somerville dog: a weblog

Every person is a potential dog person. The online dating service, match.com missed an opportunity by targeting its recent social mixer Singles and Pets Mingle--at Somerville's own Pet Spa--to singles who already have pets. How many dateless people out there are also dogless? Why not give people a chance to end their datelessness as well as their doglessness at the same time?

And, really, new relationships are fragile enough as it is without a young couple's having to deal with cultivating a relationship between their two dogs as well. Did match.com hand out educational materials about introducing pets when combining households?

Another online dating service, Animal Attraction, caters specifically to "pet lovers." According to their website, they are "proud to team up with The Humane Society of the United States [HSUS]--exclusive provider of the most reliable and up-to-date pet care tips." But I couldn't find any information for couples about introducing their pets to one another on either the Animal Attraction site or on the HSUS site.

In her book, Successful Dog Adoption (Indianapolis: Wiley [Howell], 2003), Sue Sternberg devotes a chapter to "Adding Another Dog." While her tips are not irrelevant to dog owners who move in together, nonetheless, the situation of a family that owns a dog or dogs and is considering adopting another dog is very different from that of two dog owners who move in together. The family that Sternberg advises always has the option not to add another dog. Dog owners whose dogs are not compatible have two very different options: break-up or get rid of one (or both) of the dogs.

The website, "Doggie Door to Canine Behavior," offers tips for Introducing Two Dogs, but, ultimately, concedes that "some dogs are used to being the only dog and do not wish to 'visit' or 'meet' anyone else for any length of time." Here, too, the final word is that the responsible dog owner must be prepared to "reconsider your plans to add a new dog to the family."

Which brings me back to the beautiful potential that there is a dog person within each of us. If you are dateless and dogless, go out to the local dog park and meet the dogs. Dogs are great icebreakers. Just remember, the rules of engagement are sitll the same: it's the person, not the dog, with whom you wish to cultivate a relationship. Be friendly toward and respectful of the human first, he or she will help you to be friendly to and respectful of the dog.

Posted by Michèle at 8:16 AM
Categories: Canine Good Citizenship, Dogs and Culture, Somerville
Permalink | Comments (2)

A well-trained and well-behaved dog is a happy dog. Any other kind is an abused dog, according to Jon Katz, writing in Slate this week.

Nobody is likely to talk much about Ernie . . . .

He's affectionate and unthreatening, but he doesn't really know how to behave—not around his family or other people, not around other animals, not around me or my dogs. He lunges and barks almost continuously when anyone comes near, so few of us do.

A pet dog should be not only a dog that enjoys being around people, but also a dog that is a joy for humans and other pet dogs to be around. "Ernie," who, at ten months old, made his debut into the human world as a birthday present for an eleven-year-old girl, is not a dog that people enjoy being around.

In his column, Katz describes the life of abuse that has led to Ernie's behavior problems:

His abusers aren't lowlifes who mercilessly beat, starve, or tether animals. Quite the opposite: His owners are affluent, educated people who consider themselves humanistic and moral. But they've been cruel nonetheless, through their lack of responsibility, their neglect, their poor training, and their inattention.

Ernie's family has not only failed their dog, they have failed their community. A dog that lunges and barks almost continuously when anyone comes near is a nuisance to the community. A dog owner's responsibility is a serious responsibility, but it is a responsibility that brings much joy--to the owner, to the community, and to the dog.

Posted by Michèle at 7:15 AM
Categories: Canine Good Citizenship
Permalink | Comments (0)

One morning a few months ago I saw a woman walking a dog off-leash in my neighborhood. The dog was trailing. The woman went home. Then, a man came out and called the dog. After about two minutes the dog successfully completed the obedience task known as "the recall," or come-on-command. Admittedly, it was a pretty "sloppy" recall. But it was a start. It is a pretty common phase that dogs go through when learning to come-on-command. They understand that they are supposed to go to the trainer, but they haven't yet figured out that they are supposed to get there as quickly as their four legs can carry them.

Incidentally, it helps dogs to get through this phase if the trainer does not repeat the command. When the trainer repeats the command several times, he or she inadvertently teaches the dog to come the fourth or sixth or tenth time she says the word "come."

When training a dog to come, the final part of the exercise is to reward the dog: the dog arrives in front of the trainer and gets treated, praised or petted. You can imagine how shocked I was when this dog, who had successfully performed a recall, was immediately yelled at and told he was a "Bad dog!"

Ah. That explains it. It wasn't the repetition of the command that was responsible for the dog's slow performance, it was the fact that the dog was punished for coming when called.

Posted by Michèle at 8:59 AM
Categories: Training
Permalink | Comments (1)

Last week I was pleased to read an article in The Somerville Journal about interest among Somerville residents and in City Hall in the needs of dog owners for off-leash areas in the city. This week the Journal published several readers' opinions. A letter to the editor strongly supports legal off-leash spaces. The Journal also prints opinions submitted anonymously by telephone in a section called "Speak Out." Two of the calls in "Speak Out" this week responded to last week's article about the lack of dog parks in the city. The calls recorded in "Speak Out" are not published in the online version of the paper.

One of the callers agrees that dogs should be allowed in city parks at times when the parks are not being used for other socially constructive purposes:

I want to talk about dogs . . . . In discussions about dogs in parks, I don't think it has to be an all or nothing situation. A lot of the parks aren't used at all during the colder months and during the early spring and late at night. I don't understand why, if dog owners are willing to pick up after their dogs, we can't use those spaces to let our dogs roam free in that particular area for short periods at night or during the colder months. We don't need to designate a[n] exclusive area for dogs. Most of us work and can't be in a dog park anyway. Most people who have small children only use them during the day. Why don't we take full advantage of the open space that we have and instead of having a complete rule against having dogs in the parks? Let's make certain that dog owners are responsible, and yet let them use the open spaces so dogs can run in the early morning and at night.

When the commissioner of public works, in his or her discretion, shall determine that any park, playground, schoolyard, or other public area in the control of the city is inappropriate for the allowance of entry by dogs, due to usage by small children, or landscaping considerations, or any other reason sufficient to him or her, he or she shall cause such place to be posted with appropriate and sufficient signs reading, "No Dogs Allowed." No person shall permit, suffer or allow any dog owned by him or her, or in his or her custody or control, whether restrained or unrestrained, to enter upon any park, playground, schoolyard, or other public area in the control of the city so posted as aforesaid.

The second caller responding to the needs of Somerville dog owners is less accommodating:

I am very tired of dog owners demanding space for their dogs to run around off-leash. There is a reason why people in big cities didn't use[d] to have dogs. I bought a home near a beautiful park; now I get in my car and drive somewhere else to enjoy a park because of these people and their dogs. I have walked and sat in the disgusting mess that they leave behind. If I sit to read a book, one or more dogs will come up and approach me. If I ask the owners to call them back, the are insulted. "He is just being friendly. He is just playing," they say. Well, I don't want to play with your dog. I want to sit and read a book. The best is my neighbor who has a yard but walks three dogs to the park. Wouldn't want that disgusting mess in your own backyard? Perhaps if the dog people showed some basic respect for the rest of us, we'd be open to hearing their needs. If this is how they are now, I can't imagine they would be cleaning up a dog park. What neighborhood would you choose to put that smelly mess in? In times like these, I can't imagine we'd give up any green open space that people can enjoy and give it up to dogs.

There may be "a reason" why people in big cities don't have dogs, but I expect it's the same reason that people anywhere who don't have dogs don't have dogs. The fact is that there is no place in America where people do not have dogs. The population density of New York is over 26,000 people per square mile. According to the same source, the population density of Somerville is over 18,000 people per square mile. Yet the City of New York allows dogs off-leash in all city parks before 9 a.m. In addition, the city has thirty-four dog runs, not including six private dog runs.

The complaint about "disgusting messes" and dog-owners refusing to restrain their dogs from harassing park users are serious and valid complaints. Like the excrement of any species, dog excrement poses a potential risk of carrying disease and parasites that can be communicated to humans (and to other dogs for that matter). Dog owners should always and everywhere clean up after their dogs. Just as dog owners should always and everywhere clean up after their dogs, they should not allow their dogs to harass people who are enjoying some activity that does not involve dogs. Part of socializing a dog is teaching how to greet humans--sit-to-greet is the preferred greeting--and when it is appropriate to greet humans--i.e. when the human says it's okay.

Contrary to the misgivings of the caller, however, establishing legal off-leash areas is a way to address these complaints; legal off-leash areas will help to eliminate disgusting messes (at least the ones made by dogs¹) and will help to isolate dogs from park users who do not wish to be approached by dogs. Dog parks foster responsible dog ownership, which is the key to dogs living harmoniously in human communities.


¹I found a dirty diaper--eww-- outside the port-a-potty--again, eww--in Nunziato Field one morning. Fortunately, being a dog owner, I happened to have a plastic bag in my coat pocket. I used the bag to pick up the diaper and dispose of it in the conveniently located trash receptacle in the park.

Posted by Michèle at 5:14 PM
Categories: Somerville
Permalink | Comments (0)

The front page of today's Somerville Journal features a story by Auditi Guha about the lack of off-leash spaces in Somerville and some local dog owners who are interested in turning Belmont Park into a dog park ("Doggone It! City has no parks for pooches to play off-leash"). I'm not sure where, exactly, Belmont Park is located--it's not included among the list of parks and playgrounds on the City of Somerville website--but Strummer and I will be taking a walk along Belmont Street soon to see if we can meet Rocky and Shadow, the Somerville dogs featured in Guha's story.

It's unfortunate that the public information officer, Lucy Warsh, is quoted in the article as speaking of a need "to identify an adequate space that is acceptable for both residents as well as dog owners." Somerville dog owners are residents, so it?s not really an issue of satisfying the needs of two different groups, is it? Designated off-leash areas in fact serve both dog owners and those who prefer not to share their lives with dogs?far more equitably, I might add, than prohibiting dog owners from enjoying open space in the city with our dogs.

Cities all over America are coming up with creative ways to accommodate dog owners. In Massachusetts, Boston has the Charlesgate Dog Run in Back Bay and Dog Park in the North End. A pilot program in Boston Common allows dogs to be off-leash during designated hours. Brookline has initiated an off-leash pilot program, the Green Dog Program, which designates hours, seasonally, when dog owners may allow their dogs off-leash in twelve city parks. Cambridge has four off-leash areas. In Fort Washington Park and Dog Park dogs are allowed off-leash in the entire park. Fresh Pond and Danehy Park have designated off-leash areas.

Posted by Michèle at 1:16 PM
Categories: Somerville
Permalink | Comments (0)

The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) issued a press release on June 1, 2004 regarding a "rabid Puerto Rican 'rescue pup' imported by a Massachusetts animal shelter" and calling for tighter regulation of dog and cat imports.

Shipment of Dogs into the Commonwealth is regulated by the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), chapter 330 section 3.00. If you are adopting a dog from out-of-state, you would do well to familiarize yourself and comply with this section of the CMR, which requires that

all dogs shipped or in any way transported into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from any point outside thereof must be accompanied by a health certificate approved by the Livestock Official of the State of origin showing that they are free from all symptoms of infectious, contagious and communicable diseases; that they have not been exposed to rabies and if vaccinated the certificate shall include the date of vaccination.

Any dog which originated in an area where rabies has been known to exist within a period of six months prior to importation shall have been properly vaccinated with rabies vaccine within 12 months prior to date of importation and may, at the discretion of the Director, be subject to quarantine at destination for a period of not less than 14 days following arrival within the Commonwealth.

shall be segregated at the risk and expense of the owner or the person, firm or corporation in whose charge the dog or dogs are held and placed under quarantine for a 90-day period or may be released by order of the Director provided the owner or his authorized representative shall agree to return said dog or dogs immediately to the State in which shipment originated.

Additional information about the rabies incident in Boston in May circulated widely by e-mail at the time:

Info from Public Health Veterinarian, Vermont

Brief Summary of Report: Six persons in Boston required rabies prophylaxis. Investigators are looking for others exposed to this dog. It came from a Puerto Rico organization which has also shipped dogs to NJ, CT, VT, and TX.

Description: On May 20, 2004, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) State Laboratory Institute confirmed the presence of rabies in a 3-month-old puppy that had been imported from Puerto Rico on May 18. The puppy and 5 other dogs had been flown to an animal shelter in Boston, Massachusetts from San Juan, Puerto Rico as part of a stray animal relocation program. Upon arrival at the shelter, the puppy was observed with an unsteady gait. The following day additional neurological signs developed and the dog was euthanized and subsequently tested positive for rabies virus antigen; variant typing is pending. None of the animals are reported to have been vaccinated against rabies.

At present, it is unknown how this puppy was exposed to the rabies virus. In Puerto Rico, the mongoose is the dominant terrestrial reservoir responsible for transmission of rabies virus to domestic animals. The dogs came from an organization known as Save a Sato (www.saveasato.org) in Puerto Rico that rescues stray dogs. This organization has arrangements with several animal shelters in Massachusetts and other states (including NJ, CT, VT, and TX) for importation and adoption.

The airline, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Puerto Rico Department of Health were notified for further follow-up of persons who may have been exposed to this rabid puppy, and to identify other potentially exposed animals. MDPH has identified six people at the Massachusetts animal shelter who were exposed to the rabid puppy and required post-exposure prophylaxis.

In Massachusetts, interstate animal importations fall under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources [MDAR] which requires that dogs and cats have a valid health certificate indicating non-exposure to rabies prior to importation. Imported dogs or cats that are not currently vaccinated for rabies must be vaccinated within 90 days of entry or acquisition or upon reaching the age of 6 months. The importation of this rabid puppy illustrates the need to be vigilant for signs of rabies in animals of unknown exposure history. Persons adopting animals imported from another state or U.S. territory should be informed of the source of the animal and should also be educated about rabies and other potential zoonotic health risks unique to the animal's area of origin.

For more information, persons may contact Dr. Fredric Cantor at the MDPH, 617-983-6804.

(via the pet-law discussion group)

The e-mail quoted above reveals ambiguity in the CMR that seems to allow dogs to enter the Commonwealth without certification of non-exposure to rabies before they are six months old. Prevention of the Spread of Rabies is regulated by 330 CMR 10.00, which requires that

Any person acquiring a dog or cat shall have the animal vaccinated by a licensed veterinarian against rabies by the age of six months or within 30 days of acquisition if the animal is over six months of age, unless proof of previous vaccination is available.

Perhaps the ninety-day quarantine period provided for in the regulation of the Shipment of Dogs into the Commonwealth covers the apparent discrepancy in the CMR. Given the recent incident of rabies involving a three-month-old puppy imported into Massachusetts, it would behoove the Commonwealth to clarify its regulations concerning the shipment of dogs under six months of age into the Commonwealth, and to communicate these regulations to animal shelters and other orgnaizations in Massachusetts that import young dogs.

Posted by Michèle at 11:34 AM
Categories: Canine Good Citizenship, Massachusetts, Somerville Rescues
Permalink | Comments (1)