Dogged Blog

Guardian, owner, dog mom, pet parent: What ' s in a name?

After my rant last week about the term "pet parent," I got to thinking about how much the language we use to describe our relationship with pets has changed just in my lifetime. And it turned into this week's column on SFGate.com:

Are you your cat's owner? Your dog's mom? Guardian? Caretaker? Pet parent?



There's been something of a revolution in how we describe the relationship between people and the dogs and cats who share their homes. The once-common term "owner" has fallen out of favor -- maybe not so much in newspapers, where it still seems to reign supreme, but in just about every other arena, including the legal one, "owner" is increasingly rare.



The trend against "owner" hit the big time in 2000 when Boulder, Colo., changed its local ordinances to use the term "guardian" instead of owner when describing pets. Boulder was soon joined by the California cities of Berkeley and West Hollywood, then towns in Arizona, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, as well as the entire state of Rhode Island. San Francisco made the switch in 2003.



The movement to call owners "guardians" has not been without controversy. Those who oppose it, notably veterinary organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association, worry that it will lead to a rise in lawsuits, particularly in the area of malpractice. Others believe it's the first step in an animal rights campaign to elevate animals to the status of humans under the law.



Politics and philosophy aside, many pet owners simply don't like the word. I'm one of them; it sounds legalistic and patronizing. Even if it's the wave of the future for ordinances and statutes, I'm never going to run into a dog park friend whose name I don't know at the supermarket and say, "Hi there! You're Bandit's guardian, right?"

Read the rest here. And yes, the whole thing was just an excuse to use that picture of me lovin' on Lita the pitty puppy again!

Sick dog. Vet out of town. Can you spell ' anxiety ' ?

Folks, I have to confess: I'm completely frantic about Kyrie, my 11-and-a-half year old Borzoi right now, and it's very hard for me to concentrate on anything else. She's in the hospital and I'm waiting for a veterinarian's call.

My friend and most trusted vet in the world, Dr. Helen Hamilton, is out of town, and my regular vet is off today, so she's being seen right now by another vet in the practice, someone I don't know. She's just getting x-rays at the moment, but I hate like the devil to not have my regular team around me.

Making it all worse, I'm supposed to get on a plane tomorrow to leave for 10 days. Obviously I'm not leaving her if she's sick, but at the moment, it's hard to explain what's wrong.

I'm not good with gray area stuff. I need information, I need to know what's going on, and then I'm the best person in the world to have on your side in a crisis. But these kind of vague, undefined maybe-crises?

I fall apart.

What's it like for you when your regular vet isn't available?

Scared or feral: How do you know?

What good is data in saving animal lives? When it comes to feral (or presumed feral) cats, it can be the difference between life and death.



The ASPCA has recently concluded the data collection phase of research into how shelters can more accurately assess whether a cat is socialized, and thus likely to thrive in a pet home, or unsocialized, and thus likely to thrive in a colony situation or by being returned to where she or he was already living.



The study design was ingenious. Two groups of cats, one known to have been living in a feral colony for at least six months, the other known housepets who had never lived outdoors, were brought into a spay-neuter clinic with shelter-like accomodations. All the cats arrived in identical circumstances, and observers had no knowledge of whether the cats they were observing were "feral" or "pet" cats.



From research assistant Alex Mirontschuk:

I’ve spent the past six months observing cats. Lots of cats – nearly 300! When I first signed on for this project, I don’t think that I had a complete grasp on how I would be spending my days…



Monday mornings – arrive to a lobby full of cats – up to 16 at a time. This scene was a bit overwhelming, especially first thing on a Monday. First things first: I moved each cat, one at a time, back to a small observation room where I vaccinated them. Things could get interesting pretty quickly at this point! Once vaccinations were complete, I performed two in-trap assessments on every cat. After these morning assessments were complete, all of the cats were transferred from their traps to their cages, and given a rest before I began afternoon assessments. During the vaccination and both assessments, I gathered data on everything from the cats’ vocalizations to their body position and movements to any miscellaneous behaviors, such as grooming themselves.

When the research is completed and the data analyzed, it will hopefully provide a good guideline to help shelters better evaluate the cats that are brought in. I know from seeing presentations by a number of feral cat advocates over the years, from Alley Cat Allies Becky Robinson to Joan Miller of the CFA, that the behavior of even the most "socialized" pet cat can change dramatically in highly stressful situations, and many cats are misidentified as "feral," and either killed (the most common outcome, as most shelters consider feral cats both unadoptable and untreatable) or released into colony or other outdoor living conditions that might be inappropriate for those cats.



Of course, no one can control how others use their tools, but it's nice to see the entire study framed as a method to find the right outcome for each cat. The way this was written gives a subtle but unmistakable signal that using this as a tool to perform more efficient feral cat killings is not what the researchers have in mind.



Read more here and here.

We must kill the puppies to save them

An ASPCA staffer dropped in at a Mississippi shelter recently, and visited the puppy area.This is what she saw:

It was about 90 degrees, and the flies were relentless. I stood in front of one of the x-pens that contained a litter of puppies. The puppies were fast asleep, green mucus pooling around their eyes and noses. I turned to the other litters in pens near those puppies. They appeared healthy, clear eyes and noses. I looked at the slope of the concrete slab — sloped directly toward those puppy pens. The hose was neatly wrapped nearby. In my head that hose grew fangs and horns…it was evil — a tool to pass the illness from one pen to another.

And this, incomprehensibly, is the lesson she drew from it; bolding mine:

It was obvious that the staff cared about the animals and the facility. They were trying with very few resources. But if this organization had been focused on their data, they could suss out that the unfortunate euthanasia of this very sick litter could mean many more lives saved, as the litters around them would be saved. This was an organization that was trying, but without the focus of the one vs. the all, animals were at high risk.

How do you do that? How do you just jump from seeing a shelter that needed better disease prevention techniques -- maybe something as simple as relocating their puppy pens -- to killing some sick puppies? Puppies who hadn't been diagnosed with anything, and might have had something easily treatable. Puppies who could have been treated, could have been fostered, something, anything other than being killed.



Sure, it may be that shelter lacked the resources to do anything more than what they were doing. But what resources does it take for this visitor to imagine something other than how great it would be to get this shelter to see the terrific benefit of killing sick puppies? What would it have cost the shelter, or indeed, anyone, for her to have written a few lines about some non-lethal approaches to this problem?



Instead, we have someone almost rhapsodizing about the great benefit of shelter data to help shelters focus their death ray more precisely.



I've tried to write a conclusion to this, but I just keep looking at what she wrote and all I can come up with is this: res ipsa loquitur.



It's here.

Fat pets: Do they need tough love, or medical care?

When you see a fat pet, what goes through your mind?



I've been watching the recent discussion about the FDA's investigation into a veterinary drug for treating obesity. Most people are reacting with a big ole "HUH?" to the very idea:

"A pill for fat pets? All they need is a new owner, one who gets up off his fat ass and takes them for a walk sometimes."



"Sheesh. Every single fat pet has an owner who feeds them too much. It's not rocket science, and it's not a disease and it doesn't need a pill."



"Instead of asking your vet for a pill, why don't you try feeding less and getting your pets up and moving?"



"Is the pill for the owner? Because they're the one with the problem."

Those people aren't questioning the specific mechanism of action of this particular drug, nor its risks and efficacy, all of which are certainly open for debate. No, they're objecting to the very idea of treating obesity medically.



To them, there is only one diagnosis: too much food, not enough exercise. And that diagnosis has only one treatment: eat less, move more.



Around half of America's dogs and cats weigh more than they should. And for most pets -- and people -- who are merely overweight and not obese, eating less and moving more is a good place to start -- just ask anyone who's put on a few pounds over the holidays and taken them off with a little portion control and increased exercise.



But it's misleading to try and extrapolate from that experience to believe that obese people just need to do the same longer and harder to get the same result. For those who are obese, that prescription is likely to be as spectacular a failure for pets as it's been for humans over the decades it's been doled out.



Consider a study like this one, which found that even under strict medical supervision -- on a liquid diet, and devoting an hour a day, every day of the week, to exercise -- people only lost between 22 and 27 pounds in a year. And it was a short-term study, so it didn't tell us what happened when they got off the medically supervised program, and went back to normal eating. (Although I think we all know what that was.)



Obesity is a disease in which the systems that regulate fat burning and appetite have failed. And that's why, despite the chorus of "OMG, a PILL for being fat?" that greeted the story about the drug in question, it makes perfect sense to look for a medical solution to what is a medical problem.



If you're thinking I'm wrong, ask yourself these three questions.



One, if a person or a pet is fat because of an endocrine system disorder such as Cushings or hypothyroidism -- well-recognized diseases with known diagnostic tests and therapies -- do you think if you yelled at them a lot about how they need to eat less and move more, their malfunctioning adrenal or thyroid glands would one day wake up and start doing their jobs properly again?



Two, if you tried, if you set out to do it deliberately, could you get your weight up to 400 or 500 pounds?



And the last question: Do you think that Cushings and hypothyroidism are the only endocrine sytem disorders that can cause obesity?



What we've learned from studying obesity is that it's accompanied by a number of endocrine problems, including those that disrupt the body's ability to regulate appetite and fat-burning. In some cases, body fat becomes "invisible" to the endocrine system, disabling the body's ability to burn that fat and making the obese person (or pet) feel as if he or she is starving -- even with all that fuel on board.



The insatiable hunger of obesity, which we also see in people and dogs with Cushings as well as those on high doses of corticosteroids, is not the "Oh, hmmm, guess it's time for dinner now" sensation we're all used to, but an all-consuming sense that you're truly starving.



I've had two dogs get diagnosed with Cushings over the years. One was my cattle dog mix, Scarlett, who needed surgery to remove a fatty growth from her adrenal, and the other was my Deerhound Rebel, who was easily managed on medication for years.



It was their weight gain and insatiable thirst and hunger that sent me to the vet, and both of them quickly dropped the pounds and were restored to normal appetite levels when their Cushings was treated. Should I have instead just made them "eat less, move more"? Was treating them medically some sign of moral weakness on my part?



So why would we want our pets who are obese but don't have Cushings to suffer from feelings of starvation if they don't have to? Wouldn't it be nice if they weren't constantly seeking and begging for food? Didn't act obsessed with it, like dogs with Cushings do? Or if their bodies were easily able to "see" their fat stores, and burn them?



If a drug or, in some cases, surgery, is the answer to Cushings, and hormone supplementation is the answer to hypothyroidism, why not explore similar treatments for other endocrine disorders, including those we haven't fully described and named yet?



Safe, effective drug therapy for obesity, which enabled the body to "see" and burn fat stores while correcting the hormonal malfunction that causes excessive hunger, would not only make it easier for people (who are in charge of their own kitchens and running shoes) to eat and exercise appropriately, but for us to put our pets on healthy eating and activity regimens without suffering on their parts.



If you think this seems a bit personal, well, it is. I've struggled with weight my whole life, and around 7 years ago I lost 187 pounds, and I've kept off all but 35 of those. And I know, absolutely, that the systems in my body that regulate appetite and fat burning are broken.



Believe me, I'd give anything to be able to take a pill and get them re-regulated, just as I was able to do for Rebel.

Amazon, on the other hand, is doing it right

Although Comcast did eventually fix the problem, apologize, and credit me a month's service to make up for the hassle of giving away my phone number one day for no apparent reason, it was only after I Tweeted and blogged about the two hour customer service support chat from hell. What happens to regular customers who don't have hundreds or thousands of Twitter followers, or who don't have "I write for the San Francisco Chronicle" in their Twitter bio?

Still, their Twitter customer service rep, @ComcastMelissa, was truly awesome, and the people to whom she escalated my problem were extremely fast and helpful. Kudos where they're due.

In contrast, I didn't need to go whining on Twitter to get great customer service from Amazon. I ordered something that didn't arrive, went to their online support chat, and prepared to suffer. This is what happened:

You are now connected to Tyler from Amazon.com.

Me:This was being sent with one day delivery and has never arrived -- it's been almost 2 weeks. I would like it to be re-sent to me, and a refund of the one-day delivery charge. Thanks.4:22:42 PM

Tyler:Hello, Christie, I'm sorry to hear that you haven't received your order. This will take a moment as I bring up the order to assist you.4:23:02 PM

Me:Thanks4:23:08 PM

Tyler:Given that it has been so long, I will arrange for a replacement to be sent to you. In addition, I will be refunding your $3.99 shipping charges. As you currently have a Prime membership, I will also be arranging to extend your prime benefits for an additional month as an apology for this missed delivery.4:25:55 PM

Me:Thanks so much!4:26:08 PM

Tyler:I'll be sending an e-mail to you in the next few minutes confirming that the replacement has been created (as well as this Prime extension). Is there anything else I can assist you with today?

Me:Nothing, this was very fast and helpful, thank you!

Tyler:I'm glad to be of assistance, Christie. Thank you for visiting Amazon.com, we hope to see you again soon!4:26:46 PM

Note this took four minutes. And yes, they'll see me again soon.

FDA studying possible breed-specific problems with Slentrol

The Food and Drug Adminstration has some concerns about Pfizer's canine weight loss drug, Slentrol.It may be associated with a higher risk of certain side effects in some breeds. (Note: Pfizer sponsors the Pet Connection search engine.)



From Katherine Hobson in the Wall Street Journal's health blog:

Not only have we in the U.S. made ourselves fat, we’ve dragged our dogs along with us. Hence, Slentrol, Pfizer’s FDA-approved drug to help pudgy pugs lose a neck roll or three.



But the FDA says a preliminary analysis suggests a “potential correlation” between the breed of the dog and certain side effects of the drug, Dow Jones Newswires reports, citing an agency document. The FDA is planning to study genetic data on dogs that have taken Slentrol to see if certain breeds are more susceptible to problems. It didn’t specify which adverse events it’s tracking.



Pfizer disagrees with this plan, DJN reports. The company says side effects listed on the label, including vomiting, diarrhea and lethargy, are usually mild, and that specific breeds don’t seem to be disproportionately affected.



The breeds most commonly associated with adverse events with Slentrol — Labrador retriever, beagle, golden retriever, dachshund, pug and Chihuahua — are also very common, and some are predisposed to obesity, Pfizer says.

Read the complete story here, but it will probably leave you with more questions than answers. We'll be following this one.

Duck makes splash in backyard — and on Facebook

My editor at SFGate.com wanted me to write something about backyard poultry. Who better to interview than our own Gina Spadafori, whose adventures in urban farming are well-documented here on Pet Connection.



But when I spoke with her, the chickens took a definite backseat to Bernadette The Weather Duck®. From the column:

(F)or those whose fowl intentions are a bit out of the ordinary, ducks are making a something of a splash in backyard poultry circles.



Sacramento's Gina Spadafori, co-author of "Birds for Dummies," was an avid urban chicken-keeper when she got her first duck, Bernadette. Her chickens provided her with eggs, fertilizer for her gardens, insect-control in her vegetable patch, and endless amusement from the window of her home office.



But Bernadette was different. For one thing, says Spadafori, she has about 10 times the personality of a chicken. (And I'm not just taking Gina's word for it. I've met Bernadette, and it's true; she's a pistol.)



"I always had it in my mind to get a duck," said Spadafori. "Chickens are sort of a 'gateway drug' to other livestock, and my zoning won't let me get a goat, so a duck seemed obvious. And they're so cute." So when Bernadette's need for a home came to her attention, Spadafori said, "Sure!"



Along with Bernadette came a need for a slightly higher level of service than the chickens seemed to expect. Bernadette, it turned out, is quite picky about how she likes her meals of fresh bitter greens laid out, requiring a fanned arrangement worthy of Chez Panisse.



There were also some clean-up challenges. "Ducks are messier than chickens," said Spadafori. "Their water needs to be changed constantly, because they dip things in it, and also go to the bathroom in it."



The biggest difference between chickens and ducks, however, is the duckish love of water. Because ducks gotta swim, Bernadette has her own kiddie pool, which Spadafori freshens from a garden hose at least twice a day.



"When Bernadette sees me coming with the hose, she gets very, very excited," she said. "When the chickens see the hose, they hide. And she loves the rain, which the chickens don't."

Actually, I'd say the biggest difference is that Bernadette has her own Facebook page:

"Bernadette the duck does have quite a bit of personality," Spadafori said. "Just perhaps not quite as much as Bernadette The Weather Duck, if you know what I'm saying."



Spadafori may be the real personality behind the Facebook page, but Bernadette's several hundred fans, seem content to ignore that fact. "She has an active fan base that seems to think she not only predicts the weather, but controls it," said Spadafori. "They make requests for weather in their area, then thank her when the weather is good."



Weather isn't the only subject on which Bernadette holds forth from her social media perch. "Bernadette" writes about all the activities in Spadafori's urban poultry yard, including disparaging the "featherheads" she's forced to share it with, the chickens. And let's not even mention the dogs, who Bernadette particularly despises.

Read the rest of the article here, then go "like" Bernadette The Weather Duck®!



Photo: Bernadette enjoying her pool while one of the chickens looks on, bewildered. By Gina Spadafori.

While the cat ' s away at Pet Connection...

So, Gina's going on vacation, and we all know what that means, right?







Seriously, I'm the good cop. Right up until my head explodes, which people tell me is amusing. If you need anything, just holler! And let's not blow up the blog or she'll never be able to go away again!

Why this dog mom is not a “pet parent”

I've been trying to figure out why the phrase "pet parent" drives me stark raving insane.

I'm sure that some of our readers *cough* Heather Houlahan *cough* will say it's because I did not give birth to my dogs and thus, they are not my children and I'm not their parent. Fair enough, and anyone who would argue with that is, patently, nuts.

The thing is, I've always thought of my dogs and cats as my family, even my children. I called my mom their "grandma" (and so did she), and just this morning, when my brother came in the door, I said to Rawley, "Look! Here's your uncle Jim!"

So you'd think "pet parent" would be right up my alley, and instead, it makes me want to kick out a wall.

It's because pet owners who think of their pets as their children, or as something akin to children, don't think of themselves as "pet parents;" they think of themselves as mom or dad.

Calling me a "pet parent," and even worse, calling dog training "pet parenting," may be questionable in any number of ways, but above all, it lacks authenticity. "Pet parent" is the language of the marketer, of the ad campaign designed to sell you pet food and drugs and services by implying that doing "less" for your pets than your children means you don't really love them. (Although if you try to sue them for poisoning or harming your "fur kid," don't expect them to cough up at child-like levels.)

Argue all you want that there are issues with thinking of pets as four-legged children. I won't disagree; there are huge problems with confounding human children and pets. I just don't think that calling ourselves our pets' moms or dads in casual conversation, or semi-humorously, means we're doing that.

I know that when I call myself "Rawley's mom" I know he's a dog, and that when I'm teaching him to come when called, walk on a leash or not disembowel my new Kindle (don't ask) that I'm training him, not "parenting" him.

But when I'm lying on the bed next to him, tickling his tummy and telling him he's the most wonderful mergatroyd in the world? I'm his mom.

Just don't use that fact to try to sell me stuff, that's all.

Photo: Left, baby. Right, dog. Try not to confuse the two in your minds, no matter what you call them.