Dogged Blog

Slow down you move too fast

This has been an odd week.

When I was sick, I told myself on an hourly basis that I had to slow down a little when I got better. Ever since February I've been going full throttle, burning myself out on the pet food recall and never really ramping back down to even something like my previous already-workaholic baseline.

Unfortunately, I had a few assignments I'd pushed back while I was whooping my lungs out, and they were sitting there waiting for me Monday. I took a deep breath and like the idiot that I apparently am, determined I'd do them and slow down, you know... later.

The next day Michael Jensen, my editor at AfterElton.com,  bumped one of the articles out two weeks. He was all worried that I would mind, and I pretended it was a huge imposition but I'd suffer through it for his sake. And then I hung up the phone and thanked any and all lurking deities for the respite.

I blogged a bit, worked on an article due next Wednesday for AfterEllen.com, caught up on a lot of email, blogged a bit more, cleared some backlog at Club Kingsnake, played with the new video embedding system at PetHobbyist, read a really brilliant book I'm reviewing for Pet Connection, blogged a bit more, and had a relatively easy first week back.

I realized yesterday that Monday is a holiday, and called Amy Moon, my editor at SFGate.com and asked if my pet column, which I usually file on the Monday before it runs, needed to be filed today. "Oh yeah," she said. So I stayed up a bit too late last night working on it, and got up this morning to do a final draft. I was struggling with a tough part -- it's a sciencey thing and I have a tendency to assume my readers have PhDs -- when the phone rang again. It was Amy.

"Er, Christie? Your column's actually running on Wednesday this week. You don't need to file until Tuesday. Is that okay?"

I heaved a big sigh and told her I'd try to live with it.

Okay that' s a lie. I had the file shut before I'd hung up the phone.

Usually the universe sends lessons in a negative form, things like chaining you to your bed with pneumonia to teach you that you need to take better care of yourself and intermix a little rest and relaxation with the compulsive workaholic thing.

I'm actually starting to wonder if I might be able to learn something even when the universe tries a kinder, gentler approach. Ya think?

Limit laws: A necessary evil, or bad for pets?

Although I currently live in the city and have only two dogs and no cats, I’ve had many more pets in the past. And most of the time, I had more than the law allowed, which caused me enormous stress even though I lived on private, fenced acreage in the country and took excellent care of all my animals.



I lived in San Mateo County, just south of San Francisco, when they tried to enact their infamous “breeding ban” in an effort to reduce shelter euthanasias. At that time, even if you lived on fifty acres and had no neighbors, it was illegal for you to own more than two cats and two dogs. And all the while, the local humane society that held the county’s animal control contract was euthanizing adoptable dogs and cats in public places – on television, no less – to make their point that there were homeless pets in the county.



So, where was the fight to ease the limit laws, if nowhere else than in the rural half of the county? Nowhere, that’s where. Those of us who had more pets than the law allowed – including just about every rescue group or volunteer that I knew – were too afraid to draw attention to ourselves, and the people who didn’t care about their pets in the first place, allowing them to run loose and breed randomly, didn’t care about the limit law, either.



In fact, until barn cats got targeted in a “save the ferals by killing them” program, it kind of looked like that would never change.



Eventually the county created a tiered system that allowed up to ten pets, with a “fancier’s permit” in some parts of the county and without one in the more rural areas on large properties. But a thread on an email list I'm on today included a link to an article written around seven years ago by the San Francisco SPCA dealing with the effect of limit laws on animal care. Contending that "pet limit laws are unnecessary," SFSPCA writes:

Are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack of sanitation? Do pet limit laws protect the well-being of people and animals?



In our view, they do not. Whereas one individual may be able to responsibly care for and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one. And if problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at their disposal in terms of animal welfare, health and property rights laws. In fact, unsanitary conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all unlawful in virtually every community—regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or not.



[....]



Just how are pet limits determined? In one community, the limit might be two pets. In others, four, five, eight, even twenty pets might be allowed. More often than not, the number is arbitrarily chosen.



Enforcement is also arbitrary. In response to concerns about pet limit laws, some communities have admitted that these ordinances “will be enforced on a complaint basis, and pets which are maintained indoors or do not raise the ire of neighbors will not generate enforcement.” While it may sound reassuring to some, this justification leaves the door wide open for pet limit laws to be used as a weapon of retribution in neighbor disputes over concerns totally unrelated to pets.



Laws that regulate a person’s behavior inside their home should seek an appropriate balance between the public's safety and welfare and the individual's right to privacy.

But while pet limit laws are highly intrusive, there is little, if any, corresponding benefit to public safety. What good is gained from an uncompromising prohibition against more than a limited number of pets, particularly if they are confined to an owner's property and create no problems? Certainly, if neighbors are totally unaware of their presence, prohibiting pets does not in any way protect or maintain anyone's health, happiness or peace of mind. And what about multi-pet households where neighbors do not mind or even enjoy the presence of these animals? In fact, there is no benefit gained from such a prohibition—nor is there likely to be any enforcement.



Should government pass laws that are not going to be enforced? Should communities outlaw behavior that does not impact neighbors or interfere with the rights of others? Local governments have embraced the position that because responsible multi-pet households will not generate enforcement, these residents need not fear violating the law. In essence, local governments are making outlaws out of normally law-abiding citizens and telling them it is OK to break the law as long as they don’t get caught!



Passing laws that aren’t enforced or are enforced sporadically is unfair and counterproductive. Few people are likely to comply with a pet limit law that isn’t enforced. And those who voluntarily comply can probably be counted among the most responsible pet owners in the community. There is little equity or sense in enacting a law that only ends up penalizing the very people whose behavior is already exemplary. And such a view undermines our respect for the law.



Needless to say, truly irresponsible pet owners will not be affected. If the law is not enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is selectively enforced against them, they are likely to surrender their animals, adding to the numbers of dogs and cats killed, orabandon them, adding to some of the perceived problems the law was intended to solve.

Lots more great food for thought here.

What, me, jealous?

I suppose most people at some point in their life, while sitting in Starbucks sipping a triple shot latte and not moving too much because they might knock their laptop out of its wifi sweet spot, think to themselves, "I should write a book!" One day, they resolve, they're going to do just that.

I do this approximately once a week, and while I was sick, my attention would drift away from the endless stream of home decorating shows that are my life when I don't feel well and I'd let my mind play out the possible ways I might be able to find, you know, ten minutes a day to translate my brilliant thoughts and heartwrenching prose into book form.

So now, as I fill in my daily life again after emerging from my whooping cough sick bed phase, I'm thinking ten minutes a day isn't enough. I know this because my friend and editor Gina Spadafori keeps writing books, and as far as I can tell it's a full time job.

It pays off, though, because not only was one of her recent books, co-authored with my colleague at Pet Connection Dr. Marty Becker,  a New York Times bestseller and no, I'm not jealous at all, why would you say that? but now their  new books are featured in a big spread in Publishers Weekly no really, not jealous at all.

Gina blogged about it and mentioned that her pets are not impressed. Yeah. Well.  I am.

And, you know, jealous.

Vick ' s dogs: ASPCA considers the options

Poor Gina's sick at home, and I've been so swamped trying to catch up from my recent bout with whooping cough (yes, I'm ten years old and it's 1927), I haven't been pulling my blogging weight around here. I'll try to do better!



News tonight from the ASPCA about the fate of the dogs siezed in the Michael Vick dogfighting case. It seems that reports they would be euthanized without evaluation aren't true, and that both the ASPCA and Bad Rap, a San Francisco-based pit bull rescue organization, will be involved in evaluating the dogs, and will make recommendations to the USDA as to their futures:

Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, CAAB, executive vice president, National Programs, and science advisor for the ASPCA, will be leading a team of several other certified applied animal behaviorists (trained animal behavior experts who have been certified by the Animal Behavior Society) in conducting behavior evaluations of the pit bulls seized during the course of the investigation.



As part of this process, BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls), a San Francisco-based non profit organization that is an educational resource for pit bull owners and the shelters that house them, will be working with the ASPCA-led team to help identify dogs that can be absorbed into experienced foster programs for further observation and possible re-homing into appropriate homes—one of several possible outcomes for these dogs.



“We greatly appreciate the trust placed in us by the USDA to ensure that these dogs are given every opportunity to have a second chance, and take this phase of the investigation very seriously,” said Ed Sayres, ASPCA president & CEO. “Fighting dogs obviously face a lot of challenges when considered for rehabilitation or placement but we will make sure they get the professional, thorough and detailed evaluations that they deserve.”



Said Donna Reynolds, BAD RAP executive director, “We’ve seen time and time again that by pooling resources, we can get more accomplished for animals. We’re honored to be a part of the ASPCA’s team effort and look forward to giving our best to the dogs. After all they’ve been through, they certainly deserve a fair trial.”



The ASPCA-led evaluation team will conduct several tests on these dogs, including their response to humans and other dogs, as well as their general reactivity and comfort with being handled. No further details on the specifics of these tests can be released at this time.

The USDA will receive a report that includes evaluations of the dogs and suggestions as to appropriate disposition of the dogs:

Other than possible re-homing into appropriate foster homes, recommendation options may include rehabilitation as law enforcement dogs, placement in sanctuaries (which will need to meet USDA facility standards), or euthanasia. However, euthanasia is not the only recommendation or option that will be considered, as has been reported in some media accounts—the results of the evaluations will determine what those recommendations are. No dogs will be placed in private homes at this time. All placements will be made with, and through, experienced rescue, foster and sanctuary groups.

Full release here.

Finding good breeders means more than avoiding the bad ones

People frequently ask for a list of the warning signs of a bad dog breeder, and like most pet writers, I've answered that question more than once. But like anything else, it's both easier and more useful to simply tell people what to seek out, rather than an endlessly expanding list of what to avoid.



Walt Hutchens of the Pet-Law website published a piece there that does pretty much the best job I've ever seen of explaining the importance of home breeding, why it's threatened, and why that would be a huge tragedy for dog lovers:

As with humans, much of what a dog becomes depends on the care taken with his early health and training.



Commercially bred dogs are whelped and raised as livestock, then sold to owners who begin helping them fit in to a human family eight weeks or so from the start. Most of these dogs do become satisfactory pets, however, those of us who have known many dogs believe that the best pet dogs are whelped and raised within a human family, handled and cared for as family members from the first hour. This way, each lesson can be started as it is needed, and the step from the breeder's family to a lifetime owner is small – a change of names, faces and style, but nothing like going from 'livestock' to 'pet' status after some wrong lessons have already been learned.



Personalities develop early; the home breeder knows them all and can match the two-fisted active tomboy with a human family that wants that type and the quiet "I just love you" pup with a soulmate.

He then debunks myths about home breeding being a way to make money (the opposite is true; the careful home breeding of dogs is a very expensive hobby). Then he explains just why we should care about this issue:

Home breeding has another significance: It is where purebred dogs come from. Because home breeding must be small-scale, individual dogs are rarely bred over a few times; often just once. Home breeders, moreover, are the keepers of what the breed 'is': Should a Pomeranian weigh 40 pounds? Should a whippet be built like a pig? Should a collie chase and kill small animals or try to bite a stranger?



These questions and thousands of others are answered in a 'breed standard' kept by the clubs for each breed and expanded in the hearts of the home breeders of that breed. Large commercial breeders may use purebred stock, but they make little effort to breed according to the standard.



[....]



One of the most important cost-saving measures for commercial breeders is using the same breeding stock as much as possible. This is the reverse of the policy of the usual hobby breeder and because home breeders are small-scale, hard to do for even the for-profit home breeder.



The deepest significance of home breeding is that it is the main storehouse from which the genes that produce each breed are drawn, generation by generation. Home breeders keep and use to produce the next generation perhaps ten times the genetic material as an average large commercial breeder, thus preserving the genetic diversity needed to keep our breeds alive.

He also points out that most home breeders "offer lifetime help if you have problems and have a lifetime ‘take back' guarantee if you can't keep your dog," a practice that greatly benefits the public and keeps those dogs out of shelters. But home breeding is under increasing threat:

Because hobby breeders and nearly all other home breeders care about their pups as individuals, they must cast a wide public net in order to find homes. When laws are passed that make home breeding illegal, home breeders are easily found and eliminated.



The one sentence picture of the future of dogs in America is this: On the present lawmaking road, home breeding of dogs is about to be wiped out in our country and as this occurs, purebred dogs will all but disappear.

Or at least, the carefully bred, lovingly placed ones with the safety net, the ones with the healthiest and true-to-breed-type genes, and the broadest gene pool. The big commercial breeders have powerful lobbies and coroporate interests behind them. Those who sit up late at night on whelp watch in the family room, not so much.



Full article here.

The post-whoop era

I'm tentatively announcing I will live again.

My cough seems to have turned into the typical lingering post-bronchitis type of thing, with only the very rare mild whoop. I haven't gasped, choked, gagged, clutched my throat and staggered around in terror that I'd suffocate for a few days now. And my energy levels, while far from normal, are at least sufficient to walk the dogs, do the dishes, put a little bit of laundry through, and use my brain enough to write if not well then at least well enough to get by.

Plus I had someone come in and build shelves for my shoes in one of my closets so I can open the door and look at them any time I want to. Such as the red suede Franco Sarto Mary Jane pump on a red patent wedge that I hope to actually feel well enough to go somewhere I can wear someday soon.

Kids vs. pets: What did the pet food recall tell us?

Via Bobbie Kolehouse from the Dog Writers Association of America, this little bit of analysis comparing the recall of tainted pet food to the recall of children's toys:

There were two significant product recalls this year: tainted pet food and lead-based paint on children's toys. Two issues that concern the health of your pet and your child. Which is more important to you? Which topic would you seek more information on? It would seem that everyone would choose their child, yet our online behavior reveals a different story.



Internet search data reveals that given the two recalls, our pet's health is far more worthy of information-seeking than health issues surrounding our children. This month Mattel recalled almost 2 million toys worldwide for lead-based paint and other contamination issues. In response to the news, searches for the term "toy recall" spiked, nearly doubling the two-year average for all product recall searches.



While that would seem to be a significant increase in searches, the toy recall reaction was nothing compared to the pet food recall that occurred in March of this year, when the Food and Drug Administration found that contaminants in hundreds of brands were causing cats and dogs to fall ill. Searches for pet food-related recall issues were over seven times that same two-year average, over double the number of toy recall searches. Certainly protecting our children from the dangers of lead-based paint is more important — or, at the very least, equally as important as tainted pet food — so why the difference in searches?

The author of this Financial Times piece, Bill Tancer, then goes on to say that the large number of hits for stories on Michael Vick when compared to those for the trapped miners, Hurricane Dean, or the earthquake in Peru show that "amongst a field of human tragedy and a potentially catastrophic storm, search term data indicates that the perils of domesticated animals trump all."



I have a few problems with this analysis, as I so often do when people try to compare our feelings for children and our feelings for companion animals. It's a hot button for guaranteed outrage, and yet, I've never noticed that tender feelings for animals translate into indifference to human suffering. In fact, I've noticed the exact opposite, that children and adults who are able to empathize with animals also have the ability to easily empathize with their fellow human beings, and those who don't care about animals tend to not easily be moved to compassion for people, either.



But my real problem is that the pet food recall and the toy recall, while having some political isses in common, are very different in other ways, the biggest being the huge sucking vacuum of information pet owners were operating in, and our desperation to know if the pet food we were about to buy that night at the grocery store was going to kill our dog or cat when we got it home. I mean, I can take my child's toys away from her until I find out what's going on. I still have to feed my pets every day.



I'm also very sure that if this had been baby food instead of kids' toys, and contaminated baby food was still on the shelves of home kitchens, supermarkets, and convenience stores all over the country and no one knew which products were involved, the number of parents searching for information online would have blown the Internet apart.



In addition, as someone on the front lines of coverage of the pet food recall, I can tell you that until the day melamine and related contaminants were fed to livestock intended for human consumption, this story was far from the top of the priority list for any media outlet other than the pet blogs. The number of reporters from the mainstream media at the FDA press conferences went through the roof from that day forward, and nearly all the questions being asked were about the risk to humans, and virtually never about pets or pet food.



But hey, it was time for the obligatory story about how we care more about our pets than about people, right? You can tell from the fact that no pets are left homeless, no pets are deprived of medical care because their owners bought a new high definition TV instead, no pets are put to sleep or dumped in the shelter or on the side of the road because they're inconvenient or badly trained, and no pets are lonely and bored in the garages and backyards of America, that we love our dogs and cats way too much.



A few high profile celebrities buying clothes for their dogs and carrying them in thousand dollar purses doesn't mean America loves its pets too much -- and neither does concerned animal owners trying to find out of there's poison in the kibble before they feed it to the family dog.

Pet Food Recall Panel -- VOTE!

South by Southwest, the prestigious internet/music/film conference held each year in Austin, TX, is considering a panel on pet bloggers and the pet food recall for next year. I submitted this idea and will be there, and while Gina says she probably can’t make it, Ben from Itchmo.com, Therese from PetSitUSA.com and ThePetFoodList.com, and David Goldstein from the Huffington Post and horsesass.org have indicated they’d like to be part of it. And I intend to work on Gina.

This is from the panel description:

The massive pet food recall that started in March of 2007 and kept rolling for nearly four months not only claimed the lives of thousands of pets but launched an international food safety scandal. How much of that story would we have ever known without pet bloggers?

“I don’t know of a comparable case,” NYU’s Jay Rosen told the LA Times. “It shows what’s possible when people get outraged and they ask themselves, what’s happening here? They actually have the tools to start finding out.”

Using new technologies and old-fashioned reporting skills, pet bloggers delivered veterinary, corporate and government information directly to dog and cat owners in a way unprecedented in the pet world. They liveblogged FDA media conferences, went into their own pockets to pay for their suddenly-exploding blog traffic, stayed up all night waiting for midnight pet company announcements of new recalls, coordinated lists of recalled foods that were more current and user-friendly than anything the FDA was publishing, and, with the valuable input of their readers, uncovered and reported on government documents that moved the story in the mainstream media.

Industry insiders called pet bloggers “troublesome” and “off the charts,” and complained pet blogs were posting “unfiltered information,” as if there were something unjournalistic about unspun news. Jay Rosen, on the other hand, told USA Today that pet bloggers’ “networked collaboration” over the recall is part of a movement that’s “changing the journalism world.” Paul Grabowicz of UC Berkeley’s New Media Program called their work “crowd sourcing” at its finest.

Pulitzer-winning reporter Abigail Goldman wrote, “Bloggers and owners of sites such as Itchmo, Pet Connection, Howl 911, The Pet Food List and Pet Food Tracker have been deluged by millions of pet owners who are grieving or railing or both — and digging for answers. Their online barking is being heard in Washington’s halls of power, including the Food and Drug Administration and Capitol Hill.”

Even two years ago, when rescue efforts for animals affected by Hurricane Katrina got national media attention, there was no coordinated pet blog community to dig into that story. How did they do it, and what can we take from it to use in the next big corporate, medical, or government scandal that impacts our animals’ health – and ours?

If you’d like to see this panel idea at the 2008 SXSW interactive conference, please visit SXSW’s Panel Picker and give the idea some stars! You do have to register first, but it’s fast and free.

To vote:

Go to the “Pet Blogging: Not a fluffy puppy story” panel submission page here.

If you aren’t already registered, click “sign in” to comment, then follow the directions to create an account. Once you’ve done that, go back to the panel submission page and give it the number of stars you think the idea deserves… five sounds good to me. ;)

Comments are also very welcome!

If you have any questions or problems with the process, please post them here. And thank you!

Pet food recall panel -- and your vote counts!

South by Southwest, the prestigious internet/music/film conference held each year in Austin, TX, is considering a panel on pet bloggers and the pet food recall for next year. I submitted this idea and will be there, and while Gina says she probably can't make it, Ben from Itchmo.com, Therese from PetSitUSA.com and ThePetFoodList.com, and David Goldstein from the Huffington Post and horsesass.org have indicated they'd like to be part of it. And I intend to work on Gina.

The massive pet food recall that started in March of 2007 and kept rolling for nearly four months not only claimed the lives of thousands of pets but launched an international food safety scandal. How much of that story would we have ever known without pet bloggers?



"I don't know of a comparable case," NYU’s Jay Rosen told the LA Times. "It shows what's possible when people get outraged and they ask themselves, what's happening here? They actually have the tools to start finding out."



Using new technologies and old-fashioned reporting skills, pet bloggers delivered veterinary, corporate and government information directly to dog and cat owners in a way unprecedented in the pet world. They liveblogged FDA media conferences, went into their own pockets to pay for their suddenly-exploding blog traffic, stayed up all night waiting for midnight pet company announcements of new recalls, coordinated lists of recalled foods that were more current and user-friendly than anything the FDA was publishing, and, with the valuable input of their readers, uncovered and reported on government documents that moved the story in the mainstream media.



Industry insiders called pet bloggers “troublesome” and “off the charts,” and complained pet blogs were posting “unfiltered information,” as if there were something unjournalistic about unspun news. Jay Rosen, on the other hand, told USA Today that pet bloggers’ “networked collaboration” over the recall is part of a movement that’s “changing the journalism world.” Paul Grabowicz of UC Berkeley’s New Media Program called their work “crowd sourcing” at its finest.



Pulitzer-winning reporter Abigail Goldman wrote, “Bloggers and owners of sites such as Itchmo, Pet Connection, Howl 911, The Pet Food List and Pet Food Tracker have been deluged by millions of pet owners who are grieving or railing or both — and digging for answers. Their online barking is being heard in Washington’s halls of power, including the Food and Drug Administration and Capitol Hill.”



Even two years ago, when rescue efforts for animals affected by Hurricane Katrina got national media attention, there was no coordinated pet blog community to dig into that story. How did they do it, and what can we take from it to use in the next big corporate, medical, or government scandal that impacts our animals’ health – and ours?

If you'd like to see this panel idea at the 2008 SXSW interactive conference, please visit SXSW's Panel Picker and give the idea some stars! You do have to register first, but it's fast and free.



To vote:



Go to the "Pet Blogging: Not a fluffy puppy story" panel submission page here.



If you aren't already registered, click "sign in" to comment, then follow the directions to create an account. Once you've done that, go back to the panel submission page and give us the number of stars you think the idea deserves... five sounds good to us. ;)



Comments are also very welcome!



If you have any questions or problems with the process, please post them here. And thank you!

Wal-Mart finds melamine in pet treats

Via Therese at PetSitUSA.com, CNN is reporting that Wal-Mart's removal of two brands of jerky treats for pets from its shelves (what Gina called the "non-recall recall" earlier today) was due to melamine contamination:

Tests of two Chinese brands of dog treats sold at Wal-Mart stores found traces of melamine, a chemical agent that led to another massive pet food recall in March, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.



Wal-Mart has removed chicken jerky products made by Pingyang Pet Product Co. and Shanghai Bestro Trading.



Wal-Mart Stores Inc. quietly stopped selling Chicken Jerky Strips from Import-Pingyang Pet Product Co. and Chicken Jerky from Shanghai Bestro Trading in July, after customers said the products sickened their pets.



No recall was announced at that time, but Wal-Mart said in a statement Tuesday that customers who bought one of the products should return it to the nearest store for a refund.



Company spokeswoman Deisha Galberth said 17 sets of tests done on the products found melamine, a contaminant that's a byproduct of several pesticides.



"There were very small amounts of melamine found," Galberth told The Associated Press. "The amounts were so small the laboratory recommended more testing."



Galberth had said late Monday that Wal-Mart pulled the products off store shelves based on the customer feedback but wanted to complete the testing before announcing anything publicly.



More than 150 brands of pet food were recalled earlier this year after U.S. inspectors said wheat gluten from China that was used to make the food was tainted with melamine. An unknown number of dogs and cats died.



Since then, other Chinese products including tires, toothpaste, seafood, juice, and toys decorated with lead paint have been recalled or have come under scrutiny.

There have been a number of pet foods and treats recalled in recent weeks, including two Mars pet-food products, brand names Krasdale and Red Flannel, pulled for salmonella contamination, but it's been since May 23 when a dog or cat food product has been recalled for melamine contamination, and since May 30 when any pet product -- in that case, food for pet fish -- was pulled because it was contaminated with melamine, although that contamination was domestic in origin.



CNN's report here.