If you are a dog lover and you spend any amount of time on Facebook or any of those community website/discussion groups such as Nextdoor, you have probably seen some version of the post I saw this morning. Essentially: “I found this dog, he’s really nice, if you know someone who wants a dog please let me know, because I would hate to see him go to the shelter.”
I can’t tell you how crazy this makes me. I can’t help but imagine that one of MY beloved dogs has gotten lost, and I’m haunting the shelter every day, hoping someone has found my dog and brought him in so we can be reunited, but instead, because he’s so nice, someone is keeping him and trying to find him a home with someone else.
An even worse fate: someone “rescued” my lost dog – he was safe in their home – but then he “got away” from them in a panic. He’s now back at risk and perhaps even more wary of strangers than before, all because the finder didn’t want to take him to the shelter.
What Actually Happens to Lost Dogs at Most Shelters
I know that people believe they are saving a dog’s life by not taking him to the shelter. They automatically assume that any dog who ends up at the shelter is at high risk of being put to death. The thing is, in my community – in many communities today – that is really old information. Like, decades old. Any friendly dog who is brought into my local shelter is going to end up on the adoption row – and not all that quickly. He would likely spend at least two weeks or more among all the other “found” dogs before being made available for adoption. And if his owner was looking for him, this is THE place they would look – especially if they didn’t have a computer, weren’t on Facebook, weren’t reading the Nextdoor.com posts, perhaps didn’t even speak English.
I volunteer for my local shelter, and I see how many dogs are brought in as strays, I see how many dogs get euthanized (and there are some). I see that the shelter does not “euthanize for space” and no dogs, even fairly aggressive, hostile dogs – get euthanized in anything like the minimum hold time. In my area, there are people who own dogs who are aggressive to strangers but who are also beloved members of their household (scary but true), so even dogs who show a fair amount of aggression to the shelter staff are held for far more than the minimum time that our state requires they be held, in case their owner turns up. Friendly dogs absolutely will be held for weeks, then put up for adoption.
This is knowledge that I have gained with my own eyes, by volunteering in the shelter. What if I didn’t have the opportunity to learn this? What if I moved to a town and just didn’t know? Well, I would call the shelter and ask for information: “If I find a stray dog, and I bring him to the shelter, how much time would he have before he were at risk of being euthanized? And what can I do to ensure that he not be euthanized, if he’s not claimed by an owner?” I have actually seen the notation on cage cards at my shelter many times: “If not claimed by owner or adopted, (Name of person who found the dog, phone number) will adopt this dog.”
Other Ways to Reunite a Dog and Its Owner
What if you live in a community that is overrun with strays, and the shelter in that community kills dogs on day 5 (or whatever)? Again, you could – and should – at least take the dog to the shelter and have him scanned for a microchip. Then the shelter staff can take his photo and enter his information into their system as a found dog and you can still take him home (and, I hope, not allow him to escape again). This way, if someone comes looking for him at the shelter – which is the one place that most people will look for their lost dogs – the dog and owner stand a better chance of being reunited.
There are many more things you could do to try to find a “found” dog’s rightful owners: putting up signs with a LARGE photo of the dog, is perhaps the most helpful. (I will never forget my brother’s story: When his Ridgeback-mix, Hannah, took off once and hadn’t come back overnight, he busied himself the next morning with putting up “Lost Dog” signs, and came across a guy putting up “Found Dog” signs with his dog’s picture on them. He followed the guy home and said that Hannah looked very surprised and a little embarrassed when he came in the guy’s house to recover her.)
But please, whatever you do: Don’t just rehome the dog!
Hang around with enough dog owners, and inevitably you will hear someone say to their distracted or recalcitrant dog, “Sit! Sit! Sit! SIT!” I’m pretty sure that, in the minds of most dogs, the cue for sit isn’t “Sit!” but actually, “Sit! Sit! Sit! SIT!”
Then there is my other favorite: “Sit! Sit! Sit! I said, SIT DOWN!”
In my head, I always imagine a smart aleck of a dog saying back to his owner, “Well, which is it? Sit or down?”
Clearing up the Confusion
The word “down” is rife with problems as a cue. Some of us use it to tell our dogs to lie down. Some of us use it to tell our dogs not to jump on people. Some of us use it to tell our dogs to get off the couch! And some people use it in all three situations! What’s a dog to do? Heck if I know; I always have to look it up to know if I should be saying “lay down” or “lie down”! You’d think after 30 years of editing, I could get this one right!
Then there is the whole issue of confusing hand signals: When asking for the “down” behavior, Dad snaps his fingers and points at the ground with an index finger but Mom bends all the way over and touches the floor.
If you are part of a multiple-member dog-loving family, hold a meeting and ask every single person, one at a time, to cue the family dogs for “sit” and “down.” Take video of each person cueing the dogs and of the dogs’ reaction, because I assure you that hilarity will ensue as it becomes apparent that each person in the household does it a little differently, and the dog’s reaction will vary.
For best results, make sure you are presenting consistent cues – whether they are verbal, hand signals, body language, or a combination – for each discrete behavior to your dog every time. Unless you really don’t mind repeating yourself. J
Readers, dog owners, can I ask
you a question? Or, actually, a few related questions:
If you had to put a dollar
figure on it, what would your dog’s life be worth to you? How would you justify
that figure?
And, for those of you who have actually HAD TO put a dollar figure on your dog’s life in a lawsuit, or who received compensation after your dog’s life was taken by another – whether through negligence or cruelty or whatever: How much compensation were you able to receive?
Another dog lost his life unnecessarily
I’m asking these questions as I
ponder the story of a friend’s pup, who was killed as he lay, on leash, at a
public park, by two off-leash dogs, in front of my friend, his nine-year-old
daughter, her friend, and other children and parents. I just can’t fully fathom
the emotional damage done to my friend and especially his daughter, who had
just completed a “puppy kindergarten” training class with her beloved dog. My
friend’s daughter, an active, athletic girl, has told her dad she doesn’t want
to play at the park anymore, it hurts too much. Is there a price you can put on
this pain?
The owner of the attacking dog had released his dogs to run off-leash, in violation of the local leash laws. In my mind, that makes him liable for a bit more in damages, should a suit find him responsible for the loss of my friend’s pup and damages for the bites my friend sustained as he tried to save his pup from the aggressors. But the owner of those dogs stayed at the scene and took responsibility for the dogs, and, in fact, surrendered the dog most responsible for the puppy’s death to the responding animal control officer and requested that the dog be euthanized. Should that act reduce his legal liability?
What does the law say about this?
It’s my understanding that, in this country, dogs are legal property, and their loss is not treated or compensated-for as the loss of a human family member would be. But, as I sit here looking at photos my friend sent me of his happy daughter and her puppy at Christmas, and of the slain puppy and his attackers at the park a few weeks later, waiting for an animal control officer to arrive, I just can’t square the price of a puppy’s purchase with the loss my friend’s family has suffered.
I don’t even know if my friend will pursue a lawsuit or settlement, and of course there is no way of knowing how a judge might rule on such a case, or whether the marauding dogs’ owner feels any responsibility or has a homeowner’s insurance policy or some other way to attempt to compensate my friend for his family’s loss and suffering. I’m just so sad, thinking about it. What is a dog’s life actually worth today?
*A note from Nancy Kerns
In response to the many comments left by our readers, I wanted to state the following:
This is a really upsetting story, I know; I had not yet even met my friend’s puppy, but had seen pictures of his daughter and the pup together, and yet, as I have been discussing the tragedy with my friend and thinking about it – imagining it – I have been in tears several times a day. Awful!
However, I really am hoping to get more answers to the questions at the outset of the post. If you *could* name the price that you would accept for the loss of your dog, how would you set a value on his life? And, more reality-based, if you or someone you know had a dog who was killed through no fault of your own, and if you sought or received compensation for your loss, how was that compensation determined?
Also, I would like it to be known that the attacking dogs were not pit bulls – and their breed is beside the point. I have removed a post or two that was targeting pit bulls, as the breed was in no way relevant in this case. These dogs had been let off leash in a public park that has a leash law, near a children’s playground – that is the point here.
I was flabbergasted when I read the advice of a prominent veterinary nutritionist that dog owners should do themselves a favor and “stop reading the ingredient list” of their dogs’ food. The basis of this suggestion seemed to be that ordinary dog owners are just too likely to favor foods that sound delicious but are not nutritious over less delicious-sounding products made by more reputable companies. Which, if you continued to follow along for a definition of “reputable,” had enough qualifiers as to include only the largest companies in the country, if not the world.
Sigh.
Well, I have faith in our readers; after all, you seem to be able to feed yourselves! Jokes aside, it’s absolutely true that there are companies that are using every marketing trick in the book to sell more dog food – by stacking the ingredients’ lists of their foods with trendy ingredients, giving the products colorful names (such as “Cowboy Cookout,” “Love at First Bark,” “Pacific Stream”), and making liberal use of bright photos of ripe fruits, fresh vegetables, and glistening steaks (even when the corresponding ingredients are actually powdered fruits, dried vegetables or pulp, and meat meal). And it has worked! Many of these products have gained significant market share by appealing to dog owners’ appetites.
But with a little guidance, we’re confident that you can learn to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. We’ve given you tons of direction about the notes you should bring with you when you shop, what to look for on the labels, how to identify low-quality products, and more. Plus, our “approved dry foods list” contains dozens of companies that make good foods; you’ve got this!
Also in this issue: Don’t miss “Dogs in the Workplace” which contains advice from a dog trainer who works in the office of a dog-related (nonprofit) business about bringing your dogs to work. A long-time contributor to WDJ, Stephanie Colman’s training and dog-management advice is always very clear, positive, and effective. This is a helpful article for those who would like to bring their dogs to work – or for those who would like to give some friendly advice to a co-worker who brings naughty, unmanaged dogs to their workplace.
And finally, a groundbreaking piece from our Training Editor Pat Miller, “Socially Conscious Sheltering.” Miller explains how the historic models for rescue and animal shelter management are dysfunctional, and introduces a progressive new model that can save dogs’ lives and keep the public safe from dangerous dogs, too.
Shelters who adhere to the SCS tenets pledge to enhance the human-animal bond through safe placements and post-adoption support. As just one example: Families will not be sent home with a dog who is less than perfectly comfortable with children, and follow-up calls will be made to ensure that all parties are still getting along and happy a few weeks post-adoption.
One might imagine that the world of animal sheltering would be filled with people who care about animals and want to save lives – all hearts and flowers, a community united with a common purpose of saving animals and ensuring their quality of life. Would that it were so.
In fact, it’s often the exact opposite, with warring camps of activists holding widely divergent opinions about how best to care for and rehome the dogs, cats, and other species who end up in animal shelters. The introduction and promotion of “no-kill shelters” in the early 1990s only heightened the level of acrimony among animal protection professionals and grassroots rescue groups alike, creating conflict and controversy that sometimes hinders efforts to save homeless animals.
In 2019, six women, several of whom were chief executive officers of animal shelters in Colorado, got together to discuss their animal welfare beliefs, including shelter practices. All of them believe that our society is at a critical point in shaping the future of animal welfare. They agreed that while most people mean well in their attempts to change public policy around how we care for homeless pets, sometimes good intentions lead to unintended suffering for the very pets that people are trying to protect. And they sought to define and describe a modern model for socially conscious animal welfare.
Out of that conversation came the Socially Conscious Sheltering model, which they then shared with shelter CEOs from across the United States for their feedback. They sought input from shelters in different kinds of communities, with varying intake policies and levels of community engagement. The insight was incorporated into the fundamental goals of Socially Conscious Sheltering (SCS), and a website (scsheltering.org) was created. The SCS website describes SCS as “a framework that allows each of us to understand our role in creating best outcomes for pets. This concept is based on respectful treatment of animals. It’s about placing every healthy and safe animal that ends up in a shelter or rescue. It’s about transparency and leadership. It’s about thoughtful public policy. It’s about safe communities.”
As a long-time shelter supporter and former shelter manager myself, I am excited about the SCS model and hopeful that its guidance will improve outcomes for animal wards of shelters everywhere.
HOW WE GOT HERE
I have been observing – and participating in – the ever-evolving world of animal sheltering for the past 45 years. There are many things related to animal welfare that have gotten better – for both homeless animals and people who work in rescue and sheltering – and some things that have gotten worse in that time. My tremendous excitement about the promise of the Socially Conscious Sheltering model has a lot to do with what I have witnessed in the recent history and evolution of the sheltering field.
In 1976, I began volunteering at the Marin Humane Society (MHS), a private non-profit shelter with a contract to perform animal control services for all of Marin County, California. A few months later, I accepted a position as a customer service representative – the first paid position of several that I accepted at MHS over the next 20 years.
For my last decade there, I was Director of Operations, responsible for keeping our statistics as well as directing our Field Services, Animal Care, and Customer Service departments, so I was acutely aware of the number of animals we took in at the shelter, their quality of life while in residence with us, and what ultimately happened to them (returned to owner, adopted, or euthanized).
At the beginning of my tenure at MHS, the shelter took in about 15,000 animals per year – strays, owner-surrender, neglect and abuse cases – none were ever turned away. Marin was (and is) a wealthy, well-educated community. We were well supported by our community and better situated than many shelters to provide excellent care for the animals who were brought through our doors. And even though this number was far better than many other shelters at that time (and is better than some shelters even today), we ultimately euthanized about 40% of them.
In the ’80s and ’90s, a number of societal and public policy changes helped progressively decrease the number of animals that found themselves in shelters and the number of animals who were euthanized there. Leash laws and licensing decreased the number of free-roaming pets. The animal welfare world amped up its spay/neuter education efforts nationwide, and many states passed laws requiring shelters to surgically neuter all animals before they were adopted. Microchips increased the number of stray pets that could be returned to their owners.
By the time I left Marin to launch my Peaceable Paws dog training venture in 1996, MHS’s intake numbers had dropped to fewer than 6,000, with a comparable decrease in our euthanasia numbers. Nationally, intake and euthanasia numbers had also decreased.
This is right around the time that the practices and policies of a high-profile animal shelter in the county next to Marin started a revolution in the animal sheltering field – a well-intentioned revolution, to be sure, but one with unfortunate antithetical consequences.
THE “NO KILL” MOVEMENT
In the late 1980s, Richard Avanzino, the director of the San Francisco SPCA, began steering that organization away from the standard model of providing animal control services as well as sheltering and adoption services. Avanzino had been working to innovate solutions for improving the live release rates of the shelter, including building a network of foster providers, instituting a pit bull training and adoption program, paying owners of pit bulls to neuter their dogs, paying people to neuter stray and feral cats, and more. But he wanted to do even more to get the SF SPCA out of the job of euthanizing any animals, ever. He put the city on notice that his organization wouldn’t renew its contracts for animal control by 1989, though it intended to continue to shelter and find homes for animals.
[post-sticky note-id=’442912′]
The city of San Francisco had to build a new city agency – the Department of Animal Care and Control – to take over animal control. In 1994, the SF SPCA announced that the organization was going to stop killing any “adoptable animals.” The SF SPCA was dubbed with the immediately popular appellation “no-kill shelter” and San Francisco was declared a “no-kill city.” It was a public relations home run near and far. From the very beginning, the public loved the idea of no-kill shelters – without understanding the nuances built into the definition.
Most members of the public were not aware, however, that not all animals brought to a no-kill shelter would survive. No-kill was described by Avanzino and the rapidly increasing number of no-kill devotees as practices that preserved the lives of all “healthy and treatable” animals and euthanized only those whose problems were deemed “unhealthy and untreatable.”
An obvious problem lay in the ability of shelters to interpret “unhealthy and untreatable” quite variably. Avanzino promoted the use of the standards pet owners would use if the problems occurred in their own pets; most of us would consider kennel cough or a broken leg as “treatable,” for instance. But these terms were interpreted in very disparate ways by shelters of different means and levels of commitment to no-kill principles.
What people often fail to understand (and what many shelters fail to communicate to their supporters) is that there are two types of shelters. “Open admission shelters” take in every animal brought to them; some are required to do so by virtue of contracts they have signed with a local government. In contrast, “limited admission shelters” may turn away animals that they know they will be unable to make available for adoption or that they do not have room for.
Many (perhaps most) limited-admission shelters were able to claim that they were no-kill, since they only rarely took in an animal that proved to be untreatable or unsafe to adopt. Far fewer open-admission shelters were able to make legitimate no-kill claims – and in the competition for donation dollars from animal lovers who didn’t want to give money to so-called “kill shelters,” this really hurt.
Shelters that could not or would not define themselves as no-kill were soon faced with hostility and a withdrawal of public support, causing many to try to meet the definition and make no-kill claims. Some open admission shelters could do so only through illegitimate means, such as warehousing an ever-increasing and untenable number of animals, wanton placement of animals to any other organizations (reputable and capable or not) that would take them, and adopting out animals with unsafe or borderline behavior issues.
Soon, all around the country, open-admission shelters began to bear an increased burden of accepting and caring for animals that no-kill shelters wouldn’t take – a costly burden, since caring for unhealthy animals requires greater resources. Simultaneously, these shelters began to feel the financial pinch as donation dollars were being diverted to no-kill organizations from former supporters.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
While the intention of the no-kill ethos is admirable, there have been some unfortunate consequences of the policies.
It’s been noted that more animals (especially dogs), previously recognized as behaviorally unsuitable for adoption, are being placed in the homes of adopters who are not adequately informed, experienced, or equipped to handle them safely. I have a thick file of news stories about dogs with bite histories who were adopted into homes where they later caused injuries and even fatalities.
Dog training and behavior professionals are in widespread and ever-growing agreement that we are seeing an increasing number of clients who are bringing us dogs who should never have been adopted to them in the first place. These are caring dog owners who had no idea what they were getting themselves into, sometimes because the shelter simply didn’t make a careful match in their eagerness to place the dog in a home, and sometimes because the shelter deliberately withheld information that would have helped the adopter realize this wasn’t the dog for them.
Twenty years ago, when I would express my opposition to the no-kill movement at seminars while speaking in support of responsible sheltering, I was often met with puzzled stares and sometimes open argument. Today I see a crowd full of nodding heads and often receive resounding rounds of applause from other training and behavior professionals who are encountering significant and dangerous challenges from client dogs adopted from organizations that are more concerned with their live release rate than with good, safe adoptions.
Additionally, a phenomenon that has required the creation of a new label – “rescue hoarding” – has risen to epidemic levels in the past decade. It’s a problem that can’t be traced precisely to no-kill’s door, but the perpetrators tend to be acquainted.
Once upon a time, if you heard about an animal hoarder, the person was usually a little old lady who lived in an apartment with 30-plus cats. Today, the vast majority of animal hoarding stories in the news involve rescue hoarders – people or groups who may have started out as legitimate rescuers, but who ended up completely overwhelmed with too many animals to care for and not enough resources to do so.
These are sometimes 501(c)3 non-profit rescue groups and shelters, sometimes individuals pretending to be 501(c)3 groups or shelters, and sometimes just individuals who hold strongly to the conviction that any life is better than no life. The common denominator is that many, or even most, have gotten their animals from shelters that are handing off animals willy-nilly to almost anyone, in their efforts to call themselves no-kill. Dogs in these rescue hoarder situations are often badly malnourished, sick and dying, or already dead.
TIME FOR A NEW MODEL
The original architects of the SCS model were six women, all of whom were Presidents and CEOs of shelters or veterinary organizations in Colorado. They started a conversation about the need for a new guidance document for sheltering in January 2018, when they were all in attendance at a sheltering-related conference.
In March 2019, however, they all had a front-row seat to an event that provided the impetus to formalize their shared opinions and values regarding animal sheltering into what have become eight tenets of SCS.
It started with an inspection by the Department of Agriculture of an open-admission shelter in Pueblo, Colorado, which led to the resignation of the shelter director and ultimately, closure of the shelter. The first and subsequent inspections of the facility found numerous animals suffering with untreated injuries and illnesses, health records for the animals nonexistent or in disarray, inadequate sanitation, treatment cabinets stocked with seriously out-of-date and unlabeled medications, intact animals of the opposite sex housed together, dogs who were being quarantined in bite cases having opportunities to come into contact with front desk staff, and more.
Just part of a group of more than 100 dogs seized following an investigation of a “small dog rescue” in Northern California. Many of the dogs were sick or had skin problems, all had internal and external parasites, and most were extremely thin. All had been obtained by the “rescue” from shelters and were advertised for “adoption” for fees of several hundred dollars or more.
All of the surviving animals at the shelter had to be transferred to other area shelters, including those run by the founders of SCS. When the Pueblo shelter closed, the organization that had been running the shelter, PAWS for Life, issued a statement that read in part, “There were significant hurdles in fulfilling the mission to be a no-kill, full-access public shelter to save lives that otherwise might have been lost under prior management.” (The irony of the suffering experienced by the animals who didn’t have timely access to veterinary care seemed to have been lost on the managers responsible.)
The founders of SCS released a group statement following the Pueblo shelter closure. It read, in part, “The suffering that happened at Community Animal Services of Pueblo, operated by PAWS for Life, is unacceptable. In an effort to adhere to a damaging local ordinance, it appears animals were allowed to suffer and die from their illnesses and injuries rather than being humanely euthanized. The animal welfare community’s priority is to ensure these animals are properly cared for and that they are protected from situations like this in the future….
“This is a regretful example of how the no-kill movement, when taken to the extreme, preys upon compassionate people’s desire to protect animals. Animals deserve respect, nurturing, support, and it is never acceptable to allow them to suffer. Our entire community is deeply saddened by this situation.”
On the SCS website, its founders admit that, in general, homeless animals in Colorado already enjoy “incredible” outcomes; the entire state enjoys an average 90% live release rate. But the founders wanted to address the fact that attempts to reach and maintain a zero kill status often lead to situations like the one in Pueblo, with under-funded shelters manned by over-burdened staff, leading to increased animal suffering.
The SCS founders released their tenets and published an explanatory website (SCSheltering.org) in March 2019. By following their suggested guidelines, the SCS founders say, shelters can achieve high live-release rates while also ensuring that no animal is allowed to suffer and the communities are kept safe from dangerous animals.
EIGHT TENETS OF SCS
Each of these tenets addresses common breakdowns where implementation of the no-kill model fails to adequately address the needs and welfare of all the animals in a given community or consider the safety of human caretakers, foster homes, and adopters. I applaud the remarkable steps this document takes toward repairing the significant flaws of no-kill. My comments follow each tenet and appear in italics.
1. Place every healthy and safe animal. Every single one. Healthy is defined as either having no signs of clinical disease or evidence of disease that a veterinarian determines has a good or excellent prognosis for a comfortable life. Safe means that the animal has not exhibited behavior that is likely to result in severe injury or death to another animal or person.
This tenet maintains the original stated goal of no-kill to place all healthy, adoptable animals, but adds critically important definitions of the terms “healthy” and “safe” and emphasizes the importance of “safe.”
2. Ensure every unwanted or homeless pet has a safe place to go for shelter and care. An animal’s opportunity to be nurtured, healed, and rehomed should not depend on their age or condition – every community must have a shelter that accepts all animals brought to it. It is unacceptable to turn animals away because they are too old, sick, or broken.
Shelter managers should keep dogs like this in mind when they maintain a waiting list in order for people to surrender their pets. This dog was surrendered too late; she died of an infection before treatment could take effect.
This addresses an element totally overlooked by the no-kill model – and is one of my favorites. Communities must provide a safe place for all the homeless animals in their jurisdiction. In an attempt to prevent overcrowding, some shelters have begun to maintain waiting lists, some months-long, for people who want or need to surrender their animals. This sometimes results in animals being dumped and left to starve or be hit by cars as they attempt to fend for themselves – and this is simply unacceptable.
3. Assess the medical and behavioral needs of homeless animals and ensure these needs are thoughtfully addressed. Animals housed in shelters and rescues must be assessed for disease and injury and must have all medical conditions addressed so the animal does not suffer. These animals must also have their behavioral needs assessed and met, including enrichment sufficient to make them comfortable and to prevent self-destructive, obsessive-compulsive coping behaviors.
Addressing medical and behavioral needs of shelter animals in a timely manner should go without saying, but sadly, it doesn’t – as evidenced by the Pueblo experience. I wish that example was a rare anomaly, but unfortunately it is all too common.
4. Align shelter policy with the needs of the community. Does the community allow trap-neuter-return programs? If so, offer them. Will members of your community adopt animals with chronic disease, and are they willing to assume the time and expense of managing that disease? If so, with full disclosure, place them in these homes. Socially Conscious Shelters listen to their communities.
Every community is different. It’s a challenge for shelters to be able to meet the desires of the community and make ethical and humane choices for, and meet the needs of, the animals in their care.
5. Alleviate suffering and make appropriate euthanasia decisions. Compassionate euthanasia is a gift. It is not acceptable to let a terminally ill, suffering animal languish in a cage until it dies naturally when compassionate euthanasia can ease that endless pain. It is not acceptable to house a known dangerous animal who cannot be safely placed in the community for years until it goes crazy in a cage. Each euthanasia decision is difficult, and every decision must consider the welfare of the individual animal.
This tenet articulates what seems so obvious to many animal lovers: It’s our duty to alleviate animal suffering when and where we can. Compassionate euthanasia decisions are far too often blocked by those who believe that any life is better than no life. Sometimes, those standing in the way of these decisions are shelter volunteers and even Board members.
6. Enhance the human-animal bond through safe placements and post-adoption support. Integrating a living being into a new home can be difficult. As adoption agencies, Socially Conscious Shelters have a responsibility to support the new family. This can mean post-adoption behavior advice, classes for new pet caregivers, addressing shelter-related medical needs and being willing to accept the animal back if the pet and the family are not a good fit.
This also means not placing animals into homes that disrupt the human-animal bond by injuring children, other pets, and other people. There are many behavior issues that can be addressed through behavior modification and positive experiences. There are other behaviors that are dangerous and that cannot be mitigated.
This is another important point – one that is often missed by shelters that are focused solely on their live release rate. Some of the resources directed toward bringing in animals from other jurisdictions (and other countries) might be better spent providing support for the animals already in the shelter’s own community.
7. Consider the health and wellness of each animal and each community when transferring animals. Moving dogs and cats from communities that do not have homes available for them to communities where people are actively seeking pets saves lives.
However, bringing pets into a community is a responsibility. It is a responsibility to the animals already living in that community to not bring in infectious diseases that would make them sick. It is a responsibility to those living within the community to bring in animals that will live in harmony. And there is a responsibility to the community from which animals are being moved to impact that community’s animal welfare struggles through humane education and spay and neuter programs.
There are documented cases of serious canine diseases being moved north from southern shelters and into the U.S. from other countries, as well as dogs from unsocialized or rural backgrounds suffering immense stress and never habituating to city life. Some transports are in violation of interstate laws that require veterinary checks and health certificates.
8. Foster a culture of transparency, ethical decision-making, mutual respect, continual learning, and collaboration. Socially Conscious Shelters are committed to full transparency. This can include reporting accurate statistics, sharing policies, and fully and quickly admitting when mistakes are made. Integrity must be the foundation of all decisions. Every shelter can learn something from every other shelter – it is important to be curious and to share innovative solutions to common problems. Only by working together can we ensure the best outcomes for all animals.
This is critical. How can we have a prayer of a chance of knowing how shelter programs are working and how the animals are faring if we aren’t transparent?
SCS GATHERS MOMENTUM
Thanks to the leaders who innovated SCS, the animal sheltering community now has a model to look to that supports the placement of every adoptable animal, while at the same time recognizing that not every animal is adoptable.
The responsibility for shelters to do everything in their power to make appropriate adoptions is great. The safety of the dogs, the adopting families, and even their neighbors is at stake.
The Eight Tenets of Socially Conscious Sheltering was released in March 2019, and the model was swiftly embraced by many other shelters in Colorado, as well as the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. By August, shelters all over the country had also adopted Socially Conscious Sheltering, including shelters in Los Angeles, Davis County (UT), Santa Cruz County (CA), St. Louis (MO), Ventura County (CA), Berks County (PA), Nebraska, Cleveland (OH), Michigan, Jessamine County (KY), Loudon County (VA), and dozens of other organizations.
Are the animal protection, sheltering, and rescue organizations in your area on board with Socially Conscious Sheltering? If you don’t know, contact them and find out. If they are not, you can help them learn about it and help them understand why they should be. Encourage your animal loving friends to do the same. Educate and pressure your local government officials and organizational board members to get on board. We all want a better life for the animals in our world. You can help make it happen.
Myka, Sanchez’ calm, friendly Havanese, has been going to the office most of her life and is a positive example of dogs in the workplace.
On-Site LaserMedic is a dog-friendly laser printer repair company in Chatsworth, California. Roxanna Sanchez, the organization’s chief operating officer, has been bringing her dogs to work for 15 years and is responsible for overseeing office-dog privileges for On-Site’s 23-person staff. Currently, four employees, including Sanchez, bring their dogs to work.
“The dogs brings happiness and a sense of calmness to the office,” Sanchez says. “Our customer service center can get bombarded with challenges throughout the day, and the dogs are good for the soul.”
Sanchez helps set up employees for success with their dogs in the office by reminding them to create an environment where the dog will be comfortable. This makes it less likely the employee will be distracted by a dog who is uncomfortable and acts out in order to get his needs met. Should an employee’s pet present a challenge, she’ll request that the dog take a break from the office; she’ll also refer the team to area trainers and is willing to reevaluate the dog at a later time. For some dogs, a little extra training makes all the difference. For others, including one of Sanchez’ own prior dogs, coming to the office just isn’t the right choice for the dog.
“I had a Rottweiler who came to the office with me all the time as a young puppy. She loved it,” says Sanchez. “But as she matured, she became suspicious of certain people and certain things, and I realized she wasn’t comfortable at work. I stopped bringing her.”
Throughout her 19-year history with On-Site, Sanchez has successfully introduced nine of her own pet dogs to the workplace, one or two at a time. She currently rotates between Myka, a 12-year-old Havanese; Bree, a 4-year-old, mid-sized mixed breed; and Ruuk, a 2-year-old, 10-pound mixed breed.
“We’re very fortunate to have a professional family atmosphere where our dogs are welcomed and appreciated,” she said. “So long as you set and hold employees to clear expectations, we’ve found dogs in the workplace to be a great asset to the organization.”
Here’s a GA panel from a typical, decent-quality dry dog food formulated for dogs of all life stages. The AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles call for a minimum of 20.25% protein as fed (as it appears on the label) for growth/dogs of all life stages; at 23%, this food contains only a little more than that. The minimum amount of fat for growth/all life stages is 7.65% as fed; this food has a good bit more than the minimum, but would not be considered a high-fat food. Note: Including extra nutrients on the GA is not required, but a good way for a pet food maker to substantiate the potential for benefit from inclusion at a guaranteed amount.
The guaranteed analysis (GA) is a highly regulated part of a pet food label, and the facts printed there are subject to surveillance and enforcement. State feed control officials may sample and test the product at any point in its production and sale; they often do visit stores and pull product from the shelf to test.
By federal law, the GA section of a pet food label must include four things: the minimum amounts of crude protein and crude fat and the maximum amounts of crude fiber and moisture in the food.
By the way, don’t be alarmed by the use of the word “crude” in the terms you will see in the GA (“crude protein,” “crude fat,” and “crude fiber”). In this case “crude” refers to the testing methods used to determine the amounts, not the nutrients themselves. The tests return a close approximation of the actual amount. It’s a subtle difference, and not terribly significant, so we use the terms without the crude prefix, as it were.
The four macronutrients that you will always find in the GA are there because they are considered important indicators of the food’s total value, with actual economic implications. Protein and fat are the most important (and most expensive) macronutrients for dogs, so both are expressed in minimum amounts; what’s being guaranteed is that the foods contain at least those amounts.
Be aware that the food may (and probably does) contain at least a little more protein and/or fat than the minimums listed in the GA. If you need to strictly limit your dog’s fat or protein, ask the manufacturer for a typical nutrient analysis – the result of a recent test of the varieties of food you are considering.Any pet food company who can’t or won’t produce this data probably shouldn’t be in the pet food business.
Carbs are not listed in the GA because they are not important to canine nutrition. Were you aware that dogs have zero nutritional requirements for carbohydrates? It’s true. Dogs can live and thrive on a diet that contains only protein and fat, with zero carbs. That said, dry foods do contain carbs; it’s impossible to make a kibble without carb sources. But you won’t find the actual percentage of the food that is carbohydrate on the GA.
Fiber and moisture are the other items in the GA. These are expressed in terms of their maximum presence in the food; you don’t want too much of either one!Most dry dog foods contain a maximum of 10% to 12% moisture. Any more moisture than that, and the kibble may experience bacterial growth. Less moisture and it won’t be very palatable.
The fiber content of dry dog foods tends to be more variable, which is interesting, because the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles contain neither a minimum nor a maximum level; they don’t address fiber at all.
Most dry dog foods contain between 2.5% and 4.5%, although some “weight loss” or “lite” formulas might contain as much as 10% fiber. High fiber levels can interfere with the absorption of other nutrients in the food; diets with particularly low levels of fiber may contribute to the development of diarrhea, constipation, and/or problems with the dog’s anal glands. If your dog experiences any of these issues involving elimination, start paying attention to the amount of fiber in his diet. Consider a food with a higher amount of fiber than what you currently feed; if matters improve but he’s still not producing a nice firm (but not too hard) stool, look for a diet with an even higher fiber content, and, of course, discuss the issue with your veterinarian.
Manufacturers may (but are not required to) include other nutrients in the GA. The inclusion of a nutrient in the GA is a legal guarantee that the nutrient is present in those amounts in the food, and this is subject to testing and enforcement by state feed control officials. It’s a good way for pet food makers to validate claims of significantly increased amounts of certain nutrients, such as DHA (increased levels have neural benefits for puppies) or glycosaminoglycans (e.g., chondroitin, which has been shown to reduce arthritis symptoms).
If you don’t have a private office with a door or baby gate you can use to contain your dog, you should have a crate, exercise pen, or tether ready for those times when your dog must be contained – especially when you are away from your desk. Make the spot super cozy, with a plush bed and some quiet toys (no squeakers!) or chews (but not the kind that smell bad!).
As the saying goes, “Life is better when I’m with my dog.” I can cite a long list of ways that he makes my days brighter – even my work days! From petting his soft fur or listening to his quiet snoring, to how he makes me laugh as he playfully brandishes his toys in hopes of a game of tug and getting me away from and computer every few hours for a walk around the block. See, I’m lucky. My dog Saber accompanies me to the office several days each week at the guide dog school where I oversee the puppy-raising program.
The Human Animal Bond Research Institute reports pets in the workplace can make employers more attractive to prospective employees, increase employee engagement and retention, improve relationships between employees and supervisors, and lower absenteeism. There’s also potential health benefits: stress management, a calming effect, and often an improvement in work-life balance.
It’s definitely nice to reach down and scratch my dog’s ears when I’m feeling overwhelmed with project deadlines. Stepping outside into the designated employee pet play yard helps ensure I don’t sit at my desk and work through lunch every day. Sometimes we spend my break walking around the block. Mostly, as an apartment dweller, I appreciate knowing he’s not stuck inside at home when I’m working long days. It’s a very nice job perk.
Despite the reported advantages, the Society for Human Resource Management reports less than 10 percent of U.S. employers welcome personal pets in the workplace on a regular basis.
While the benefits are notable, pets (for the purposes of this article, we’ll limit our thoughts to dogs, specifically) in the workplace can be tricky. Some office cultures might support an anything-goes mentality where people don’t bat an eye at a rambunctious indoor dog park unfolding in the lobby. However, the attitude of “love me, love my dog” does not generally bode well for harmonious happenings during the daily grind. Bringing personal pets to the workplace, especially an office environment, is a privilege that might be more widely considered by employers if they felt it was less likely to be disruptive.
If you’re hoping to lobby for Fido to join you at work, or your company is considering implementing a pets-at-work policy, consider the following:
1. ESTABLISH BASIC HEALTH AND BEHAVIOR GUIDELINES. It should go without saying workplace dogs should be disease- and parasite-free, clean and well-groomed, and appropriately vaccinated.
[post-sticky note-id=’442905′]
In the office, the priority should be healthy workplace productivity. Ill-behaved dogs can be a nuisance almost anywhere, but the stakes are much higher when we’re at work. To keep everyone safe, at a minimum, potential canine colleagues should be of sound temperament, well-socialized to people, and should not have a history of aggressive behavior or biting. Excessive barking, jumping up on people, getting into the trash, marking or repeated housetraining accidents, and inappropriate chewing are all behaviors that should not be tolerated in the workplace.
While the definition of “well-trained” will always be subjective, requiring office-candidate dogs to successfully pass the American Kennel Club’s Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test is one way to set a minimum behavior standard. Even better, ask employees to attain the mid-level Community Canine title, a similar, 10-part evaluation, but with elements performed in real-life settings such as busy sidewalks or local parks rather than a training facility.
Attaining these titles requires owners to invest time in training their dogs, and trained dogs are much more likely to be comfortable and behave appropriately in different settings. Plus, owners who participate in dog training programs are more likely to understand dog behavior and dog body language, and are therefore likely better equipped to prevent or address challenges that might arise when bringing their dogs to work.
2.MANAGEMENT MATTERS. It’s always important to set dogs up for success. This is especially true when asking them to cohabitate with colleagues who might not be used to sharing their space with dogs. In our opinion, letting office dogs “free range” throughout the office is a recipe for trouble, as it’s impossible to interrupt or redirect your dog’s unwanted behavior when you have no idea where he is or what he’s doing.
Dogs who are lucky enough to “work” at dog-related businesses may enjoy greater freedom in the office. At Three Dog Bakery’s corporate headquarters, a special dog-containment “airlock” was installed so office dogs couldn’t accidentally leave the building with an inattentive visitor.
Employees with a private office can use a baby gate in the doorway to keep their dogs from cruising the halls without them. If the workplace set-up and dog’s level of training allows, a crate, x-pen or chew-proof tether can be used when owners are unable to supervise the dog, or when the dog needs a little imposed down-time. Make sure the dog has a cozy bed, and use favorite chew items or food puzzles to encourage the dog to spend time on his bed. An office dog doesn’t need to be on-the-go all the time. Dogs home alone spend much of their day quietly lounging; dogs at work can, too.
3. TAKE PROACTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR DOG. “Love me, love my dog” might fly when seeking a life-partner, but it’s a selfish mentality when sharing workspace with others. If you’re lucky enough to be granted permission to bring your dog to work, go the extra mile to make sure your dog is never a nuisance to others.
Respect colleagues’ wishes to decline interaction. Some people are afraid of dogs. Some cultures view dogs as “dirty” animals that should strictly live outside. Some people live with varying degrees of dog-related allergies. And some people are just “cat people” or otherwise choose to be pet-free. Be sensitive and respectful to these differences. Personally, I like to aim for the standard of a well-trained service dog in a restaurant, that is, for most people to not even realize the dog is there, because it’s quietly tucked at its handler’s feet.
That’s not to say office dogs should never been seen or heard, but in an age where fake service dogs are rampant and many dog owners feel entitled to regularly bring questionably or clearly untrained dogs into otherwise non-pet-friendly establishments, it’s more important than ever for responsible dog owners to go the extra mile to show how welcoming dogs need not become problematic for others.
Keep your dog well-groomed to reduce shedding. Have lint rollers and hand sanitizer handy for any colleagues or visitors who might welcome interaction but are surprised by the “magical fibers of love” now clinging to their pants or who might want to clean their hands. Immediately address barking or rambunctious play, especially when colleagues are within earshot and on the phone, in a meeting, or on a deadline. If your dog is overly solicitous of attention from others, direct him to “go lie down,” so colleagues can work in peace (see “Useful Matters,” WDJ January 2020, for tips on teaching your dog to be happy on his mat.) In general, be considerate of others.
It goes without saying that dogs in offices with more than one canine colleague must be exquisitely comfortable
Give your dog ample opportunities to relieve in approved areas and clean up after him. Keep cleaning products on hand for unexpected accidents or moments of illness. Leave the toy with the 16 squeakers and the animal-product chew stick – the one that smells like warm death when soggy after a good chewing – at home.
And whatever you do, if your dog ever happens to counter-surf someone’s unattended lunch from their desk, immediately offer to replace it, no excuses! (Years ago, my first dog, a Whippet with a weakness for all things “carbs” might’ve given me an opportunity or two to practice this last tip.)
[post-sticky note-id=’442907′]
4. REMEMBER, IT’S AN OFFICE, NOT A DOG PARK. Many people enjoy sharing their lives with multiple dogs, but when it comes to dogs in the workplace, there can easily be too much of a good thing. If you have more than one dog, consider rotating which dog accompanies you to the office each day. Even where I work, at a dog-related organization, where everyone’s workspace has been designed to safely manage dogs, and half of the dog-owning employees are trainers, staff are limited to bringing only two personal dogs to work each day.
5. ADVOCATE FOR YOUR DOG. Not all dogs are good candidates for the workplace, even if they aren’t outwardly aggressive. Shy or fearful dogs might prefer the stability of staying home versus the sometimes unpredictable nature of the workplace and its accompanying sense of “stranger danger.” If your dog gets car sick, he might not appreciate starting and ending each day in the car. If your dog is generally indifferent to other dogs, he might not enjoy sharing relatively close quarters with your cubicle-mate’s social butterfly of a Labrador.
It’s important to carefully consider your dog’s temperament and overall personality. Maybe he’s not right for the workplace at all. Or maybe it’s best to limit office visits to a couple of days each week.
Even if your dog is perfectly suited for life in the office, it’s still important to set some boundaries. If colleagues have the opportunity to interact with your dog, don’t be afraid to request that they follow certain rules. They might not care if your dog jumps on them, but if you care, insist they ask your dog to sit before petting. They might want to shower your dog with Scooby Snacks all throughout the day. If that doesn’t work for you, don’t be afraid to set some guidelines. Be nice about it, but it’s perfectly okay to ask that your ground rules be followed.
BE PROACTIVE
Welcoming dogs into the workplace can be a great way to boost employee morale, but it’s not without its challenges, and it’s not right for every organization. Careful planning and clear expectations can go a long way in setting up people – and their pets – for success when implementing a canine colleague policy.
Your dog is counting on you to make good choices! Take your time making comparisons.
Alright! You’re in the pet supply store, armed with information about what you have been feeding your dog. You know which nutritional adequacy (AAFCO) statement to look for, you know how much protein and fat should be in the guaranteed analysis of the foods you are going to consider, and, presumably, you know how much you are willing to spend. Put on your reading glasses or get out your cell phone (so you can use the camera’s zoom): It’s time to read ingredient labels.
NOT SHOPPING FOR YOU
Let’s be clear: You are not looking for something that sounds yummy to eat. Products that contain 20 different food items that you might find in your kitchen (or Martha Stewart’s kitchen, say) cannot possibly contain enough of any of those ingredients to do your dog any good. This sort of ingredient list is meant to appeal to your appetite.
[post-sticky note-id=’442903′]
Ingredients are listed according to their weight before the food was processed. By the time you get past the sixth or seventh ingredient on a label, the amount of that ingredient in the food is pretty small, so we’re neither going to get too excited nor too upset about the appearance of one or two particularly healthful or egregious ingredients in eighth place or below.
Note that food-type ingredients (fruits, vegetables, fats, grains, etc.) that appear after or between any added salt or vitamins or minerals are present in the product in inconsequential amounts. No foods are particularly beneficial in these minuscule amounts.
In contrast, potent herbs or supplements, such as turmeric or DHA, may be beneficial in tiny amounts. But the more of these things that appear on the ingredients list, the smaller their amounts are by necessity – and we’re right back to the suspicion that the ingredients list has been built to appeal to you rather than benefit your dog.
HALLMARKS OF QUALITY
Here are the things that you want to see on an ingredients list:
Lots of named animal protein at the top of the ingredients list. “Named” means the species is identified: chicken, beef, lamb, etc. Unnamed animal sources include “meat” and “poultry.”
When a named meat is first on the ingredient list, there should be a named animal-meal (i.e., chicken meal, lamb meal) immediately or closely following the meat. Meat meals are made by rendering – essentially boiling down, dehydrating, and grinding the animal tissues into a granular, powdery high-protein meal.
Fresh meat contains a lot of moisture (which is heavy), so if meat is first on the list, it acts like a diluted protein source; while it adds an appealing flavor and aroma to the food, it doesn’t actually contribute adequate protein to the diet. That’s why another named source of animal protein should appear in the top two or three ingredients.
When vegetables, fruits, grains, potatoes, or legumes are used, they should be whole.(as opposed to highly processed fractions that are likely a waste product from the human food industry, such as tomato pomace, brewer’s rice, and soybean mill run).
Bonus points for products that are made with ingredients that are certified as organic, humanely raised, or sustainably farmed. We understand that it’s good marketing, but we also like to buy from companies who support shelters or rescues, manufacture in “green” plants, and participate in recycling and waste reduction programs.
DISQUALIFIERS
Here are some things to avoid – undesirable attributes that indicate a lower-quality food:
Unnamed animal protein sources. “Meat,” “meat and bone meal,” and “poultry” are examples of protein sources to avoid.
Meat by-products, poultry by-products, meat by-product meal, and poultry by-product meal. These ingredients are often handled with far less care than more expensive animal protein sources (i.e., without refrigeration and with less sanitation).
“Generic” fat sources. “Animal fat” can be any mixed fat of animal origin. “Poultry” fat is not as suspect as “animal fat,” but “chicken fat” or “duck fat” is better (and traceable).
Novel ingredients. Having access to foods with uncommon ingredients (such as alligator, kangaroo, quail, rabbit, etc., as well as carbohydrate sources like quinoa and amaranth) can be a lifesaver when your dog has multiple proven allergies to common foods and you need to find a diet that contains ingredients he’s never had before.
If you feed these foods to a dog who does not have allergies and he develops allergies later, you will have a diminished pool of candidate novel diets to feed him. Also, less is known about ingredients with short histories of use in pet food. Save these foods until you really need them.
“Ingredient splitting,” whereby two or more very similar food “fractions” appear on the ingredients list. Because the ingredients are listed in descending order of their weight, a manufacturer can make it appear that a high-quality ingredient is represented in the food in a greater amount than it really is.
This is accomplished by using several fractions or versions of an ingredient as separate ingredients (i.e., rice, brewer’s rice, rice bran, rice protein meal). If all the iterations of that ingredient were combined or reconstituted, they would outweigh the higher-quality ingredient, pushing the better-quality ingredient down on the ingredients list.
We don’t recommend foods that use animal plasma or blood meal as a protein source. The traceability of the product concerns us.
Added sweeteners. Sweeteners are used to increase the palatability of foods; they should not be needed to attract a dog to a diet that contains quality animal protein and fat sources and that has been properly cooked and preserved.
Artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives (such as BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin). Chemical coloring agents are unnecessary; the color of the food doesn’t matter to your dog. Synthetic flavors should not be necessary in a quality food; healthy meats and fats will be enticing enough. Natural preservatives, such as mixed tocopherols, should be used instead of synthetic preservatives.
NOW GO SHOP
We’ve listed dozens of manufacturers who make good dog foods, including foods with grain and without; diets made with fresh meats only, meat meals only, or both; and moderately priced to expensive foods (super cheap foods don’t meet our selection criteria). These are just some of the brands that meet our approval; you may find more.
Keeping your dog’s individual needs in mind, try some new products, switch frequently – and always watch your dog! Note the date that you start feeding any new food on a calendar and record your dog’s physical responses to the switch, good and bad. If you pay attention, he’ll let you know what works for him (and what doesn’t) with his appetite, energy, skin and coat, stool, and weight. Just be ready to adjust his diet as needed.
Just over a week ago, I was in one of those car accidents
that remind you to slow down and not take life and health for granted. Not that
I was speeding; a crash happened about 10 or more car lengths in front of me,
and I managed to stop the car without hitting the mess in front – and so did
the guy behind me – but the car behind both of us didn’t. We were hit from
behind fairly hard. My car was banged up, and my passenger and I definitely
felt some aftereffects of whiplash, but afterward, all I could think of was
that I was so glad I didn’t have any dogs in the car. (Virtually all of my friends: “You didn’t have a dog with you??!”)
Not only do canine seat belts prevent dogs from being thrown
through the car like a dangerous projectile in a car crash, they keep dogs from
being flung out of the car onto the roadway – or escaping in a panic through
broken windows immediately afterward. The accident was somehow confined to the
middle lane of five lanes– and this being a big city on a Saturday afternoon,
traffic continued to pour past the damaged and disabled cars on both sides, at
least until the Highway Patrol came and stopped the traffic on the right two
lanes so an ambulance, a fire truck, and several tow trucks could attend to the
hurt drivers and disabled vehicles. If a dog had been thrown out of any of the
crashed cars, or had escaped from one, the dog’s death under a passing car
would have been the next horror to happen. Again, I didn’t even have a dog with
me, but I can see that happening as clearly as I can see what actually did happen.
There are many online groups that have Facebook pages where
members can share information about lost dogs, and at least a couple times a year, I see a post from someone who lost
dogs in the chaos of a car crash and is hoping beyond hope that the dog will be
found unhurt. But there’s nothing like your own crash, or one that happens to a
friend, to remind you that protecting your dog is just as important as
protecting your children and other loved ones in a car.
Let me be that friend. Buckle up those pups!
(And, yes, I’m gathering products for an updated review of
canine seat belts and other car restraints.)
This empty bag holds 22 pounds of dry food; it’s a big bag! Its nutritional adequacy statement is printed on the side. We’ve circled it in red and taped a dime next to it. (It’s very small!)
It’s bizarre, but one of the most important things on a pet food label is often in the tiniest print: the nutritional adequacy statement, aka the “AAFCO statement.”
AAFCO stands for the Association of American Feed Control Officials. This is the organization that developed the standards the industry uses to determine what constitutes “complete and balanced” nutrition for dogs (and other animals). Every pet food label has a statement on it that references AAFCO. The statement tells you whether the food is meant for “intermittent and supplemental feeding only” – meaning it’s not complete and balanced – or whether it provides complete and balanced nutrition.
The statement will also indicate whether the food has been formulated for “adult maintenance” only, or whether it can be fed to dogs in “all life stages,” which includes puppies, pregnant or lactating mothers, and all adults.
If the AAFCO statement says the food is formulated to meet the nutritional levels for “growth,” it has met the same standards as foods for “all life stages.” Foods that are formulated for puppies (growth or all life stages) contain higher levels of protein, fat, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, chloride, iron, copper, manganese, and zinc than foods that have been formulated for “adult maintenance” only.
Attention, owners of large-breed puppies
The maximum level of calcium for large- and giant-breed puppies is lower than maximum amount allowed for small-breed puppies and adult dogs. Too much calcium can cause bone and joint abnormalities in large-breed puppies (defined by AAFCO as those who are likely to mature at more than 70 pounds).
In 2016, in acknowledgment of the need for reduced calcium for large-breed puppies, AAFCO began requiring food makers to specify whether their foods (formulated for growth or all life stages) meet these new requirements for large-breed puppies.
If the AAFCO statement says the food is for growth/all life stages “including growth of large-size dogs (70 pounds or more as an adult),” it is safe to feed to large breed pups.
If the statement says the food is for growth/all life stages “except for growth of large-size dogs (70 pounds or more as an adult),” it should not be fed to large-breed puppies.
To be safe, if you have a large-breed puppy, or a mixed-breed pup who looks like he may grow to more than 50 or 60 pounds, you should choose foods with the “including growth of large-size dogs” statement. Smaller-breed puppies can be safely fed foods with either statement.
You may have not noticed, but we’ve been using the words “foods” and “products” in the text above. We strongly encourage owners to rotate among at least three different products from different pet food companies throughout the year. And more may be better! Here’s why:
Most pet food companies use the same vitamin/mineral premix for all their dry dog foods – but the nutrient levels in the premix used by one company will undoubtedly be different than those in the premix used by other companies. If you feed only one food, or even several products from just one company, you are entrenching those nutrient levels in your dog’s body.
Many people (and even many veterinarians) believe that all foods that are labeled as “complete and balanced” contain approximately the same amounts and levels of nutrients. This presumes that pet food makers are all working to meet some sort of “recommended daily allowance (RDA)” of nutrients required by dogs – not so!
The RDA nutrient levels for humans were developed by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. Vitamin, mineral, and macronutrient (fat, protein, carbohydrate) levels are expressed on our food packages as providing some percentage of the total amount of various nutrients that we need daily. But this isn’t how nutrient levels in pet foods are expressed.
AAFCO establishes the nutrient levels that legally constitute “complete and balanced” diets for our pets, and publishes the requirements for canine diets in a table – the “AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles.” AAFCO makes adjustments to the nutrient levels in the tables as continuing studies in animal nutrition are conducted.
But, unlike the human RDAs with target levels of nutrients, the Dog Food Nutrient Profiles consist only of minimum values for all the nutrients required by dogs and maximum values for just a few nutrients. As long as a food meets the minimum nutrient values expressed in the profiles, and doesn’t exceed the maximum values, it can be labeled as “complete and balanced.” Let’s say it another way: The foods on your pet store shelves may actually contain wildly varying levels of vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients, and yet all can call themselves “complete and balanced.”
This is why we have always advised owners not to settle on just one product and feed it to their dogs for months or (heaven forbid) years. It may develop that the particular product you have chosen – the one that seems to suit your dog so well – turns out to have copper levels that are way too high for your dog or selenium levels that are so low as to leave your dog dangerously deficient after years of eating nothing but that one diet. Your goal should be finding at least a few good dog foods from different brands to rotate among.
I have never owned a dog with separation anxiety, thank goodness. The condition is hard on the dog who suffers from the condition and hard on the dog’s caretakers, too, including owners, vets, groomers, pet sitters, and dog walkers. Care must be taken to prevent triggering the dog’s panic at being left alone—in severe cases, even just long enough for the person caring for the dog to use the restroom!
