On That Note: Dominate This

I have thought about writing this post for about a bajillion years, but every time I go to write it, I think to myself, "Well, themacinator, doesn't EVERYONE know this by now? I mean, really?" And then I feel stupid. Even more stupid because who else calls themselves by their blog name? Yeah.

So, dominance theory is like so 50 years ago. Until Mr I-Can't-Say-His-Name-Makes-A-Billion-Dollars-A-Year-So-He-Can't-Really-Be-A-Dog-Trainer came around and popularized it again.

I'll start with the science. In May, Science Daily put up this short review of an article published by the University of Bristol’s Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences in the Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. I mean, could it get better than that (it did- they also mentioned the TV-Trainer-Whose-Name-Shall-Not-Be-Mentioned without mentioning his name!)? Short version: NLIF doesn't do much, and trying to pin everything on dominance and answer aggression with aggression is dangerous. This is why I haven't posted this before: it seems so obvious to me, but I guess it's not. (Another summary of the same article.) There's another short article by Patricia McConnell that talks about science.

Here's another explanation, a little less scientific (and a little less pleasing- the Trainer-I-Won't-Mention's name is mentioned a little more explicitly): dominance is related to pack theory, and pack theory is old fashioned. I love the part about submission vs. dominance: If you've actually seen dogs interact- just stood back and watched- you'll see how little dominating actually takes place. There's a some posturing, a lot of flirting, and even more grovelling. I'll find a video if I can some other time, but look for lip licking, play bowing, flinging onto backs, etc. I dare you to really see one dog "roll" another. Good luck! I'll buy you a beer. There are some other awesome links on that page- highly recommended by this blogger.

This position paper on the usage of dominance theory in behavior mod from the American Veterinarian Society of Animal Behavior is pretty clear cut:

"Overall, the use of dominance theory to understand human-animal interactions leads to an antagonist relationship between owners and their pets. The AVSAB emphasizes that the standard of care for veterinarians specializing in behavior is that dominance theory should not be used as a general guide for behavior modification. Instead, the AVSAB emphasizes that behavior modification and training should focus on reinforcing desirable behaviors, avoiding the reinforcement of undesirable behaviors, and striving to address the underlying emotional state and motivations, including medical and genetic factors, that are driving the undesirable behavior."

Please note the awesome myths section, and the way this brief article spells out the problems with the dominance theory and gives much better alternatives. (Please also note the lack of references to My-Least-Favorite-"Trainer".)

I can find many, many more articles about this. Every day I hear people who should be in the know describe dogs as "dominant." Sometimes this is used as a reason to sign off a dog. The dog may not be adoptable, but I really really hate putting a dog to sleep because it's dominant. Staring at a person does not make a dog dominant. Jumping on him does not make him dominant. Rudeness is not dominance. Even behavior with other dogs that includes "dominance" does not make the dog "dominant." I prefer words like "undersocialized,""low tolerance levels" "high arousal levels," etc. Most of us in the field have seen true dominance aggression once or twice. I am wracking my brain right now to remember the dog I saw last year who really made me think "Wow, is this dominance?" It was just who he was. He was very "doggy" as I remember- an unneutered male, not particularly social, and very into having all resources be his, including whatever humans were in the area. I see a lot of dogs. I don't see a lot of dominance. I don't see any need to dominate the dogs that I see.

I'm going to bed now. Mac's coming on the bed with me. If you don't hear from themacinator for awhile it's because Mac dominated me and I died. Don't call the police, call the Tv-Dog-Trainer-Who-I-Hold-Personally-Responsible-For-This-Crap.

Just What We Need

aka The World is Full of Experts

Running With Dogs recently posted her scores on a "Dog Owner Threat Assessment Guide" created by the fine folks over at Smartdogs. We had a talk today about what a coincidence this was, but I guess it's not that much of a coincidence. We *are* roommates, and we do... share a lot of interests. But it's funny, because I read about this on July 9th over on YesBiscuit and tried to get Tamara Follett to give up her application/contract (she offered it in a comment somewhere above mine). I forgot I asked until Running With Dogs posted- I was not surprised that Follett had not coughed up.

So here's the background: Tamara Follett is an "expert." She is the creator of "Dog-Trax" which purports to solve the "dog bite epidemic" by having a public notification system of where a "dangerous dog" lives. Follett is on target about a couple things: many dog bites happen when fencing is inadequate. I was discussing this with another friend today- the cliche phrase that "good fences make good neighbors" is totally applicable in a responsible dog ownership situation. One part of responsible dog ownership is adequate confinement. I appreciate that Follett breaks this down into manageable pieces. I also agree with her that education is key. I agree with this in most areas- lack of education about vital issues is a societal failure. I taught humane education briefly and it was an eye opener, and totally rewarding. I also think that targeting education is important, as is community policing.

I'm just not sure that if Tamara Follett and I were to sit down, we would agree on much else. Her methods for stopping and preventing dog bites scare me. I've never heard of this BAM method, and really, handing out info on how to stop a lethal dog attack on the Internet, even with a bright yellow caveat, well, it's no good. Hit the dog with a shovel? Awesome. Great. Lovely. Then we get to the "CAT": Canine Threat Assessment Guide. You can probably already guess why Running With Dogs and I liked the Do-Tag, even though it was kind of tongue and cheek: the responsibility falls on the owner. The CTAG is all about the dog. You'll have to open the link yourself, but it's about 1/3 of the way down, under suggestions for Municipal Animal Control. You could argue that some of the factors (# of times "re-homed" (my least favorite word), environmental stressors, etc) are actually about the owners, but the language is all about the dog: "Heightened aggression or excessive behaviors can be exhibited in dogs that are stressed for any reason, including environmental, physical, mental, and hormonal factors."... "1. Consider the “worst-case” scenario when assigning points to a given dog. For example, in determining points for Function, if a dog is primarily a pet but also utilized as a guardian of the home, the points should be 2, for Guardian dog. This is because that, in order to accurately assess a given dog’s potential for attacking, we must consider the worst possible sequence of events and the worst possible reaction from the dog in that situation." And then we get to the dominance part. I'm not sure if you've figured out by now that I hate the dominance crap. I feel another blog coming later tonight.

WHERE IS THE OWNER in all of this? I think this video is telling. This is a National Geographic video of Tamara Follett and her dogs, Caucasian Ovcharka. Follett clearly is a genetic determinist, to large degree. I think the grey area of nature/nurture might be lost on Follett. Additionally, I think the fact that we expect a LOT of our dogs, and ask them to live in a heightened, unnatural situation while still being dogs is also missed. Watch the video. The dogs "get mad."



I'm not sure Follett's containment is adequate. The dogs stick their entire (giant) heads through her fence. She advertises her dogs as "as good as 45 caliber" guns. And yet she is concerned about a dog bite epidemic? I've got a gun epidemic in Oakland we could talk about... She shakes her puppies' noses, to "test aggression," because she wants the 3 week old puppies to naturally display aggression. Most breeders are concerned with socialization, not demonstrations of aggression, even/especially of large guardian breeds. The narrator states that these dogs are naturally aggressive. Perhaps they're missing some socialization? Or they've been improperly socialized? Which gets me back to the labelling of dangerous dogs: Dangerous dog laws should target the owner. Sure, some dogs are inherently dangerous. A lot of dogs are dangerous because their owners have failed them. Their owners set the dogs up by inadequate fencing/containment, inadequate socialization, inadequate understanding of their dog, of their breed. Like the guy in the video, who got a giant, undersocialized, guardian breed, for example. Do we blame the dog if he gets loose and bites someone? Or if he drags the guy into the street and bites someone? Or is that a failure of ownership?

Dangerous dog laws are not perfect. Responsible dog ownership is a work in progress. We need education all around, and we need to educate and penalize dog owners who jeopardize their own dogs and the safety of the community. Or we can just keep blaming the dogs.

Antoine Wilson: The Interloper

I'm thinking of adding a category on the blog of "Don't read this book." It's sad, really, but true. The premise of Antoine Wilson's "The Interloper" is nice, but the book is really not that nice. But again, I'm trying to read all of my books, and I'm feeling guilty because I bought 3 books at Diesel last week, so I had a lapse in my resolve not to be compulsive about finishing bad books. So I Read The Whole Thing even though it sucked. Dad gives me books, and we go through them- books he likes and books we think I'll like. I try to only take the books he thinks are good (I'm a bad giver- I only give away books I don't like...) but somehow I keep getting dogs. Not dog-dogs, but dogs like they suck, dogs. Anyway.

Protagonist/narrator Owen's wife's brother dies. It ruins their marriage. Owen resolves to fix their marriage by creating an elaborate ruse that somehow he is convinced will bring his wife back to him. He (by way of Antoine Wilson) doesn't even convince the dear reader that this ruse is real, let alone going to bring Owen's wife back, so the whole thing is a little... shaky. The characters are all a little shaky and odd and don't fit together well. Why did Owen marry his wife to begin with? Why did Owen's parents marry each other? What town does this take place in- somewhere in the OC, it seems like, but it's not quite clear. And is Owen some kind of autistic person? Or a sociopath? Yeah, skip this one, too. Sorry to keep reviewing books that suck, but... I'm working on finding dear themacinator readers a better one. I promise.

The Denied Michael Jackson Post

I said on flickr that this picture was all I was going to say about Michael Jackson.



But I lied. This article has been circulating on twitter faster than a speeding bullet, and more often, too. (I've actually never seen a speeding bullet circulate, so that's not saying much, I guess.) The article really has me kind of weirded out, as does the excessive "ReTweeting" of the article. I guess this is one of the weird things about twitter- because of the size limits of the messages you can send, the "tweets" are sent out of context. I can retweet an article or link or post without any context. Does posting an article mean I support it? Hate it? Think it's bizarre? The amount of retweeting this article makes me think people like it. Basically, the article is short, and you should read it yourself, but the take home message by the author Earl Ofari Hutchinson is that Michael Jackson was not a child molester, and that continuing to call him that is a disservice. The public only can do this because there was no trial- MJ settled out of court, and people hold the settlement as proof of guilt: "The settlement under extreme duress must not sully his name and place as an honored American icon. The myth of Jackson as child molester must finally be buried."

The article is from Black Politics on the Web, which is a site I had never heard of before, but claims to be "online community featuring political news & information geared towards the African-American community." I read this article as essentially apologist and strange. I never follow the ins and outs of celebrity hijinks, but really, this is it?

You can guess where I'm going next: a Racialicious article by Joseph Shahadi that takes a much more sincere look at the man and the legend, and the pedophilia. Again, you should read the article (it's a little longer) but here's a peak: "Most importantly, Michael Jackson’s name had become synonymous with child sexual abuse. He paid out millions to the families of boys who’d accused him of molestation. And, while he was acquitted, that was not a definitive vote of confidence in Jackson’s innocence." There we go- less apology, more subtext. A deeper look:

"I can't let that discomfort, or even my own nostalgia and love of his music completely overshadow my conviction that we should be talking about the sexual abuse of children when we talk about Michael Jackson. If we excuse his behavior–sleeping with young boys (which he described as “a beautiful thing”, giving them alcohol, presenting himself as their peer etc.–then we are handing a defense to men who behave similarly and that is not acceptable to me.

So:

Michael Jackson was both an iconic star and a pedophile, and these identities do not contradict each other."

And I can't sit here and watch people mindlessly re-tweet ridiculous, simplistic articles that hide disturbing aspects of a legend. It's awesome to revere Michael Jackson and his music. It's awesome to question things, too.

Always the Last One to the Party

You've probably seen this, if you're in the Oakland loop, but if you've followed my blog for even a week, you know I'm always a little late.

This video is hilarious in a Borat way- totally offensive, and totally hilarious. Only I hated Borat and I love this. Maybe because Borat was racist and awful and this just... disses Oakland. I can take it. Plus, it totally also hates on Mission hipsters at the end, which makes it all worth it. That and the green and gold lettering. Sick.

An Animal Shelter Calendar You Can Count On

February 14th, Valentine's Day: People seeking to adopt pets as gifts for their new boy/girlfriends or (less often) for their partners/husbands/wives. Pets do not make good gifts, especially as suprises. (Interestingly, while researching this blog, Petfinder.com has changed their position and does NOT think that pets as gifts is such a bad experience. They quote a study that says that pets given as gifts are less likely to be relinquished. This is not my experience.

April 1st - November 1st (approximately): Kitten season. This is one of my favorite topics. It's also one of my least favorite topics. I hate kitten season. I cannot mention kitten season without stating that I hate kitten season. Part of my hatred for this time of year is mitigated by the fact that it overlaps with baseball season. How else would I survive without the distraction of baseball? I'm listening to the A's game as I type (though they're getting soundly thumped by the Red Sox, of course.) But it's awful to get to the point where you hate kittens. How can anyone hate kittens, you may ask, if you're not in animal welfare? Well, you live through enough of these kitten seasons, and you might understand. You might not, but scrape enough sloppy, hardened kitten poop off of walls, and see the unbelievable numbers of kittens coming in every day, from 1 day old on up, and I dare you not to resent kittens, at the very least. Obviously, it's not the kittens' fault. But it's easy to forget that.

Easter (date varies): The days after Easter, and sometimes up to a month after Easter means bunnies and chicks/chickens/roosters. You would think we would have evolved past bunnies and chicks in Easter Baskets, but no. My mom reports that they used to be in window displays, but I'm lucky enough to have missed this. One day this year, every night drop box was full of white bunnies and juvenile chickens. I hope I don't have to remind people not to use real live animals in Easter baskets. Seriously. Chocolate tastes better, anyway. Use Peeps if you have to.

July 4th: Fireworks start early in Oakland- like the end of June- but they climax July 3-July 5th. I will never quite understand why people haven't figured it out that their dogs WILL get out during fireworks, but they haven't. One year, when I worked in a shelter on the coast, we literally ran out of room to such an extent that we had dogs stacked in crates at the front counter and dogs tied to the desks. At least most of the dogs there got reclaimed. Some were not so lucky to even make it to the shelter. People go out of town and leave their freaked out dogs in their backyards and then can't figure out why their dogs aren't home when they get back. Just in case: keep your dog safe next year or if fireworks are still going on in your neighborhood (like they are here).

December 25th, Christmas: see Valentine's Day

365 Days a Year: Days the shelter is closed (i.e. holidays, furlough days, etc). People banging on the door. People tying animals to the front gate or otherwise disposing of them (throwing them over fences, leaving them at the front door like they'll stay there- cats, chickens, bunnies, etc). People leaving irate messages. People showing up 3 hours early the next day and demanding service. People holding employees responsible. People leaving flaming piles of poop on the door (ok I made that one up...)

Miscellany

It's really hard not to laugh when reading 78 Photography Rules for Complete Idiots.

An awesome article about how health care reform happens and can happen here by Atul Gawande.

And an interesting factoid (totally newsworthy): the most used camera on flickr is the iphone.

The 4th of July, themacinator Style

70 Years Ago

Nate Blakeslee: Tulia

When you live in a politically correct metropolitan area by the coast and you wear custom-fitted rose colored glasses, it's really easy to forget that Bum Fuck Nowhere still exists in this country. I try so hard to pretend that W. was an abberration, that the US under his reign was a bizarre bad dream, and that his warm up in Texas was out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

Yeah, it's easy living in la-la-land, but not particularly enlightening. In the late 1990s, an "undercover" cop busted 50 people in a tiny town of less than 5k people in the Texas panhandle for dealing coke. This "cop" was white and the alleged dealers were black. Most of them had a history of drug use of some kind, but few had actually used coke (crack was the black drug of choice in Tulia) and the cop had no proof on a single one of his busts. The black men and women were literally rounded up at the crack of dawn swat-style, while they were all in their pajamas. Tellingly, not one of them was found with drugs at their houses or on their persons. They were all sentenced to decades or hundreds of years in prison. On the word of one REALLY corrupt cop with a history of skipping town, theft, wife battery, etc. I'm not saying shit doesn't happen in Oakland (Oscar Grant was killed here) and that there isn't rampant corruption in places outside of BFE, but Nate Blakeslee makes a solid case for a really messed up situation.

This book is amazing. As I was about 30 pages from finishing it, I heard this amazing and relevant Marlena Shaw song on KALX. I highly reccommend listening to it while you read- Shaw demands that legislators do something about the ghetto. She's right- how are you going to pick which child to feed? And how to fight when the system is so much bigger than you, and the sherrifs and the judges and the lawyers aren't even going to give you a second look, when the truth is on your side?

Luckily, the story in Tulia has a happy ending, thanks to some dedicated pro-bono lawyers and national media attention. (All of this gave me a little squirmy feeling inside- the big PC, up-to-date, educated folks coming in to enlighten the natives- but at least it had the desired result? Haven't made up my mind on that. Jury's still out...)



soundtrack

Prude, Part 3

I have mentioned before that I'm a prude. Well, apparently, even cartoons are too much for me.

I post pictures and participate in a flickr group called guesswheresf. It's just what it sounds like- a whole bunch of random pictures of places in San Francisco posted without their actual location information. Then other flickr users guess where the shots were taken. It's very esoteric, dorky, and fun.

Recently I posted this picture that I found of sgraffito (something carved in cement) that I thought was a picture of Homer Simpson as devil. I mean, it has a tail.



Almost immediately, someone commented (without guessing his location) that Homer actually looked more like a sperm. I shuddered, but forgot about it. Until today, when someone else posted the link to this video. That is, in fact, Homer-as-sperm, apparently from season 3. Ew, ew, ew.

Coming When Called

All of us who deal with dogs in a semi-educated way know that the cardinal rules of recall do not include whacking a dog when you're trying to him/her to come. There are a lot of great ways to teach recall, but bottom line, it's about making it FUN for the dog to come to you, not awful, dreadful, and full of fear of being hit.

But I had a realization today when a small dog got out of his house and charged at Mac during our walk. This small dog always barks at Mac through his door when we walk by his house- I alternate routes, so it's maybe every other day or every third day. Today was the first time I've ever seen him. He was a pure bred Oakland Small Dog- kind of a chihuahua terrier thing, white and brown and he made a bee-line for Mac, barking and growling. Mac did his normal "I see a stray dog and I don't like him but I'm too spechul too know what to do with him" thing- he postured like a mad man while I kicked at the small dog helplessly in my flip flops (one flew off) and a bunch of bikers stood by watching (and laughing, I'm sure). A woman came out screaming at her dog to come, which of course he ignored, and when she got close, she made a VERY serious gesture like she was going to smack him with an open hand. Her hand loomed very large to me, and I'm sure even larger to the smallish dog. She wasn't close enough to hit him, but close enough the dog cowered.

This is where my "aha" moment came- Although the woman didn't hit the dog, hitting the dog worked for her- it stopped the dog from running, and she was able to pick up her dog. She didn't achieve a recall, exactly, but she achieved her goal: she caught her dog. Maybe this is why so many people think that scolding, yelling at, hitting their dog or otherwise using a negative works to get their dogs to come: owner does something negative/abusive and the dog acts in a fearful way which causes them to STOP what they're doing, i.e: run. This allows the slow human to catch up with fast dog.

I am not advocating this, just walking through something that (also being a slow human) I just realized today. Perhaps a sad truth that trainers teaching recall need to acknowledge when looking at re-training humans.

On a positive note, when the whole incident was done (3.5 seconds later) the bikers told me I had a good looking dog. I pulled together a shard of dignity, found my errant flip flop, and said "thanks."