Workers want time off with new pets

Workers want time off with new pets

Last updated:Tuesday 19-Sep-2006 04:33:36

Workers increasingly want “peternity” leave to be at home when they buy a new animal, according to new research.

Owners are pulling a sickie so they can stay in the house with a new cat, dog or other pet.

Pet insurance provider Petplan said a study of 100 of its customers showed that some people had the same approach to pet ownership as child rearing.

Keep BSL out of Illinois

 Introduced by Rep. Michael Tryon on December 1st, 2005, HB4213 automatically deems American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, “pit bulls,” Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and Staffordshire Terriers vicious and requires owners of these and other dangerous dogs to maintain liability insurance . As AKC reported last month, the bill further restricts the regulations for keeping these dogs, including requiring them to be muzzled and leashed whenever outside their owners’ residence, even in a fenced back-yard. Fines for violations will increase to a minimum of $1001.
Please sign and help keep bsl out of Illinois! Let them know that PitBulls and the named dogs above are not VICIOUS DOGS! Let them know that we SHOULDNT have to muzzle our family pets just to walk to the sidewalk! Let them know that RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/192305999?ltl=1157408776

Dogs targeted for Breed Bans

Pet Services Industry – $64 Billion Dollar Market

Average Dog Trainer makes $60-$120K per year.  Max is $12 million a year, Low is $48K a year
Pet Services is the 3rd Largest Emerging Market ranked by Fortune Magazine, Inc. 500 Magazine, Forbes, and Wall Street Journal
Pet Population is increasing by 12% per year
Pets have been moved up into the family hierarchy near-equal to children
Discretionary income spending for Pets are nearly equivalent to that of a human baby

Police to stop placing explosives in passenger luggage for airport dog training after Paris mishap

Police to stop placing explosives in passenger luggage for airport dog training after Paris mishap By Jamey Keaten ASSOCIATED PRESS PARIS – French police on Sunday ended their practice of hiding plastic explosives in air passengers’ luggage to train bomb-sniffing dogs after one such bag got lost, possibly ending up on a flight out of Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport. Advertisement The luggage that police used Friday for the exercise has not turned up yet. Three flights that arrived in Los Angeles and New York were searched, but the luggage in question was not found. No passenger has contacted French authorities to report discovering a bag with nearly 5 ounces of explosives tucked into his or her suitcase. Police say there was no chance the explosives could go off since they were not connected to detonators. Still, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin was critical of the mistake. “The fight against terrorism and insecurity is a priority for the government,” a statement by his office said. “But (Raffarin) made clear his concern in the face of the way the training for explosives searches was conducted at Roissy Charles de Gaulle.” Raffarin said the procedure was “susceptible to making the relevant passenger run a risk in the eyes of foreign authorities when arriving in the destination country.” Police soon after announced they had ordered a stop. “The procedures that were used Friday night will no longer be allowed,” said Pierre Bouquin, a spokesman for France’s police force, known as gendarmes, who conducted the training. “We’re going to stop practicing this on the bags of travelers” in all of France, he said. Airport police deliberately placed the plastic explosives into a passenger’s luggage early Friday evening, Bouquin said. The luggage was lost on a conveyor belt carrying bags through a restricted area from check-in to planes. The explosives could have made it onto one of up to 90 flights leaving Charles de Gaulle airport. Police did not know the bag’s destination and quickly alerted the relevant airlines. No one saw the bag go on a plane, but “there is a very strong chance that it left” on one, Bouquin said. Two police officers faced disciplinary action because of the incident, Bouquin said.

Breed Specific Legislation :: Definition

Breed specific legislation (BSL) is being passed in many different states, counties, towns and countries, and is a detriment to the survival of the Pit Bull. All owners should concern themselves with the matter of BSL.

What is BSL?

BSL is legislation that targets specific breeds of dog (namely Pit Bulls and “pit bull types”) because they are supposedly inherently dangerous and therefore deserving of prejudicial rules and regulations. BSL can be loosely divided into two types:

Type 1–Bans

Bans make it illegal to own, house, harbor, import, train, or breed any of the dogs listed in the legislation in a particular location. Dogs that already exist in the area of the ban are usually grandfathered in, but their owners have to comply with extensive laws in order to keep their animals. These laws usually require owners to take out expensive liability insurance on their dogs, muzzle the dogs in public, keep the animals confined in kennels, mandatory spay/neuter, among other things.

Type 2–Ownership regulation

Regulation legislation doesn’t outright ban a breed, but rather makes it extremely difficult to own a certain breed. Requirements such as liability insurance, mandatory spay/neuter, higher licensing costs, muzzling in public, etc. are typical of legislation like this. Ownership regulation also places age limits on who can own or handle certain breeds. Through this type of legislation, the government is basically deciding who is and who is not allowed to own certain dogs.

What’s the point of BSL?

The supportors of BSL claim their goal is to put an end to dog attacks by targeting certain breeds of dog that are “inherently vicious/dangerous”, and dogs that tend to appeal to people who are involved in criminal activity (i.e. drug dealers, dog fighters, gangbangers, etc).

What About Bite Statistics? Do They Prove We Need BSL?:

Dog Bite Statistics are unreliable sources of information regarding the “viciousness” or dangerousness of breeds for the following reasons:

1) Very few people can accurately identify dog breeds.

2) Breeds are not listed individually, but rather under group headings. For instance, under the heading “pit bull”, you will find no less than 3 distinct breeds, mixes of any of those three breeds, any dog that appears to be one of those breeds, plus any misidentified dogs. And make no mistake, dogs get misidentified all the time. There is a case of an Akita attack that was reported as a “pit bull attack” in the media. This author’s dogs have been mistaken for Boxers, Bulldogs, and yes, one was even mistaken for an Akita. Just about any Pit Bull owner can tell you of many cases where their dog has dealt with a case of mistaken identity.

3) Bite stats take into account only reported bites.

4) Bite stats do not take into account the dogs of a specified breed who do NOT bite. No one knows the overall percentage of Pit Bulls who bite compared to, let’s say, the percentage of Dalmatians or Golden Retrievers who bite.

5) Bite stats do not list “provoked” bites that occur at grooming shops and veterinary offices. If you took a survey of groomers and veterinarians, I’m sure you’d find an overwhelming majority of them would tell you that the small, “cutesy” dogs that people generally hold as harmless are the dogs that give them the most trouble. This author is an ex-groomer and can attest to the fact that the big dogs, particularly the Pit Bulls, and other similar breeds, are by far the most cooperative.

6) Bite stats DO list the truly provoked bites, i.e. dogs who have bitten after being teased/harrassed/abused.

BSL Is Not The Answer:

While it is quite obvious that there is a problem in some communities regarding loose dogs harrassing/attacking people, criminal activity involving the use of dogs, and dog attacks in general, BSL fails to reduce the occurance of these problems because it fails to address the root cause: people. BSL doesn’t work because it is purely predjudicial in nature. Instead of punishing owners who are irresponsible and criminals who use dogs for illegal purposes, the legislation targets dogs for simply existing, and people’s rights to own the breed of dog they so choose.

BSL is also largely based on misinformation and truth-twisting, its authors citing the “inherent viciousness” of certain dog breeds as plenty reason to outlaw even those dogs that have never acted in a criminal fashion. Bite statistics are also used as justification since “pit bulls” often top such lists. Of course, no breed is inherently vicious, and the accuracy of bite stats are suspect as best.

BSL doesn’t work because…

1) Current laws are barely enforced. New laws are going to be heaped on top of old ones, for what purpose? Take something as simple as the leash law. It is not very often enforced. Leashes save lives, they prevent dog bites and attacks. It is a simple, yet extremely effective means of lessening dog problems. The blatant disregard for leash laws is not something that should be allowed to go on.

2) BSL takes time, money and man-power to enforce. The responsibility for the enforcement of laws falls on Animal Control and sheltering systems. These are agencies that are already dealing with massive surpluses of animals, more calls than they can sometimes handle. Now they are being forced to deal with the additional weight BSL dumps on their shoulders.

3) BSL is predjudicial in nature. It punishes dogs and owners who have done nothing wrong. It is discriminatory against people who choose to own a particular breed of dog.

4) All dogs bite. All dogs can inflict harm. There is no scientific study to prove that one breed of dog bites more or causes more injury than any other breed of dog. There have been cases of tiny dogs, under 20 pounds killing or seriously injurying children.

5) If Pit Bulls and similar breeds are outlawed or severely restricted, one of two things happen: criminals and irresponsible owners will continue to get their hands on the dogs and simply ignore laws, or they will turn to other breeds to suit their purposes.

Alternatives to Breed Speficic Legislation:

1) Enforcement of generic dangerous dog laws, laws that hold owners accountable for the actions of their dogs regardless of breed.

2) Enforcement of leash laws. Let’s be real strict about this. Tickets should be handed out like candy to individuals who disobey this law. Fine owners who let their dogs run loose or fail to keep them in enclosures that they cannot escape from. Let’s have a 3-strikes and you’re out law for people who refuse to keep their dogs under control. Use the money collected from these fines to fund community dog safety and responsible ownership programs.

3) Stop making excuses for animal cruelty, neglect, and irresponsible ownership. There need to be huge fines for those involved in any inhumane or irresponsible activity with animals.

OFF-LEASH OBEDIENCE : The gold standard in dog training.

OFF-LEASH OBEDIENCE :

The gold standard in dog training. The flaws and imperfections of one’s training method/techniques and the strength or weakness of one’s understanding of dog psychology are magnified when your dog is off-leash.

Family dog kills owner in back yard in Broward

Family dog kills owner in back yard in Broward

By Antigone Barton

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Saturday, August 19, 2006

CORAL SPRINGS — A mother of two young children was mauled to death by a family dog Friday in what police said was the first fatal dog attack anyone could remember in Broward County.

Shawna Willey, 30, died next to her backyard pool while trying to bathe the dog at about 3:30 p.m., police said.

Photo gallery: Images from the scene More Florida news

Officers and paramedics were called to the home, where they found a “surreal scene,” Coral Springs Police Capt. Rich Nicorvo said — Willey dead, covered with blood, wounds on her torso, arms and legs.

The 120-pound dog was standing over her body. Nicorvo said it was “acting aggressively,” and police shot and killed the animal, which fell or jumped into the pool before dying. Two more dogs were inside the house.

Willey and her daughter, Tyra, were the only ones home at the time of the attack, police said. Tyra had run to a neighbor’s house to get help.

Willey lived in the home with her boyfriend, Lazaro Rivero, and her children. Rivero returned home about an hour after the attack and secured the other dogs, which police took to a shelter. Their fate will be decided later.

The dog that attacked Willey was a Presa Canario, akin to a pit bull.

With powerful jaws and thick skin, the Presa Canario gained national attention in 2001 when a pair bred for dog-fighting mauled a woman to death in San Francisco, leading to the indictment of two neighbors.

The dogs are legal in Broward County.

Horrified residents of the Rolling Hills neighborhood in Coral Springs, where homes are listed at more than $1 million, said they had seen two of the dogs running loose earlier in the day.

“It was frightening,” neighbor Linda Kendricks said. “We were afraid to go out.”

Neighbors said Willey drops her children, Tyra and son Trey, at the school bus stop each morning. They said the family had lived in their neighborhood for about three years.

Avrahan Horwitz, 13, said he played with Trey and remembered the day he suggested they play in Willey’s back yard.

“We’d better not,” Avrahan recalled Trey answering. “The dogs are out and sometimes they bite.”

Willey had logged problems with dogs in the past.

In 2000, she was charged with having a dog at large, according to Hillsborough County court records. A dog “threatened (a) witness into the house,” records show.

In December 2002, she was charged with having a vicious animal, and having an animal with no current rabies vaccination and no registration. The next year, she was ordered to pay $1,100, records show. She never paid.

Friday’s incident occurred just as the family had been preparing to go on vacation, Nicorvo said.

Blood spattered the backyard patio and French doors where a dog’s leash hung from a knob while crime scene technicians worked into the early evening.

“A tragedy,” neighbor Gene Rice said.

“A preventable tragedy,” neighbor Jon Evans added.

AKC’s Canine Good Citizen® (CGC) Program

AKC’s Canine Good Citizen® (CGC) Program Sponsored by K9 Advantix®
Training/Testing: CGC Test Items

	AKC’s Canine Good Citizen® (CGC) Program Sponsored by K9 Advantix®

Before taking the Canine Good Citizen test, owners will sign the Responsible Dog Owners Pledge. We believe that responsible dog ownership is a key part of the CGC concept and by signing the pledge, owners agree to take care of their dog’s health needs, safety, exercise, training and quality of life. Owners also agree to show responsibility by doing things such as cleaning up after their dogs in public places and never letting dogs infringe on the rights of others.

After signing the Responsible Dog Owners Pledge, owners and their dogs are ready to take the CGC Test. Items on the Canine Good Citizen Test include:

Test 1: Accepting a friendly stranger
This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to approach it and speak to the handler in a natural, everyday situation. The evaluator walks up to the dog and handler and greets the handler in a friendly manner, ignoring the dog. The evaluator and handler shake hands and exchange pleasantries. The dog must show no sign of resentment or shyness, and must not break position or try to go to the evaluator.

Test 2: Sitting politely for petting
This test demonstrates that the dog will allow a friendly stranger to touch it while it is out with its handler. With the dog sitting at the handler’s side, to begin the exercise, the evaluator pets the dog on the head and body. The handler may talk to his or her dog throughout the exercise. The dog may stand in place as it is petted. The dog must not show shyness or resentment.

Test 3: Appearance and grooming
This practical test demonstrates that the dog will welcome being groomed and examined and will permit someone, such as a veterinarian, groomer or friend of the owner, to do so. It also demonstrates the owner’s care, concern and sense of responsibility. The evaluator inspects the dog to determine if it is clean and groomed. The dog must appear to be in healthy condition (i.e., proper weight, clean, healthy and alert). The handler should supply the comb or brush commonly used on the dog. The evaluator then softly combs or brushes the dog, and in a natural manner, lightly examines the ears and gently picks up each front foot. It is not necessary for the dog to hold a specific position during the examination, and the handler may talk to the dog, praise it and give encouragement throughout.

Test 4: Out for a walk (walking on a loose lead)
This test demonstrates that the handler is in control of the dog. The dog may be on either side of the handler. The dog’s position should leave no doubt that the dog is attentive to the handler and is responding to the handler’s movements and changes of direction. The dog need not be perfectly aligned with the handler and need not sit when the handler stops. The evaluator may use a pre-plotted course or may direct the handler/dog team by issuing instructions or commands. In either case, there should be a right turn, left turn, and an about turn with at least one stop in between and another at the end. The handler may talk to the dog along the way, praise the dog, or give commands in a normal tone of voice. The handler may sit the dog at the halts if desired.

Test 5: Walking through a crowd
This test demonstrates that the dog can move about politely in pedestrian traffic and is under control in public places. The dog and handler walk around and pass close to several people (at least three). The dog may show some interest in the strangers but should continue to walk with the handler, without evidence of over-exuberance, shyness or resentment. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise the dog throughout the test. The dog should not jump on people in the crowd or strain on the leash.

Test 6: Sit and down on command and Staying in place
This test demonstrates that the dog has training, will respond to the handler’s commands to sit and down and will remain in the place commanded by the handler (sit or down position, whichever the handler prefers). The dog must do sit AND down on command, then the owner chooses the position for leaving the dog in the stay. Prior to this test, the dog’s leash is replaced with a line 20 feet long. The handler may take a reasonable amount of time and use more than one command to get the dog to sit and then down. The evaluator must determine if the dog has responded to the handler’s commands. The handler may not force the dog into position but may touch the dog to offer gentle guidance. When instructed by the evaluator, the handler tells the dog to stay and walks forward the length of the line, turns and returns to the dog at a natural pace. The dog must remain in the place in which it was left (it may change position) until the evaluator instructs the handler to release the dog. The dog may be released from the front or the side.

Test 7: Coming when called
This test demonstrates that the dog will come when called by the handler. The handler will walk 10 feet from the dog, turn to face the dog, and call the dog. The handler may use encouragement to get the dog to come. Handlers may choose to tell dogs to “stay” or “wait” or they may simply walk away, giving no instructions to the dog.

Test 8: Reaction to another dog
This test demonstrates that the dog can behave politely around other dogs. Two handlers and their dogs approach each other from a distance of about 20 feet, stop, shake hands and exchange pleasantries, and continue on for about 10 feet. The dogs should show no more than casual interest in each other. Neither dog should go to the other dog or its handler.

Test 9: Reaction to distraction
This test demonstrates that the dog is confident at all times when faced with common distracting situations. The evaluator will select and present two distractions. Examples of distractions include dropping a chair, rolling a crate dolly past the dog, having a jogger run in front of the dog, or dropping a crutch or cane. The dog may express natural interest and curiosity and/or may appear slightly startled but should not panic, try to run away, show aggressiveness, or bark. The handler may talk to the dog and encourage or praise it throughout the exercise.

Test 10: Supervised separation
This test demonstrates that a dog can be left with a trusted person, if necessary, and will maintain training and good manners. Evaluators are encouraged to say something like, “Would you like me to watch your dog?” and then take hold of the dog’s leash. The owner will go out of sight for three minutes. The dog does not have to stay in position but should not continually bark, whine, or pace unnecessarily, or show anything stronger than mild agitation or nervousness. Evaluators may talk to the dog but should not engage in excessive talking, petting, or management attempts (e.g, “there, there, it’s alright”).

Study: Dog breed discrimination by insurance companies is unjustified.

FIREPAW, Inc., a national research and education foundation
focusing on animal welfare recently conducted a study on the
controversial issue of discrimination in
homeowner‘s policies by insurance companies based on the breed of dog
homeowners have. The study
was funded by The Toby Fund and sought to answer the question ”Does it
make economic and financial
sense for insurance companies to deny coverage or greatly elevate
premiums based on dog breed?‘ The
results indicate that even high-risk breeds present only a very minor
risk to insurance companies and the
practice of large premium changes or outright cancellation of
insurance coverage over such a relatively
minor risk is unreasonable.

Research highlights.
Dog bites are a minor cost relative to many other homeowners insurance hazards.
• Even pit bulls, the most maligned breed, do not have a risk high
enough to justify a premium increase of more
than 5%-10%.
• The research most commonly cited by insurance companies to justify
breed discrimination is inappropriate to be
used for this purpose as indicated by the authors themselves.
• Applicable research studies show that “high risk” breeds have only 2
to 5 times the bite risk. When combined
with insurance financial data, this implies these breeds only have a
risk of 6 cents per dollar in premiums.
• Dog bites liability costs have increased less rapidly than insurance premiums.
• Insurance companies typically fail to address other equally
important bite risks such as spaying/neutering of dogs
or address some risks inappropriately (chaining).