Dogged Blog

New to blogging? Don't be a whore

I have some advice for fresh young new bloggers: Do not be a whore.

I understand you want to make money. I understand that you are sitting there working long hard hours on your blog, and you want it to be for something, and right now, "money" seems like a really good "something" for it to be for. And I understand there are a lot of folks out there cheerleading you on to "monetize" your blog, including  by writing "sponsored" blog posts.

Maybe I'm just old school, but if you want to be a PR or advertising writer, do that -- it's perfectly honorable. But to mix your personal blogging with sponsored/paid for/corporate blogging?

Even in traditional display advertising-funded media, such as magazines, newspapers and websites, it creates problems when the wall between editorial and sales gets breached, as it sometimes does. And when you're a publisher with only one writer on your team -- you-- the challenge is enormous to keep that wall intact.

But to frankly and blatantly take money to write about something? How did this become a norm in blogging?

And if you do it, consider its impact on your professional future. I know I wouldn't hire, work for, work with, link to or have respect for a blogger who was "sponsored" to blog about a product, brand, etc., no matter how fully she disclosed it. I'm not the only person who might be in the position to hire you who feels that way.

And forget ethics -- can't you see how pathetic it makes you look? How unprofessional?

I make my living as a writer and editor, including by blogging. I'm paid by the publishers of various websites and, rarely now, print publications. I have never taken a sponsorship, and when I'm offered them, I refuse on ethical grounds -- mine, and those of at least two of the publications I write for. I really had no idea there were so many bloggers saying yes.

Look, I've heard the argument that blogging isn't exactly like every other form of publishing, but even if it's true, so what? All forms of publishing have their own distinctive characteristics.

And I've heard the whine about how you shouldn't "give your writing away for free." Writers have been giving their work away free and cheap as long as there has been publishing, as interns at newspapers or just Tom Paine speaking out for freedom. 

I've also heard the argument from a few people  that paid/sponsored blogging doesn't affect them because the amount of money they make "monetizing" their blogs is so small it's a joke. So I'll tell you a joke:

A guy says to a beautiful woman, would you have sex with me for a million dollars?

He's not so bad, so she says, "Okay."

Then he says, "Would you have sex with me for ten dollars?"

And she gasps and says, "What do you think I am?"

And he says, "Madam, we've established what you are; we're just haggling over the price."

My advice to new bloggers is this: Stop thinking about "monetizing your blog." Think about earning a living as a writer. Think about being credible and good. If you don't want to write for free, then don't write for free; this blog is the only place I do, and you can see how often I have time to do that these day. 

Blogging is, and should be, and needs to remain, a form of journalism. It's not a way to get cool stuff and be on a company's "team." Don't dishonor blogging, or your own talent as a writer, by going down this road.

Living the dog days of summer

Take a look at that photo, of Gina's dogs Ben and Heather, swimming in the creek that ran through my property, on a sunny summer day around 6 or 7 years ago. The day was so perfect Gina still talks about it, usually while lamenting how I sold that house to move back to San Francisco.

But even on that glorious summer day, when Gina was tucked into bed upstairs, her dogs beside her, I was sitting at my computer, working.

I was trying to remember last night just how long it has been since I took a vacation without my laptop, without e-mailing a dozen people to tell them how to reach me.

I have edited articles in airports, blogged with my laptop perched on my knee on a bus, pulled my rental car to the side of the road to post something to Facebook. I've gone back to my hotel room while everyone else I'd gone somewhere with was out on the town, and spent the evening working. I hosted the opening night of PetHobbyist.com's Chat Month last February from a hotel room.

I think it's possible it has been 15 years since I really, truly cut the cord and took some time off. Just me and the dogs, hanging out. No deadlines, no e-mail to check, nothing to write or post or edit or even think about.

Vacation.

Starting tomorrow, I'm taking two weeks of it. I'm going to wake up every morning and ask myself, "What do I want to do today?" If I spend the whole time reading the 50 books sitting unopened on my Kindle and drinking tea, I'll be fine with that. If one morning I pack up the dogs and go rent a cottage by the ocean, I'm fine with that too.

Sometimes I think what I need most of all is room for options, for spontaneity.

I'll probably drop in here from time to time. I might even post, because how long can I expect you guys to go without seeing photos of Rawley Deerhound? But I'll be doing it just because I felt like it, because I love to read and write and blog, not because I had to.

And Gina? I know you'll miss me, but thank you for all those summer days (and a few winter ones!) at my old place. I keep thinking about the gazebo overlooking the creek, dogs sprawling around in the shade, and you and me talking about everything from dogs who don't like the water to the amazing dog camp we wanted to start.

I need me some of that!

Photo: Ben and Heather by Gina.

Puppy mills by the numbers: Where do you draw the line?

I've blogged before about how I'm sick to death of the puppy mill apologists who have somehow convinced ethical, dog-loving breeders to stay out of the anti-puppy mill fight with the old "slippery slope" argument. You know, the one that says PETA is right, and when it comes to legislation and regulation, a "breeder is a breeder is a breeder"?



Not that I'm bitter or anything.



I'm actually not a fan of legislation for most issues like this, preferring to educate people and hurt bad breeders in their pocketbooks. After all, I am absolutely sure the government's rules for "good" dog breeding and mine are still going to be worlds apart, because a clean, vet-inspected, well-lit puppy mill is not even remotely okay with me. Family pets should come from family homes, not the dog world's version of "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" (CAFOs), or as people used to call them and I still do, "factory farms."



Besides, many large scale breeding operations are already regulated by the government, although enforcement is almost non-existent even of their totally inadequate provisions. Even for those who want to find another way, it's getting to the point where it's hard to deny that legislation and regulation have enormous appeal to most people fighting puppy mills.



Which leaves me at least in a very uncomfortable place, namely, being asked my advice on "model legislation," particularly the most contentious issue of all, "How many dogs makes someone a puppy mill?"



My view is that there is no number that makes a breeder a miller. After all, in the golden age of dog showing, wealthy fanciers maintained huge kennels, with hundreds of dogs, who lived in the care of a large resident staff, often in considerable luxury.



And today, working dog kennels routinely house large numbers of dogs who are healthier, happier and more active than most of America's over-fed and under-exercised family pets. I can tell you right now, I'd rather be a retriever living in a good hunting kennel than in a suburban backyard 24/7.



And if we're going to talk numbers and quality of life, I'm quite sure a hell of a lot of animal shelters couldn't even pass the current regulations for commercial dog breeding facilities.



All that said, I have to admit I believe there is a number, or a range, at which it's no longer possible for a single person or couple to raise good family pets, let alone keep your dogs happy and healthy. I just have no idea how to put that in a regulation, because that number would vary from situation to situation, breed to breed, as well as with the amount of staff devoted to caring for the dogs. The age of the great old show kennels is gone, but a family could still operate somewhat the same way -- I know a handful of multi-generation dog families who keep between everyone perhaps as many as a hundred dogs, and manage to do right by all of them.



Right now, current laws regulate only kennels that sell puppies for third party sales; dog farms that sell directly to the consumer, whether it's at their own facility or over the Internet, fall between the cracks. There's a proposal right now in Congress to regulate those breeders to the same minimal standards that apply to other puppy mills, excuse me, of course, I mean "high volume commercial breeders," and it kicks in when someone sells 50 or more puppies in a year. From McClatchy News:

It's called the PUPS Act, short for Puppy Uniform Protection Statute. It's aimed at cracking down on puppy mills, facilities where dogs often are forced to live in small cages. Among other things, the measure would force breeders to give their dogs the chance to exercise for at least an hour each day.



Backers say the legislation would clamp down on the most negligent and irresponsible dog breeders while closing a loophole in current law that allows thousands of commercial breeders to go unregulated. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate.



Under the current law, facilities that breed dogs for commercial resale must be licensed and inspected under the federal Animal Welfare Act, but puppy mills that sell directly to the public are exempt. As a result, large breeders can escape inspection and oversight by selling their puppies online, with consumers often discovering later that they've bought sick or abused animals.



"It can be very disappointing to see a family whose cherished pet has a condition that could have been prevented with more careful scrutiny by the USDA," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., one of the bill's co-sponsors. "So I think that it's very appropriate for us to deal with it here."

Even if you believe in this approach, there are problems here. Can't millers just spread ownership of the dogs around among family members, and escape hitting the magic number? Do we not care about the puppies whose owners only hit 49? Toy breeds are most prevalent in puppy mills, and have tiny litters -- a perfectly wonderful kennel of big dogs could hit 50 puppies in as few as four litters, while a toy breed miller might not get there at all, but still be churning out sickly, badly bred, unsocialized puppies.



This is a contentious issue that isn't going away. And I'm starting to feel like maybe we've hit the wall with the education approach, and we're going to have to start taking a legislative and regulatory approach to show that yes, we're really serious about shutting this industry down, and returning the production of family pets to where it belongs: family homes.



For those who are new to the puppy mill discussion on Pet Connection, let me be clear: We believe that breeding is honorable and valuable, and that good breeders shouldn't be siding with puppy mills and laying low but standing up and demanding an end to the stigma against dog breeding. Gina and I both have had rescue dogs and dogs from breeders, and have bred dogs ourselves.



But as we work towards that day, is there a role for legislation in stopping the abuse of dogs in puppy mills? Can you imagine a law or regulation that would actually help without making it even harder for good, caring breeders to produce the next generation of beloved family companions?



And what do we do about the other honorable breeders, those who produce working dogs? Many times those who write these proposed laws express a willingness to "exempt" them, then write the laws in such a way that such an exemption is in name only. Is it possible to write legislation that provides protection for all dogs from inhumane treatment, but doesn't penalize those who are appropriately raising working and companion dogs?



And last, am I wrong? Is it possible to do this without legislation? If so, what can be done that hasn't already been tried?



My mind is open, but for me, the clock is ticking. Talk to me.

How to treat -- or not treat -- giardia in your dog

Here in California, many dogs, perhaps even a majority, have some giardia organisms in their digestive tracts. Those are the little critters depicted at right, parasites that can cause diarrhea and intestinal distress.



Those high numbers have probably always been present, but we didn't know it until recently. That's because we used to only look for it when the dog had diarrhea. And now we have all these great new tests that can examine the dog's stool and tell you whether or not any giardia critters have set up housekeeping in his innards.



Which means a whole lot of healthy, normal dogs are getting treated for a condition that wasn't causing them any problems.



Since there is no 100 percent effective treatment for giardia, and a dog may test positive for giardia months or even years after treatment, you can see the problem. What, exactly, are you treating here? And should you?



Many veterinarians seem to take a scorched earth approach to digestive health, which is a really good way to end up with resistant organisms and a dog with chronic diarrhea from the death and destruction of his natural intestinal flora. If a dog is doing perfectly fine, and it's probably impossible to really eradicated these little intestinal hitchhikers, why treat?



On the other hand, asymptomatic giardia can become symptomatic if a dog is stressed, has other digestive illnesses, or even is put on antibiotics for anything, with an accompanying die-off of giardia competitors.



Also, while dog-to-human giardia transmission is surprisingly uncommon, it's not impossible.



My personal approach is not to treat a positive test result, and only treat if the dog has symptoms. My treatment goal is to eliminate the diarrhea, and then do everything possible to restore and maintain digestive health, including probiotics (the product FortiFlora has shown some efficacy against giardia in lab mice; I'm not aware of any that has been tested in canines), herbs known to promote good digestion (I'm a fan of peppermint, chamomile, ginger, and the food herb slippery elm, but there are many others). And I also have found that many dogs with chronic diarrhea problems do much better on a grain-free diet.



When it comes to that first treatment step, however, I prefer to use a veterinary drug that has the best chance to work with the least chance to harm my dog. That would be the drug Panacur (fenbendazole), which is considered a particularly safe drug, with few listed side effects. It also clears up around 90 percent of all giardia cases.



For reasons I can't understand, however, a lot of vets still reach first for a less effective, much more dangerous drug, Flagyl (metronidazole). It's only effective in around 67 percent of cases, and carries some pretty scary side effect warnings, particularly at the fairly high giardia dose.



Some very resistant cases will need both drugs, but for a first line therapy, there's no reason I know of to use Flagyl, and plenty of reasons not to, including the risk of neurological side effects.



There's also a giardia vaccine... you can see what I think of that right here, but in short, the 2006 American Animal Hospital Association Guidelines don't recommend it and neither do I.



Photo: Stock 3-d rendered close up of isolated giardia parasites.

Dog vitamins recalled... and pet owners have questions

FDA announced today that all unexpired lots of Pro-Pet Adult Daily Vitamins for dogs are being recalled due to what it calls "possible salmonella contamination."



This is being reported in a lot of places, so instead of repeating what's in the FDA's release (you can read it here), I'll raise a few other questions.



How come when I go to the site of the manufacturer of these vitamins, United Pet Group, Inc., there's not one word about the recall? In fact, when I click on the Pro-Pet logo, all I get are grooming products; I can't even find vitamins on the site, nor did a site search of the name of the product return any results. What's up with that?



And how exactly do you get salmonella in a vitamin anyway? What other food or supplement products do they make? Are  they made in the same place?



The company makes all kinds of products, including Nature's Miracle, Dingo pet treats, the "One Earth" line of "natural" products, including foods and treats, pooper-scoopers, loungers, pet beds, crates... even bird seed. I don't know about you, but I don't like giving my money to companies that aren't transparent and accountable, so even though there aren't a lot of concerns about salmonella in the manufacture of pet beds, it's still something I'm going to keep in mind when deciding who gets my pennies.



These vitamins are sold in Walmart, on Amazon.com, and in many other online and brick and mortar retailers. FDA says anyone with these products should return them to the location at which they were purchased. And if you're in a store and see them on the shelves, do your civic duty and tell the manager.

On a YouTube channel near you: The FDA ' s ' Melamine Story '

The FDA's take on the history of the 2007 pet food recall is on  their YouTube channel (no, really, they have one) now:







Their description:

In 2007, pet food that was contaminated with melamine and related  compounds made many pets sick. At first, no one knew what caused the  problem. An intense and sophisticated search for the cause was begun. In  many ways, the work done by scientists in government and the pet food  industry was groundbreaking. In this video, Dr. Renate Reimschuessel of  the Food and Drug Administration explains what it took to uncover and  confirm the presence of the adulterants in pet food.

Check it out, and see how it matches with how you lived it...

Saving Sido: How one dog sparked a movement

She was just a little mixed breed dog who very nearly lost her life back in the 80s, and you may never have heard of her. But she's been credited for inspiring the birth of the modern no-kill movement. From my column today on SFGate.com:

When Sido's owner, San Francisco's Mary Murphy, committed suicide in 1979, her will left strict instructions that Sido be taken to her veterinarian and "destroyed." The will's executor, Rebecca Wells Smith, said Murphy was afraid no one could take the right kind of care of her dog.



But Sido was in the care of the San Francisco SPCA, and its director, Richard Avanzino, saw things very differently. When Smith went to court to force the agency to have the dog killed, Avanzino refused, vowing that all the SPCA's resources would be used to fight for her life.



"The law says a pet can be destroyed like a piece of furniture," he told the Anchorage Daily News. "We're saying that's wrong."



After Sido's story broke in the Chronicle, the SPCA's phones rang off the hook with calls from reporters from all over the country. At first, Avanzino told me, "It was sort of like, 'What is all this furor over a little creature walking on four legs?' And they would come into my office, and she would walk over to them, and she would put her paw on their knee ... and she'd look up at them with those beautiful eyes and they said, 'I get it. I understand.' And they wrote the story."



It wasn't only reporters who fell in love with Sido. While the court case was going on, Avanzino was at the same time pressing lawmakers in Sacramento to pass a law to save her life. "She was a charmer," he said. "She was adorable. And she basically said to the world, 'Even though my caregiver has passed, I want another chance.' And the world responded to her."

What happened to Sido, and how did she inspire Avanzino to begin his great "experiment in compassion" in San Francisco? Find out here.



Photo of Sido and Rich Avanzino in 1980, courtesy of Rich's personal collection.



Disclaimer: I do some freelance work for Maddie's Fund, the organization Rich Avanzino now heads.

Poodle or hippopotamus? You decide

One of the favorite games of Scottish Deerhound owners is sharing the amusing guesses people have as to what breed our dogs are.



I've heard pretty much everything, from the understandable "Irish Wolfhound" to the way-off-base but not inexplicable "Norwegian Elkhound," to the number one guess, "Airedale," the frequency of which goes a long way towards explaining just why it is almost no shelter dog identified as a "Scottish Deerhound" really is one.



Most of the guesses are some kind of sighthound (why is it that so many people have heard of "Afghan Hounds" but don't know what they look like?) or terrier (a scruffy face trumps a fifty-pound weight difference every day, apparently).



With Rawley, the fact that he's only a puppy is confusing to a lot of the guessers. Most of them think he's a greyhound mix of some kind. A few have actually used the term "lurcher," and when I said, "Deerhound puppy" have smacked their foreheads and said, "Of course." I give them a pass.



The best guess ever? You'll think I'm making it up, but I'm not. I had two Deerhounds, Lillie and Duffy, in the car, and was running into the gas station market to pay for my gas. As I came out, I saw a little girl looking in the car window.



"Look, Mom," she said, tugging on her mother's arm. "Goats."



How about you? When people see your dogs, do they feel compelled to offer outlandish speculation on their breed, or is it obvious?



And do they usually get at least the species right?



Photo: My pet goat, Lillie, at age 12.

Pigs fly, hell freezes, Rawley and Kyrie share a dog bed

I never thought I'd see the day... but here it is:







And no, it's not some techno-industrial decorating scheme, it's a wall I had to have re-rocked to move a doorway and it hasn't been mudded and painted yet, that's all.

Consumer-driven, pet friendly: Re-imagining pet food testing

Don't like the way we test pet foods in this country? You shouldn't. It's not just inadequate and often inhumane, it's optional. But it doesn't have to be this way.



Some brave and innovative company, trade or consumer group, or veterinary college could come up with a new food testing program, one that keeps dogs and cats in more species-appropriate, even home-like, settings, and runs an adoption program for pets who are no longer participating.



Set the sites up in conjunction with veterinary teaching colleges, dog training programs and shelters. You could have students work with the animals to train them and fix any behavior issues so, when the animals are done with the program, they'll make better pets than before they entered it.



For animals participating in lifelong or multi-generational studies, it would be a great opportunity to develop and implement enrichment strategies that could help shelter and sanctuary dogs and cats.



That's the humane. What about the "meaningful"? I'd like to see dogs and cats thrive for at least one year on the exclusive diet, preferably two.  I'd want to see at least two dozen animals enter the testing, and no more than 2 leave the test because they didn't like the food or had problems with it (I recognize that even perfectly good diets, homemade or commercial, won't suit every individual), and no more than, say, four, leave the test for non-food reasons (such as colony cats not getting along).



Obviously, foods with a label claim for growth, reproduction and lactation need to be tested on in-whelp bitches and their litters as they grow.



Ideally, there would also be animals maintained lifelong and through more than one generation on the at least some of the company's pet foods, although I recognize the enormous cost of this on anything like a large scale.



I'm skeptical about the possibility of testing foods on pets in their homes, because if a food bears a "complete and balanced" label, I'd expect it to be the only food given during the testing period, and limiting every treat, every stolen scrap, for a family pet is pretty difficult.  Not impossible, no, but hard to envision on a large scale.



But if it could be done, such a system would obviously be superior and less expensive.



What do you think? What kind of test would be meaningful to you as a consumer, and also meet your standards of what is humane and even beneficial for the animals? And can you see a way to make it work for pets in their homes?