Subscribe

The best in health, wellness, and positive training from America’s leading dog experts

Home Blog Page 146

Haptic Cues

3

I recently learned a new word: haptic. It refers to any technology involving the sense of touch, so vibration collars are technically “haptics,” and the signals you send when you press the button are “haptic cues.” 

An exciting new development in the world of haptic cues is the “haptic vest” for dogs, designed by Israeli scientists at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. In results presented this past summer at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) World Haptics Conference in Tokyo, the researchers reported that cues issued by gentle vibration motors in the vest were as effective as vocal cues. 

The dog used for the study was Tai, a middle-aged Labrador- mix. Tai already knew four vocal cues for turn, lie down, come, and back up, so teaching him haptic cues for those behaviors was “not a large leap,” says lead author (and Tai’s owner) Yoav Golan, a Ph.D. candidate in mechanical engineering at Ben-Gurion University. The dog learned his first haptic cue – to spin, or turn in a circle – in about an hour. His second cue, to lie down, took longer to learn, partly because scientists had to adjust a motor on Tai’s hip so he could better feel the vibration. A third cue, come, took 15 minutes to learn.

If it pans out commercially, the vest would be able to give much more precise cues than a vibrating collar and could be used to teach a variety of behavior cues to a hearing-impaired dog. While a long way from arriving on the commercial market, the researchers tout future possible uses for the vest, including police and military work, as well as a way for speech-impaired humans to communicate to their dogs and hearing-impaired dogs to understand their humans’ communications. 

Related Posts

Good Vibrations
Wolfwill Vibration Collar: The Negatives

Vibration Collars: What You Should Know

11
That’s a sight you never thought you’d see in WDJ, right? Never fear, it’s a vibration collar, not capable of producing shock. This model is the Wolfwill Dog Training Collar. We bought it from Amazon.com for $65. The other collar we tried, Unleashed Technology’s GT-1 Gentle Trainer, costs more than $200 and didn’t seem to work as well.

Vibration collars are frequently suggested as a good tool for communicating with hearing-impaired dogs. I hadn’t had much experience with them, so when I was asked to write an article on them several months ago, I realized it was a great opportunity to expand my own education, and I jumped at the chance. 

Actually, this is far from the truth. For starters, I am not much of a tech or gadget person. (There’s a reason I work with animals for a living and not electronics!) Plus, my only prior experience using a vibration collar had been a failure. We had a deaf pit bull-mix in our Behavior Modification Academy a few years ago. We worked with her for five straight days, but we couldn’t get her to acknowledge the vibrations even once, not even on the highest setting! 

Also, a vibration collar looks very similar to a shock collar, and my negative association with shock collars is so strong it gives me the heebie jeebies (technical scientific behavioral term) to even look at the one that WDJ Editor Nancy Kerns had shipped bought on Amazon.com and had shipped to me. I dragged my heels on actually opening the box until I had to do it! 

NO SHOCK

There are a number of remote-controlled dog collars on the market that offer a vibration mode in addition to the ability to shock the dog, and we would never advocate buying or using those collars. Products that are designed to shock are clearly meant to be used in an aversive manner, to startle and/or hurt the dog in order to stop him from doing something. This is not how we advocate training dogs.

Then there are collars that do not produce shock, only vibration, but that are marketed with claims that the vibration can be used as a more humane or gentler alternative to a collar that delivers shock. In our view, this is completely missing the point. A less-unpleasant punisher is still a punisher. We advocate training without pain or fear.

This isn’t just a matter of semantics; it’s an entirely different training philosophy. We were looking for a product that produced a vibration that would be used only as a cue for the dog. As such, we wouldn’t want a collar that could produce a vibration so strong that it resulted in a dog’s fear or discomfort or avoidance.

Unfortunately, the marketing of these products just isn’t at all congruent with what we see as their best use. Even the collar we had the best results with, the one that came with the highest recommendation from a trainer who uses it for deaf dogs (the Wolfwill Dog Training Collar) is marketed for use as an aversive. The box itself says that with just the push of a button, your dog will “quickly learn the association between his behavior and your correction; in no time, you’ll have a better-behaved pet.” Argh! 

That’s not at all how we recommend using these collars. 

Since I don’t have a hearing-impaired dog of my own, I put out a call to my trainer network seeking volunteers with deaf dogs who might be interested in trying a vibration collar. While I was waiting to schedule appointments, I took the Wolfwill collar out of its box and took a closer look. 

Now, I’m aware that when you already have a negative association with something, it’s easy to find things you don’t like about it (confirmation bias) – but I found a lot of things to dislike about the collar. (See “Wolfwill Vibration Collar: The Negatives,” on page 10.) However, my assignment was to explore the value of using this type of collar for training, so I put the negatives aside and made arrangements to work with three different dogs.

SIDEBAR: Wolfwill Vibration Collar: The Negatives

COMPARING COLLARS

As it turned out, I was also able to compare the Wolfwill with another vibration collar. One of my interns, Peggy Bowers, happened to have the same collar that I had tried a few years ago: the Gentle Trainer GT-1 by Unleashed Technology. Peggy had used the collar successfully on another dog, so we decided to try it again, as well as the Wolfwill product. For these experiments, we were joined by another one of my training interns, Layne Tubby. 

The three of us tested the collars on ourselves to see what we could feel. The Gentle Trainer has prongs that are similar to those on a shock collar. But we found that its vibration wasn’t really noticeable on the prongs themselves; only the receiver box itself seemed to vibrate. In contrast, the vibration on the Wolfwill is delivered via a curved plate rather than prongs, and the vibration was clearly noticeable on the plate. 

The Gentle Trainer had a significant difference in intensity of vibration between the low setting (1 – barely noticeable) and the high (15). The Wolfwill was considerably stronger when set on its lowest setting (1) than the other collar’s lowest setting, but Layne and I could barely feel a difference between 1 and its highest setting (16) – just a longer pulse. Peggy, however, said that the highest setting on this collar sent an unpleasant sensation down her hand and arm that she found quite aversive. 

The Gentle Trainer supposedly can be used with a half mile between the remote control and the collar. The Wolfwill is supposed to be capable of working at a maximum distance of about one third of a mile. 

HOW WE USED THE COLLARS

I see the primary benefit of a vibration collar as an attention-getter for a hearing-impaired dog – although another valuable use could be to teach a “find me” recall. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s possible to vary the vibrations enough for a dog to easily distinguish a variety of different cues using the collar alone. The owners agreed – their primary goal would be to have an “attention” signal.

With each of the dogs, we did a brief introduction to the collar, feeding chicken treats without vibration, feeding treats while it vibrated near the dog, and then feeding treats while we held it against the dog’s neck. Some dogs can find a vibration aversive and I wanted to maximize our potential for having our test dogs accept it. 

None of the dogs seemed concerned, so we proceeded by putting the collar on the dog. Our goals were to see if:

  • The dog acknowledged the vibration when the collar was on his neck.
  • The dog would begin to offer a “conditioned emotional response” (CER) to the vibration – that is, to show an awareness that the vibration meant “Chicken!” by turning toward his owner when the signal was sent.
  • We could begin to establish a recall cue by having the dog move toward the owner in response to the signal at increasing distances.

We realized this was quite an ambitious agenda for just one session with the collar, but we were interested to see how much we could accomplish.

SIDEBAR: Haptic Cues

TESTS WITH SPUD

Our first test dog was Spud, a two-year-old congenitally deaf French Bulldog, belonging to Jordan Cruz and referred by veterinary behaviorist Dr. Leslie Sinn. His deafness was the result of a breeding between two merle parents – dogs with a coat color pattern that consists of a typically bluish- or reddish-gray mixed with splotches of black or reddish-brown. Double-merle dogs have a very high chance of being deaf, blind, or both. 

In addition to being deaf, Spud has other behavioral issues, including anxiety and potential obsessive-compulsive behaviors. It is not unusual for other neurodevelopmental disorders, including blindness and difficulty processing information, to be part and parcel of the world of a double-merle dog.

Spud showed absolutely no awareness of vibrations from the Gentle Trainer collar. He did cock his head in acknowledgment on the first test of the Wolfwill, and while he continued to show signs of awareness that something was going on when it vibrated, after 15 minutes or so of tests, he showed no indication of giving a positive CER. Rather, at that point his signs of stress appeared to be increasing, so we ended the session. 

My conclusion: A vibration collar will be helpful for Spud only if future training sessions are successful in establishing a CER – a positive association between the vibration and his chicken-dispensing human.

TESTS WITH LIVVY

Livvy is a deaf three-year-old double-merle Australian Shepherd who has very limited (and declining) vision. On the recommendation of veterinary behaviorist Dr. Karen Overall, Livvy’s owner had come to me for a behavior consultation in November 2018; she wanted to learn how to reduce Livvy’s severe reactivity to moving vehicles, dogs, and other objects. Dr. Overall had diagnosed Livvy with severe visual and hearing impairment, possible panic disorder, and hyper-reactivity, especially to moving triggers and some noises. 

Irene Schmalz, Livvy’s owner, had done a little work in the past with my intern Peggy Bowers with the Gentle Trainer collar. In those sessions, Livvy had acknowledged the vibration signal after about five to 10 repetitions, but had not offered any CERs. 

That’s why, for these sessions, we opted to use the Wolfwill collar and skip the Gentle Trainer, as we knew we were likely to see better results with the product that vibrated more noticeably. Livvy immediately acknowledged the signal with a turn of her head and began offering consistent CERs after 20 signal repetitions. 

We began increasing the distance between Livvy and her owner – ultimately to about three feet. About half the time, upon feeling the signal Livvy would go to Irene, but sometimes, she would go to Peggy instead. That’s when we realized our error of initially having Peggy feed the chicken – duh! 

We took a break and started over again, triggering the vibration and then having Irene feed Livvy a piece of chicken, until Livvy was consistently showing CERs when she felt the vibration. Once it was clear she had the vibration/chicken-from-Irene association down pat, we redid the distance work with significantly better results.

Conclusion: A vibration collar could be very useful for Livvy and Irene. Livvy responded well, and with her vision impairment as well as her deafness, the collar could be very instrumental in maintaining a good quality of life for her. Despite her impairments, Livvy is independent, and being blind as well as deaf puts her at an even greater risk of getting disoriented and lost. 

Irene is already doing Nosework with another excellent trainer; I suggested that Irene work with the trainer on having Livvy find her by scent. Then they could pair the “find Irene by scent” task with a vibration cue, for maximum benefit. 

We also discussed the value of adding touch cues to Livvy’s repertoire – a light touch above the tail for a sit, on the shoulders for a down, etc. – as the hand signals Irene has been using to communicate to her dog will become increasingly less useful as Livvy’s sight continues to fail.

TESTS WITH MAGGIE

Our third test dog was a 13-year-old terrier-mix who is losing her hearing due to her age. Maggie has the advantage of 13 years of hearing, so she already knows behaviors that her owner, Elizabeth White, has taught her over the years. 

Maggie does, however, have several age- and health-related challenges, including arthritis (lameness despite pain-relief medication) and two large lipomas (fatty tumors). Elizabeth was very interested in the collar because she routinely walks her dog off-leash (so the leash doesn’t interfere with Maggie’s effort to ambulate without pain), and she would like to be able to get Maggie’s attention when the dog gets distracted, stops to sniff, and falls behind. 

Maggie immediately acknowledged the vibration with a turn of her head and was offering consistent, happy CERs after just five repetitions. 

We began adding distance and found that because Maggie is so connected to her human it was hard to tell if she was responding to the collar and returning to Elizabeth, or just choosing to return because she wanted to be close to her. With Spud and Livvy, we had worked indoors only, but we decided to go outside with Maggie to see how the collar worked where she was more likely to be distracted. 

Outdoors, off leash, and with more distractions, it was easier to see when Maggie was truly responding to the collar – which was most of the time (Yay!). We had about an 80 percent success rate, with just a few occasions when Elizabeth had to push the button longer to get Maggie to acknowledge and come to her, which did eventually happen in under 20 seconds. (Note: The vibration pulse shuts off after 10 seconds – you have to release, and after several seconds push the button again.) I suggested she also pair the vibration with her verbal cue while Maggie can still hear her to strengthen the association.

Conclusion: A vibration collar could be useful for Maggie, and Elizabeth has the added benefit of being able to train Maggie to make the recall association while she can still hear. Elizabeth has already ordered a Wolfwill collar for Maggie.

POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS

I have to say, I am feeling quite positive about the benefits of using a vibration collar for dogs with hearing loss. Despite my initial reservations, and the significant flaws of both brands of collar that we worked with, it will certainly be something I recommend to owners of deaf dogs as a useful communication tool. 

I want to applaud Jordan, Irene, and Elizabeth. It was heartwarming to see how connected and committed these owners are to their dogs and rewarding to be able to help explore new ways to open lines of communication between the owners and their deaf (or nearly deaf) dogs. 

Don’t Be Loyal

0
whole dog journal editor Nancy Kerns

For about 18 months, I’ve been reading everything I can get my hands on about canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). I started right after the FDA published its first announcement, in July 2018, that it was investigating a possible increase in the number of canine DCM cases and they suspected a link to the diets the affected dogs had been eating. 

Following the topic is like reading a mystery, with lots of possible solutions, some red herrrings, and, tragically, some deaths – dogs getting sick, dogs dying, but no one knows for sure yet what’s making them ill. All anyone can do is keep gathering information about the confirmed cases and try to figure out what the cases have in common. 

Long-time WDJ contributor Mary Straus also has been studying this mystery. Like the dogged and disciplined researcher she is, when we supplied her with a spreadsheet containing information about every food mentioned in the reports taken by the FDA of dogs with confirmed cases of DCM, she started collecting information about the foods: their ingredients, their guaranteed analyses. She’s identified some attributes about the products named in these cases that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else, and, based on those observations and years of study of canine nutrition, we’ve developed some guidelines for feeding that we hope will prevent any other dogs from developing diet-related DCM. The article describing this work starts on page 3 – and even more detail than what we could fit in the print edition appears in the online version at WholeDogJournal.com.

Here’s one of the most fascinating things that I’ve read regarding these cases:  the accounts from the owners of the affected dogs of what they have been feeding their dogs. In case after case, the owners report that their dogs have been eating Food X for a year, two years, five years – or the entire lifetime of the dog. 

Why do so many people still feed the same food – or even different products from the same company – for months and years on end? When I press friends or family about why they feed the same food forever, they almost always say, “Well, doesn’t it upset a dog’s tummy when you change their foods?” My answer: “NO! Not if you accustom them to variety!” Unless your dog has proven allergies to a number of ingredients, the more you change foods (and brands!), the better off your dog will be. Otherwise, if there is anything that’s less than perfect, nutritionally speaking, about the food you feed for months and years, that issue will have a long-term affect on your dog! A tiny excess or deficiency of a mineral? An ingredient that interferes with absorption of a vital nutrient? Your dog will literally embody that problem – even if it’s one that no one has yet identified – if that’s all he has eaten for years on end. Switch it up!

Wolfwill Vibration Collar: The Negatives

1
Spud is a deaf double-merle French Bulldog. In our one and only testing session with him, he never developed a positive conditioned emotional response (CER) with the vibration and treats. Further, with more trials, he began to grow anxious, so we ended the testing.

I found the concept of a vibration collar potentially useful. But in practice, there were a number of things I didn’t like about the Wolfwill vibration collar:

  • It’s marketed as an aversive. The text on the box says, “When you push on a button… He’ll quickly learn the association between his behavior and your correction; in no time, you’ll have a better-behaved pet.” The instruction booklet inside also describe its use as a punishment tool rather than as a positive communication tool. 
  • There is no instruction offered about conditioning your dog to be comfortable with the collar before you use it and nothing about it being very inappropriate to use with a dog who is “hiding or acting fearful.”
  • The instruction guide is almost incomprehensible. As this product is made in China, the instructions were full of translation errors – annoying, but not insurmountable. Still, it made already difficult-to-follow instructions even more difficult. Due to the poor instructions, initially I couldn’t get the two units (transmitter and receiving collar) to charge. When I contacted the company for help, they wanted to see my receipt before they would help me! I finally figured out what I was doing wrong on my own.
  • The collar is supposed to be suitable for dogs 22 to 88 pounds. I wouldn’t even consider putting it on Sunny, my 25-pound Pomeranian-mix, as the receiver box is quite large and the collar is way too bulky for a small dog.
  • On two occasions, as I was trying to change intensity of the vibration, it kept sticking. I pressed the appropriate button repeatedly, and sometimes it would change. Sometimes it wouldn’t.
  • The product touts its three-function features – vibration, light, and tone (sound) – but in our opinion, only the vibration is useful. The vibration does, indeed, work well. The tone is obviously useless for a hearing-impaired dog and isn’t really loud enough for the human to locate a lost deaf dog unless the dog is very close. We’re not sure why you would need a tone for a hearing-abled dog when you can use your voice or a whistle. The light also seems worthless. It can’t signal anything to the dog, because it’s located on the dog’s neck. It’s too small to be seen by a human from any distance and, on many dogs, would likely be covered by the dog’s fur anyway. 

Related Posts

Good Vibrations
Haptic Cues

Change Is Good – Especially When It Comes to Your Dog’s Food

60

In the November issue, already in subscribers hands and available at WholeDogJournal.com, we have a number of articles about canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and diet. The articles are a response to the announcements by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regarding their investigation of possible links between certain types of diets and the development of the disease in what seems like a growing number of dogs.

No statistics are kept about the rate or prevalence of DCM in dogs, but veterinary cardiologists first raised their concern that the disease might be occurring more often, and even more distressingly, in breeds that are not known to be at an increased genetic risk. They sent reports about their cases to the FDA, who began investigating. The agency apparently thought the matter merited extra attention or alertness from pet owners and veterinarians, and, in hopes of increasing awareness of the symptoms of the disease, they issued their first announcement in June 2019.

More DCM Cases, or Increased Awareness?

The number of cases of any suspected health condition will rise upon news about its potential risk – and it does seem that there has been an increase in the number of cases since awareness of the symptoms of DCM have been widely publicized. I’ve been following a number of Facebook groups for owners of dogs who have been diagnosed with DCM, and daily, there are people who post stories about their dogs – dogs who were newly diagnosed, dogs undergoing treatment, and dogs who passed away. But, dang, it’s frustrating to not have any idea whether the incidence of the disease really has increased or if it only seems so because more people are aware of the symptoms and are seeking veterinary attention for symptoms that, previously, might have been mistaken for “old age” and gone undiagnosed.

But, as I said in the editorial in the November issue, another thing that makes me crazy is the number of accounts that I read that lament how much they trusted the maker of the very expensive dog food they were feeding their dog – they fed it for years and years, and are now angry that the food may have contributed to the dog’s disease. I don’t think anyone should trust any company with the sum total of their dog’s nutrition for years on end!

What Does This Mean For Your Dog?

It’s important to keep in mind that even the companies whose products have been named in the FDA’s reports most frequently haven’t knowingly done anything wrong. The products have met the existing standards for nutrition, and they have not been contaminated with something that causes illness. No one has identified the cause or causes of the problem, so it’s not like the companies have failed to do something they were supposed to do. There is something – or, more likely, a few things – going on with some foods and/or ingredients.

The solution isn’t just avoiding those foods; until we know more, the solution is not feeding any food as your dog’s sole source of nutrition for years on end. If there is one thing that should be easy for us to do, it’s to switch foods at least a few times a year. Call it a hedge, call it “balance over time,” call it a hassle – whatever you call it, unless your dog is intolerant of many different ingredients, it shouldn’t be that difficult to buy a different product from a different company every other time you buy food. For most dogs, the more often you change their foods, the more robust their ability to digest different foods will become.

Download the Full November 2019 Issue

4
  • Diet, Dogs, and DCM
  • We Won't Beg
  • Good Vibrations
  • Canine Dementia
  • Hemangiosarcoma
To continue reading this article or issue you must be a paid subscriber. Sign in
If you are logged in but cannot access this content, a) your subscription may have expired; b) you may have duplicate accounts (emails) in our system. Please check your account status here or contact customer service.

Subscribe to Whole Dog Journal

With your Whole Dog Journal order you’ll get:

  • Immediate access to this article and 20+ years of archives.
  • Recommendations for the best dog food for your dog.
  • Dry food, homemade diets and recipes, dehydrated and raw options, canned food and more.
  • Brands, formulations and ingredients all searchable in an easy-to-use, searchable database.

Plus, you’ll receive training and care guidance to keep your dog healthy and happy. You’ll feed with less stress…train with greater success…and know you are giving your dog the care he deserves.

Subscribe now and save 72%! Its like getting 8 issues free!

Already Subscribed?

Click Here to Sign In | Forgot your password? | Activate Web Access

Diet, Dogs, and DCM

35
In the wake of the FDA’s news that certain types of dog foods may be linked to the development of a deadly heart disease, owners are scared, confused, and desperate for clear direction as to what’s safe to feed their dogs. Though no one knows for sure what has caused the DCM cases that the FDA is investigating, we have some suggestions for how to feed your dog until more is known. Photo © Damedeeso, Dreamstime.com

Food reviews have been a standard feature of WDJ for 22 years, so it’s not a surprise we are asked for dog food recommendations. The inquiries multiply whenever there is any bad news about dog food – and the ongoing mystery about a possible connection between dog diets and a serious heart disease, canine dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), is definitely bad news.

Depending upon which news outlets you follow, you may be worried about feeding your dog a food that is grain-free, one that contains peas or other legumes, or one that is “boutique” or made with “exotic” ingredients.

If you haven’t been following any of the news, you can catch up by reading our in-depth article by nutrition writer Linda P. Case in the September 2018 issue (“The Heart of the Matter”) and the blog posts on August 2, 2018 (“Please Don’t Panic About the Grain-Free Thing”), August 9, 2018 (“Choosing Dog Foods After The Grain-Free Scare”) and July 16, 2019 (“Update on grain-free diets and DCM cases in dogs”). Suffice to say here that in July 2018, the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it was looking into reports of a possible link between DCM in breeds of dogs that are not considered at genetic risk of the disease and diets containing “peas, lentils, other legume seeds, or potatoes as main ingredients.”

A year later, the FDA published an update to its original announcement, which included detailed data about the cases they were investigating but still offered no guidance regarding how owners could feed their dogs in order to protect them from developing DCM.

We have been analyzing the data that has been released about the diets that were named in the 515 reports being investigated by the FDA. From this analysis, we have developed recommendations that can help you make feeding choices that we believe could protect your dogs from this disease. In the online version of this article, we have included links that will take you to more detailed explanations, should you wish to know more about how we came to our conclusions.

Before we go on, though, please note: Anything you read, including here and in articles written by veterinary nutritionists, is conjecture. No one knows for sure what might explain a link between certain types of diets and DCM in some dogs – or whether there even is a link – although we believe there is.

Is Your Dog at Risk?

It’s important to keep in mind that the vast majority of dogs who are fed the diets named in the FDA’s reports do not develop DCM! On the other hand, we know that there are more cases of DCM than those that have been reported (or even diagnosed). So how concerned should you be?

The risk of diet-related DCM is not the same for all dogs. Certain breeds of dogs (or lines within breeds) are susceptible to DCM due to taurine insufficiency, where the amount of taurine (or its precursors, methionine and cysteine) in the diet is enough for most dogs, but not for them. These breeds include the American Cocker Spaniel, English Setter, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Newfoundland, and Saint Bernard. If your dog belongs to one of these breeds, then you should be more concerned about what you’re feeding than the average pet owner.

[post-sticky note-id=’404562′]

Other breeds are genetically prone to DCM that is not linked to taurine deficiency, including Boxers, Doberman Pinschers, Great Danes, and Irish Wolfhounds. These dogs may be at no greater risk of diet-related DCM, but since we don’t know for sure, owners may want to be more cautious with these breeds than with others.

Large and giant breed dogs are more susceptible to DCM than smaller dogs are. If you have a large dog, you should be more concerned about what you feed than those with small dogs. One of the factors that drew the attention of veterinary cardiologists, however, was seeing DCM in some smaller dogs as well, so even people with small to medium dogs may want to take precautions. Dogs who eat less than would be expected for their size (older or inactive dogs, or those who get too many calories from treats) also may be at increased risk of dietary insufficiencies, including taurine, which might help explain why some small dogs are affected.

Another risk factor is dogs who eat the same food for long periods of time. The initial FDA report stated, “Early reports from the veterinary cardiology community indicate that the dogs consistently ate these foods as their primary source of nutrition for time periods ranging from months to years [emphasis ours].”

The longer you feed the same food, the more likely your dog is to be affected by any nutritional deficiencies or excesses it contains. Those who rotate foods regularly, particularly those who rotate between different brands of foods with different primary ingredients, have less cause for concern than those who always feed the same food to their dogs.

Focus on Taurine

All of our recommendations are based on the assumption that the issue linking diet and DCM is related to taurine deficiency. There are two very good reasons for this. The first is the link between taurine and DCM in cats that was discovered in the 1980s. The second is the link between taurine and DCM in certain dogs being fed lamb and rice diets that first came to light in the 1990s. Because we know that a lack of sufficient taurine or its precursors can cause DCM in otherwise healthy dogs of all breeds and mixed breeds, it appears to be the most likely culprit in this current situation.

Some of the affected dogs in the FDA reports were found to have low blood taurine levels; however, the majority have normal blood taurine levels. Despite this, most dogs diagnosed with what is suspected to be diet-related DCM are given taurine supplementation, regardless of their taurine blood levels, as well as being switched to a different diet and prescribed heart medications. Some dogs improve, others do not. At this time, it’s impossible to know which factors lead to improvement and which are unnecessary.

Until we know more, our recommendations center on avoiding taurine deficiency by increasing the bioavailability of taurine and its precursors, even for dogs who do not appear to be taurine-deficient.

In general, we recommend avoiding the potential at-risk food categories identified below, or at least limiting them to less than half of your dog’s total diet (if you feed more than two types of food). If you cannot avoid these food categories, then we recommend that you look for foods with added taurine, and/or consider supplementing your dog with taurine yourself (see Supplementing Taurine, below), particularly if your dog is at higher risk of developing DCM, as described above.

SIDEBAR: Switching Dog Foods

Food Categories of Concern

We identified 293 different foods in the 515 reports being investigated by the FDA. We looked at the ingredients and guaranteed analysis of each of these foods, and, just as the FDA’s researchers were no doubt doing, looked for patterns or categories of products to study separately.

[post-sticky note-id=’404565′]

We identified four categories of products that might be linked to DCM in at least some dogs. All four start with the letter “L,” which can help to remember them.

Legumes. The FDA reported that 93% of all products involved in the reports they were investigating contained peas and/or lentils. Our analysis confirmed that 89% of the reported foods appeared to contain significant amounts of these ingredients (generally appearing before the first fat or in multiple combinations, sometimes with other legumes).

Lamb. Lamb-based diets are a known risk factor for taurine-deficient DCM. Our analysis found that more than 20% of the foods named in the FDA’s reports were lamb-based.

Limited-ingredient. We were a little surprised to find that limited-ingredient diets were also overrepresented in these reports and we therefore consider them another potential risk factor.

Low-protein. Diets with low protein levels are a known risk factor for DCM. Normal-protein diets that rely on plant proteins, such as from legumes, also appear to pose a higher risk.

Let’s look at each of these “L” food categories of concern.

Legume-rich diets

The FDA found that the vast majority of reported products (93%) contained peas and/or lentils. It seems likely that something about peas and lentils is impacting the availability of taurine or its precursors in the body. This could be due to incomplete plant proteins replacing animal proteins, or fiber from peas and lentils blocking absorption of nutrients, or some other anti-nutritional factors we don’t fully understand.

SIDEBAR: The Most Frequently Named Foods in FDA Reports

Peas are a relatively new ingredient whose popularity has exploded in the last 10 years. The fact that so many foods today contain significant amounts of peas (and other legumes) and the increase in the number of dogs that are reportedly developing DCM (especially those in categories not typically associated with this disease) seems significant. Remember, however, that correlation does not equal causation; again, we are speculating, as no one knows the cause at this time.

Legumes are defined as plants whose fruit (seeds) is enclosed in a pod. Legumes found in dog food include peas, lentils, beans (e.g., pinto beans, navy beans, kidney beans, lima beans, fava beans) and chickpeas (garbanzo beans). Pulses, another term commonly used, are the dry, edible seeds of plants in the legume family, including dried peas, beans, lentils and chickpeas. All pulses are legumes but not all legumes are pulses. Because dog foods may contain fresh peas as well as dried, we use “legumes” rather than “pulses” to define this category.

[post-sticky note-id=’404560′]

Pulses are high in protein and fiber and low in fat. High-fat legumes such as soybeans and peanuts do not appear to be involved in the DCM issue.

Bottom line on legumes: We recommend avoiding diets with legumes listed high in the ingredient list (before the first fat or oil) or that include several legumes, even if they appear lower in the ingredient list. If you do feed such a diet, it should not have any of the other “L” traits (be lamb-based, limited-ingredient, or contain less than about 30% protein on a dry matter basis [27% as fed, per the guaranteed analysis, for dry foods]). If you feed high-legume foods as a major part of your dog’s diet, look for foods with added taurine, or consider supplementing with taurine yourself.

[post-sticky note-id=’404567′]

Lamb-based diets

Nutritionists have known for more than 20 years that certain breeds of dogs were prone to developing DCM when fed lamb and rice diets. Studies indicate this likely has to do with low bioavailability of taurine’s precursors, methionine and cysteine, in lamb meal. Responsible companies began adding taurine to their lamb and rice diets long ago.

Our analysis of foods named in the FDA reports found that more than 20% of these reports involved diets where lamb was the primary meat source; this included several of the foods with the most reports. The FDA’s analysis found lamb was the second-most common animal protein in reported foods (after chicken). Both of these appear to indicate that lamb is overrepresented in the named foods.

We expect that reliable companies already add taurine to their lamb and rice diets. We also would expect that by now they are in the process of adding taurine to their lamb-based diets that also contain legumes.

Bottom line on lamb: We advise avoiding lamb-based diets without added taurine. If you do feed a lamb-based diet, it should not be high in legumes, limited-ingredient, or low in protein. In addition, we would avoid all foods from any company that sells a lamb and rice diet without added taurine (if they hadn’t already been getting that right, we just wouldn’t trust them at all).

Note: We found several diets where lamb meal was listed second in the ingredient list, following a fresh protein such as beef or bison, which was usually the name used on the label. Because dry lamb meal weighs less than fresh meats, these foods contain more lamb than whatever was named first and would be considered lamb-based diets. Pay attention to ingredient lists, not just the name on the package!

Limited-ingredient diets

The first response from a veterinary nutritionist to the initial FDA report about a possible link between diet and DCM warned against “exotic” ingredients, but her list included both lamb and peas, neither of which would be considered exotic these days (see “We Won’t BEG, below). Instead, what we found was an overrepresentation of limited-ingredient diets, many of which contained no ingredients that most people consider exotic. Almost 40% of all reports received by the FDA involved limited-ingredient diets.

[post-sticky note-id=’404569′]

The great majority of these diets included peas and/or lentils, but since that was true for all foods, not just limited-ingredient diets, it doesn’t explain why limited-ingredient diets were named in such a large percentage of reports.

We do not recommend feeding limited-ingredient diets to most dogs, as we believe feeding a variety of ingredients is more likely to meet your dog’s nutritional needs. If you feed a limited-ingredient diet due to your dog’s severe food allergies or digestive issues, avoid foods high in legumes or that are lamb-based or relatively low in protein.

As a general rule we also recommend that you avoid feeding most exotic proteins, anything other than beef, chicken, turkey, lamb, and maybe fish. Exotic proteins (such as kangaroo, venison, duck, bison, rabbit, and so on) should be reserved for potential food allergy testing and/or treatment in the future.

Bottom line on limited-ingredient foods: Until we know more, we feel that companies that make limited-ingredient diets should start adding taurine to these foods. If you feel you must feed a limited-ingredient diet that does not include added taurine, we would suggest supplementing your dog with taurine.

One additional note: Kangaroo was the protein used in the single food reported most often to the FDA – Zignature Kangaroo Formula. This food had twice the number of reports (44) as the next food, Acana Singles Lamb & Apple Formula (both limited-ingredient diets). While no research has been done that we’re aware of, it would appear that kangaroo, like lamb, may be associated with low taurine bioavailability.

Low-protein diets

Insufficient dietary protein is a known risk factor for canine DCM. Protein is needed to build lean muscle, and since the heart is a muscle, insufficient protein can also affect the heart.

We found only a small number of reports of very low-protein diets linked to DCM, but most had no other risk factors (no peas or lentils, not lamb-based or limited-ingredient). Several low-protein urinary care and renal prescription diets were reported to the FDA as being possibly linked to DCM. These diets range from 10.9% to 18.1% protein on a dry matter basis (10 to 16% as-fed).

In our opinion, these prescription diets are often fed unnecessarily. In particular, we do not recommend feeding low-protein diets such as Hill’s Prescription Diet u/d to most dogs prone to forming urinary stones, or feeding diets designed for dogs with late-stage kidney disease who are not expected to live very long to dogs with early-stage kidney disease, who may live for years.

[post-sticky note-id=’404571′]

The longer a low-protein diet is fed, the more harm it is likely to do. See the section entitled, “The Side Effects of Low-Protein Diets” in “Cast in Stone” (WDJ June 2010), and “When to Say No to Low-Protein” (“A Low-Protein “kidney diet” Is Not Always the Answer,” May 2005) for more information.

In addition, when we looked at all the named diets that did not include peas or lentils, we found a higher percentage of lower-protein diets, and some with mid-level protein but also with plant proteins in the ingredients, such as corn and wheat gluten meals, pea protein, and potato protein.

Plant proteins may be used to replace animal proteins, providing less taurine and its precursors and more fiber and other factors that may interfere with taurine absorption. Avoid foods that contain corn gluten meal or wheat gluten meal; these are poor-quality, incomplete plant proteins primarily found in lower-quality foods. Pea and potato protein may be acceptable if far down in the ingredient list, but we don’t believe they offer much if any nutritional benefit (we’d prefer to see added taurine instead).

Bottom line on low-protein: In general, we advise looking for foods with at least 23% protein DM (21% on the label, also expressed “as fed,” for dry foods), and preferably more. If you feed a diet that contains a significant amount of legumes, or that includes beet pulp or plant proteins, increase this minimum amount of protein to about 30% dry matter (27% as fed for dry foods). If you feel you must feed a diet with less protein than this, we advise supplementing your dog with taurine.

Additional recommendations

Beet pulp is known to interfere with taurine absorption. A 2016 study published in the Journal of Animal Science and Technology found that beet pulp may contribute to a decrease in taurine levels in dogs, both because it reduces protein digestibility (and thus the availability of the sulfur amino acids methionine and cysteine, taurine’s precursors) and because it increases fecal excretion of taurine.

Beet pulp is commonly used in dog foods as a source of fiber, but because of its effect on taurine, it would be safest to avoid this ingredient in diets with any of our “L’s” of concern (Lamb-based, Legume-rich, Low-protein, or Limited-ingredient).

The FDA also named potatoes and sweet potatoes as suspect ingredients, but we have our doubts about their potential contribution to diet-related DCM. Both of these ingredients have been used in pet food for much longer than peas and other legumes, and neither is used as an alternative to or replacement source of animal protein.

Our analysis supports this hypothesis: All of the reported grain-free dry foods with significant amounts of potatoes or sweet potatoes also fell into one or more of the other at-risk categories. If these ingredients were truly a risk factor, we would have expected to see many foods reported that contained potatoes or sweet potatoes but did not contain legumes and were not lamb-based, limited-ingredient, or low in protein. At this point we do not feel that the data support avoiding foods that contain potatoes or sweet potatoes.

One ingredient in this category concerns us, however: potato protein. We don’t like to see incomplete plant proteins used to replace better quality, pricier animal proteins, or to inflate the protein percentage on the label.

Remember the four “L’s”

Again, remember that we don’t know for sure if following our guidelines will help your dogs avoid developing DCM, but we believe they are your best option until more is known.

Four types of diets – those rich in legumes (peas, lentils, beans, chickpeas); limited-ingredient diets (especially those that use kangaroo); lamb-based diets; and diets that are low in protein or that rely too much on plant proteins – may be associated with low taurine bioavailability that could lead to DCM, particularly in certain breeds, large dogs, and those who eat less than expected for their size. We believe that limiting how much you feed of these types of diets, and/or supplementing your dogs with taurine, should help keep them safe.

FDA Updates

References

Veterinary articles on the recent investigation into diet and DCM in dogs

Taurine

Truth About Pet Food

WSAVA, Feeding Trials

Pet Food Industry

Hill’s Recalls

Switching Dog Foods

1
© Oleksiy Boyko | Dreamstime.com

This article is a sidebar to our post “Diet, Dogs, and DCM”, which appeared in the November 2019 issue

If this is the first you’re hearing about this issue, please don’t panic and immediately switch your dog’s diet, unless your dog is used to eating different foods. Suddenly changing foods is likely to cause digestive upset in dogs that are unused to it. The longer you’ve been feeding the same food, the more likely your dog is to need time to adjust to something different.

Start by replacing very small amounts of the old food with the new. If your dog is doing well, gradually increase the amount of the new food while decreasing the old. This may take just a few days, or up to a few weeks, depending on how long you’ve been feeding the same thing and how sensitive your dog’s digestive system might be.

Stick with new foods that have a similar level of fat to what you’ve been feeding, at least to start with; it’s more likely that a dog will develop digestive issues if switched from a low-fat diet to one that is higher in fat, particularly if the switch is done too quickly or the dog has been on the low-fat diet for a long time.

If your dog is prone to food allergies, it’s likely he will react quickly with itching and scratching if you feed an ingredient that he’s allergic to. Digestive upset may point toward a food or fat intolerance, or may just be the result of trying to switch too quickly; if your dog vomits or has diarrhea, go back to the old diet until he’s back to normal, then try the switch once more, going even more slowly the second time. If your dog continues to have digestive upset with that food, try something else. Keep a journal of which foods you try and the ingredients in each, and you may be able to pinpoint the ones that cause problems for your dog.

If you have been feeding a limited-ingredient diet because your dog tends to have either allergic (itchy) reactions or digestive upset with other foods, here’s what we would recommend. Start by feeding another food in the same line of foods, so that only the protein source changes. Keep track of which proteins your dog has problems with, and which he does well with. Once you know which proteins your dog can tolerate, try another brand of limited-ingredient diet with a protein your dog is okay with. Continue trying different proteins from the same lines, and different brands of foods using those proteins to get a better idea of which ingredients cause problems for your dog. Once you’ve identified the actual ingredients that your dog has trouble with, you can then try branching out into other foods that are not limited-ingredient diets.

We know that many people feed the same food to their dogs all the time because it’s easier, or because they think it’s better (since that’s what dog food companies and many vets recommend), or because they tried a different food once or twice and their dog didn’t like it or didn’t do well on it. In these cases, we still recommend trying to switch your dog to a different diet, or preferably multiple diets using different brands of foods and different primary ingredients. We still believe that this approach is not only more likely to prevent DCM, but also helps prevent food allergies from developing, and provides protection against any nutritional deficiencies or excesses found in any single diet, as well as issues that lead to recalls.

For those who feed a rotational diet, we advise restricting foods in at-risk categories to less than half the overall diet. That means if you feed just one or two foods, neither should be in any of the at-risk groups we describe. If you feed three or four different foods, one can be among the at-risk categories. If you feed five or six different foods, two can be among the at-risk categories. Foods that fit into more than one of the at-risk categories are likely to be a higher risk than foods that fit into just one; the more categories a food fits into, the higher the potential risk. At least half the foods you feed should have: common meats such as chicken, turkey or beef (not lamb), multiple (not limited) ingredients, little or no legumes, and moderate to high protein.

The Most Frequently Named Foods in FDA Reports

4
© Wavebreakmedia Ltd | Dreamstime.com

This article is a sidebar to our post “Diet, Dogs, and DCM”, which appeared in the November 2019 issue

Some people will be upset that we didn’t name all 293 foods that have been reported to the FDA as being possibly connected to DCM. Those people think that if they could just see the list of named foods, they could avoid those and feel safe feeding anything else, but that’s simply not the case. Just because a food was named does not mean it should not be fed, particularly if there were only one or two reports for that food, or if the food has been reformulated or added taurine since the reports were made. We have no way of knowing how valid the reports might be; it could be pure coincidence that a dog developed DCM while eating this food, particularly in breeds known to be genetically prone to DCM, or maybe the dog was recently switched to that food, so it wouldn’t have had time to cause heart problems.  

Conversely, just because a food is not named does not mean it is therefore safe to feed. Only a small percentage of suspected cases ever get reported to the FDA, and the likelihood of reports goes down for foods that have a small market share or are new to the market. The list of reported foods is also a moving target: not only will there continue to be more reports, but companies are likely to change the formulations or the names of their foods over time, so that the food currently on the shelf is no longer the same as the food that was reported, or a reported food has the same formulation but a different name. Looking for names is not going to help; knowing what to look for in ingredient lists is far more important.

With that said, there were a few foods that were reported so frequently that, even though they met AAFCO guidelines, we suspect they all contributed in some way to the development of DCM in some dogs. We are going to provide those names, though most now contain added taurine (and we applaud the manufacturers for doing so). We will also show the major ingredients in each food at the time of the reports, to the best of our ability (it is not always possible to know when an ingredient list changed). Below, you will find the seven products that were mentioned most frequently in the reports, with the factors that may be linked to DCM in bold type.

Note: In its June 2019 Update, the FDA provided a chart that listed the 16 companies with the most products listed among the reports it was investigating to date. No information was provided as to which of the foods made by those companies were the ones that were associated with the reports. In our view, this may have been unfairly damaging to certain companies, and offered consumers no information as to which products may have been free of mentions in the reports. We were more interested in trying to figure out which products had the most mentions in the reports, and what they had in common.

  1. (44 reports) Zignature Kangaroo Limited Ingredient Formula (dry):
    • Old formula: Kangaroo, Kangaroo Meal, Peas, Chickpeas, Pea Flour, Sunflower Oil (preserved with Citric Acid), Flaxseed, Red Lentils, Green Lentils, Dehydrated Alfalfa Meal, Pea Protein, Natural Flavors, Salt, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 26% Protein
    • Product has added taurine and been reformulated since the first FDA report was released.
    • In total, Zignature had 12 foods named in a total of 77 reports (33 in addition to the dry Kangaroo Formula). The most named formulas other than Kangaroo were Turkey Formula (6), Lamb Formula (5) and Trout & Salmon Meal Formula (5), all dry foods. Three reports were for canned foods. All Zignature formulas are high in legumes and limited-ingredient. The guaranteed analyses show minimum protein ranging from 26-32%, with the Kangaroo Formula having the lowest protein percentage. The company states that they began supplementing all of their diets with taurine after the FDA reports were released.
  2. (22 reports) Acana Singles Limited Ingredient Lamb & Apple Formula (dry):
    • Old formula: Deboned lamb, lamb meal, whole green peas, red lentils, lamb liver, lamb fat, pinto beans, chickpeas, herring oil, green lentils, whole yellow peas, lentil fiber, Red Delicious apples, natural lamb flavor, lamb tripe, lamb kidney, lamb cartilage, dried kelp, whole pumpkin, whole butternut squash, kale, spinach, mustard greens, collard greens, turnip greens, whole carrots, Bartlett pears, freeze-dried lamb liver, freeze-dried lamb tripe, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 31% Protein
    • Product has added taurine and been reformulated since the first FDA report was released.
    • In total, Acana had 18 foods named in a total of 78 reports (56 in addition to the Lamb & Apple Singles Formula). The most named formulas other than Lamb & Apple were Pork & Squash Singles (11), Duck & Pear Singles (8), Heritage Freshwater Fish (5), and Heritage Free-Run Poultry Formula (4). A total of 43 reports were for the Singles (limited-ingredient) line of foods, followed by 16 reports for the Heritage line and 10 for the Regionals line. All reports were for dry foods (Acana does not make canned foods). All reported Acana formulas are high in legumes; all Singles formulas are limited-ingredient. The guaranteed analyses show minimum protein ranging from 27-35%, with a discontinued Singles Formula (Wild Mackerel) having the lowest protein percentage. The company states that they reformulated their Singles foods, adding more meat and taurine supplementation, in September 2018.
  3. (18 reports) Earthborn Holistic Grain Free Meadow Feast with Lamb Meal (dry):
    • Lamb Meal, Peas, Tapioca, Canola Oil (preserved with Mixed Tocopherols), Pea Protein, Pea Fiber, Flaxseed, Natural Flavors, Blueberries, Cranberries, Apples, Carrots, Spinach, Salt . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 26% Protein
    • No changes that we’re aware of since the first FDA report was released but already included added taurine.
    • In total, Earthborn Holistic had 5 foods named in a total of 37 reports (19 in addition to Meadow Feast). A total of 43 reports were for the Singles (limited-ingredient) line of foods, followed by 16 reports for the Heritage line and 10 for the Regionals line. The most named formulas other than Meadow Feast were Coastal Catch (8), and Great Plains Feast (4). All reports were for grain-free dry foods. All reported Earthborn Holistic formulas are high in legumes. The guaranteed analyses show minimum protein ranging from 25-32%, with Meadow Feast having one of the lowest protein percentages. The company states that they have always fortified their grain-free recipes with taurine and other amino acids. Earthborn Holistic is a Midwestern Pet Foods brand.
  4. (12 reports) California Natural Kangaroo & Red Lentils Recipe, Grain Free Limited Ingredient Diet (dry):
    • Kangaroo, Red Lentils, Green Lentils, Peas, Sunflower Oil, Flaxseed, Pea Fiber, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 21% Protein
    • This brand has been discontinued.
  5. (12 reports) Kirkland Signature Nature’s Domain Salmon Meal & Sweet Potato Formula (dry):
    • Salmon meal, sweet potatoes, peas, potatoes, canola oil, ocean fish meal, pea protein, potato fibre, natural flavour, flaxseed, salt, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 24% Protein
    • No changes that we’re aware of since the first FDA report was released; does not contain taurine according to the ingredient list on the Costco website.
    • In total, Kirkland Signature had 7 foods named in a total of 34 reports (22 in addition to Salmon Meal & Sweet Potato Formula). A total of 5 foods and 32 reports were for the Nature’s Domain line. The most named formulas other than Salmon Meal & Sweet Potato were Nature’s Bounty Organic Chicken & Pea (8), and Nature’s Bounty Turkey Meal & Sweet Potato (3). All reports were for dry foods (Kirkland Signature does not make canned foods). All reported Nature’s Domain formulas are high in legumes. The guaranteed analyses show minimum protein ranging from 20-27%. There is no indication that the company is making any changes to their foods. Kirkland Signature is a Costco brand but the Nature’s Domain line is also available elsewhere.
  6. (11 reports) Acana Singles Limited Ingredient Pork & Squash Formula (dry):
    • Old formula: Deboned pork, pork meal, whole green peas, red lentils, pork liver, pork fat, pinto beans, chickpeas, herring oil, green lentils, whole yellow peas, whole butternut squash, pork kidney, lentil fiber, natural pork flavor, pork cartilage, dried kelp, freeze-dried pork liver, whole pumpkin, kale, spinach, mustard greens, collard greens, turnip greens, carrots, Red Delicious apples, Bartlett pears,, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 31% Protein
    • See above for more information on Acana.
  7. (11 reports) Taste of the Wild Pacific Stream Canine Recipe (dry):
    • Salmon, ocean fish meal, sweet potatoes, potatoes, peas, canola oil, lentils, salmon meal, smoked salmon, potato fiber, natural flavor, salt, . . .
    • Guaranteed Analysis: minimum 25% Protein
    • Product has added taurine since the first FDA report was released.
    • In total, Taste of the Wild had 11 foods named in a total of 63 reports (52 in addition to Pacific Stream). A total of 5 foods and 32 reports were for the Nature’s Domain line. The most named formulas other than Pacific Stream were High Prairie (10), Sierra Mountain (6), Pine Forest (6), Prey Angus Beef Limited Ingredient Formula (5) and Prey Trout Limited Ingredient Formula (5), with an additional 12 reports for unspecified grain-free formulas and 3 reports for unspecified Prey limited-ingredient formulas. All reports were for dry foods. All reported Taste of the Wild formulas are high in legumes; all Prey formulas are limited-ingredient. The guaranteed analyses show minimum protein ranging from 25-32%. The company states that they began adding taurine to recipes without grains after the initial FDA report was released.

Are There Cues Your Dog Doesn’t Like?

27
Unhappy face when told "stay" at a sit, looks away.

I was teaching a “teen dog” class last night, and we were working on the “stay” behavior. In the training center where I teach, we instruct the students on the “four Ds” of stay – distance, duration, distraction, and disappearance (the last one, very advanced, when the handlers can leave the room and their dogs will “hold” the stay). We teach that when you increase the difficulty of one of the “Ds,” you should decrease the others – so, in the high-distraction environment of the training center, with eight dogs in the class, to help your dog succeed, you should reduce the distance and duration of the stay you ask of your dog. So far, so good.

As the handlers and their dogs practiced, I noticed one dog doing exactly what my younger dog, Woody, does when we work on the stay behavior. Every time this dog’s handler gave the hand signal and verbal cue for “stay,” his dog turned her head away, jumped to her feet, and looked around for something else to do. Clearly, there is something about the stay behavior that she found either aversive or perhaps just far less rewarding than the other behaviors we practiced in class.

Woody Doesn’t Like the Stay Cue

In Woody’s case, he loves doing all the “action” sort of behaviors I might ask him for: sit, down, stand, back up, spin, go through my legs. And he enjoys the eye contact that we usually share while we are working on these behaviors. But, just as the dog in class last night, often, when I cue him for “stay,” his head will immediately swivel and he will look away, like, “Did I just hear the doorbell? Maybe I should go check!”

Unhappy face when told “down stay”

As an active dog, I think Woody finds the stay behavior extremely boring – and what’s more, it’s more difficult for him to do than the far more fun, active, exuberant behaviors. Not difficult physically – difficult mentally. To counter this, and keep solid stays, I really need to increase the quality and quantity of the rewards he gets for good stays, keep the length of the behaviors extremely unpredictable (if they are all long, no reward is good enough to make it worth his while!), and not over-practice. This is one of his behaviors that gets worse with more practice, not better, since he finds it to be extremely not fun.

Resist the Urge to Over-Practice!

It’s human to want to keep practicing the behavior your dog is not very good at – especially when she’s really good at almost every other behavior you ask for! But resist that urge! – unless you can find a way to change how you ask for or practice the behavior, so that your dog actually loves to hear your cue for that particular behavior. Woody loves to come find me when I hide, so I guess I will start cueing him to “stay” before I release him to find me (with a whistle, from my hidden location). I hope that will increase his interest in and desire to “play” the “stay” game.

Are there any behaviors that your dog hates being asked to do? How can you tell he or she doesn’t enjoy it? How have you countered your dog’s unhappy reaction to the cue?

Dangerous Dogs In Your Neighborhood?

232
Zazu

This evening I was relaxing, scrolling through the news online and checking out dog pictures and videos on social media, when I came across a story that just made my blood run cold. It was posted by an acquaintance who lives one town away from me, and detailed how her husband had gone out that morning for a jog with their Australian Shepherd Zazu; they take a six-mile run together on-leash, four days a week. One this morning’s run, however, not a block from their home, Zazu was attacked by two Rottweilers, who were loose, with their owners nowhere to be seen.

The police were summoned, the dogs caught and impounded, Zazu rushed to the emergency veterinary hospital, but his wounds were too serious and he could not be saved. A neighbor, who heard the tumult and witnessed the scene, identified the dogs as belonging to a couple who lives nearby. They are older, she told the police – and one of their adult children who also lives there breeds the dogs and sells puppies for extra income. Usually, the dogs are never taken out of the yard – but they do get loose from time to time.

Loose dogs in the neighborhood

Personally, I don’t think there is a place in society for dogs who kill. And while no one is perfect, and everyone has had a dog who has gotten loose before, when you own large, powerful dogs (especially more than one), you have a greater-than-average responsibility to see to it that your dogs can not escape the security of your yard. I hope the owners of these dogs are held responsible for Zazu’s death, and I hope the dogs who murdered Zazu are not released back into the custody of their owners – or, perhaps anyone else.

I know that’s harsh. It’s not the dogs’ fault that they were inadequately contained. It’s not their fault that their owners failed to socialize them adequately, so that they saw a leashed dog as prey or an interloper in their neighborhood, as opposed to a potential playmate. It’s not their fault that they have been denied the stimulation of an active dog like Zazu, locked up with no exercise, reduced to a life of breeding and reproduction, over and over.

It’s not fair. But it’s not fair to Zazu and his owners, either, that two very powerful, aggressive dogs were in a position to kill. What if the dog they attacked had been being walked by an elderly or frail person? The person might be dead, too. What if the dog they attacked was being walked by a mother who also was pushing a stroller with a baby inside? I shudder to think of it.

People who keep dogs in a socially impoverished environment, for the sole pupose of breeding puppies to sell – that’s even worse. This type of person is literally the backyard breeder in the derogatory trope.

I am hoping that the dogs are designated as dangerous and steps are taken to make sure they can’t be a threat to anyone else in the community. And my heart goes out to the owners of poor Zazu; his dad will be forever traumatized by the memory of the TEN MINUTES he struggled to save his dog as Zazu was being fatally mauled.

What steps can Zazu’s owners take?

Zazu with his owner

I asked someone I know who is an animal control officer in a different community: What should Zazu’s owners do? She said, if there is any kind of record of the dogs being loose before, or any previous complaint made about their aggression, the local animal control could take steps to get a dangerous dog designation for the Rottweilers. If there is any sort of record of the dogs doing this before, or even just being picked up for running loose before, she would press the local court for the dangerous dog designation.

But if this is the first record of any complaint about the dogs, then their owners are likely to be fined only for the dogs “running at large,” asked for proof of licensing and rabies vaccination (and possibly fined for lack of same), and charged for the short impound; all that Zazu’s owners can do is sue for Zazu’s final vet bill, including cremation.

Obviously, I love dogs, and don’t relish the idea of any dogs being euthanized. But large, aggressive dogs in the hands of owners who can’t or won’t contain them? I can’t imagine living and walking my own dogs in that neighborhood.

Do any of you have any advice for Zazu’s owners? Have you ever been in a situation like this?

Love dogs? If you are reading this, we know you do.

35
WDJ Editor Nancy Kerns and a Poodle puppy from one of those many childhood litters, circa 1970.

I grew up in a family that loved dogs. Each of us four kids had our “own” dog at some point growing up, and we also had some dogs who were just indiscriminately part of the family, belonging to no one in particular. The high point of the family’s dog ownership – or perhaps low point, the way I see it as a responsible dog owner today – came during the years when I was about five to 10 years old. During that period of time, I can safely say we always had at least five adult dogs (the number changed frequently). And in the year that I was about 7, we had three different females who all had litters of puppies within a few weeks of each other. Puppies were everywhere! I was in heaven!

For perspective, that was 1970. Spay/neuter surgery was unheard-of. We lived in a rural area in Northern California, and our dogs slept outside (with a few exceptions for the purebred miniature Poodle and a male and a female Cocker Spaniel we owned for a time) and mostly ran free – meaning, not one of my childhood dogs lived into anything like old age. Many died after being run over by cars. That seems outrageous today, but it was normal then. Most of my childhood friends had also lost dogs because they had been hit by cars. (It was so common that veterinarians used an acronym for it: HBC.)

My dogs were my buddies.

I was the youngest of the four kids in my family by five years, which meant that when I was 7, my siblings were 12, 13, and 14. None of them wanted to hang out with me! And the closest kids my age lived a mile away!

So, it was dogs who kept my childhood from being really pretty lonely, although I never would have recognized any of that as truth at the time. What I did know is that the dogs were always there for me, always ready to play a game, snuggle, or go exploring with me. They were there when my feelings were hurt by the rejection of my exasperated older brother and his friends (there were a lot of boys his age who lived close to us, he had plenty of friends to choose from). They were there when my parents were loudly fighting about something (now I can understand; my parents were so young! And with that many kids – and dogs! – money was always tight). They waited with me (at the roadside!) for the school bus in the morning, gleefully ran to greet my school bus in the afternoon, and on days with no school, kept me company all day long.

Share your story

Which is why this video resonated so much with me. Made by a wonderful organization (Pets Add Life) whose only purpose seems to be to promote the adoption of pets from shelters, it brought me right back to why I connected so much with dogs when I was a kid – a connection that has continued through to today. Whose dog has not soaked up some tears or joined in a celebratory dance?

Share the story of what your dog has gotten you through – and share the video! If you follow the link to the website, it points you to adoptable animals in your area –nice!