Dog Parks Revisited

Don't they look like they're hatching a plan?

My long-time readers - if I've got any left after blogging so irregularly lately - will have noticed that I revisit the subject of dog parks every once in a blue moon. It seems that this is one subject I simply can't keep away from.

I believe that dog parks are a great idea ... in theory. The original idea behind dog parks was to allow dogs a space to run off-leash, play ball, and get exercise, if their owners were unable to provide it otherwise. Dog owners who live in city apartments, town homes without or with only small yards, and homes that cannot have a fenced yard due to local restrictions, all benefited from the idea of dog parks. They were able to take their dogs to the park, ensure they got proper exercise, and reaped the results of a tired dog. Remember - a tired dog is a good dog!

Unfortunately, like Communism, dog parks only work in theory. At least in most places.

There are exceptional dog parks in this country. Some of them are large enough to allow for off-leash walking and play without having to worry about groups of other dogs interfering. In some, you can go most times without ever seeing another dog or owner. Others have strict requirements before you're allowed to use them, such as a test to make sure your dog is friendly with other dogs, and an annual fee to receive your park tag. The latter type of park often also provides a park monitor who ensures everyone complies with the rules, and who will ask owners to pick up after their dogs, or to remove dogs that are acting aggressively.

Sadly for most dog owners, such as myself, those parks are more commonly the exception than the rule, and using any regular dog park, you can almost always expect to meet people who either refuse to read and comply with park rules, or who are as sad as that is to say - just too stupid to "get" that the rules are there for a reason.

Dog Parks ARE a place where your well-socialized dog can spend some time running off-leash, playing ball, and playing with other, well-socialized, dog-friendly dogs. They are also a place where you can work on some of your training off-leash, such as your basics (sit, down, stay, come, and heel), in an area of the park that is not overly busy - or later on, in the main area of the park where you have many distractions.

Dog Parks ARE NOT a place where you bring a fearful or aggressive dog for socialization. They are also not a place where you simply turn your dog loose and then sit down to enjoy a book or spend an hour on the phone with your best girlfriend while completely ignoring your dog and your dog's behavior. They're also not a place to bring a dog who has not learned the very basics of obedience - such as "come" - as those are skills that are needed at the park.

That all said, we do take our two dogs to the dog park.

We are very fortunate at Fort Drum in that we have two dog parks right on base - one in the housing area, and one in Remington Park. The one in Remington Park is the one we go to, since we feel that the park in the housing area should probably be limited to people who actually live in the housing area, although that's certainly not a rule.

However, even with having these parks available and these parks having a limited number of visitors since they require access to the base, we still see plenty of stupidity going on. Last Sunday's visit was pretty typical of a trip to a dog park - any dog park - that does not have a park monitor to ensure everyone and their dogs are using common sense during visits.

When we arrived at the park, it was empty with the exception of one lady and her two dogs.

We approached the gate as we normally do, slowly and with the dogs in a heel. Then they are required to sit before they're allowed inside, and we heel into the park, off toward the side, before asking them to sit and unleashing them. The idea here is to enter the park calmly, especially if there are other dogs, so that any other dogs inside won't get all wound up by hyper new arrivals.

The woman's male dog was a larger hound mix, and while he initially had his hackles up approaching Ronja, they quickly went down and everyone had a very nice time playing.

Her other dog, however, was a nine week old female chocolate dapple Dachshund. I don't understand, and probably won't ever understand, why anyone would bring a young puppy to a dog park, especially one that has not had all of its initial puppy shots yet.

While it's important to bring the puppy out and expose her to as many different things as possible, that should be limited to places that don't see a lot of dog traffic, because any illness, even ones that will be easily treatable in adult dogs (such as kennel cough) can make a puppy seriously ill.

And the other thing I don't understand is why people will bring small dogs to large dog parks, or parks that do not have a separate area for small and large dogs. Just thinking logically, why would you want your five pound dog surrounded by a group of running, jumping, playing, sixty pound (and larger) dogs?

The owner, of course, had plenty of opinions on her Dachshund's visit to the dog park. "Oh, she just loves playing with the big dogs," she would say. "Sure, she gets trampled and she yelps like she's just been killed, but she's right back at it."

A couple of other people came in with what was most likely a Polish Lowland Sheepdog, although I didn't ask them what breed their dog was. She was adorable and took an immediate liking to Ronja, who was more than obliging to join a game of rough wrestling with her. Love at first sight.

A game of dog wrestling.

Then another couple came in, a man and a woman, with two dogs. One of the dogs was a very skinny male "Bloodhound, just about a year old" (although it could have been a Coonhound), and the other one was a small female Saint Bernard, "just over a year old", who was pulling so hard people were laughing and asking the woman whether she was riding the dog to the park gate, or walking her. The owners pushed the gate open far enough to let their dogs inside, then slipped their leashes and let them run loose. The Bloodhound immediately went to hump another dog, and the Saint Bernard took off running, their owners congregating with the Dachshund's owner in the corner, paying only occasional attention to their dogs.

After a while, the owners migrated closer to us and started talking to us about our dogs and their dogs. As it turns out, they also have a female Bloodhound, because they are "planning on breeding them". And they bragged that their "just over a year old" Saint Bernard, who had been "the runt of her litter, which is why she's so small", was "hopefully pregnant" because they'd bred her on her last heat and were looking forward to the litter so they could sell the puppies.

The Bloodhound and the pregnant Saint Bernard.

At that point, we excused ourselves to work on obedience in the rear part of the park where there are a number of obstacles - a group of logs laying flat, a ramp, and a wall - to play on. People like that have me wondering whether it would be better to try and educate them, or whether I should simply skip that step and start off banging my head into the wall instead.

We were keeping away from them and they were keeping in the corner with the Dachshund's owner, and everything was going nicely for a while. Their dogs were off running around, the Dachshund's owner had picked her dog up, and two more people arrived - one with an American Eskimo, and one with a Great Dane and an English Setter. Ronja adored the Dane, regardless of their considerable size difference, and took off to play with him, ending up completely covered in Dane drool.

After a while, two more cars arrived and two couples got out - one with a Doberman pup, and one with two Pit Bull types who seemed quite out of control when they were just walking up to the fence, lunging and pulling. When they entered the park, the smaller of the Pit Bulls began to hackle up, lunge, growl, bark, and show teeth at the other dogs, and we decided that we weren't entirely comfortable with the way he was behaving, so we took our two, who were sitting next to us at the time (we call them away from the gate and have them sit/stay when new dogs arrive so they don't form a pack with the other dogs and rush newcomers), and went for a walk around the rest of the park.

The girls pose on what used to be a tree.

We eventually made our way back to the dog park since that's where the Jeep was parked, and just as we got there, there was a dog fight in progress.

The couple with the Doberman puppy was just getting into their car to leave, and the couple with the two Pitties had put the one that was acting aggressively into their car and had their other one leashed and were ready to leave.

The Great Dane that had played so nicely with Ronja earlier was being attacked by one of two out-of-control male Boxers who had arrived in the meantime and were acting aggressively. Their owners showed little interest in separating their dogs from the Great Dane they were attacking, or to help the Dane's owner, who was fending the dogs off while they were snapping at her, too. Trueman was going to step in while I put the girls into the Jeep, but the lady with the Dane had her dog by the harness and got out of the park, finally, and away from the Boxers. Their idiot owners, of course, could have cared less.

Very Sad News

It's with great sadness that I have to report that Joe White, the driving force behind creating a special day to honor military and civilian working dogs, passed away unexpectedly last Saturday morning.

His wife, Sally, sent out the following emails to supporters of her husband's project, K-9 Veterans Day, asking that we please keep going and try to make this an official day to remember our working dog heroes. If you have a minute, please check with your local training facility, dog club, city government, and state government to see what you can do to help keep K-9 Veterans Day alive and, hopefully, someday make it into a national day of remembrance.

Sally's complete email can be seen on the K-9 Veterans Day page.

Dog legislation done RIGHT

It's very nice to see that some towns out there are getting it right when it comes to addressing dangerous dogs. Now if only more towns would follow suit instead of passing "Breed Bans", we'd be on the right track.

Boulder takes a bite out of bad dog behavior

Matthew James adopted Major, an American Pit Bull Terrier, from a Los Angeles shelter in 2006. When he moved to Denver later that year, he knew very little about the city's pit bull ban.

"I wasn't sure how strict it was," he says. "Then I got here and learned they were real serious about it, that they would confiscate your dog and everything." But James had already signed a lease on a house and was still looking for a job, and "I didn't have that many options financially," he recalls.

So, like many other pit bulls in Denver, Major went underground. James kept his dog inside and away from windows during the day and only took him for walks at night, usually in the back alley. The only time Major could run was when James would drive them out of Denver to dog parks in Lakewood and Wheat Ridge. "I was always worried about cops showing up and taking him away from me or neighbors seeing him and maybe reporting him," says James. "It was a pretty paranoid state. He was like a fugitive."

After getting a job at an advertising firm, James decided to ditch the Mile High City for Boulder, which has no pit bull ban. He moved into a pet-friendly apartment and discovered that six other people in the building owned pit bulls, too. "And three of them said they'd also moved out of Denver because of the ban," he says.

Boulder officials say they have no reliable count of how many dogs there are in the city, let alone pit bulls. In 2008, Boulder's animal-control division recorded 207 dog bites; 9 were reported to have come from pit bulls. The numbers were similar in the three years prior. And Boulder hasn't had a fatal dog attack in at least thirty years. Because what it does have is a muscular dangerous-dog law and a unique bite-diversion program that teaches owners how to control aggressive behavior in their dogs in order to prevent future bites.

Boulder contracts its animal-control services with the Humane Society of Boulder Valley, which folds the duties into its shelter operations at 2323 55th Street. The nonprofit has six employees who are commissioned as officers to enforce the city's aggressive-animal ordinance. "If an animal bites, claws, scratches, attempts to bite or approaches somebody in a manner of attack, or bites or injures another animal, it is deemed aggressive," says Boulder Animal Care and Control manager Janee Teague. In Boulder, animal-control officers can ticket the owner of a dog that behaves in an overtly threatening manner; in Denver, a dog must cause injury before an owner can be cited. But more tickets aren't the goal of Boulder's program. In fact, in many circumstances, an animal-control officer will agree to drop the citation if the owner agrees to have the dog evaluated by Humane Society training personnel. The trainer and the owner then discuss the dog's history and past behavior.

"History is a good predictor of the future. So there's a lot of conversation and observing the dog behaviorally," says Lindsay Wood, the Humane Society training director. "What's the recurring problem with this dog? Is it aggressive toward people or other dogs? Is it a dog that bites when they're in possession of something? Is it fear-related? We're watching the dog and how it would interact with me or the guardian or another dog we bring in."

The evaluation costs the owner $90, about the equivalent of a court fine for an aggressive-dog ticket. An owner also has the option of signing up for additional training classes at the shelter geared toward a dog's particular negative behavior, such as the Grumpy Growlers class.

"I think it's a wonderful alternative that we have," says Teague. "As officers, we're given a lot of different discretion that we have to use. It's not always the best method to use just punitive damage like a summons. The bite diversion allows us to be a little more proactive and community-oriented. We can say, 'Look, this is a bite that we believe that with a little modification could be remedied and this situation will not happen again.'"

Still, certain incidents are so egregious that they necessitate the court process, Teague notes. But in the two years that she's been director, only one pit bull had been labeled too aggressive by a judge. "It was the dog's third bite, and the bites were increasing in severity," she says. And after going through the training, the owners did not follow through to control their pit bull's behavior: "They let the dog out the front door and it bit again, a severe bite." The dog was ordered euthanized.

During those same two years, Denver euthanized 558 pit bulls — whether the dogs bit anyone or not.

An aggressive-dog ordinance is far more effective than a breed ban, Teague says. "It's more of an owner-type issue and the way that the animal is being raised, handled and controlled rather than being a breed issue," she explains. "I've seen double the amount of nice pit bulls than I have the amount of mean pit bulls. If a situation does occur, that owner needs to be held accountable, as opposed to just eliminating a certain breed — because in my opinion, you're creating a whole other issue. Now you're having to enforce that ban, and so that's where a lot of your resources are going to end up rather than going to education and a more proactive approach."

James and Major approve of that approach.

Fall Days

Fall is definitely coming much more quickly in upstate New York than it ever did in southern Virginia. And while that means beautifully turning leaves and some gorgeous cloud formations to photograph, it also means dreary, overcast, rainy days and cold temperatures.

So when we get a nice fall day, we like to make the most of it - and for the pups, making the most of it involves running around the fields behind the house like little wild dogs and wrestling and tussling with one another.

"I spot my sister. I must go annoy her!"

"Growl! I am a big wolf and you are my prey!"

"No fair - you ducked!"

"I'll try to get you from down low, then!"

"Oh, you're not being any fun today, sis!"

"Maybe I can get Mom to throw a ball for me instead!"

Review: Omega Treats

Every so often, a company will contact me through my blog to ask me to review a product that they make or market. This is done for two reasons - One, to get honest feedback from someone who is not affiliated with their company, and, Two, to spread word about their product to other pet owners. Let's face it - these days, blogs are as commonly used as a source of information as television and newspapers.

A little while ago, I was contacted by Fucini Productions, a company that does marketing for pet supply manufacturers, and asked whether I would be interested in reviewing Omega Treats. From the description and ingredients list, they sounded like the kind of treats that I would buy for my dogs, so I was happy to give them a try.


Product Name
Pet Botanics Omega Treats

Manufacturer
Cardinal Pet

Price
$4.99 (resealable 3 oz. bag)


What it Promises

From Fucini Productions' email: "Omega Treats are different from other dog treats on the market - they are a layered, hand-rolled dog snack that has the look, aroma and great taste of sushi, and are made from high-quality, all-natural, human-grade ingredients, free from ingredients typically found in pet food, like by-products and fillers, wheat, soybean, BHA, BHT, glutens and artificial colors.

Each treat has just 9 calories and 8 ingredients that you might find in your own diet, including codfish, real poultry or fish, sweet potato, and vitamin E. They're also loaded with Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids, which are important for cardiovascular and joint health, and have a wealth of anti-oxidants, protein, vitamins and minerals.

Best of all, dogs just love Omega Treats - as soon as they catch a whiff of the fish, they're more excited than I've ever seen them to be at the prospect of a treat. Plus, since Omega Treats are healthy and low in calories, you don't have to worry about overfeeding or using as a training reward."


Ingredients

Omega Treats are available in four distinct flavors: chicken, duck, tuna and salmon. Because both of my girls are on a fish-based diet, Taste of the Wild Pacific Stream, and duck tends to cause tummy problems in dogs with sensitive digestive systems (duck being very "rich"), we opted to try the tuna and salmon flavor for our review.

Tuna Flavor
tuna, sweet potatoes, cod, cane sugar, glycerin, salt, potassium sorbate, mixed tocopherols (vitamin e).

Salmon Flavor
salmon, sweet potatoes, cod, cane sugar, glycerin, salt, potassium sorbate, mixed tocopherols (vitamin e).


Packaging

Omega Treats are sold in fully resealable, foil-lined pouches - which is a great idea because the ability to reseal the pouch keeps the treats fresh and moist, and the foil-lined packaging keeps little dog noses away from the product when it's closed, since it also seals in most of the smell.


Size

As far as size is concerned, the treats are slightly larger than the top part of my thumb, which makes them fairly compact and a good size for an occasional reward for my two large dogs.


However, if I were to use these treats as my primary training treats, I would probably cut them into two or three pieces, because they are much too large for use in training. This is especially the case if you have small dogs, such as Shelties, or even smaller dogs, such as Chihuahuas, but it's also true for my two dogs, a German Shepherd and a Belgian Malinois.

Remember that a training treat should be tiny, tiny, tiny - just enough for a taste and to entice the dog to "want more". They should never require the dog to chew the treat. Something that is the size of my small fingernail - or even smaller! - would be an ideal training treat.

Unfortunately for the Omega Treats, they can't be easily broken or crumbled into smaller parts during training (and definitely not with one hand), so they would require extra time spent cutting them into tiny pieces prior to training sessions would I want to use them as my primary training food reward.


Performance

I will have to disagree with Fucini Productions that the treats "look and smell" like sushi, but I have to agree that dogs go gaga over them as soon as they catch a whiff of the fish smell!

Once I opened the first bag and set it down to take the photo at the top of the review, little dog noses began popping up to my left and right to check out the delectable smell they had detected. Out of the two flavors we tested, the salmon flavor has the strongest smell, which did not just attract my dogs, but my cats as well. The tuna, on the other hand, has a much milder smell.

The taste also met with thorough approval from my two test subjects, who were more than happy to run through their entire repertoire of tricks in hopes that one of them may be sufficient for a treat reward. Although they're generally enthusiastic about training treats (and training in general), the Omega Treats took that enthusiasm to a whole new level of butt-quivering, hovering and drooling!

If dogs could shout "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!", they would have.



The Verdict

It's paws up for Omega Treats from both Abby and Ronja who loved the smell and definitely loved the taste.

I am also giving the product two thumbs up, although I would very much like to see cane sugar removed from the list of ingredients. Sugars of any kind are not necessarily a needed ingredient in pet foods and can, if fed in large amounts, contribute to all sorts of issues, including tooth decay and hyperglycemia. Of course, if these treats are used primarily for training or the occasional reward, and given in metered amounts, it's unlikely to be an issue.