Dogged Blog

Should you trust your dog walker?

Ever wonder what's happening while your dog walker is out with your dog? From my column this week on SFGate.com:

The little white poodle was curled up under the wheel of a minivan parked next to San Francisco's Sigmund Stern Grove. The street was wet from recent rains, and her leash trailed out from beneath the car.



I'd just come out of the park, where I'd seen a dog walker unload six or seven dogs from that vehicle and bring them into the off-leash dog play area, leashes trailing just like hers. It was clear she was one of his charges, and he hadn't noticed or didn't care that she'd stayed behind.

Obviously he was one of the bad dog walkers. Fortunately, I have one of the best, Courtney Gunter of San Francisco's The Whole Pet. She was voted "Best Pet Sitter in the Bay Area" in Bay Woof Magazine's "Beast of the Bay" competition, and runner up as best dog trainer and best dog walker, too.





I asked her for her tips on finding a good dog walker and avoiding the bad:

"Start by asking how many dogs they walk at a time," Gunter says. "The City of San Francisco guidelines say that each person should walk no more than six dogs. Anyone who doesn't know that, or gives you a higher number, should be avoided."



Good dog walkers will have references and a contract for you to sign. They'll also have clear policies on cancellations for weather, illness or other emergencies. And they tend to get as much information as possible about your dog before signing you up as a client. In fact, they probably will have as many questions for you as you have for them.



"Knowing how to integrate different dogs into a group takes skill and experience," Gunter says. "They need to really get to know the dogs they walk together, so that everyone has a safe and enjoyable experience. If the dog walker doesn't seem to have a handle on that, I'd consider that a pretty big red flag."



Other questions to ask include how they handle first aid, how they deal with behavior problems, and how long they'll keep the dog at the park.



"Just because the dog is out for six hours doesn't mean they're at the park for six hours," Gunter says. "Is your dog just riding around in a van while they pick up 15 other dogs? That's not what you're paying for."

Read the rest of Courtney's tips here!

Kroger recalls Pet Pride, Old Yeller, Value Chunk pet foods for aflatoxin

Been a while since we saw a late Friday night dump-and-run pet food recall!



This weekend it's the grocery store mega-chain, Kroger, recalling dog and cat food sold in Kroger, Dillons, Gerbes, Baker's, Food 4 Less, Jay C, Hilander, Owen's, Pay Less, and Scott's stores. From their release:

The Kroger Co. said today it is recalling select packages of pet food sold in some of its retail stores because the products may contain aflatoxin, which poses a health risk to pets.



Kroger stores in the following states are included in this recall:  Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.



The recall also includes Dillons and Gerbes stores in Kansas and Missouri; Baker's stores in Nebraska; Food 4 Less stores in Nebraska, Illinois and Indiana (Chicago area); and Jay C, Hilander, Owen's, Pay Less and Scott's stores in Illinois and Indiana.



Stores the company operates under the following names are not included in this recall: Ralphs, Fred Meyer, Fry's, King Soopers, Smith's, QFC, City Market, Foods Co., and Food 4 Less stores in California and Nevada.

I didn't see a link to the recall info on their main page, but if you click on "recalls" in their navigation, it's right there.



List of affected products under the jump.







Kroger is recalling the following items:

• Pet Pride Cat Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111088128



• Pet Pride Cat Food sold in 18 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071357



• Pet Pride Tasty Blend Poultry & Seafood Cat Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111088152



• Pet Pride Tasty Blend Poultry & Seafood Cat Food sold in 18 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074580



• Pet Pride Kitten Formula Food sold in 3.5 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071903



• Old Yeller Chunk Dog Food sold in 22 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074566



• Old Yeller Chunk Dog Food sold in 50 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111074563



• Kroger Value Cat Food sold in 3 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111000018



• Kroger Value Chunk Dog Food sold in 15 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111071559



• Kroger Value Chunk Dog Food sold in 50 lb. packages with a sell by date of OCT 23 11 DP and OCT 24 11 DP under the following UPC code: 1111000108

Stop calling it ' euthanasia '

You know what New Year's resolution I'd like to see every journalist, animal activist, shelter communications director, and, well, everyone, make?



To stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable pets.



When my Deerhound Raven was dying of bone cancer, every morning when she opened her eyes I waited to see if there was joy in them. Joy at the sunshine, at seeing my face, at the prospect of facing another day.



A few times there wasn't; they were dull and flat. But I would do something -- adjust her meds, have her acupuncturist visit, love her extra-hard -- and as long as the next morning her eyes lit up for a few minutes, we kept on trying.



And when Raven's eyes stayed flat, when she couldn't settle into a comfortable position, when she didn't care about food or walks or even me, that was the day we were done.



I held her across my lap, and smoothed back her ears, and kissed her as she sighed and closed her eyes. I felt her body, tense against the pain, relax. I felt her weight on my legs get heavier. I heard her breathe, then give a little gasp, then breathe... and then stop.



I told her I loved her, and then I let her go.



That's "the last great gift, when you take your animal's pain and make it your own." That's euthanasia.



It is so incredibly painful to hear that word applied to the killing of a pet for no reason except that she or he is homeless. Using a term that speaks to the loving end of suffering, the same mercy I wish I could have shown my mother when she was dying, is cruel and disrespectful to everyone who has ever made that last agonizing decision for a beloved pet.



It's also disrespectful to the animals being killed, by acting as if what's being done to them is a gift, or an act of mercy.



And above all, using "euthanasia" when you mean "killing" is a lie. Just stop.



Photo: Raven, taken by Sandy Lurins.

Healthy, normal puppy flunks shelter ' behavior evaluation '

Skeeter was tested at San Francisco Animal Care and Control and flunked his behavior evaluation a couple of weeks ago. Evaluators said he was "too mouthy," and also put his age at 6 months.



Good thing a dedicated rescue group was there to say, ummm, no. Here he is with his new mom in the parking lot of the San Francisco Raw Feeders group, demonstrating both his sweet nature and good behavior -- not to mention the fact that anyone with half an eye can see he's still not six months old.







I adopted a 12-week-old mostly stray puppy who was a brutally hard mouther -- she was a cattle dog mix, so you know what I'm saying here -- and while it took me a little longer to get her to lighten up than it did my Deerhounds, it wasn't beyond the ability of even a mediocre trainer like me.



It's inexcusable to "flunk" a puppy for exhibiting completely normal, fixable puppy behavior, all the more so when this kind of decision can mean death, which is entirely unfixable.

Why spay/neuter is like kibble

I had a particularly frustrating conversation with a dog-walker friend of mine over on Facebook yesterday, about the challenges of owning an intact male dog in a city where virtually every dog you encounter has been spayed or neutered.



She didn't say anything outrageous, just recapitulated the conventional wisdom about how intact animals trigger or cause behavior problems in group situations, how intact males will be aggressive, how intact males "incite" aggression in neutered dogs even when the intact male isn't aggressive himself, and so on. Nothing we all haven't heard before, and probably nothing many pet owners would think twice about.



But those of us who have kept intact males for decades, who take our dogs to conformation shows and field events where all the animals are intact, know that some of these statements being presented as universal truths are, in fact, situational.



When dogs aren't used to being around intact dogs, yes, they may very well freak out when they meet one. But at dog shows, conformation handling classes and performance events, problems of aggression are very rare, because people and dogs are used to that situation. Everyone knows what to do, and the dogs know how the dogs next to them in the ring are "supposed to" walk, stand and smell.



After the exchange, I felt myself gearing up to go into a long rant about how we've lost our animal sense, and people can't deal with animals as nature made them anymore, and we're turning dogs into neutered little robots because of the demands of society and blah blah blah, when it struck me.



Spay/neuter is the kibble of reproductive biology.



I mean, think about it. Would pet ownership be so widespread if we didn't have near-universal spay/neuter and easy, cheap commercial pet foods?



While we often give other reasons -- altruistic ones or health ones -- most dog owners have come to rely on neutering to change dogs' natural behavior so they fit into unnatural crowded urban environment, just as they've come to rely on commercial processed diets to feed their pets cheaply and conveniently.



But our dogs, like us, will do best on a diet of fresh, varied, wholesome foods, even if such a diet is more expensive and time-consuming than putting kibble in a bowl. And while a dog with a specific health problem may benefit from being neutered, for most male dogs, neutering increases, rather than decreases, health risks.



Both kibble and spay/neuter benefit dogs in general by making it easier for people to own dogs, which is something I'm in favor of. And I don't want to make it harder to own pets than it already is, either.



But I'm increasingly uncomfortable with how few people seem to question or even acknowledge that we're making some pretty significant trade-offs in terms of our dogs' health to get that ease of ownership.



For instance, it's shocking how many people I respect -- people who I think have some pretty good knowledge and experience about dogs -- honestly don't know there's any medical or behavioral downside to spaying and neutering dogs.



And there's something fundamentally skewed when a dog isn't considered "normal" by dog owners or their dogs unless he's had his testicles removed. Being intact is, in fact, normal, even if it's no longer common. It's not a health problem to be cured with surgery, it's not a tragedy, and it's not a sign that the dog's owner is stupid or irresponsible.



I know that I'll continue to feed my dogs fresh food and make decisions about their reproductive organs on an individual basis, just like I do for myself.



And I'll continue to be glad that so many people want to share their lives and homes with dogs, and want to do the right thing for their pets.



But I'll also remember that there is a natural conflict between those two statements -- and wish a lot more people would realize that, too.

Helping pets makes everyone ' s holiday brighter

Over on SFGate.com, our own Dr. Marty Becker spoke with me for my column this week. Our topic: Helping pets and pet owners in need this holiday season.



It's an important topic for both of us. Speaking for myself, I'm totally done with the small but vocal camp of nasty pet-haters who predictably trot out their "If you care about pets you must hate people" crap every single time anyone writes about sharing so much as a scrap of bread with a dog or cat.



I'm equally fed up with the sanctimony of those who intone that we shouldn't help poor families or the sick, disabled or elderly keep their pets because we're just enabling them to have animals they can't care for. I'm so glad these people, however loud and obnoxious they are, are few in number, because if they ruled the world, it would be full of even more misery and woe than it already is.



Wow, how's that for holiday spirit?



So let's let Dr. Becker have his say, because he's a lot more upbeat than I am:

Dr. Marty Becker, resident veterinarian on "The Dr. Oz Show" and "Good Morning America," as well as my fellow Pet Connection blogger, also wants to make sure pets in shelters don't go wanting this holiday season. He'll be taking gifts and treats to the pets in his local shelters on Dec. 25, and is asking other pet owners to do the same.



"This is the time of year when people often look around for some way to share the blessings they have in their lives," he said. "For animal lovers, helping those pets who don't have what their own pets do -- a loving home -- is a special way to do that."



Of course, there's no better gift for a homeless pet than being adopted. But if you can't give a pet a forever home, consider something less permanent, and volunteer to foster a homeless pet for the holidays.



I can't wrap this up without a word to the people who are right this moment gearing up to unleash the obligatory "How can you care about pets when people are in need?" comments.



Whether you approve or not, this is the reality: There are people who died in the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina rather than leave their pets behind. National disaster programs now routinely include transport and shelter plans for pets displaced by earthquakes, fires and floods, because without them, people don't comply with evacuation orders.



Programs like PAWS and Meals on Wheels began distributing pet food because they found that their clients were sharing their own meals with their pets.



People love their pets, and if a disaster the size of Katrina didn't change that, your disapproval certainly won't. And in addition to loving them, people also benefit from sharing their lives with companion animals.



Becker, author of "The Healing Power of Pets," noted that numerous studies "provide overwhelming evidence that companion animal ownership is linked to less depression, lower blood pressure, improved cardiovascular health, higher IQs, better behavior, fewer allergies and lower incidences of asthma in children, and a host of other health benefits."



He added, "Depriving the elderly, ill, poor families and the homebound of those benefits is not only mean-spirited, it costs society more in providing health services to those people."

You can read the full column here -- it includes a list of both Bay Area and national campaigns to help pets and pet owners facing homelessness, job loss, illness and other challenges. If you need those services, you can find them there, and if you don't -- count your blessings and donate a blanket, sack of pet food or a few bucks to help those who do!



And if you want to hear more about what Dr. Becker has to say on the subject of helping homeless pets during the holidays and throughout the year, please click on over here!



Photo: Two dogs snuggling on a pet bed donated by a caring pet owner through the shelter bed donation program at Kuranda.com.