Do you like this story?
‘Disarming’: Will blunted teeth make Cotton blend?
By Gina Spadafori
July 23, 2009
Cotton is an American Eskimo dog, a seriously adorable one when he’s not trying to kill you. And now, maybe he can’t kill you, thanks to having the tips of his canines removed.
Hat tip to my friend Patti for sharing this …. uh … frankly disturbing story from the Los Angeles Times about a family who had their dog’s canines blunted in hopes of fixing his biting. The veterinarian who does this calls it “disarming.”
A doctor would cut away 4 millimeters of Cotton’s sharp canines using a laser and then use human-grade composite to give the teeth a smooth, blunt finish.
Disarmed of his main weapons, Cotton would become more submissive — theoretically.
I can see that losing the tips of his canines would make Cotton less destructive when he bites. But I cannot imagine it would change his behavior. Clearly, the dog was heading for being killed for biting — he even bit the Los Angeles Times staffer covering the story — and the family believes this is his last chance after trying everything, including a visit from Cesar Milan. According to the LAT:
The star of the show, Cesar Milan, had a brilliant success. Cotton became the dog Krieger always dreamed he could be, calm and submissive. But that lasted one day. The episode (titled “Raw Cotton”) first aired more than two years ago. Now page 299 of the “Dog Whisperer Ultimate Episode Guide” reveals the sad truth: “The Kriegers have not been able to successfully implement Cesar’s technique.”
Krieger had a follow-up visit with Milan at his South L.A. center, where he suggested that the family try a full-time muzzle.
The family says the dog can get out of any muzzle, and so they opted for the surgical procedure. I really wonder if it wouldn’t have been better for all involved — including the dog — to put him down. But on the other hand, if they can now manage the dog and no one gets hurt … I guess, why not?
I can’t help but wonder, though, how much damage the dog can do with the teeth he has left, and I also wonder how happy this dog could be always ready to snap. In almost every photo, his eyes look hard and his body is tense. Yes, there was a photographer standing right there, but still … is this a dog who can enjoy his life, ever?
Here’s the link. Your thoughts? Oh, and … please let’s not rehash the CM thing. Been there, done that. I want to know what you think about this “fix.”
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Umm, dogs can do damage without sharp canines. They have a lot of bite force, and if you’ve ever had a dog accidently get you with premolars, well you’ll know.
There’s no doubt that canines are a main killing tool, but dogs can still do plenty without them.
Dogs who live in a constantly reactive state are IMO, suffering. It’s an illness if you like, and it needs to be managed. If the symptoms can be relieved, without endangering others, then fantastic, but if not….
Our rescue has a dog who suffered horrible abuse. He mind is, for want of a better description, broken. BUT he spends most of his life happy and has bonded with the woman who decided to keep him as a long term foster. And she has a set up that allows him to be managed if he goes into defensive panic mode.
If he was like that all the time? I think euthanasia would be the only humane choice. If someone with the experience to manage him had not agreed to take him in, he would have been euthanized as he could not, no way no how, have been adopted out.
The double CCL surgery dog I was going to foster morphed into castration-responsive dermatosis/alopecia X dog. And he is totally spun by the changes to his life. Obviously under-socialized, he is afraid to move, to make eye contact, to explore. His mental plight had me in tears yesterday, what a miserable way to be. Today he is beginning to come out of his shell a bit, but has not yet exhaled that big breath he’s holding and really relaxed. I firmly believe he’ll be OK with some careful reconditioning and remedial training and socializing.
But in the case of Cotton, it does not sound sound promising….
Comment by JenniferJ — July 23, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Why would the ‘fix’ work? Is the dog biting people with a few sawed off canines going to be any less effective in keeping people away? I doubt it. Is the dog going to feel any less afraid of people cause it now has a few shorter teeth? I doubt it.
The problem with this dog is in it’s head, not it’s mouth.
Comment by Debbie Jacobs — July 23, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Personally, I think it’s reprehensible, and I find it morally repugnant that a vet would even do this.
Having dealt with Eskies, I know they can be a handful. No matter, what’s done is done, and you’re right — the poor dog looks incredibly stressed. Maybe that family wasn’t the right family for him? Maybe he has some issues that could have been helped with a combination of medication and behavior modification? Who knows?
But to ‘disarm’ the poor thing? That’s just cruel. I feel physically ill reading about it. His behavior will still be the same, as they still aren’t doing anything else but suppressing the outward manifestation of it… so why bother? Just so you can have a cute fuzzy white dog running around your house? (one of my clients got one because he matched her interior and she thought it looked cool — really really bad move on her part)
Just because humans CAN do something doesn’t necessarily mean they SHOULD… I’m gonna go puke now.
Comment by jo — July 23, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
My very first American Eskimo when she was 7 months of age would suddenly get a look in her eye and then snap at my mother or myself. It was when my boyfriend at the time brought some Christmas presents for the her and the other dog. We had her all checked out and could not find anything wrong. She never ever snapped at anyone except us. To everyone else, she was the sweetest dog ever. We learned to watch for that “look” which usually came when we looked directly at her. If we gave her a bone to chew, oh my, she would go in the bedroom on the far side of the bed and just lay and guard it. If you tried to take it away using a broom (better than using your hand) she would go major aggressive. That was her only fault. We learned. She lived to be 11 yrs old. When I took her in the car for a ride, she would put one paw on my leg and sit next to me or lay next to me with my arm around her and look up at me sweetly and lovingly. One would never think she had this one bad trait (or was it genetic in nature?)
Comment by VJ — July 23, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Jo, I think it’s a silly idea, but I’m not sure that just blunting the canines is cruel. Dogs break canines all the time. Some dogs wear the down with chewing habits. My vet has told me that many times the broken teeth don’t need treatment, they seal themselves, and they don’t have the same nerve innervation as humans.
So it’s doubtful that Cotton is much affected by this process mentally or emotionally, which is why Gina questions the assertion that this will somehow make him more submissive.
IF there is ANY benefit to this, I would guess that the family might be less intimidated by the dog which could lead to some improvements in how he is handled, how much attention he gets etc… But i doubt that Cotton gives a fig or even notices the difference.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 23, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
I guess I find myself asking; If this helps — and I seriously doubt it will — then why is it different from castration, which is frankly done as much for behavior modification as for birth control? (Spaying is different, since being pregnant or having pyo really is rough on a body, and so spaying has some real health benefits for the dog. )
So why is it OK to solve try to deal with behavior problems by removing a pet’s testicles, but upsetting to do so by removing the tips of his canines?
That’s the philosophical angle. From the behavioral angle, I’m with JJ in guessing Cotton doesn’t care a fig for what happened either way and will be just the same biter he always was. I bet a lot of behaviorists/trainers will offer to help, and I bet Cotton ends up dead anyway after he takes off someone’s face.
If I were a veterinarian, I would consider doing this procedure only if Cotton’s owners also signed up with a good DVM behaviorist for meds and behavior mod. And I would have them work with the veterinary behaviorist for a reasonable amount of time before surgery was even considered — which I can’t imagine a vet behaviorist doing, since it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 23, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
I don’t see how it is helping Cotton at all. I understand that these people love their dog and they’re obviously willing to go to great lengths to keep him, but blunting teeth isn’t going to help his mental health.
I’m curious if they’ve seen an actual veterinary behaviorist or tried medication.
Comment by katie — July 23, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Ugh… I remember this episode. High strung doesn’t begin to describe it.
And the family simply feeds the problem.
The worst part? There are children involved. Not just family children, but visiting children as well.
If this dog has a hope of rehabilitation, it’s in a different home.
As for this “procedure”, it sounds like a quick money maker for the vet involved, if you ask me - and nothing more. When Cotton stops getting the wild response he’s used to getting when he bites, he’s only got one option - up the ante. His bites will get faster, harder, more determined.
Poor Cotton…
Comment by Kim — July 23, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
Well I have a fear biter. Fragile my beagle came from an abusive home & bites anyone who comes near her house or yard unless restrained. I’ve never even considered blunting her teeth,that won’t fix the problem it will only leave her defenseless against another animals aggression. I have warning signs posted,all the neighbors especially kids know not to approach her alone. I hold her mouth closed & let her sniff people & realize they aren’t a threat & then she is fine. I think these people need to find what Cotton’s trigger is & deal with it.
Comment by Lesliek — July 23, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
[HEAD-DESK] [HEAD-DESK] [HEAD-DESK]
Not only can the dog still do significant damage by crushing and grinding - BUT THIS DOES NOTHING TO FIX HIS BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. (sorry, couldn’t help yelling)
Having had some small (rolls eyes) experience with pet owners who give me wide-eyed assurances that they’ve “tried everything” - I’m not buying it. Not one bit. Either this dog is so genetically / behaviorally damaged it would be kindness to let him go… or his owners are deep in denial about how hard they’ve really tried to fix his problems.
Either way - grinding down his teeth is not going to make it better. At all.
If the dog was in my state his owners would have to jump through a maze of legal, financial and management hoops to keep him. Based on the photo in the LA Times article it appears that either California is a lot more liberal than Minnesota in how it handles dogs with bite histories… or that “everything” Cotton’s owners have tried does not include obeying the law.
Comment by Janeen — July 23, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Gosh, Leslie, I’m sorry for you and your dog, but some advice: Stay anonymous.
When your dog finally does seriously hurt someone — and he will — those posted warning signs, the holding of his muzzle so he’ll be “OK” and other signs of your utterly clueless lack of responsibility … you are a dog-bite attorney’s dream because you KNEW your dog was dangerous, and you put people at risk ANYWAY.
More unsolicited advice: Do NOT allow this dog near ANYONE without putting comfortable box muzzle on him. I have seen the results first-hand of a child bitten badly in the face by a dog (regular readers will remember the story). That girl endured so many plastic surgeries it was beyond tragic. That dog ruined her life.
Your dog is NOT worth a child’s face. Do not trust this dog not to bite. There is no excuse for taking chances with other people’s safety. None.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 23, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
I have had two calls in the last week from owners wanting to give their dogs to rescue who also had a bite history.
When the breed became popular, we knew we would have to deal with this, but it still sucks.
Every excuse made for the one dog, every claim of “we’ve tried everything” for the other.
Both of these dogs had bitten family members repeatedly, both had vets and trainers strongly recommending euthanasia. Both had a history of the severity of the damage escalating.
And I told them both, as did every other rescuer they called (we all communicate for our reed rescue) that I was very sorry, we could not take the dogs.
One was resigned, said I guess I’ll call the vet. The other was angry, said we weren’t much of a rescue, then asked couldn’t we just take him to put down? Sorry, we do not do that any longer, we cannot accept the liability of a known biter.
Could some of these dogs be rehabbed? Maybe, but we are not able to provide that service. We can deal with inter-dog aggression, shyness, physical disability, injury etc… but human directed aggression is a different can of worms. We get surprised unpleasantly sometimes with strays, but a known history sets you up for far to much liability.
This has been a round about way of saying Leslie, please listen to Gina, my brother is a lawyer, she’s dead on right. I would never have that dog outside even without a muzzle, kids climb fences.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 23, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
I found this (and some of you may find it), very interesting.
The American Veterinary Medical Association’s position on canine disarming:
AVMA policy
Removal or Reduction of Teeth as a Treatment for Canine Aggression
(Current as of June 2005)
The AVMA is opposed to removal or reduction of healthy teeth of dogs as a treatment for canine aggression. This approach to managing aggression does not address the cause of the behavior. The welfare of the patient may be adversely affected because the animal is subjected to dental procedures that are painful, invasive, and do not address the problem. Removal or reduction of teeth for nonmedical reasons may also create oral pathologic conditions.
In addition, dogs may still cause severe injury with any remaining teeth, and removal or reduction of teeth may provide owners with a false sense of security. Injury prevention and the welfare of the dog are best addressed through behavioral assessment and modification by a qualified behaviorist.
Comment by Diana — July 23, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
For some reason I could not open the link, so could not read the full story.But…
Merely removing the tips of his canines will not prevent him biting. I know from experience (grooming) even toothless dogs can bite, and bruise - and it hurts !
Just imagine how much damage he could do if he took a full mouth bite of a childs hand..
Also now, the owners may be complacent, because “He CAN’T bite anymore”
If they cannot re-hab him not to bite (whatever his reasons), they need to manage him, so that he doesn’t have the opportunity.
If they cannot manage that, the only responsible course would (IMO) be to have him put down. How much enjoyment can there be with a ‘pet’ like that ? And can he truly be happy ?
Comment by Alison — July 23, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
I have to agree with JenniferJ on the cruelty aspect. Over time, one of my cats has blunted his own canines naturally by running into things and the occasional misjudged leap off the mantel. Our friends’ 14 y/o retriever mix has blunted his canines (and pretty much everything else in his mouth) through years of obsessive ball play. I had my own canines ‘blunted’ by my dentist, who found them unsightly and felt they’d be more attractive if they weren’t so, well… sharp and pointy. I wish he’d asked first (I didn’t want the procedure performed!), but I can’t say that I’ve ever experienced any pain resulting from it. I can’t say I see the point, though. As someone who has sustained nasty bites from two elderly animals in poor dental health… one can still do a heck of a lot of damage with nubs if he’s so inclined.
As I see it, the bigger issue is the owners’ failure to address the problem itself. I have to wonder what this dog’s quality of life is, if he is indeed living in a constantly reactive state. It’s one thing if the owners are working with a behaviorist and attempting to rectify the situation, but if they’re content to opt for a “quick-fix” like this and allow the dog to persist in his present state, that is no life for the dog. I question whether or not euthanasia might actually be the kinder option in this case.
Comment by 3FabulousFelines — July 23, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
“We’ve tried everything!”
=
“We’ve dabbled around with a bunch of stuff, flitting from quickie solution to quickie solution, folklore method to folklore method, ‘diagnosis’ to ‘diagnosis,’ shopping for the magic wand that will stop our Perfect Sweet Poopy Doopy Baybee from biting without us having to put in sustained consistent effort of any kind, or unlearn any of our delusions about dogs, or challenge our own self-indulgence and projection.”
Ben dere. Done dat. There are dogs that I wish I had the stones to kidnap from clients who need a team of therapists, not a pet. “Oh look, she’s so good for you.” But it’s much easier to attribute that to some speshul secret trainer password that I cruelly refuse to tell them than it is to actually do the homework and make the changes that I explain are mandatory if they actually want to improve their dog.
God, of all the “training methods” that a client may have tried before coming to me, the one I hate the most is “everything.”
Now of course, “We tried everything” when someone is dropping a dog off at the pound for a “behavior problem” is code for “We have done absolutely nothing with this dog, and have no interest in trying the simplest thing.”
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 24, 2009 @ 12:55 am
I can sympathize with a dog owner who feels “I’m at my wit’s end” - but that’s the owner’s problem, not the dog’s. Failing to recognize that is the first problem. The second one is surgically altering the dog in a misguided attempt to compensate for that.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — July 24, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Ick. Check out this gem from the article:
“The family’s gardener, Guadalupe Davila, obligingly offered his booted foot for Cotton’s delectation. After 30 seconds of ferocious gnawing, Cotton had only succeeded in lightly scoring the thick leather. Whether or not he learns from such experiences has yet to be determined.”
What exactly are they expecting the dog to “learn” from such experiences? “Oh no, my teeth don’t do the damage I want them to anymore- time to stop this silly biting nonsense!”
While neutering is done more for human convenience than reproductive health, at least the procedure aims at the cause of the unsavory behaviors- remove the testicles and you remove the hormonal drive to hump everything in sight. Removing Cotton’s sharp points on his canines has done nothing to address why he feels a need to bite in the first place.
Comment by Megan — July 24, 2009 @ 4:40 am
Why the long debate, even removing the teeth won’t diminish the muscle power of the dog’s jaws. A dull knife is still a weapon.
Comment by Paul — July 24, 2009 @ 5:06 am
“But it’s much easier to attribute that to some speshul secret trainer password that I cruelly refuse to tell them “
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 24, 2009 @ 12:55 am
*cough*Baa-ram-ewe*cough*
I agree though - blunting this dog’s teeth will do nothing to address the behaviour, just as neutering isn’t a substitution for training. It amazes me that people seem to think trained dogs just magically appear - my own family tells me I’m “too strict” with my dog, and then in the next breath, comment on what a good dog he is.
Comment by K. B. — July 24, 2009 @ 6:01 am
Overnight, I was also struck by the uncomfortable thought that Cotton’s owners are little more than high-grade attention-seekers. Seriously, how many people call CM and the Los Angeles Times when dealing with a dog problem?
And yes, I’m also uncomfortable with a veterinarian who does this procedure — for $1600, no less — while appearing to at least tacitly allow that it will fix the problem. Reference is made in the slideshow to clients coming from out of state, with results that were less than satisfactory.
Did the client not ask? Was the client not told?
Much as I do not like or recommend declawing, it does actually end a behavior — the furniture is no longer destroyed. “Disarming”? Can’t see that it would do a thing except help a veterinarian pay his bills and let a clueless owner who “tried everything” salve her conscious.
As I said in the original post, it’s all profoundly disturbing, on a lot of levels.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 24, 2009 @ 6:31 am
I’m astounded that those owners think that this will solve their problem.
I agree with the above comments, removing (or lessening) Cotton’s ability to do damage does NOTHING to relieve the stress and fear that pushes him to bite in the first place. I’m willing to bet that his attacks will become even more furious now. The chomps that used to get people to BACK OFF no longer work, so he’ll move on to bearing down, biting deeper and with more force.
If they aren’t willing to rehome (or if they’ve “tried that”) then poor Cotton should be put down. That’s no kind of life for a dog to lead.
Comment by Smaki — July 24, 2009 @ 6:50 am
Aggression and a proclivity to bite are common reasons why someone will seek euthanasia for a dog. One of the few times I will euthanise a (physically) healthy dog is a bite incident.
I think this is an insane way to ‘address’ the problem and, as has been pointed out many times, does not get at the root cause.
The root cause is that the dog is not acceptable to be part of the dog-human continuum. The dog is a risk to all who come near it, teeth or no (I am sure the little nubbins can still hurt like a Mo-Fo, and I am sure they can still do harm).
Can you imagine the fear this dog would instill in a child - coming at it with teeth bared, snapping. Even if the check couldn’t be cashed in terms of physical damage, the poor kid would probably be emotionally scarred for life.
Dogs are supposed to have bite inhibition; the little voice in their head that says “These people feed and shelter me. Perhaps taking a chuck out of their backside is ill-advised” (actual dog thoughts have been summarized for brevity). Whether it is the dog’s fault or the some owner in the foggy past is immaterial right now - I am with Gina’s bent in the original post: perhaps a peaceful, predictable and humane death would have been preferable to this mess. It doesn’t sound like this dog is having any fun.
Dogs and folks are supposed to get along. We have chosen them to be our companions, and bred qualities into them to select for these traits. This dog, possibly through no fault of his own, is an outlier in that process and not suitable as a companion.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — July 24, 2009 @ 7:11 am
I as appalled the the chorus of “better off dead” as I am by the tooth-sawing.
I see no evidence that Cotton would agree with that assessment.
As for the “fear” that causes him to bite. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he enjoys biting, and has not had it explained to him (except for that one great day when he was perfect) that there are consequences to indulging his hobby. Consequences that make it a less attractive option.
I mean, exhibit Z (cuz it occurs so far down the line of “adverse events”) — owner lets the dog “get free of his leash” and bite the newspaper photographer.
An owner who has “tried everything” with a well-established biter, but can’t/doesn’t keep physical control in a situation that cannot have provided any surprises to anyone.
I think it’s pretty damn clear that this dog has not been given a sincere shot at living a normal life as a non-biting dog. That the alternative to continued neglect is properly death is a revolting position.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 24, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Don’t worry,I’m not stupid. This dog is never with anyone but us unless properly restrained.I realize that at any time someone,especially a child could trigger memories of her abuse.If we have a repairman in she is locked in a bedroom or her crate,same with company. After she calms down she is safely introduced and removed.Its a shame because she is very gentle and loving and would have made a great pet for childrn if she hadn’t been abused.She is terrified of rakes and shovels and has a bad neck and back injury. Vet thinks someone hit her with a garden tool.
Comment by Lesliek — July 24, 2009 @ 8:32 am
The problem is finding some one dedicated enough, with enough common sense, to take on a dog like this.
Admittedly I have been going on the assumption that he bites out of fear, anxiety or tension, but you’re right, he might have gotten satisfaction out of the reaction to his aggression, and he might be quite happy when not on camera.
But with his now very well publicized history, he has become even more of a liability to a prospective new owner than the average dog with a history of human aggression. Not his fault, but certainly a huge, mountainous obstacle to any long term future for him.
I really really hate turning dogs away from our rescue, but it’s a reality of our insurance provider that if we take on a dog with a documented history of a serious, intentional bite, and that dog injures someone and it can be demonstrated we knew about it’s past, we will lose our insurance and possibly our rescue. I have no doubt that some could be rehabilitated, but it’s not the reality of the world we’re operating in.
Cotton might be a good candidate for a sanctuary situation like Best Friends but other than that I think he might be next to impossible to rehome in a conventional sense, not in our litiginous modern world
Comment by JenniferJ — July 24, 2009 @ 8:41 am
If this dog got free from control to bite the photographer, then right there, it’s obvious the owners haven’t ‘tried everything.’ A harness instead of a collar - but wait, it might mess up the dog’s fur, so that’s a likely reason (but not a good one) for not really trying that.
And I completely do not believe these people tried behavior modification through drug treatment. If they say they did, was it just for a week? While I wouldn’t want to live with a dog that was doped to the gills, there are a number of drugs that would change the speed that dog can move at to go after people in the first place. (I’m not talking about tranqing with ace, here, so don’t yell.) I mean the speed at which the dog decides he needs to react at a higher aggression level.
And I don’t know that a more suitable home would solve all his issues, but I don’t think that a real attempt was made to find one.
Saying that “We’ve tried everything” is, as others have pointed out, a ridiculous statement from people who manage to tell their family, friends, and community (and get media coverage that reaches even further, which is also disturbing) “Hey, look what we did!” as if they think they should be praised for all their ‘hard work.’ I call BS on them.
Comment by KateH — July 24, 2009 @ 8:48 am
By the way, folks: This is one of the best headlines I’ve ever written. But I guess only another copy editor will give you a high-five on that sort of thing.
Cotton … blend. Get it? Bwaahahahahahaha.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 24, 2009 @ 8:57 am
It’s possible Millan’s approach was not the correct long-term solution for Cotton. It’s possible that the owners have, in their attempts of various techniques, have not found the correct one. Or it’s possible that they have not correctly and consistently applied any of the approaches they have sampled, and Cotton would be much happier in another home, if only they had not let the situation go so far that he’s probably un-rehomable.
Or his problems might be genetic and not fixable unless he had gotten expert help from very early on.
We really don’t know.
But I doubt that he’s happy living mostly isolated from his family.
Comment by Lis — July 24, 2009 @ 8:58 am
I got it Gina, I will admit that I had such a bad headache yesterday that it took me several tries to process it though.
My brain kept telling me I was missing something, but then refusing to tell me what it was! XD
Comment by JenniferJ — July 24, 2009 @ 9:02 am
I agree that this “fix” fixes nothing at all. Gee - would rounding off the ends of a bull’s horns make them safer? Kind of hard to appreciate the rounded teeth when the dog has you firmly by the leg….
Bottom line is, the dog still has behavior issues. The dog is still not trustworthy around humans. The dog is now going to be more isolated. The biting behavior has been reinforced, intentionally or otherwise, and is firmly established. Best answer here is to recondition the dog - which means fixing the people first and redirecting and reinforcing the behavior, not filing the teeth. If the owners are not up to that responsibility or level of effort-put the poor guy down.
Comment by Jim Crosby — July 24, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Gina-
Cotton … blend. Get it? Bwaahahahahahaha.
Did that bottle yesterday say Nyquil…or something a little more hallucinogenic?
:)
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — July 24, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Ok I have a question that no one’s addressed here - is it possible that the owner’s caused the dog to be this way in the first place?
By playing very rough with Cotton when he was a puppy and allowing him to bite and chew on anything because it was cute when he was small? or letting the children tease him and make him angry or thinking it was cute to see him be protective of his home and territory and growl and attempt to chase strangers away?
I have seen people do this and by the time they realize that what they thought was cute when the dog was a puppy is not cute and can be very dangerous when the dog is grown. Could this be the reason that they can’t retrain the dog because he had positive reinforcement growing up to develop this behavior and now doesn’t understand why it’s wrong.
We adopted a cat from the pound that is a very people oriented kitty but he always wanted to play very rough, including biting and scratching. The people at the pound told us the family that left him and another cat, said that they could no longer take care of them because they was too rough with their children. Through much patience, work and positive reinforcement, we now have a very loving kitty who does not bite and scratch when he plays with us (and he still has all his claws). He even sleeps with us and the other three in the bed at night.
Comment by Deb — July 24, 2009 @ 11:36 am
Sharing one’s life with a fear aggressive dog can be heartbreaking. One of our Scotties is a lovely wheaton boy whom we rescued when he was 10 months old. We knew then that he had grooming “issues,” but we did not know that he was a fear biter. Since he has been with us, Nick has never bitten anyone other than me or my husband, but after five years of trying “everything,” we realized his problems were more than trust issues and also more than we could address unaided. After consulting with a veterinary behaviorist at Red Bank Veterinary Hospital, we put Nick on 200 mg of fluoxetine BID. When this dosage proved too soporific, we cut it in half, and when Nick experienced a seizure on even the lower dose, he was switched to valerian root. Miraculous! I still have to groom Nick in a muzzle (a neat trick, grooming a Scottie head thus), but most of his anxiety has dissipated—and along with it, all biting. I don’t know whether I would eventually have tried valerian on my own, but in five years’ time I had not. Guidance from a veterinary specialist was worth every penny it cost. I used to weep over the state of this wonderful boy; now he shares our bed.
Comment by Lisa — July 24, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Is it possible that the owner’s caused the dog to be this way in the first place?
Comment by Deb — July 24, 2009 @ 11:36 am
This is why veterinary behaviorists take detailed, probing notes on intake. They’re skilled at not only noting what’s said, but also what’s NOT said and what’s said but not likely true.
With this dog and family, we’re nothing but guessing.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 24, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Oh, and Dr. Tony .. better living through chemistry, I say.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 24, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
I’ve dealt with this sort of owner before. They “try everything” for a day at most. And then throw up their hands and claim that training didn’t work.
Too bad they couldn’t just be consistent and train the dog.
Comment by Beth G. — July 25, 2009 @ 6:33 am
OK, here’s the owners story from today
None of this is making me feel better at all about the situation. The woman does not seem to see that her inability to prevent this dog from getting out and going after handymen etc is just NOT OK.
Note the over use and misunderstanding of “submissive”
And the story about how the vet involved “discovered” the benefits of this when his own whippet tried to shred someones face is, well, I know what I want to say but will refrain.
Read it and cringe
http://www.latimes.com/feature.....7125.story
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Wow, is that a mighty big load of self-delusion.
I still don’t see a mention of a veterinary behaviorist. Guess they didn’t “try everything” after all, even with a Petsmart trainer, CM and the St. John’s Worting aggression specialist left behind as roadkill as they sped forward with what seems to be more concern for this dangerous dog than for anyone he might nail. The only real concern seems to be with a lawsuit, not with someone being maimed!
That veterinarian has sure found himself a nice little niche, hasn’t he? Surgical “miracles” for those who’ve tried “everything”:
“For all the technology, Dr. Nielsen says the most profound effect of canine disarming is psychological. “You can see it in their eyes almost the moment they wake up from the anesthesia,” he says. “It’s like they’re wondering, ‘who took away my knives?’ “
Oh. My. Gawd. He may well be an excellent veterinary dentist, but it would have been really spectacular if he consulted a colleague boarded in behavior before making statements like that. You know, someone who with some actual academic and practical knowledge of how the canine mind works?
I can’t believe Cotton menaced a deliveryman, bit a police officer, a L.A. Times photographer and heaven knows how many others and has been allowed by the authorities to stay alive.
What do you think the chances of that would be if they weren’t rich and if the dog were a pit bull instead of a cute white ball of fur?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 10:39 am
here’s the thing, these folks probably have have homeowners insurance.
And sweet, even tempered well managed dogs lose their homes and sometimes their lives daily because based on appearance, their families can’t get insured. I’m sorry but how f*&!*d up is that?
The vets own dog was a menace according to this, cornering some one and biting them in the face. Of course this individual would see nothing wrong with the procedure, and he gets 1600.00 a pop and has done hundreds. Cha ching!
Oy.
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 10:53 am
This whole situation is truly FUBAR. And it’s the kind of thing, sadly, that makes people believe that everyone in California is a kook.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 10:56 am
More from the owner:
“The Bumble from “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer” comes to mind. Remember how sweet the ferocious yeti becomes after Hermey, the misfit elf-turned-dentist, does his handiwork?”
She’s making, defending and explaining decisions based on a make-believe story????
HEAD ::: DESK :::: HEAD ::: DESK
Thank you, Cotton’s nutburger mom. You have just made doing the laundry so much more appealing than spending any more time thinking about this.
I’m outta here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 11:00 am
This might get me pounced on, but I personally am tired to the death of every biting dog’s bad behaviour being explained away with “But he was ABUSED!”. Nine times out of ten, there’s no proof of this supposed ‘abuse’, other than the bad behaviour being excused.
I’ve owned and fostered my fair share of rescued dogs, including some who came out of some royally screwed up situations, and I’ve not found that dogs with the saddest back stories are also the dogs with the most aggressive natures - much the opposite, in fact. I’ve seen dogs who’ve been through hell and back that are still sweet natured, and dogs who’ve known nothing but love that are still utter biting shitheads who will make you look back fondly on the days of ‘Koehler Method’ dog training.
Saying “Oh, it’s not his fault if he bites - he was ABUSED!”, instead of working hard to teach the dog that biting has consequences is a disservice to the dog, and to the dog’s potential to learn.
In a few cases - and I speculate that this story might be one of them - the owners almost seem PROUD of their dog’s bad behaviours. I don’t understand the psychology behind this, but I’ve seen it often enough to know it exists.
Comment by FrogDogz — July 25, 2009 @ 11:28 am
I can think of a couple explanations for the “pride”.
One is the “I SAVED him from a horrid past”. That’s the same kind of pride people use to excuse buying dogs from pet shops.
And the second is the “pride of the unique”. If their dog’s behavior is SO bad that even someone as fabled as Cesar Millan couldn’t help, well - then that is a very “special” dog indeed - as in “one of a kind”. It’s a twisted sort of celebrity I suppose.
Neither of these forms of pride are to be defended. But I can see where they come from.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Read the article, then read it again. Then read it again, slowly.
I’m with Heather H. Train the dog. TRAIN it to lie down, to sit, to come when it’s called, to stay and to heel. Clear, straightforward, non-negotiable, fair and HONEST training. Train the dog.
Train the dog. Train it, and the dog can keep its teeth and its life.
Train the dog.
Comment by Jill M. — July 25, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Why does all of this sort of remind me of “Marley and Me”?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Read the article, then read it again. Then read it again, slowly.
Comment by Jill M. — July 25, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Don’t be patronizing. We’ll all capable of reading here, at any speed.
I have zero tolerance for dogs like these. Zero. This dog’s life is not worth some child’s face.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
In a “culture” that lionizes the Osbornes, et. al., is it any shock that a dog owner uses her animal as a proxy in the LOOK AT ME! I AM SO SCREWED UP! PAY ATTENTION TO MY FAILURE! contests?
The “I am an unfit dog owner and look at my animal suffer because of it tale” is a well-established sub-genre. John Grogan and (spits on the ground) Jon Katz have each made a mint on it, and revel in the ways they’ve failed their dogs.
Can’t wait for the run of confessional parenting stories that include the “amusing” or “inspiring” accounts of babies left in cars while Daddy parties, toddlers sitting up at night watching Adult Swim in shitty diapers while Mommy and her new boyfriend go out, and the inevitable trip to juvenile hall, drug addiction, pole-dancing career — all as a well-written narrative by the amusing and blameless parent.
Bah humbug.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 25, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
“Saving Cotton: A Mother’s Tail of a Dog No One Else Would Take a Chance On.”
A book … a movie of the week. I see … Paris Hilton in the starring role … no … Brittany!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
And starring Fizzgig as Cotton!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XArr.....izzgig.jpg
Comment by JenniferJ — July 25, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
I’m getting started on the “treatment” — as soon as I get up from my nap. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Read the article, then read it again. Then read it again, slowly
Comment by Jill M. — July 25, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Don’t be patronizing. We’ll all capable of reading here, at any speed.
I might be wrong, but I think you’re misreading Jill here. I think that’s a description of what she did (past tense), not a instruction for what we’re to do (imperative present tense).
I have zero tolerance for dogs like these. Zero. This dog’s life is not worth some child’s face
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
While I agree with the general sentiment (if the dog can’t be made safe for human interaction, it’s better to euthanize it), I’ll never again be able to read that particular phrase, within envisioning the smug, self-satisfied, selfish Jon Katz, who couldn’t be bothered to spend the money for an MRI on Orson when there was a real possibility of a painful injury being the cause of Orson’s behavior, after all the money Orson and his other dogs have made for him.
The “I am an unfit dog owner and look at my animal suffer because of it tale” is a well-established sub-genre. John Grogan and (spits on the ground) Jon Katz have each made a mint on it, and revel in the ways they’ve failed their dogs.
Agreed. Although I think Grogan had better intentions than Katz, and a lot of what he did and didn’t do was cluelessness, not exploitation of the dog and indifference once he became a liability and inconvenience.
Comment by Lis — July 25, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Um… am I mistaken, or did I just read the words “invisible fence”??? WTF?
As for this procedure, didn’t you catch the best part? He gets an extra special just-for-him fluoride treatment… and it’s FOAMY! Oh, the perks!
Grrrrrrrr….
Comment by Kim — July 25, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
I might be wrong, but I think you’re misreading Jill here. I think that’s a description of what she did (past tense), not a instruction for what we’re to do (imperative present tense).
Comment by Lis — July 25, 2009
Oh, I think you’re right! D’oh!
Read (like “red”), not read (like “reed”).
English … what a funny language. :)
Sorry, Jill.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
“Living on an acre in rustic Rolling Hills Estates, fronted by a country road without sidewalks, with Cotton hemmed in by an invisible fence and crated in the garage whenever company is expected, we should have been able to keep trouble at bay. But trouble kept showing up unexpectedly.”
Wow, they trusted an invisible fence to keep unexpected people showing up at their home safe from this dog? That just sounds crazy. There are a few folks in our neighborhood who have those, and the dogs DO cross over on occasion. I’ve gotten chased when riding by one particular home on my bike from a dog contained by an invisible fence. Never comes out when we walk by with our dogs, but the bike was too much.
Comment by Sara Jo — July 26, 2009 @ 7:02 am
Wow, I’m just floored about the invisible fence thing. What about people, children especially, who cross over the fence not knowing there is a fence even there? Seems like a real fence IN THE BACK, not in the front where people approach, would be something I’d try before grinding down the canine teeth.
Comment by Sara Jo — July 26, 2009 @ 7:06 am
Ok, I have a mature intact male and he neither humps everything in sight nor marks. Neutering isn’t some sort of magic fix to a male’s behavior. If your dog marked before you got him neutered, he’ll still mark after he’s been neutered. Having taken puppy through advanced classes at Petsmart, it worked well for our dogs. But, then again, we work at least 15 minutes a day with them. You could tell the people who didn’t work with their dogs at home.
Oh, and by we, I mean I. My mom is my untrainer of the house. And she gets pissy with me when I correct her. And yet she wonders why the dogs don’t behave for her and they behave for me. My brother who comes over wonders why my male practically jumps in his arms. Couldn’t be because he pets Loki when he jumps on him and gives him lots of attention, of course not.
Here’s a common misconception I’ve noticed around average dog owners. They think they can send the dog away to get trained, and then they’ll be set for life. Well, too bad for them that training is like a muscle. If you don’t exercise it regularly it will weaken and possibly atrophy. I’ve had people get angry with me for simply stating that every puppy should go to obedience class, should have socialization, and should have training continue on throughout its life. Then they’ve said “well, not every dog needs training.” Every dog needs training because they aren’t born with the innate sense of how to behave in the human world. If you aren’t willing to train and socialize a dog over the course of its life, then you shouldn’t own a dog. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
Comment by Alex V. — July 26, 2009 @ 8:54 am
There’s a great point in this article: “How happy can the dog really be if he is biting everything?” Clearly he is terrified, upset, angry, or something. I had never even heard of this procedure before today, but you’re right on all accounts. The idea that they were going to file his teeth down made me cringe - that’s what puppy mills do!
Comment by Kyla Duffy — July 26, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Here’s another one - the councilman in Sioux City whose Labrador ran out of his yard and bit a passing neighbor in spite of the presence of the invisible fence. Oh - and now the guy wants to amend the local vicious dog ordinance because he says his dog was not vicious but was “protecting” his daughter and he feels such cases should be exempt from the ordinance:
http://www.siouxcityjournal.co.....819876.txt
It ain’t just a river in Egypt, folks . . . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 27, 2009 @ 6:19 am
Okay I know there are people out there that are in the same situation with whatever pet they have that an animal can go rogue for many many reasons mainly from a bad happening in their life just as people do. Most people own dogs and love them dearly. The Krieders did not have this article written to say that they still didn’t have issues with behavior but that they love Cotton enough to go the extra mile to help him and them before the ultimate. I have a dog that went after another dog she had issues with this Spring and the other owner got in the way and was seriously hurt. We knew we were at a crossroad as this dog would never have hurt her the dog was after the other dog it was a horrible accident. If it weren’t for our vet finding out about this disarmament option we would have put her down. I am looking at Krissy now as she is eating and after that will lay down with the person injured. Now that she is disarmed my son and daughter are starting to work with her and the dog she went after this Spring. Yes, safety is always a concern but this took the wind out of Krissy’s sails and physically made a deadly bite a bad pinch and maybe small tear. Cotton can come around as well. And it sounds to me like the Krieders are committed to finding the way. Be careful what you condemn right out of the gate. Lynn Morrison and Krissy Lynn alive and safe.
Comment by Lynn Morrison — July 28, 2009 @ 10:53 am
I have a dog that went after another dog she had issues with this Spring and the other owner got in the way and was seriously hurt. We knew we were at a crossroad as this dog would never have hurt her the dog was after the other dog it was a horrible accident.
“got in the way”
By “got in the way” you mean, the other owner was so stupid she actually tried to protect her dog, and didn’t just stand aside and let your dog maul it. Or risk her dog successfully defending itself at the risk of serious injury to your dog and then you trying to shift the blame for the attack.
I got a year-old dog who arrived with a serious fear-aggression problem toward other dogs. I worked with her from the day I got her, and never allowed her the opportunity to actually attack another dog. We’ve made enormous progress, and now, well, now I’m sending videos to all my friends and the people who’ve worked on her problems with me, of my scary little dog interacting properly with other dogs.
Her issues were fear and inexperience. We don’t know that she got beat up by a bigger dog, though we suspect it. We do know that she had little or no appropriate dog socialization from age three months to one year. We worked on her issues, and she has gotten better and better and can now make therapy pet visits with a group of other dogs, and be friendly and appropriate with all of them.
What are your dog’s issues? What are Cotton’s issues? And is anyone working on the issues and not just “correcting” the unwanted behavior and “disarming” these dogs?
With Cotton’s story, we’re reacting to the apparent lack of consistency, and the giddy embrace of a technique that will do nothing directly to address either his behavior or the reasons for it. And also the manifest carelessness of the family in doing things that lack any logic or common sense—trusting an invisible fence to separate Cotton and unexpected arrivals who don’t know the fence is there and don’t know that the fluffy white dog is not to be trusted. And letting him chew on the gardener’s boot to “prove” that he’s now harmless!
Taking their own account at face value tells us they’ve made a lot of decisions that are simply not responsible. They’re relying on “disarming” like a gimmick, like they relied on Cesar Millan as a gimmick, like they relied on the trainer with positive reinforcement and supplements as a gimmick—not as ways to learn techniques that would allow them to work with Cotton, do the hard, consistent work that a dog with problems needs.
Comment by Lis — July 28, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
People like Lynn Morrison and the Kreigers don’t want to hear that it takes work and commitment on their part to maintain a well behaved dog, or to try to resurrect one out of the dust and ashes of a puppy mill background, for instance. It’s always the victim’s fault, not theirs and they want an instant fix. “Oh sorry, my dog didn’t mean to go for your face, she was trying to kill your leashed dog, and you got in her way.” Goes along with the wail of pathos that cries “We’ve tried Everything” but stuck with nothing.
Comment by Anne T — July 28, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
I would doubt this would change a dog’s behavior,except for one thing. I raise Russian tortoises. Tortoise “beaks” grow, and I had a male in my group with an overgrown beak who used it as a weapon, biting the other tortoises. When I filed the beak back into the normal rnge he bacame just like the other tortoises in temperament. How much more aware must a dog be than a tortoise? I have a hyper aggressive dachshund. I will consider this, he has bitten several people.
Comment by Billjo — July 31, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Billjo, what other training/behavioral approaches have you tried - really committed to - to try to find out why your dog feels compelled to bite and find (and implement) a solution?
And I really don’t buy equating dogs to tortoises. As you said, how much more aware must a dog be? Therefore, how much more amenable to approaches that really seek to diagnose and solve the problem rather than just slapping the quickest, easiest fix possible on it?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 31, 2009 @ 11:24 am
This was a rescue dog. I don’t know his past. He is good with the immediate family- me, my wife and kids. He has bitten my vet, he has bitten his kennel help, he has bitten my grown sister deeply on the hand, and in the face. He is impossible to muzzle. I got one on him just once by putting food in it, he screamed nonstop and would not even stand, basically went berserk on his side and and clawed at it until he got it off in the car on our way to the vet. He is a hazard to walk, as he tries to break free at everything including blowing leaves, but I do it anyway, he is on a harness, which he ets me pout on him. I have never seen a dog like this, with such a dual personality. My entire job field has been outsourced, I CANNOT afford much of anything now, let alone ongoing training, but the vet suggested I bring him in just to desensitize him in the lobby. After several times he was unchanged, and such noise and a hazard to everyone that I could not continue. I have had to beg my vet to continue seeing him. He is just a 15 pound dachshund. He is 9, on heartworm preventative, but the only vacc the vet will do now is rabies, and he has to be orally sedated first, wrapped up in a blanket and held down for that. And, this is an excellent vet who has won the top award in the state, AND does wildlife rehab, so deals with biting animals all the time. Most people think this dog should be put down. I feel an obligation to this dog and do not want to do that, but I am seriously concerned about getting sued. So, in short, I have done all that I am in any position to do, in my opinion. I think the one time expense of tooth filing would be worth it, and is reasonable to consider, my vet would probably give me a discount, as he usually does. Perhaps some people would do more, most certainly could afford more, but frankly I have a very clear conscience that I have done alot here. I am sure many would disagree with me.
Comment by Billjo — August 7, 2009 @ 7:20 am
PS- I forgot to mention, he has bitten at least one of my son’s friends, and I am sure I have forgotten to mention someone he has bitten- any one of them could have sued us. He was of course neutered years ago, before we ever got him. Once he got past me at the front door and I physically shoved the UPS man off of the front porch just to “save” him, I even could have been sued for that. I have had this dog for years and there is very little I have not considered or tried. If you really think euthenizing is better than tooth filing, then we just disagree. I know he would still be able to “hurt” with a bite after this, but would not be able to wound nearly as badly. This is a happy, decently behaved dog when at home with the immediate family.
Comment by Billjo — August 7, 2009 @ 7:39 am
A veterinary dentist responds to the story:
“There are no scientific reports documenting the efficacy of disarming. Unlike a true “surgical” disease — for example, a torn cruciate ligament of the knee — where there are established surgical techniques for repair, the technique of canine disarming differs in its definition from veterinarian to veterinarian, even among veterinary dentists. Disarming can mean anything from removal of teeth, to reduction of the height of teeth, to even application of a bite guard.
All disarming techniques also risk procedural failure, including infection, even jaw fracture — sources of pain that in themselves may be expressed in an animal as aggression.
My goal in this brief communication is to emphasize the paucity of scientific information regarding disarming, bring to light the false sense of security associated with it, and hopefully discourage the practice of this disfiguring procedure by suggesting a reasonable alternative in the form of veterinary behavioral modification.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 11, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Disfiguring procedure? Do you ever crop ears or dock tails? How about removing dewclaws? You could not pay ME to have these procedures done to a dog, which to me are usually just a cosmetic mutilation, with usually no practical value. And there is sometimes alot of trouble cause by ear dropping. My point is, you have other valid opinions about the dental work, but unless you have sworn off performing these other procedures, it is really not fair to mention “disfigurement” as an argument against the dental work.
We can also all have opinions about what the dental work might or might not do to a dog’s behavior, but unless any of us has significant experience actually observing it, we are all really just guessing. Thinking that it seems likely, or, unlikely - just not scientific.
My dog is essentially perfect with my immediate family, But he is a real menace to EVERYBODY else, and even if he does NOT improve in behavior, he would certainly be safer with altered teeth.
Comment by Billjo — August 11, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
Billjo, leaving aside the fact that you’ve plucked out one word which is irrelevant to the writer’s primary arguments against “disarming,” the comments you’re responding to come from a board-certified veterinary dentist. This means two things:
A) It’s unlikely this dentist is doing crops and docks, or would be asked to do so, or would agree to do so regardless of his opinions on those procedures.
B) This person really is better qualified than most of us to discuss the complications of the procedure.
In addition to that, by failing to click the link and read the whole letter, you missed this:
Although there certainly are no guarantees with any treatment, I can never again in good conscious send home a patient that has had a disarming if, even for a split second, it creates an atmosphere of complacency, an assumption that a bite from a disarmed animal is any less damaging than a normal bite. Anecdotal reports do exist that describe disarmed dogs as compensating for the absence of these strategic teeth by biting with even greater force, once they realize they no longer have the normal use of these teeth.
In other words, no, your dog would not “certainly be safer with altered teeth.”
Take the veterinary dentist’s advice, and go see a veterinary behaviorist for your dog’s behavior problems.
Comment by Lis — August 12, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Billjo,
You really are living in a dangerous fantasy land. You write that your dog is “essentially” perfect with family, which means you know you’re on thin ice even there. And then you admit you know he’s a “real menace” to everyone else.
And now you know he would NOT be safer with altered teeth.
Do the responsible thing. It could be your own child whose face and life is destroyed by this “essentially perfect” menace.
Yes, it’s hard, and I’m sorry. But if you know your dog is an accident waiting to happen, you have a responsibility to see that tragedy avoided. If you cannot or will not have him evaluated and then work with a qualified veterinary behaviorist on possible rehabilitation, you need to have your dog put down.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 12, 2009 @ 5:39 am
Comment by Lis — August 12, 2009 @ 3:32 am
Take the veterinary dentist’s advice, and go see a veterinary behaviorist for your dog’s behavior problems.
Emphasis on the “behaviorist”! From one of Billjo’s posts:
“the vet suggested I bring him in just to desensitize him in the lobby. After several times he was unchanged, and such noise and a hazard to everyone that I could not continue.”
Okay - chances are your vet is not a behaviorist, and I can DEFINITELY tell you that taking a reactive dog and forcing him to sit in a busy public lobby is NOT “desensitization”. Desensitization is a gradual, stepwise, CAREFUL procedure which - when followed - ensures that a dog is never exposed to stresses beyond a level at which he can function acceptably. What your vet suggested you do could be characterized more as “sink or swim”. And unfortunately your dog “sunk”.
You say you can’t afford training. But I also doubt you can afford to be sued. And if you approached a trainer/behaviorist (one who has a successful track record of working with aggressive behaviors in dogs) and explained your plight, I bet you could find one who would try to work with you within your financial means. But it WOULD take commitment on your part - probably even MORE commitment, because chances are the behaviorist would be “checking in” with you less frequently (in order to save you money) and be relying on you more to *faithfully* follow the training plan that gets laid out.
In any event, I would hope you would at least compare the actual cost of trying it this way with whatever amount you’ve been quoted to “disarm” your dog, because THAT is not going to be free, either. And - as noted by the veterinary dentist quoted above - may leave your dog even MORE stressed out, frightened and upset as he uses other ever more frantic compensating behaviors to make up for the loss of the “defense” provided by his teeth.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 12, 2009 @ 5:50 am
OK- you are right, I did miss that the vet is a dentist, and no I did not realize there was more to the post.
But- I do not believe it is possible for this dog to exert more force, or be more dedicated to a bite then he is already, and whatever other aftereffects [good or bad] that might come from this procedure, I absolutely believe he would be safer to others; it is simply logical that he could not make the same deep puncture.
No matter what training might appear to accomplish, I would never, ever trust this dog with a stranger, so I would still be doing what I do now- keep him away from other people. I am simply wantng to prevent problems if he were to get away from us, break a leash [which he did once] etc. We can all say these things should never happen, but that is not realistic; accidents do happen in life. I spend considerable time returning people’s lost dogs to them, dogs they never intended to get loose. Mine have never escaped, I padlock the gates, but it is of course within the realm of possibility.
I used the word “essentially” because no dog [or person] is perfect, but ok, he is perfect at home, when there is no company. He has never so much as growled at our kids, who really love him, and he has no problem ever with our other dach, who we raised from a puppy and who is very gentle with all. They both sit on the couch with us when we watch tv, and both sleep in our bed [not our 1st choice, but hard to avoid with dachs]. I will absolutely not consider putting this dog down.
Comment by Billjo — August 12, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Your dog is “perfect at home.”
But you “can’t” muzzle him. He decides that he won’t be muzzled, and you obey.
“Can’t” control him at the door.
Walk him on a harness, which he “lets” you put on him — so that his toothy end is unrestrained, and he’s free to lunge into the harness (which, also, short-legged dogs are very good at slipping out of) and nail anyone who comes into range.
Allow him full run of the furniture and your bed, which is not your choice, but his because — why? Because you cannot say no to the dog who is “essentially” perfect at home?
And “can’t” afford training.
But you can afford a several thousand-dollar surgical intervention that you believe will make it harder for the dog to seriously damage the people you enable him to bite.
Wow.
What you are telling us all is that you are unable or unwilling to manage your dangerous dog — this is clear by the litany of bites you recite, along with the admission that there have been so many that you are pretty sure you’ve forgotten some — and unwilling to even consider the hard work and commitment of training.
That said, I will say that you might have an unusually hard time finding an effective trainer who is willing to work with you. Those of us who have been in the biz for long enough have figured out how to spot the excuse-making noncompliant client a mile away. No amount of money is worth the frustration of having the dog’s owner passive-aggressively sabotage the training at every turn, then parade around town bragging about how the “trainer failed.”
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 12, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
The dental teatment is a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion. There are many things our family needs before we could do it, and that would be far down down the list. BUT, I do still consider it a reasonable thing to consider and discuss. I can only say I am doing the best that I figure out, if not the best that can be done. I do respect my vet as an expert, and he believes we have all done [he AND us] all that is REASONABLE to try for 5 years with this 9 yr old adopted dog [although we have not yet discussed the dental], and that the dog should be worked around and managed, as we are doing. Idealism is a great thing, but you have to be able to afford it. [Sorry, I don’t like using the caps, but there are no italics here.]
Comment by Billjo — August 12, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Comment by Billjo — August 7, 2009 @ 7:20 am
“I have had to beg my vet to continue seeing him.”
This is the same vet whose wise counsel you’re so closely following? (“I do respect my vet as an expert, and he believes we have all done [he AND us] all that is REASONABLE to try for 5 years with this 9 yr old adopted dog”)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 12, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Billjo, if your vet is not a veterinary behaviorist—and from the advice he gave you to bring your stressed, aggressive dog to spend time sitting in a busy lobby to “desensitize” him, it’s pretty clear he’s not—he is not an expert in the problems you are having with your dog, and is not qualified to say that you have done “all that is REASONABLE” to do for any dog with serious behavior problems. This is not his area of expertise—and there is no such thing as an all-purpose “expert.”
You need a veterinary behaviorist. You need one now. You need to do a lot of work with this dog if you don’t want to find yourself, someday in the maybe not too distant future, forced to put him down. And quite possibly paying out huge damages that your insurance might or might not cover, based on the evidence that you knew you had a dangerous dog, and didn’t take reasonable steps to make him not dangerous, or even less dangerous.
As Heather said, he is “perfect” in your home with your family—except that you can’t put a muzzle on him because he won’t allow it, you can’t control him at the door, you can’t keep him off the couch or out of your bed even though you’d prefer to, you walk him on a harness because he “allows” you to put it on him, even though it’s a lousy choice to control a dog with such a long history of serious bites.
This is not a dog who is safe with your family. This is a dog whom you have mostly learned how not to be bitten by, by obeying his wishes.
Someday you’re going to miscalculate, or have a situation develop where you feel you can’t back down. What will you do then, when he bites you or one of your kids?
Comment by Lis — August 12, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Yes, I respect this vet. There are not always good solutions to problems. If this were not a small dog, it would not be possible to work around him, but we are all willing to do it.
OK, I quit, there is no end to this discussion. I hope someone else will write about their own situation for awhile.
Comment by Billjo — August 12, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
And I hope no one you know ends up seriously hurt (including your poor dog).
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 12, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Or how about, “I wish you well, we just disagree”.
Comment by Billjo — August 12, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
And how about understanding the potential that it is your dog’s life that is at stake here?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 12, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Biljo,
You’ve gotten some really good advice from expert trainers here. Commenters have also pointed out that while your veterinarian may be excellent at caring for your dog’s health, he/she is clearly lacking in any behavior knowledge, based on the advice you’ve been given. (Or, to be fair to the veterinarian, the advice you SAY you’ve been given. Some people do have a way of hearing what they WANT to hear, and you show every sign of being one of these people.)
You continue to want us to sign off on your tragedy in the making, because you “love” your dog. The probable and most likely outcome is that your dog will peel the face off some innocent person and you will be forced to put the animal down anyway.
Right now, you have a choice:
Get the help of a veterinary behaviorist or trainer with experience in aggression. Do what that person recommends, instead of continuing to enable and empower your dog and shrug it off as OK because the dog is small and you “love” him.
If you are unwilling to get help and comply with the advice given by that expert, you need to put down your dog.
Those are the only responsible choices you have. We’re not going to “agree to disagree” so you can feel better.
You’re harboring a menace. And you’re setting the stage for a preventable tragedy. Even worse, you’re defending your own irresponsible behavior.
I hope you get through the rest of this dog’s life without incident, I truly do. But if you do, it’s because of pure dumb luck and nothing else.
And if you aren’t so lucky the tragedy you reap will be the ignorance you’ve sown.
As I’ve written before, I grew up with a girl whose life was ruined by her family’s dog. No one should have to go through that. Accidents can and do happen, but what you’re setting up isn’t an accident: It is as predictable as the morning sunrise. No child’s face is worth the life of a known biter.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 12, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Billjo, one further point: Because your dog is small, the risk is dramatically higher that any serious injury he inflicts will be on a child, not an adult. And that will have a far bigger emotional impact on the victim, the family, the police, Animal Control, lawyers, and the courts. Given your dog’s history, you’ll have zero chance of making the child the villian, and you’ll pay a far higher price than if the victim were an adult.
Comment by Lis — August 12, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Can you imagine living in a place where compulsory “disarming” is law?
Well, there is a place.
It’s Greenland. The law focuses on the native sled dog, which had been involved in some fatal attacks on humans. The Inuit tradition held that sled dogs were released in the spring, where they formed packs. The dogs were not regularly fed and became dangerous to people. So Greenland passed laws requiring that the dogs be chained from the age of six months when not working as sled dogs. The dogs also had to be “disarmed.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1413223
I don’t know whether these laws are still in effect, but they were in existence the last time I looked.
Comment by retrieverman — August 12, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
I’ve heard enough from Billjo that I would be very comfortable testifying for the plaintiff in the inevitable lawsuit.
Which is very likely the reason why Billjo does not post under a real name.
Which is about what I’d expect from someone who, as Lis correctly notes, has spent years learning how to avoid being punished by his own little dog while rationalizing this submission to the dog’s demands.
I will not “agree to disagree” when a child’s face is at stake.
Not because of the dog’s predilections, but because of the owner’s insistence on enabling. This alone strongly suggests to me that the dog’s “problem” is a rather simple one, not a deep-seated psychological anything. A veterinary behaviorist might try to put a shine on it with lots of ten-dollar words; the best trainers I know would just call a spade a spade and tell the owner to cut out the bullshit.
“All that is reasonable” to do — except, you know, TRAIN THE DOG. The one thing that might have had an effect.
And don’t whine to me about how expensive it is. You can read about NILIF on the web, anywhere, and ironically, FOR FREE. There are excellent dog training books in the public library. A leash and COLLAR for a small dog can be had for a few dollars. You apparently already own a like-new muzzle. A small crate is ten bux on Craig’s list.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 12, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Dr. Spadafori:
I will call my vet in the morning and ask for his assistance in locating a proper trainer. Thank you for your advice.
Comment by Billjo — August 12, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Here are a couple of links to help you in your search:
http://www.avsabonline.org/avs.....038;qid=10
http://dacvb.org/about-us/diplomates/
Oh - and Gina Spadafori isn’t a vet - she was quoting a vet. I think you may have been confused.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 12, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
http://www.nadoi.org
http://www.dogpro.org
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 13, 2009 @ 6:41 am
And:
http://ccpdt.org/rstr/index.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 13, 2009 @ 10:17 am
Why is every biting dog assumed to be “abused”?Is every predatory human doing it due to some sad story of early abuse or is it a genetic issue?perhaps a more primitive wild animal response not blunted by domestication??
That sociopaths are rehabbed by doing time or finding god (like Michael Vick) or human aggressive dogs can change with behaviorist intervention may be folly
Comment by sue — August 23, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
May be folly, or maybe not. But unlike Michael Vick, the biting dog has no way to express him/herself EXCEPT via behavior. It is a disservice to that dog not to help him/her try to learn that some behaviors are unacceptable and must change in order to be able to successfully co-exist in this human society.
Sure - there will be some percentage of dogs that turn out to be truly incorrigible and for whom a behavioral intervention will not succeed. But is that any reason not to even try?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 24, 2009 @ 5:07 am
I watched the Dog Whisperer episode with Cotton and was left with two impressions. One, there is nothing wrong with the dog that simple training wouldn’t fix, as was impressively demonstrated by the visit from Cesar Millan. Two, these people are Remarkably dense, choosing to not listen to what Cesar showed them, choosing to not learn the lessons he has shown a hundred families over the years on his TV show, instead choosing to continue the psychological abuse that has taught this little fluffball the exact wrong behavior. The husband even has a degree from Harvard, which as Cesar pointed out prophetically in the show, does not mean that he has any idea how to control a dog. Harvard should be hugely embarrassed at this guy and his learning-disabled wife, and the dentist should get over his twisted desire to perform unnecessary procedures simply because the proud-to-be-stupid people are willing to pay him and he finds it technically interesting.
It would be a great ending to this twisted tale if Cesar would return to ‘rescue’ this dog from its miserable life with these close-minded people and then demonstrate for all the world to see that in their absence the cute little doggy’s behavior was quickly, easily and permanently rehabilitated.
Comment by calmassertiv — August 26, 2009 @ 8:22 pm