have it on display. Is it
theft then?

Was there a license or id or microchip on this dog identifying it? No.
Where was it found? On public streets. Is there a law requiring shelters
to show all unclaimed animals to anyone looking for a lost dog? No.

Theft requires - THEFT! Nobody stole the damn dog, it wandered away. If I
find your property in the street, and there's nothing to identify the owner,
I didn't steal anything. I FOUND it.

[Robert Lee]

Post by Bo Raxo
Theft requires - THEFT! Nobody stole the damn dog, it wandered away.
If I find your property in the street, and there's nothing to identify
the owner, I didn't steal anything. I FOUND it.

Not if it's valued over a certain amount, which varies depending on your
location. Then, it's theft if you keep it, whether anybody's likely to
catch you or not.

[Michael Snyder]

Post by Robert Lee

Post by Bo Raxo
Theft requires - THEFT! Nobody stole the damn dog, it wandered away.
If I find your property in the street, and there's nothing to identify
the owner, I didn't steal anything. I FOUND it.

Not if it's valued over a certain amount, which varies depending on your
location. Then, it's theft if you keep it, whether anybody's likely to
catch you or not.

And in principle, it does not matter what its value is. Its yours,
you lost it, someone else found it, you show up to claim it. You
show legal proof of ownership. END OF STORY. If they don't
return it to you, it's theft.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 06:54:51 GMT, Robert Lee

Post by Robert Lee

Post by Bo Raxo
Theft requires - THEFT! Nobody stole the damn dog, it wandered away.
If I find your property in the street, and there's nothing to identify
the owner, I didn't steal anything. I FOUND it.

Not if it's valued over a certain amount, which varies depending on your
location. Then, it's theft if you keep it, whether anybody's likely to
catch you or not.

The woman did not leave her dog somewhere. It escaped from her yard.
Dogs do that sometimes.

A better analogy would be if someone stole your car, and a week later,
you found it on a dealer's lot, but he said, "sorry, pal, by law it's
mine now."

That would suck, and it would be unjust, but I could live with it if
it were my car. Not my dog, though.

Charlie

[Michael Snyder]

Post by shelly

Post by Michael Snyder

Post by Bo Raxo

Post by Michael Snyder
Well, your theory is speculation too, of course. If anyone can

actually

Post by Michael Snyder

Post by Bo Raxo

Post by Michael Snyder
prove that, or even make a case for it, then criminal charges should
follow.

Exactly what crime occurred? What would you charge them with? Denial

of

Post by Michael Snyder

Post by Bo Raxo
dog?!?

Theft, you bozo raxo!!!

So they went on these people's property and took their dog?

Bo -- you own an object with tangible value, and although your
name is not on that object, the object is identifiable and you have
clear legal title to it. You lose that object, and somebody else
finds it. After only 5 days, they decide to give it to someone else.
You show up, display your CLEAR LEGAL TITLE to the object,
and they refuse to give it back to you.

Get it?

[Robert Lee]

Post by Michael Snyder
Bo -- you own an object with tangible value, and although your
name is not on that object, the object is identifiable and you have
clear legal title to it. You lose that object, and somebody else
finds it. After only 5 days, they decide to give it to someone else.
You show up, display your CLEAR LEGAL TITLE to the object,
and they refuse to give it back to you.
Get it?

Well, here, let's make this really personal, just for Bo:

You park your motorcycle in a spot that's been temporarily designated a
construction zone and go into an adjoining building to visit with
friends. You didn't know, because the spot wasn't marked because...I
dunno, some stupid kid ripped down the sign. While you're partying, your
bike gets towed.

Now, the city has five days for you to come claim the bike before you
lose it and it's theirs to dispose of. You don't even find out the bike
was towed for two days, as you're under the impression that it was stolen
and the cops are looking into it. When you find out on the third day, you
go to the city and fill out ten pounds of paperwork and go from one
impound lot to another where it's supposed to be, only it's never
actually there. All of this takes two days, and then you find out through
sheer coincidence that your motorcycle's going to be auctioned the next
day.

So you show up that morning, and your bike never turns up on the block,
and you ask afterward what the hell's going on and they tell you, "Oh,
Officer Martinez's buddy over there bought it before the auction opened
for fifty bucks."

Don't worry about it, though, Bo. It's just property.

[Emily Carroll]

Post by Michael Snyder
You show up, display your CLEAR LEGAL TITLE to the object,
and they refuse to give it back to you.
Get it?

So what clear legal title did the original owner provide?

I can provide registration papers for a Yellow labrador female from the
pound--but there's no way of tying them to the dog unless there's an actual
connection (microchip or tattoo).

Unless their dog was tattooed or microchipped, there's really no way to
prove it's yours (unless you have a breed with unique markings--Goldens are
not typically "uniquely" marked.)

--
Emily Carroll
Fluttervale Labradors: www.fluttervale.com
CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/
4-H Club: www.geocities.com/woofsandwiggles/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004

[shelly]

Post by Emily Carroll
Unless their dog was tattooed or microchipped, there's really
no way to prove it's yours (unless you have a breed with
unique markings--Goldens are not typically "uniquely"
marked.)

or you have a mismarked dog. i'm fairly confident that i
could describe harriet accurately enough to convince most
anyone beyond a shadow of a doubt that she's my dog. i've
also got buttloads of pictures, including ones clearly showing
her mismarking--or "extra flash," as i like to call it.
(that's not as failsafe as microchipping in terms of proof of
ownership, of course.)

[Tee]

Post by shelly

Post by Emily Carroll
Unless their dog was tattooed or microchipped, there's really
no way to prove it's yours (unless you have a breed with
unique markings--Goldens are not typically "uniquely"
marked.)

or you have a mismarked dog.

Or you have dental records from a cleaning...or the dog has a scar...or the
dog responds to the name you raised it with.

[Melinda Shore]

Post by Tee
Or you have dental records from a cleaning...or the dog has a scar...or the
dog responds to the name you raised it with.

This all underscores the critically important nature of
teaching your dog at least one wacky trick.