SFDOG News

You Can't Go Wrong With A Dog

Enjoy this lighthearted, roguish piece written by a former NPS ranger about why the NPS hates dogs and how absurd their regulations can be.

Recreation and Park Commission Meeting: Park Patrol

The Recreation and Park Commission will meet tomorrow to discuss whether to budget to hire more Park Patrol officers (RPD Park Rangers):

Rec and Park Commission

Wed, Jan 31, 2007

9 am

City Hall, Room 416

There are serious problems facing some of our parks and rec centers -- homeless encampments, graffiti, traffic problems, vandalism, drug dealing/using, and gang activity. These have prompted some park advocates to demand that RPD hire more Park Patrol officers to address these issues (there are currently six part-time officers, with only one on duty at any time, with the 10 am to 2 pm weekday shift not staffed). This is a good idea, except that there’s no guarantee that any new Park Patrol Officers will actually spend much time in the parks dealing with these very real problems.

The problem is that the usual anti-dog advocates have hijacked the safety concerns of these park advocates and are demanding that the added Park Patrol officers be used to ticket well-behaved off-leash dogs. If you can, please attend the Commission meeting and encourage the Commissioners to set clear priorities to ensure any new Park Patrol Officers actually deal with the serious problems in some parks and rec centers, and do not spend any significant portion of their time harassing people with well-behaved off-leash dogs.

If you cannot attend, you can send written comments to:

Larry Martin, President

Recreation and Park Commission

McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park

501 Stanyan St

San Francisco, CA 94117-1898

-- Sally Stephens, Chair, SFDOG

Some points you can make:

1) THE COMMISSION MUST GIVE CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GENERAL MANAGER ABOUT WHAT PARK PATROL OFFICERS WILL DO AND WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES WILL BE. The proposals to increase the number of Park Patrol Officers give a laundry list of problems that they should address. We might as well call them "Kitchen Sink" Officers. This could be a significant union issue, with confusing or complicated job descriptions resulting in Officers unclear of what they should be doing. This will make it difficult for them to do their job efficiently and effectively. You cannot put someone in a position of authority and then leave them unclear about what they’re supposed to do.

The squeakiest wheel will get the Park Patrol Officers and we all know that the squeakiest wheel is likely to be people who don’t like well-behaved off-leash dogs. History has shown that these people will call repeatedly to demand an Officer respond. Unless the Commission sets clear priorities, Park Patrol Officers will become nothing more than glorified "dog catchers," and the "real" safety issues in parks and rec centers will remain unaddressed.

2) THE COMMISSION SHOULD REMOVE ANIMAL ISSUES FROM THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARK PATROL OFFICERS. It is unacceptable to the animal community to have major animal issues dealt with by anyone other than a trained animal professional. Dealing with problem animals requires special skills and experience that Park Patrol Officers will not have. This could be a major safety issue. If the Officers don’t know what they’re doing, they could be bitten or injured. If they don’t know what they’re doing, they could injure an animal, creating liability issues for the City. If they don’t know what they’re doing, they could cause a tense situation to spiral out of control, with innocent bystanders potentially at risk.

In past years, RPD gave Animal Care and Control money to pay part or all of Animal Control Officers’ salaries, with the understanding that ACC would handle animal issues in the parks. Animal Control Officers have the skills and experience to deal with problem animals. However, this money was deleted in this year’s budget. This money should be reinstated into the budget, and animal issues removed from the Park Patrol’s responsibilities. Let ACC’s trained professionals deal with animal issues in parks, not the Park Patrol.

The Park Patrol should focus on the park problems that everyone agrees are problems -- homeless encampments, graffiti, vandalism, drug dealing/using, gang activity, speeding cars and traffic issues. Don’t allow the Park Patrol Officers to be used to address controversial issues such as well-behaved off-leash dogs.

3) THE COMMISSION SHOULD ENSURE THAT PARK PATROL OFFICERS DO NOT BECOME MERE "REVENUE GENERATORS." The public will lose respect for Officers if they become perceived as existing only to ticket infractions and generate money for the City. People will ask: "Are these Officers here to teach or help me, or are they just here to give parking tickets or to cite senior citizens with arthritic toy poodles?" If the former, Park Patrol Officers will serve a valuable purpose. If the latter, they will have little public respect.

One major justification for increasing the number of Park Patrol Officers is to address parking and traffic problems. DPT Parking Control Officers are better equipped to deal with these problems. RPD should consider funding several FTEs at DPT, as they’ve done with ACC in the past. RPD would then have access to Parking Control Officers dedicated to addressing parking and traffic problems in parks. It also makes more fiscal sense, since Parking Control Officers’ salaries are less than that of Park Patrol Officers. Thus you will get more "enforcement" of parking and traffic problems for less money.

4) THE COMMISSION SHOULD ENSURE PARK PATROL OFFICERS KEEP DETAILED LOGS OF THEIR CALLS, AND THAT THEY REPORT THESE LOGS TO THE COMMISSION. This will ensure the Officers actually address the serious problems in some parks and rec centers. If they are called because of a report of a vicious dog, they should indicate in the reports whether park users present when they arrive ever saw a vicious dog. This will help ensure that false reports of vicious or aggressive dogs are not made in an attempt to get Officers to a park faster.

5) THE COMMISSION SHOULD MANDATE THAT THE DEPARTMENT FULLY STAFF NIGHT SHIFTS FIRST, WITH LESS EMPHASIS ON DAYTIME SHIFTS. Most criminal activity in parks and rec centers happens late at night. The night shift should be fully staffed first since that’s when the Officers can do the most good.

###

What's Wrong with the National Geographic's 'Dog Whisperer'?

Various excellent news stories and articles articulate the enormous problems associated with the so-called training methods of super-star Cesar Milan:

Tails of Marin: Pros and cons of the Cesar phenomenon by Trish King http://www.marinij.com/homeandgarden/ci_4720342

No. 039 Misguided Expert of the Year: The Dog Whisperer Should Just Shut Up By Curtis Pesmen http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2006/060906_mfe_October_06_Dog_Whisperer.html

Talk Softly and Carry a Carrot or a Big Stick? By Jean Donaldson, Director of The SF/SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers http://www.sfspca.org/Viewpoint/1030.shtml

American Humane Association: 'Dog Whisperer' Training Approach More Harmful Than Helpful - Denver (September 6, 2006) http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_news_releases_dog_whisperer

Response to Cesar Milan and his methods from a positive dog trainer/behaviorist. From Andrew Luescher, DVM, Veterinary Behaviorist, Animal Behavior Clinic, Purdue University. http://www.animalbehavior.net/PUBLIC/CesarMillan_Luescher.htm

Book Review: Cesar's Way by Pat Miller, CPDT, author The Power of Positive Dog Training. http://www.4pawsu.com/cesar.htm

NY Times Op-Ed: Pack of Lies By MARK DERR http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31derr.html?ex=1314676800&en=a90240e104db46c9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

'Dog Whisperer' Cesar Millan sued by TV producer http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-05-05-dog-whisperer_x.htm

The Anti-Cesar Millan: Ian Dunbar's been succeeding for 25 years with lure-reward dog training; how come he's been usurped by the flashy, aggressive TV host? By Louise Rafkin http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/CMGPHL9D1N1.DTL

Paul Owen, the Original Dog Whisperer - "A Bone To Pick?" http://www.dogwhispererdvd.com/faq-national_geographic_dog_whisperer.html

Dog owner wants to bury Cesar? By Michael Linder http://www.linder.com/archives/category/the-dog-whisperer/

He Ought to Call Himself the Dog Screamer by Steve Dale http://www.stevedalepetworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=71

Dog Psychology 101 by Lisa Mullinax http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm

Dog Reunites With Family After 6 Years

(01-28) 03:22 PST Saint Louis (AP) --

Cujo was a frisky 7-year-old when he sneaked out of his owners' south St. Louis yard in July 2000. Now, thinner and grayer and with a tale that would be fascinating if only he could tell it, the golden retriever is back with the Barczewski family.

"It's a miracle," Noreen Barczewski, 41, said at Friday's reunion. "We found him!"

Six years and a side trip to Columbia can do a lot to a dog, but it was unmistakably Cujo. There was the heart-shaped patch of white on his forehead, the white fur on his toes, his manner of greeting people by rubbing against them cat-style.

Cujo's homecoming was orchestrated by Dirk's Fund, a golden retriever rescue group that has found homes for more than 900 dogs in the past decade.

After slipping away from home, Cujo somehow ended up 120 miles in Columbia in the home of an elderly woman. When the woman entered a nursing home, the dog was sent to the Central Missouri Humane Society in Columbia.

Bob Tillay, president of Dirk's Fund, spotted the dog — by then renamed Willy — on an adoption Web site and arranged to have him brought to St. Louis.

"Sweet old man! He knows how to sit and shake," the Web site cooed.

The dog's ears were so infected he couldn't hear. His coat was so matted he had to be shaved. And Dirk's Fund paid to have some cysts removed.

The group eventually took Cujo/Willy to a nursing home in Clayton, to serve as a pet for residents. But things didn't work out — the dog needed a yard where he could run off the leash — and his picture went up on the Dirk's Fund Web site.

A week ago, Noreen Barczewski's brother-in-law, Michael Barczewski, went to the Web site on a fluke. He'd been looking for a dog to adopt and saw the picture of the old dog with the white heart mark and white feet. Michael and his wife, Gail, had been the original breeders of Cujo. He recognized the dog immediately, and the reunion followed within days.

Now 13, Cujo had never been forgotten by the his original family — especially Kayla, who was just 4 when the dog disappeared. Kayla insisted on hanging the retriever's red felt Christmas stocking each year, confident he'd someday come home.

"I had something in my heart," the fourth-grader said Friday, patting her pet's soft golden coat, "and I knew he wasn't gone."

Dogs Get OK to Eat on Restaurant Patios

(01-25) 10:07 PST DALLAS (AP) --

After some growling, the Dallas City Council in a split vote has decided to allow dogs to join their owners on the outdoor patios of restaurants.

Eateries may now apply for a local variance to state laws that prohibit animals on restaurant premises, according to the measure, which passed 8-5 on Wednesday.

"Animals are their children. I can't blame anyone" for wanting to dine with their pets, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia said. "You have a choice. You don't have to be there. The standards are clear in this ordinance. More than anything, it's an option for our businesses here."

But opponents said the city was opening the door to many problems.

"I love dogs. I don't know if they belong in restaurants," council member Mitchell Rasansky said. "We don't have the staff to check this. We don't know if the restaurants are going to clean up every 30 minutes. I don't want to go to a restaurant and see a dog going to the bathroom there."

Restaurants allowed to welcome dogs must provide a separate entrance to the patio, post "dog-friendly" signs, install curtains separating the inside of the eatery from the patio and prevent dogs from touching the serving staff.

###

Pet Shop Owner Creates Beer for Dogs

(01-24) 04:55 PST AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) --

After a long day hunting, there's nothing like wrapping your paw around a cold bottle of beer. So Terrie Berenden, a pet shop owner in the southern Dutch town of Zelhem, created a beer for her Weimaraners made from beef extract and malt.

"Once a year we go to Austria to hunt with our dogs, and at the end of the day we sit on the verandah and drink a beer. So we thought, my dog also has earned it," she said.

Berenden consigned a local brewery to make and bottle the nonalcoholic beer, branded as Kwispelbier. It was introduced to the market last week and advertised it as "a beer for your best friend."

"Kwispel" is the Dutch word for wagging a tail.

The beer is fit for human consumption, Berenden said. But at euro1.65 ($2.14) a bottle, it's about four times more expensive than a Heineken.

###

Wash. Lawmaker: Bars Shouldn't Bar Dogs

By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer

If dog-loving lawmakers prevail, Fido could soon be sidling up to bar stools around Washington state under a measure that would allow well-behaved, leashed canines to join their human companions as they down their favorite microbrews.

The measure was introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen, a Seattle Democrat who got the idea at the Fish Tale Brewpub, formerly known as the Fish Bowl, in downtown Olympia.

"I was sitting at the Fish Bowl looking at all the dogs outside sitting in the cold and the rain, while all the owners were warm inside," said Jacobsen, who doesn't own a dog.

"There's all sorts of places you can bring animals now. You can take dogs into hotels. My God, some people are carrying dogs in their purses. Why can't we have them in the bars?"

The bill would allow bars and restaurants with liquor licenses to welcome dogs, as long as they accompany their owners and remain leashed. Establishments wouldn't be required to allow dogs, except for service animals.

The Senate Labor, Commerce, Research and Development Committee scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for Jan. 30.

Janna Goodwin with the National Conference of State Legislatures said she could not find any states with similar laws or any that are considering them this year.

Jacobsen said he expects to encounter opposition to his proposal.

"I imagine I'll get a lot of criticism, like, 'Don't you have something more important to do?' Well, talk to the dog lovers. In my mind, it's giving them some flexibility," he said.

Lisa Owens, owner of The Mark restaurant in Olympia, agreed.

She said she wouldn't change the policy at her restaurant, but would like the law to pass so she could bring her 112-pound Rottweiler, Ida, with her when meeting friends at bars.

"If people were asking me to go somewhere and I could bring my dog, I might be more likely to go," she said.

But Mike Duffy, walking along a pier with his German shorthaired pointer, Emma, said he didn't think it was a great idea.

"If you want to take your dog out, go for a walk," he said. "If you want to go to the bar, leave the dog outside or at home."

Health officials said the state rule banning pets from restaurants and bars is based on a food code standard set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Animals don't use the toilet and they shed and they sometimes drool, and those are potential issues with food," said Joe Graham, public health adviser for the Washington state Department of Health.

"I'm not against dogs," said Graham, who doesn't own any. "But dogs can transmit disease. "It's not common, but it could happen."

The place where Jacobsen's idea crystalized would likely remain dog-free.

"We usually have a crowd, so having the animal being a part of that atmosphere would be difficult," said Lyle Morse, shareholder and president of the company that owns the pub. "And this is coming from a dog owner."

###

Dogs improve your health: Dogs May Be Healthier For Owners Than Cats

People who own dogs are much healthier than non-dog owners, a study has found.

Researchers from Queen's University, Belfast, analysed a number of earlier research papers which examined the health benefits of owning a pet.

They found that dog owners had much lower blood pressure and cholesterol than people without dogs.

Dog owners also suffered fewer minor ailments and serious medical problems over their lifetime.

The study, which is published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, also revealed that dog owners were much healthier than cat owners.

Lead researcher Dr Deborah Wells was not totally sure why dogs had such a positive impact on a person's health.

She said: "It is possible that dogs can directly promote our well-being by buffering us from stress, one of the major risk factors associated with ill-health.

"The ownership of a dog can also lead to increases in physical activity and facilitate the development of social contacts, which may enhance both physiological and psychological human health in a more indirect manner."

Previous research has suggested that dogs could aid recovery from serious illnesses such as heart attacks.

Researchers say dogs are better than cats at improving their owner's physical and mental health.

The study also revealed that dog owners have lower cholesterol and blood pressure, fewer minor ailments and are less likely to develop serious medical problems.

The study's author says one explanation may be that dogs provide a buffer from stress and promote increased physical activity and social contact.

Deputy Trains Puppy to Sniff Truffles in Oregon

Which smells stronger: illegal drugs or ripe truffles? Deputy Sheriff Todd Swendsen in Salem, Ore., uses his background as a narcotics officer to train his own shepherd puppy, Bella, to sniff out the wild Oregon Truffle.

Listen to this NPR story here:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6935520

For accidents, illness and routine care, pet insurance may be worth the cost

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/20/HOG9ONK8251.DTL

Recently when Elvis, my greyhound, snuggled his head against my legs, I noticed blood on my pants. There was blood dripping on the floor. Then I saw the blood on his face, neck and ears. When he shook his head, blood splattered my walls like a Jackson Pollock painting. Although Elvis didn't appear to be in pain, he was bleeding a lot.

Did I panic? You bet. Frantically, I searched him for wounds. Then I loaded him in my car and gunned it to the vet, who found a microscopic nick on the tip of my dog's ear. After hearing me describe my backyard, he deduced that Elvis had scratched his ear on a thorny rose branch. And even the tiniest cut on an ear tip will gush. The bleeding had stopped by then, but he cauterized the wound, just to be safe, and then cleaned Elvis' face. The five-minute visit was so simple, the receptionist whispered that he probably wouldn't charge me.

So did he? You bet. A lot. Which made me wonder yet again about pet insurance and whether it's worth it.

There are several registered insurance companies to choose from, and coverage can cost as much as $6,000 over a pet's average lifespan. Some financial experts question whether an owner would spend that much on vet bills, but I'm guessing that these experts haven't been to a veterinarian in the 21st century. Vet costs have risen a whopping 73 percent in just the past five years. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, in 2006 Americans spent more than $9.4 billion for vet care.

"The knowledge of veterinary medicine is doubling every 24 months," Colorado veterinarian Thomas Catanzaro wrote in an e-mail interview. "Third-party assistance allows the miracles of modern veterinary health care to become more readily available to pet parents wanting the best care possible for their pets.''

A trip to the vet isn't just about vaccinations and foxtails. These days, a veterinarian can address almost all the same health-care issues as your own doctor, including oncology, ophthalmology, physical therapy and dentistry. More vets have access to complex diagnostic tools that can reveal problems that, in days of yore, might have gone undetected. This means that many illnesses once deemed terminal are now treatable. This good news, however, often comes with a price tag that can rival that of that new car you had your eye on. Nobody wants cost to be a consideration when their beloved pet's life is at stake, but the harsh reality remains that if treatment is too expensive, some people have no choice but to put their pet to sleep.

"Pet insurance is indemnity insurance, since pets are considered 'owned property,' like your car or home," Catanzaro continued. "There are deductible choices, ceiling choices, and the policyholder deals directly with the insurance company. The veterinarian doesn't get involved as doctors do with human medical insurance benefits."

One common complaint is that pet insurance never seems to cover what you need it for. "Sometimes the product is not communicated correctly," agreed Dr. Jack Stephens, a retired veterinarian and pioneer of the pet insurance industry. He founded the first major national pet insurance company in the United States more than 25 years ago. He retired but re-emerged in 2005 to launch Pet's Best Insurance, with the goal of making pet insurance easier to understand with straightforward coverage and higher reimbursements.

"Some policies have a schedule of benefits based on fixed amounts and not the vet's actual charges," he said. "And that's part of the problem because people think they're insured, but they learn otherwise when they start going through line items. It's a disservice in many policies that's very confusing."

Common pet insurance exclusions include pre-existing conditions and many elective procedures. Certain breeds prone to genetic health problems may also be exempt. Coverage will usually include accidents, ailments and illnesses, in addition to routine care and wellness visits.

Stephens recommends looking for a plan that covers common ailments such as allergies and infections, as well as chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer. Coverage should also include treatments for minor accidents, annual exams and vaccinations, teeth cleaning and common diagnostic tests such as blood panels and urine testing. Before signing on the dotted line, Stephens advises asking the following:

-- Is the pet insurance company licensed in your state?

-- How is reimbursement calculated when you file a claim?

-- Can you choose any vet or are you restricted to a network?

-- Does coverage include emergency care and specialists?

-- Who decides your pet's treatment needs?

-- What is excluded? Read the fine print to avoid any surprises.

-- What are the deductible options? Look for one that suits your budget.

-- Does your vet recommend this pet insurance company?

-- What are the per incident and lifetime policy limits? Don't get stuck with a large bill because your plan hit its limit.

As with any insurance, you might never submit a claim for your pet. But if and when the time comes, you might find the cost justifies the means.

###