Category Archives: Dogs

LOCKING JAWS? IMPOSSIBLE

skull.jpg

The diagram above shows the correct skull structure, jaw alignment, and dentition for mesocephalic breeds of dogs. Mesocephalic refers to those breeds whose length of muzzle approximates the length of the top skull. These breeds when correctly structured have a scissors bite, with the top teeth meeting tightly in front of the bottom teeth.

Most of the breeds of dogs lumped under the ubiquitous heading of “pit bull” are mesocephalic, but some are not.

There is no supernatural structure to these breed’s skull, jaw, or teeth. That any dog is capable of locking its jaw is a myth.

Sound, correct dogs have 42 teeth after the seven month molars erupt. Dogs may exhibit malocclusions, or genetically missing teeth, usually pre-molars.

There are two more types of skull that are displayed in dogs. The brachycephalic which is the very short faced seen in breeds such as the Bulldog, Pug, Boston terrier, Pekingese, American Bulldog, etc. These breeds are predisposed to malocclusions, and to missing teeth due to crowding. These breeds are prognathous jawed, with the lower teeth protruding in front of the top teeth.

The dolichocephalic type of skull is long, and narrow, the muzzle is longer than the top skull. It is common in breeds such as the Borzoi, the Bull Terrier, and the Collie. The long narrow jaws appear to be able to hold more teeth, but these breeds also have 42 teeth.

These are the facts about dog skull configuration.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dogs, fact, science

THE GUARDIAN CONSPIRACY by Captain A. Haggerty

The lawyers are salivating like Pavlov’s dogs at the prospect of changing the terminology from “dog owner” to “dog guardian”. California is the pacesetter for silly laws. For example, they are purging all the school texts of references to low-nutritional value foods. No longer will the offensive, “Suzie has three lollypops and Mary has—“, appear in California textbooks. Progress is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the silly law brigade is out in force in California and as California goes so goes the nation. What difference does it make? The fall-out, should this law pass in Los Angeles, is enormous and loaded with far reaching costs to the taxpayer. Animal Rights people and lawyers seem to be in favor of the law and that worries me.

It appears to be a conspiracy but who started it? Ah, a good question. All conspiracies are secret and the more people involved the greater the chance of discovery. Following the money may give you the answer. The more laws, particularly confusing, challenging and contradictory laws the more work for the legal eagles. Now bearing in mind what the Bard said, in a un-Bard-like quote, “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers.” uttered by one of Shakespeare’s more obscure characters, Dick the butcher in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 4. Everyone knows the quote but don’t know where to find it with the exception of the erudite DOG NEWS reader.

The president of American University in Washington, DC sponsored a moot trial in 1987. Fans of Edward de Vere, the 17th Lord of Oxford (1550-1604), one of the pretenders to the works of William Shakespeare, called on the court to determine was it de Vere or Shakespeare that was the author of works attributed to the Bard. There were some heavy hitters deciding the case: Three Supreme Court Justices. The above quote was tossed into the pot and the Justices attributed it and everything else to Shakespeare.

Follow the money is a good rule of thumb to help determine in whose interested in something. I come from a family of lawyers so I do not want my family to disown me. Lawyers have an interest in the newly emerging specialty in law. Animal law is appearing in more and more law schools. Currently there are over 25 law schools offering such courses, including Harvard Law School. A big plus from the lawyer’s point of view is that is hard for animals to initiate malpractice suits should they feel they have not been properly served. Do not forget it isn’t even necessary to return phone calls to their “clients”. One big Bar Association complaint on lawyers is a failure to return phone calls. The dogs won’t complain. This sounds like a win-win situation for the lawyers.

So let’s follow the money. Who is going to pay the lawyers? Don’t worry about the lawyers getting their money. They have it covered. They know how to get their hands on the money. Worst-case scenario from the indigent dog’s point of view is your tax dollar will pay the legal bills. Who else stands to make money? Animal Rights groups have a number of interesting similar characteristics. First, realize that their primary function is raising money. Free publicity is an excellent low-cost way of raising funds. The more bizarre the publicity the more press. Another characteristic of AR groups is that they keep no animals under their roofs. Do you know how much easier that makes their lives? Start thinking about how much easier your life would be if you owned no dogs. No kennels, no shelters and no animals to administer. Yes, the ARs are built for speed, ease and a high profit margin. They are money-making machines. ARs are not Animal Welfare groups. They are AR welfare groups.

What difference do these emerging laws make? Animal rights groups hope the masses will take the “what difference does it make” attitude. Note that some animal welfare groups are drifting into the animal rights mold. Some of the welfare groups see the money made and want to follow it all the way to the bank. When I asked one animal rights person their reason for this silliness he said it was to get people to think the “right” way about animals. I replied that was not the purpose of laws. Who says we have to all think your way about dogs? I own my dogs and seek no release from the responsibilities that entails.

Here’s a scenario. You have had a dog since it was two months old and he is a wonderful pup. “Gunner” is approaching a year of age and he is the best dog you have ever had. You spent big bucks buying him. You recognize it is the best money you have ever spent. You not only have had Gunner micro-chipped but tattooed and DNAed. You covered all bases.

There is a problem. Some one we’ll call R. B., to protect the guilty saw the dog and became quite enthralled with Gunner’s wonderful appearance. He steals your dog and changes his name to Jupiter. R. B. and the newly named Jupiter have become quite close during the two years you been frantically searching for him.

A friend has spotted Gunner and she checked the tattoo. She gave you the tattoo number Bingo! You have a home run! You go to the police with your AKC registration, bill of sale, tattoo number, DNA paperwork, photos, vet health records and microchip records. You also have the police department case number when you reported the theft of Gunner. Boy, do you have your act together! You say you want to press charges against R. B. for “criminally receiving stolen goods”. You were told that it might be hard to prove who stole Gunner but criminally receiving was an open and shut case.

You proved beyond any doubt that you own Gunner to the police. The police called R. B. in for an interview and when they asked if he owned the dog, he said no. On further interrogation R. B. said he had a dog named Jupiter but didn’t own him. R. B. explained he is the dog’s guardian. How could J. B. be guilty of criminally receiving something that people aren’t even permitted to own? He was the guardian for Jupiter and knew nothing and cared less about a dog named Gunner.

The police call you up and explain there is nothing they can do. It is a custody battle, not a criminal matter. Now to add insult to injury you now have to retain a lawyer——a family practice lawyer with heavy experience in custody battles.

The day you are to appear in court the judge decides she will show she has the Wisdom of Solomon. No, not draw the dog. She will have the bailiff hold the dog in the middle of the courtroom. Gunner hasn’t seen you in two years while Jupiter spent the night with R. B. You both are instructed when re-entering the courtroom to wait until told by the judge to call the dog. Hey, that doesn’t sound fair to you. You know what you will do. You’ll squat down when you call him. If this were a movie, the music would well up as the suspense mounts. The judge gives the signal and you squat down and holler, “GUNNER!” R. B. follows your lead and squats down as he hollers. “JUPITER!” The dog trots over, tail wagging to R. B. Your heart sinks. Perhaps you should have used Gunner’s new name. As R. B. passes you, leaving the court with Jupiter at his side, he whispers a two-word epithet at you. Unfair? Unjust? Sure but who said life was fair?

Don’t say, “What difference does it make?” Every week one hears of ridiculous court rulings. This warm and fuzzy word, guardian opens the door to a myriad of legal entanglements not even considered at this point. Wait until you see what pops out of this Pandora’s Box of legal problems.

The state can’t event take care of the animals they are currently supposed to and now they want to make all domestic animals wards of the state. Realize that a politician’s reflex action to any problem is to pass more laws. They don’t want to enforce laws currently on the books. That would solve the problem. It is better to pass new unenforceable laws.

What are some of the problems changing the term from owner to guardian will produce? Has anyone given thought as to how to enforce laws against non-owners? Currently dogs are property and we are told that is not right because that makes them no more than the equivalent of a pair of skis or a tire iron. What are the laws against tire iron abuse? Dogs have even more rights and fewer responsibilities than we do at the present time. It is impossible to tell the fall-out of such a change until the lawsuits settle some time in the middle of this century. Are you willing to take a chance on this crapshoot?

There are a couple of lawyers in San Francisco that wish they were the guardians of the two dogs that killed Diane Whipple. They wouldn’t be in jail today.

Of course Lassie, Arnold the Pig and Morris the Cat will have court appointed attorneys to pursue their suit against the discriminatory Screen Actor’s Guild for denying their civil rights. Hey, they want to join the union.

If a veterinarian makes a fatal mistake all he needs to pay is the replacement value of the animal. What about future earnings? Loss of love and companionship? Vet insurance bills will skyrocket equal to the MDs and each one of us will pay for it. Remember that the taxpayers would pay the court appointed attorney.

What do you think about the involuntary sterilization of human beings? That should be a super big lawsuit. How many dogs have undergone involuntary sterilization? This will be the end of dog sterilization. Oh, the lawyers will be kept busy.

Animal law is a growth industry.

Let’s look at the good side of this. As a dog ages the veterinarian bills climb. At age 9 years and 104 days your dog should be eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. One year of a dog’s life is equal to seven years of a human’s. Don’t worry, someone will initiate that lawsuit.

Animal righters say they want to share their world with the animals. I can see one of them crawling into bed with a Duroc-Red Hog. They won’t have to undergo that indignity because they will be ridding the earth of all domestic animals.

I’m not worried about the animal righters. I’m worried about the lawyers.

(Originally published in Dog News)

Leave a comment

Filed under dog laws, Dogs, fact

National Safety Council: Cause of death in 2003

Cause of death in 2003
Number of deaths per year
One-year odds
Lifetime odds

Captive non-human primate
0*
0
0

Captive bear
0.125**
1 in 2,416,000,000
1 in 32,000,000

Captive elephant
0.81**
378,000,000
5,000,000

Captive big/exotic cat
1**
302,000,000
4,000,000

Captive reptile
1.5***
201,000,000
2,700,000

Fireworks discharge
11
26,440,910
340,733

Contact with hot tap-water
26
11,186,539
144,156

Flood
26
11,186,539
144,156

Bitten or struck by dog
32
9,089,063
117,127

Earthquake and other earth movements
32
9,089,063
117,127

Struck by or against another person
39
7,457,692
96,104

Lightning
47
6,188,298
79,746

Contact with hornets, wasps and bees
66
4,406,818
56,789

Cataclysmic storm (****)
75
3,878,000
49,974

Animal rider or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle
101
2,879,703
37,110

Alcohol
373
779,759
10,048

Fall on and from ladder or scaffolding
417
697,482
8,988

Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming pool
515
564,757
7,278

Firearms discharge
730
398,425
5,134

Air and space transport accidents
742
391,981
5,051

Occupant of all-terrain or other off-road motor vehicle
906
321,026
4,137

Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water
1225
237,429
3,060

Fall on and from stairs and steps
1,588
183,155
2,360

Exposure to smoke, fire and flames
3,369
86,331
1,113

Motorcycle riding
3,676
79,121
1,020

Assault by firearm
11,920
24,400
314

Motor vehicle accidents
44,757
6,498
84

Source: National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Census, animal attack news reports

*In 1997 in Atlanta, Georgia, one Yerkes primate researcher supposedly died of herpes B after she was splashed in the eye with bodily fluids from a rhesus macaque; this can NOT be classified as animal ‘attack’, just like a nurse or doctor being accidentally infected with a blood from an AIDS patients can not be called a murder.

** Based on 16 year average 1990-2006 numbers

*** Based on 11 year average 1995-2006 numbers

(****)Includes hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, dust storms and other cataclysmic storms.

Note: Exotic animal yearly and lifetime odds numbers were rounded due to their extremely large size for the ease of use and quoting purposes in the media and legislative sessions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dogs, fact, science

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS
IN PLACES OF BUSINESS

Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned
businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail
stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are
prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to
bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas
customers are generally allowed.

Q: What is a service animal?

A: The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or
other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an
individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are
considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they
have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.

Service animals perform some of the functions and tasks that the
individual with a disability cannot perform for him or herself. “Seeing
eye dogs” are one type of service animal, used by some individuals who
are blind. This is the type of service animal with which most people
are familiar. But there are service animals that assist persons with
other kinds of disabilities in their day-to-day activities. Some
examples include:

_____Alerting persons with hearing impairments to sounds.

_____ Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and picking up things for persons
with mobility impairments.

_____Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance.

Q: How can I tell if an animal is really a service animal and not just
a pet?

A: Some, but not all, service animals wear special collars and
harnesses. Some, but not all, are licensed or certified and have
identification papers. If you are not certain that an animal is a
service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a
service animal required because of a disability. However, an individual
who is going to a restaurant or theater is not likely to be carrying
documentation of his or her medical condition or disability. Therefore,
such documentation generally may not be required as a condition for
providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal.
Although a number of states have programs to certify service animals,
you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting
the service animal to accompany the person with a disability.

Q: What must I do when an individual with a service animal comes to my
business?

A: The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual
with a disability to all areas of the facility where customers are
normally allowed to go. An individual with a service animal may not be
segregated from other customers.

Q: I have always had a clearly posted “no pets” policy at my
establishment. Do I still have to allow service animals in?

A: Yes. A service animal is not a pet. The ADA requires you to modify
your “no pets” policy to allow the use of a service animal by a person
with a disability. This does not mean you must abandon your “no pets”
policy altogether but simply that you must make an exception to your
general rule for service animals.

Q: My county health department has told me that only a seeing eye or
guide dog has to be admitted. If I follow those regulations, am I
violating the ADA?

A: Yes, if you refuse to admit any other type of service animal on the
basis of local health department regulations or other state or local
laws. The ADA provides greater protection for individuals with
disabilities and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or
regulations.

Q: Can I charge a maintenance or cleaning fee for customers who bring
service animals into my business?

A: No. Neither a deposit nor a surcharge may be imposed on an
individual with a disability as a condition to allowing a service
animal to accompany the individual with a disability, even if deposits
are routinely required for pets. However, a public accommodation may
charge its customers with disabilities if a service animal causes
damage so long as it is the regular practice of the entity to charge
non-disabled customers for the same types of damages. For example, a
hotel can charge a guest with a disability for the cost of repairing or
cleaning furniture damaged by a service animal if it is the hotel’s
policy to charge when non-disabled guests cause such damage.

Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don’t want animals in my taxi;
they smell, shed hair and sometimes have “accidents.” Am I violating
the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to
individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also
prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting
individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they
charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

Q: Am I responsible for the animal while the person with a disability
is in my business?

A: No. The care or supervision of a service animal is solely the
responsibility of his or her owner. You are not required to provide
care or food or a special location for the animal.

Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or
otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your
facility when that animal’s behavior poses a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that
displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be
excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular
animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other
animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is
out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who
uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and
services without having the service animal on the premises.

Q: Can I exclude an animal that doesn’t really seem dangerous but is
disruptive to my business?

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not
required to accommodate a service animal–that is, when doing so would
result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business.
Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail
stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it
does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be
excluded.

If you have further questions about service animals or other
requirements of the ADA, you may call the U.S. Department of Justice’s
toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or
800-514-0383 (TDD).

Leave a comment

Filed under animal protection laws, dog laws, Dogs

National Geographic’s Dr. Brady Barr’s Bite Pressure Tests

Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic (Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force, 8pm est 8/18/2005) – Dr. Barr measured bite forces of many different creatures. Domestic dogs were included in the test.

Here are the results of all of the animals tested:

Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure

Domestic dogs: 320 LBS of pressure on avg. A German Shepherd Dog, American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument. The APBT had the least amount of pressure of the 3 dogs tested.

Wild dogs: 310 lbs

Lions: 600 lbs

White sharks: 600 lbs

Hyenas: 1000 lbs

Snapping turtles: 1000 lbs

Crocodiles: 2500 lbs
Nat. Geo actually did a follow-up on this first special, “The Big Bite II-Dangerous Encounters”. Using the same techniques, Dr. Barr tested some other
animals, including a Hyacinth McCaw(parrot), a Tasmanian Devil, a Savanah monitor lizard, a Nurse shark and a large Alpha male wolf. The wolf’s bite
was a bit over 400 pounds p.s.i, making it the strongest biter of the canids, but the two-pound McCaw nearly equaled that 100+ pound wolf, with a bite force of 375 p.s.i, and it did not appear to be doing anything more than just playing around with the bite meter instrument, as it was a tame bird! In the first bite-force special, the APBT (which DID appear to be biting that sleeve for all it was worth, a good “full-mouth” bite)managed only 127 p.s.i, just seven pounds more than the HUMAN tested! In the second special, Dr. Barr was convinced that the young crocodile he’d tested was not performing up to snuff in its bite, since all the crocodilians he’d tested had all been freshly-caught specimens, which were exhausted after a struggle. He tested the device again on a 18-foot wild male Nile croc, in the wild, unrestrained, that was brumating in a den on an African river bank to escape the daytime heat, by actually crawling down the burrow himself! That animal managed, with a single bite, to exert a pressure of over SIX THOUSAND pounds per square inch, making it the most powerful bite of any animal, ever recorded.

Nat. Geo channel does state that a DVD or CD-ROM of the programming is available upon request. The names of these two documentaries are “Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force” and “Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force 2”, both with Dr. Brady Barr. Here’s a link to Nat. Geo’s customer
service, and they might be able to help; maybe at least transcrips will be available.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/siteindex/customer.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Dogs, fact, science