New Study Finds 75 Percent of Dogs Have Anxiety Disorders (Mine’s One of Them)

Most dogs — nearly three-quarters of over 13,700 pets observed in Finland, at least — have some kind of anxiety disorder, according to a new study.

Among the most common disorders were fear of noise (which about 33% of the study participants and 90% of my own dogs have had), fear of heights, and fear of strangers (which my very nervous Pit Bull mix Ella definitely has, among many other fears).

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Helsinki, was published this week in Scientific Reports. The largest study of its kind, it involved 13,715 dogs of various breeds and mixes. No dogs were subjected to any testing or otherwise harmed during the study. Their owners were simply asked to complete a questionnaire analyzing the following seven behavioral traits:

  • Noise sensitivity, including thunder, fireworks and gunshots
  • Fearfulness of humans, other dogs and unfamiliar locations
  • Fear of surfaces and heights
  • Inattention and impulsivity
  • Compulsive behavior
  • Aggressiveness
  • Separation anxiety

Interestingly, some breeds were more likely to have certain behavioral traits. Rough Collies, for example, had the greatest fear of surfaces and heights — so don’t expect Lassie to ever rescue Timmy from that well.

Not surprisingly, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, often considered “Pit Bulls” and subjected to unfair breed-specific legislation (BSL) that allegedly keeps people safer, are less aggressive toward strangers than many other breeds that have never been banned, like Border Collies and Miniature Schnauzers. Here’s hoping Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who recently vetoed the city council’s decision to end BSL, takes a really good look at this study.

Photo: M. Salonen et al., 2020

The study found that the age of dogs may play a part in their anxiety disorders. Older dogs become more sensitive to loud noise such as thunder. Most of the behavioral issues like tail chasing and inattention were experienced by younger dogs.

So, what does all this mean? For one thing, this could be yet another way dogs can be beneficial for humans: They could help provide a better understanding of what determines our mental health problems.

“In humans, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) often occurs together with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but this is the first time the same has been seen in dogs,” said the study’s first author, Milla Salonen. She told Gizmodo this correlation was possibly the study’s most surprising discovery.

The study results may also be helpful for someone wanting to adopt a purebred dog. “It is important to think about how much you will exercise and do any activities with the dog,” Salonen told Gizmodo. “If you want a dog only as a companion and will not exercise heavily or for long periods of time, it is not advisable to get a working dog, that is, a dog with high energy level.” Good advice.

Photo: That’s my Ella, trying to hide from everything that scares her.

3 Reasons Why Cloning a Hero Dog Was Not a Good Idea

Six years ago, David and Alicia Tschirhart, who was pregnant at the time, went on a mountain hike in Escondido, Calif., with their yellow Lab, Marley. When Alicia reached down to grab what she thought would make a good walking stick, Marley raced over to her and started barking.

Marley’s actions saved Alicia’s life. It wasn’t a stick that she was reaching for — it was a rattlesnake.

Sadly, not long after the birth of the Tschirharts’ daughter, Marley was diagnosed with cancer. Although the hero dog didn’t survive it, he lives on…sort of.

Last December, the Tschirharts welcomed a new yellow Lab puppy into their family. Ziggy isn’t just any yellow Lab. He’s Marley’s clone. The Tschirharts paid $50,000 to have another dog who looks and acts, they say, just like Marley.

Ziggy was created by the scientists at ViaGen Pets, the only company in the United States that clones dogs and cats. They did this by inserting a skin cell from Marley into the nuclei of eggs that were harvested from donor pets. To start the embryo’s dividing process, it was given a shock. The modified embryos were then implanted, via invasive surgery, into a surrogate dog who gave birth to Ziggy.

ViaGen Pets charges $50,000 to clone a dog or $35,000 to clone a cat.

Sure, we’ve all probably fantasized about cloning a beloved dog so we’d have a carbon copy of them around for many more years to come. But then we consider the cost and ethics, and for most of us, the idea remains just that: a fantasy.

Still, there’s currently a one-year waiting list at ViaGen Pets. Here’s hoping some of those people wanting to clone their pets become aware of these three reasons why it’s really not a good idea.

1. Adopt, don’t shop (or clone). There are thousands of homeless pets, including plenty of yellow Labs, available at shelters and rescues (find a Labrador rescue group here). You will literally save yourself tens of thousands of dollars while saving a life in the process.

2. The exorbitant cloning fees could help thousands of homeless dogs. Along with the $50,000 ViaGen charges to clone a dog, there’s a $1,600 fee for “genetic preservation,” the biopsy to remove cells from the original dog. Think of all the shelters and rescue groups that would benefit from a $51,600 donation instead.

3. Cloning pets is unethical. It’s opposed by major animal welfare organizations including the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). According to a 2019 Gallup poll, the majority (66 percent) of Americans believe it’s morally wrong. Considering that 1.5 million pets are euthanized in animal shelters every year, it makes much more sense to save their lives than to create clones that won’t necessarily share the original pet’s personality.

Instead of cloning Marley, I wish the Tschirharts had instead paid his heroic act forward by saving a life — of a doomed shelter dog.

Photo: CC0 (that’s not Ziggy or Marley)

Why Dogs Are Getting a Bigger Role in Courtrooms

Around the country, more and more certified facility dogs, better known as “courthouse dogs,” are taking the witness stand along with children and victims of violent crimes. They provide comfort and a furry head to scratch during what are often very stressful proceedings.

These dogs can also help calm distressed jurors, as a yellow Lab named Turks did during the 2018 sexual assault trial of Bill Cosby in Pennsylvania. Turks has worked for the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office since 2014, providing comfort to crime victims and witnesses.

More recently, last month a Goldendoodle named Izzy, who was rescued from a terrible hoarding situation, became a facility dog for the Macomb County Juvenile Court in Detroit.

“We deal with a lot of kids with mental health problems,” Nicole Faulds, juvenile division administrator, told the Detroit Free Press. “Court itself is kinda scary for those kids. She can be in on the office visit or a calming influence in the courtroom.”

As of November 2019, 234 courthouse facility dogs like Turks and Izzy are working their magic in 40 U.S. states, according to the Courthouse Dog Foundation. Eleven states — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Oklahoma and Virginia — have legislation allowing these dogs to accompany children and some adult crime victims on the witness stand.

In some states, judges can decide whether to allow the dogs on the witness stand, and many of them do. Other countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, England, France and Italy are also using courthouse facility dogs.

While trained dogs providing comfort in the courtroom may seem like a great idea, there are those who oppose it — and not too surprisingly, they happen to be defense attorneys. Some of them believe the dogs could sway juries.

“This could interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial,” Randy Gioia, deputy chief counsel for Massachusett’s public defender agency, told the Boston Herald in regard to a 2018 bill (SD.2628) that would have legalized courthouse facility dogs in the state. “It introduces an unknown element. It could give the witness an aura of vulnerability and credibility, and that’s a problem for a person accused of a crime.”

Defense attorney Peter Elikann told the Boston Herald that a witness showing up in court with a dog “signals to the jury that they need it because something bad has happened. It allows them to presume that the person is being truthful and genuinely a victim.”

A dog in the courtroom “could send subtle messages to the jury that they should protect, support and empathize with the witness,” said Brad Bailey, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, told the newspaper. “I would be very concerned about this.”

In an effort to prevent any possibility of these dogs swaying juries, the Courthouse Dog Foundation has worked with courts to establish a procedure where the witness and dog enter the witness stand while the jurors are excused. During proceedings, the dogs lie very quietly in the witness box and are “virtually invisible to the jury,” Ellen O’Neill Stephens, a former prosecutor and the founder of the foundation, told NBC Los Angeles in 2015.

The role of facility dogs is not the same as that of service dogs. They don’t assist people with special needs, and each facility dog helps a variety of people rather than just one person. They are required to receive two years of training and must be graduates of a school that’s accredited by Assistance Dogs International. The dogs’ handlers, with whom they live, are usually employed in the criminal justice field.

Did having Turks in the courtroom influence Bill Cosby’s guilty verdict? No, according to one juror, who said his decision was based on Cosby’s own admission that he gave young women quaaludes in order to have sex with them.

Photo credit: David Walsen

Portions of this story were originally published on Care2.com.

Denver’s Unfair Pit Bull Ban Could Have Finally Ended, But the Mayor Says No

People like me who have spent years advocating for the end of breed-specific legislation (BSL) — unfair laws, including breed bans, that single out dogs only because of how they look — were overjoyed earlier this week with the news that the Denver City Council had voted 7-4 to end the city’s 30-year Pit Bull ban.

Finally! It was so encouraging that the city officials of Denver, whose ban was one of the world’s most notorious, had realized BSL does not increase public safety. It’s also a big waste of money, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce. All BSL effectively does is punish well-behaved dogs and responsible dog owners.

But cancel those party plans. In a letter to the Denver City Council yesterday, Mayor Michael Hancock decided he could not “in good conscience support this legislation.” He claimed he’d heard from “thousands of residents” about the end of the ban. (And you can bet he heard from the hate group behind DogsBite.org, a website founded by a dog bite victim who wants all Pit Bulls destroyed.

Hancock claimed he talked to experts in veterinary care. That’s interesting, because the largest veterinary care group in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, opposes BSL because it’s unfair and ineffective.

Although the Pit Bull ban could have been lifted, there still would have been special requirements for the owners of Pit Bulls, mixes and dogs that happen to look like Pit Bulls. The owners would have had to register their dogs with Denver Animal Protection, obtain a breed-restricted license, and have no more than two Pit Bulls.

Yes, these regulations singling out these dogs are still BSL (and B.S.), but removing the ban would have been an important, positive step.

“At the end of the day, I must ask whether passage of this ordinance would make our homes and neighborhoods safer or pose an increased risk to public safety,” Hancock wrote in his letter. “I have concluded that it would pose an increased risk.”

It would really be helpful to know what, if any, facts led the mayor to this decision. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), for example, states that it’s unaware that BSL makes communities safer for children or adults.

Denver’s Pit Bull ban was enacted in 1989 after a 3-year-old boy wandered into his neighbor’s yard and was fatally attacked by an unspayed Pit Bull who was chained to a carport, according to the Denver Post. Three years earlier, another of the owner’s dogs had bitten an 8-year-old boy. Because of that one irresponsible owner 30 years ago, thousands of Denver residents have had to make the terrible choice of finding a new home for themselves or their beloved dogs, or relinquishing their pets to the city to be euthanized.

“Breed bans usually come on the heels of a fatal dog attack, a knee-jerk reaction by city and county officials that might pacify a community for a while, but doesn’t do a thing to keep communities safer,” notes the Best Friends Animal Society. “It’s much easier to institute breed bans than to look at what caused those attacks.”

The potential good news is that Denver Councilman Christopher Herndon, who proposed ending the Pit Bull ban, promised he will introduce a ballot measure allowing voters to end the ban next November.

“I’m disappointed the mayor is choosing to disregard the science on the issue of breed-specific legislation,” Herndon said in a statement, according to the New York Times. “Research tells us breed-specific legislation is ineffective at keeping communities safe and experts in the field — from the local level to the national level — agree it is no longer best practice.”

So, Denver voters, please do the right thing in November and end your city’s unfair Pit Bull ban. You’ll not only be saving a lot of money but also the lives of countless dogs.

Photo: JussyD

The Pit Bull in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ Deserves an Oscar (But Shame on Tarantino)

If you’ve seen “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” I’m going to bet that, like me, one of your favorite characters was Brandy, the Pit Bull belonging to Cliff Booth, the character played by Brad Pitt.

Without giving anything away, Brandy is truly a hero in the movie. She is played by Sayuri, who was snubbed for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination — probably only because dogs don’t get Academy Awards. They do, however, qualify for the Palm Dog award at the Cannes Film Festival. Sayuri deservedly won that prestigious honor this year.

“I’ve told everybody, I have no idea if we’re going to win the Palme d’Or. I feel no entitlement,” said Quentin Tarantino, writer and director of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” when he accepted the award on Sayuri’s behalf. “But I did feel that I was in good standing to win the Palm Dog. So I want to dedicate this to my wonderful actress Brandy. She has brought the Palm Dog home to America.”

As much as Sayuri deserves awards for her performance, Tarantino deserves no awards for casting this particular dog in his movie. Here’s why.

Instead of searching animal shelters and rescue organizations to find a Pit Bull perfect for the part of Brandy – and in the process probably finding that dog a forever home – Tarantino instead chose Sayuri from breeders Monique and Matt Klosowski of Wilmington, Del. Sayuri’s stunt double, Cerberus, was also obtained from these breeders.

According to USA TODAY, trainers flew to the Klosowskis’ home and offered them “thousands of dollars” for Sayuri and Cerberus. It’s heartbreaking to think about how all that money could have really helped an animal shelter or rescue instead. The trainers didn’t even have to leave Los Angeles — it’s a sad fact that the vast majority of dogs in all of the area’s shelters are Pit Bulls or mixes.

What’s also really disappointing is that Tarantino chose to cast a Pit Bull with cropped ears, like Sayuri’s. Okay, so mutilating the ears of Pit Bulls may have been commonplace back in 1969, but nowadays ear cropping is rightfully considered cruel and unnecessary. It is opposed by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) and other veterinary organizations. Yet every Pit Bull on the About page of the Klosowskis’ Delaware Red Pitbulls website has cropped ears.

Even PETA — the only major U.S. animal organization that actually supports unfair and ineffective breed-specific legislation (BSL), including Pit Bull bans — has asked the USDA to investigate Delaware Red Pitbulls. PETA says the breeders are operating without a license, which is in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act.

To his credit, there are some things in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” that Tarantino does get right about Pit Bulls: specifically, just how compassionate and loyal these misunderstood dogs are. But it’s truly a shame that because of his unfortunate casting choice, unlike Brandy in his movie, no shelter dog had the opportunity to enjoy a fairy-tale ending.

Photo: YouTube

Exit mobile version