Marking - inappropriate urination in dogs

Dog Tip: Marking - Understanding It, Stopping It

Contents: 1. Overview 2. Canine Territorial Marking 3. Marking vs. Peeing: Medical or Behavioral? 4. On the Mark...Get Set... How to Stop Marking 5. Odor Elimination 6. Related Resources 1. Overview Dogs gather essential social information using their sense of smell, whether smelling other dogs directly or sniffing their urine and feces. That's why dogs urinate much more than required to simply empty their bladder. Marking serves as a way to claim territory, advertise mating availability and to support the social order. Dogs like hierarchy; it's what they understand. They communicate age, gender and status within their packs via the pheromones in urine. Both male and female animals can engage in marking behavior. A dog uses urine marking to help make a new environment smell like home, masking the unfamiliar odors with his own scent. Humans also engage in marking behavior, though it usually takes such forms as moving in a favorite chair and hanging pictures on the wall. In addition, marking functions as an efficient way to protect a dog's perceived space than physically challenging each interloper who approaches that space. Animals also mark to advertise their sexual availability, which is one reason why it helps to neuter and spay dogs. The earlier, the better, since early neutering can keep young dogs from ever developing the impulse to mark. Urinating in the house and other inappropriate areas can also be a sign of urinary tract disease, so take your dog to the vet before ruling out this possibility. Urinating in the house can also stem from lack of housetraining or lack of an appropriate place to urinate, or having to hold it longer than the dog can physically wait. Consider having someone visit your dog for a mid-day walk if you work long hours. 2. Canine Territorial Marking By Myrna Milani, BS, DVM. Originally written for DogWatch, a newsletter for the general public from the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Q. My dog urinates in numerous locations in my house, which I've been told is territorial marking. The only place she's never gone is in my bed. On the other hand, my cousin's dog only urinates in his bed and he was told that's territorial marking, too. How can these two opposite behaviors mean the same thing? A. To understand the variations that may occur in marking behavior, we first need to understand territorial behavior itself. Recall that establishing and protecting the territory serves as the primary animal priority. The wild dog pack's territorial nature leads its members to claim an area large enough to support them and any offspring, but not one so large that it requires excessive energy to adequately defend it. Within that space, the animals also protect certain prime locations - such as choice feeding sites and dens - more diligently than areas at the periphery. However, because the ultimate goal remains to find food and water and reproduce, it makes sense to leave a token marker - such as scent-laden urine that communicates the resident's willingness to protect this space if necessary - rather than actually physically challenging every suspicious interloper who approaches that space. Moreover, because marking itself requires energy, it also makes sense only to mark as much as is necessary to get the job done. Because animals communicate their sex and status in the pheromones in their urine, that typically means that the most vigorous animals in the pack do most of the marking because they pose the most threat to any interloper. (Imagine seeing a warning posted by the local police versus one posted by the third grade garden club: Which one would you take more seriously?) Thus, marking serves as a marvelously efficient way to avoid confrontations. While a certain energy-efficient elegance underlies territorial theory when applied to a pack of wild animals, an individual pet's personality, the quality of its environment, and its relationship with its owner may throw numerous curves into the process. Pet dogs living in complex human environments may find themselves trying to reach some sort of a workable compromise between the ancient drive to establish and protect a territory, and their own temperaments and any physical or other limitations that would make doing this a threatening endeavor. Under these circumstances, pets typically mark either that space they feel comfortable protecting or that which carries such a positive charge they'd risk injury or even death to protect it. In general, the less confident the dog and the more complex the environment, the more likely marking will occur, the more frequently it will occur, and the more it will involve intimate objects. For example, Josie, a well-trained, stable dog who lives on a quiet, dead-end street feels no need to make any territorial statements beyond the messages communicated in her daily eliminations. Sandy, who lacks Josie's confidence plus lives in a busy suburb, lifts his leg on prominent fence posts and trees around the perimeter of his owner's yard in an effort to scare off invaders. More timid Bumpus marks by the front and back doors, his way of saying he only claims (and thus only feels obligated to protect) what's inside the house. Tuffy marks the upstairs hallway, effectively announcing his desire to protect all of his beloved owners' sleeping quarters. Little Sugar only marks her owner's belongings, and all of these except the bed. Her litter mate, Spice, only marks her owner's bed. Additionally some pets will mark any new objects added to their territories, thereby claiming them and thus ruling out the need for a confrontation. Again, more confident animals may pee on the tires of the visitor's vehicle, whereas those who feel more vulnerable may pee on the visitor's belongings, or even the visitor himself. In the majority of these cases, though, the marking exists because, due to a lack of training and other human displays that communicate leadership, owners have deliberately or unwittingly thrust this protective role upon their pets. Unfortunately, owners who don't understand what the animal communicates via the display - i.e., its fear and willingness to fight to protect this sacred space - often view the pet as spiteful, mean, or stupid for ruining their belongings. While attributing such negative emotions to perfectly logical canine behaviors always ranks as a tragedy, it's particularly sad in the case of very young, timid, or geriatric animals who believe they must protect their owners from the meter reader, school bus, and letter carrier day after day and endure the owner's wrath, too. (The dog does not understand it, and the owner's anger adds to the dog's confusion.) On the other hand, once caring owners understand what causes the behavior, they can relieve their pets of the territorial stresses that cause the problem. 3. Canine Marking versus Peeing: A Medical or a Behavioral Problem? By Myrna Milani, BS, DVM. Originally written for DogWatch, a newsletter for the general public from the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Q. I travel a lot in my work and after I returned from a two-week trip, I discovered that my 6-year-old, spayed Chihuahua mix, Chili, has been peeing on the corner of my bed. Some people tell me it's a medical problem while others say it's behavioral. She's a little baby as well as my best friend and I want to do what's best for her, but I'm confused. A. Approaching any problem that involves inappropriate urination as if it possesses both medical and behavioral components yields better results than taking an either/or approach. And both medical and behavioral components may elicit or result from bond issues which deserve attention, too. To understand why this might be, let's first view Chili's problem as strictly medical. In that case, conditions such as a hormone deficiency, urinary tract infection, or some problem that causes her to drink more (such as diabetes) may cause her to accidentally urinate on her owner's bed, and a medical work-up will pinpoint the cause. However, any medical problem that results in inappropriate elimination automatically sets her up for behavioral problems on two fronts. First, once Chili soils the bed, the scent of the urine may cause her to continue urinating there after any physical problem is resolved. Second, if her physical ailment makes her feel vulnerable and less able to protect her territory, she may begin marking her owner's bed to communicate this sentiment, too. On the other hand, suppose Chili begins marking the bed because something threatens her during her owner's absence. Perhaps the pet-sitter her owner hired brings his own dog along, or maybe a noisy construction project begins in the apartment downstairs. In this case, the urine on the bed communicates, "Go away! I'll fight to protect this!" to whatever sound, scent, and/or sight frightens the little dog. While such a message would seem to signal great courage, in reality animals who mark within their owners' home communicate exactly the opposite: They really don't want to fight at all and hope any intruder will catch a whiff of that message and run. Because the pet-sitter's dog and the construction crew do, in fact, go away every day, as far as Chili's concerned, the marking works and she continues doing it. How could this behavior set Chili up for medical problems? Well, we know that frightened dogs may mark their territories numerous times daily. We also know that dogs who feel insecure in their space may only eat and drink the minimum amount. We also know that stress elevates blood cortisol, a hormone from the adrenal glands, which can undermine the immune response. And, finally, we know that dogs caught up in protecting their space may not take time to groom themselves properly after eliminating. Putting these altogether, we can see how a stressed dog with a depressed immune response who repeatedly squats and eventually strains to urinate who also lacks the time to practice proper post-elimination hygiene could wind up with a urinary tract infection which would cause her to eliminate as well as mark in inappropriate places. Additionally, the relationship between owner and dog often leads the animal to attach a strong emotional charge to the owners' bed. Practically all bed-marking occurs in dog-centered human-canine packs in which the dog feels obligated to protect the territory. Depending on the dog's personality, the bed may serve as the first or last target. Further complicating the bond effects, regardless when and why the mess on the bed appears, owners who discover dog-doo in their beds rarely react neutrally, let alone positively, to it. However, dogs who eliminate on the bed in no way communicate that they are spiteful, mean, or stupid; they communicate that they have a medical, behavioral, and bond problem that requires an immediate, knowledgeable, and caring response. Yelling at the dog or punishing it will simply make the problem worse. Instead, take your pet for a long walk to calm down and consider all the different reasons that could lead to this behavior. That mess on the bed could turn out to be a goldmine of information about your pet's health and behavior, and your relationship. 4. ON THE MARK! GET SET! NEUTER! Marking Elimination Program The following marking elimination guidance is adapted from the GreatPets.com article by Sarah Wilson. Even if a pup or dog is well bonded to the owner, he might not see the owner as the leader of the pack. A young dog having a bold, assertive temperament might be more prone to marking behavior. Sarah Wilson suggests the following steps for establishing leadership and eliminating marking behavior for such dogs. This program puts the person in the leadership role in a positive, nonconfrontational way. Sleeps in his crate. Where a dog sleeps is of much status-related import. Sleeping ON your bed makes him your equal. Also, being on a physically elevated level can fuel a dog's perception that he is top dog, even over the people of the house. So keep the dog off your bed and other people furniture. If the pup is assertive, have him sleep in his crate in the kitchen during the behavior modification program. Works for a living. Most dogs were originally bred to perform certain jobs, and this remains in their nature from generations of breeding. Generally, either you give them work or they make up their own. A young dog might make up a game called "Taking over the house one wet spot at a time". Have the dog sit or down for EVERYTHING - every door opening, every pat, every word. Avoid spanking and other punishment. Dogs typically do not make the connection that the owner is hitting them because they marked. It is better and more effective to educate instead of punish. Wilson notes that spanking a dog for marking only makes him think you did NOT get the point last time, so he marks AGAIN and more clearly. He may defecate as well. "There" he says to himself "Surely, they will get THAT message!" Instead of punishing, you must take steps to change the relationship and establish that you are leader. Supervision. One wet spot and it is house arrest for four to six weeks. That means in sight, on lead or crated (or otherwise confined to a safe, puppy-proofed area). No exceptions. Neuter! Leg lifting and marking can be resistant to change, though, when marking at a young age, or when new to your home, the dog may just be trying out his wings or testing the boundaries. In any case, Sarah Wilson calls neutering one of the absolute first steps to controlling marking as well as other problems. Done early, neutering can help you avoid such problems altogether. Trainer Cinimon Clark adds that neutering alone will probably not eliminate territorial marking if this is a learned behavior. This is why neutering before a dog reaches maturity or comes into heat (typically by age six months) is such a good idea. Neutered early enough, the dog will not learn marking behavior. Adds vet Chris Cook, a neutered or spayed dog is a happier, healthier, more behaviorally balanced dog. After neutering, it takes a few weeks for the affected hormones to stop circulating. In dogs neutered at a mature age, the marking may have become a learned, habitual behavior and will need behavior modification. Also, if you have an intact (unspayed) female in the house, this may add to the difficulties of breaking the habit. In his article "To Pee or Not to Pee", Dr. Ian Dunbar explains that female dogs urine mark, some even raising a leg when doing so. When in heat, the female uses marking to broadcast her reproductive state to prospective suitors. For reproductively intact female and male dogs, urine communicates, attracts and arouses. Thus, another good reason to spay and neuter. Another tip: some canine behavior specialists recommend that, particularly if the dog displays dominance and/or has aggression issues with other dogs, to discourage the dog from marking objects (fences, gates, signposts, bushes, etc.) when walking. Of course, allow the dog to relieve himself or herself. But if the dog is marking to claim an increasingly larger territory, try to discourage this behavior. 5. Odor elimination It is extremely important to get rid of the odor the dog has left with previous markings. Use a specially formulated urine odor eliminator in all areas that have been marked. Remember that urine soaks through carpet to the padding, so try to clean the padding too...or replace as necessary. Do not use ammonia or other standard household cleaners, since some will leave odors that many pets will feel compelled to mark upon. In addition to Simple Solution available in stores, you'll find new, specialized pet odor elimination products at: http://www.paw-rescue.org/PAW/PETTIPS/DogTip_Cleaning.php www.odordestroyer.com www.planeturine.com www.dogurine.com www.dog-urine.com www.justrite.com www.rx4carpets.com/dog_urine.html www.iloveproklean.com/dogurine.html www.sea-yu.com (Petrotech odor eliminator) 6. Related resources Dog Tipsheets on housetraining, house manners, leadership, dominance and other behavior issues Click on Housetraining. More articles by Dr. Myrna Milani http://www.mmilani.com To Pee or Not to Pee by Ian Dunbar, PhD, MRCVS http://www.petcompanion.com/dogs/Pee.html Good Owners, Great Pets articles and books by Sarah Wilson http://www.greatpets.com Pet odor cleaning tips http://www.petodorremovaltips.com Note: Articles used with author's permission for nonprofit educational use only.

K9 Magazine puts electric collars in the dock

We're glad to see that K9 Magazine has taken this sensible way of looking at the thorny issue of electric collars and their use. Many dog owners are against these collars as they believe them to be unnecessarily barbaric and potentially dangerous. 

However the proponents of electric collars point out that their use can save lives, that they are very quick to work and can be little more painful than the shock obtained by static. Read on to find out the case for and against their use...

K9 Magazine takes a look at one of the most controversial subjects in the entire dog world, a much maligned defendant takes to the stand. The electric shock dog training collar. These are the collars that actually administer an electrical charge into the dog’s neck when activated and should not be confused with other varieties of a remote dog training collar or anti-bark collar that use a variety of different methods to achieve desired results such as sprays and noises.

The Case For The Prosecution: (Against Electric Collars)

Electric shock collars, you stand accused of being one of the single most vivid examples of man’s ability to use modern technology to the detriment of all that is natural and justified in the animal kingdom.

Whoever conceived the idea of a device capable of administering a painful electric shock into the neck of a creature devoid of the ability to comprehend electricity or its effects on the body should take a serious look into their conscience and picture the pain and anguish suffered by the thousands of dogs all over the world who have been electrocuted in the name of ‘better’ or ‘more socially acceptable’ behaviour.

Whoever had the notion that a device operable by a completely un-trained or un-qualified ‘ordinary’ pet owner, capable of sending an agonising current through the veins of an unsuspecting animal, would be an advancement of the human / canine interface must consider the damage and destruction they have caused to that most sacred of relationships.

Quite simply the electric shock collar would have been best left un-discovered in the same laboratory as Mustard Gas and gun powder.

The concept of the device is simply horrific. Dog partakes in behaviour not to the liking of dog’s owner, owner electrocutes dog. Forgive me for thinking we lived in a society that had long since abandoned the ideals of drowning Witches or burning people at the stake but I am convinced that future generations will look back on the world who embraced the electric shock collar with a similar level of disdain.

Electric shock collars, you have caused harm, you continue to cause harm. The pain and anguish you have delivered in your time could never be justified by the pro-electric shock brigade who seem to think your ability to inflict instant ‘correction’ and the possibility of such an action being capable of righting the wrongs of a dog whose behavioural misdemeanours have placed him in life’s last chance saloon, are a reasonable argument for their role in society.

How many times must we hear the argument that electric shock collars have saved the lives of dogs considered to be too unruly or too untrustworthy to co-exist in human society? Dogs with temperament problems who could be considered beyond the reach of the most successful canine behaviour experts still do not deserve to be persecuted and tortured into submission.

There are humane methods to change and influence the behaviour of any living breathing creature capable of thinking, a dog especially so. Remote control electrocution simply can not be considered a humane or acceptable solution, whatever the necessity to alter behaviour. Even convicted criminals, sentenced to death in the Electric Chair are spared the long term agony of punishing electrical charges being pumped into their bodies. Death comes relatively quickly for these people and as barbaric as the act itself may be, even murderers would never be subjected to a daily electrocution until such a time as they had ‘learned their lesson.’ Why, therefore, should a dog?

Members of the K9 Magazine jury, I ask you to consider the following:

Is it in any way conceivable that a dog, an animal born of no inherent malevolence, a creature whose psychological makeup is influenced entirely by environmental conditioning and its interaction with members of the human race, could ever commit an act worthy of this most vile and excruciatingly painful example of human cruelty as a means of justifiable reprisal?

Furthermore, that companies who profit from the sale and manufacture of a device renowned for its capability to inflict a deplorable level of brutality on its animal victims, should do so at the physical and mental expense of those dogs who have to endure the consequences of its potency all in the name of ‘more desirable behaviour’?

Is this a product that we, a supposed Nation of animal lovers should be tolerant of as it is made freely available for sale in the United Kingdom to anyone who so desires to one?

Does not the sheer concept of a device, created to inflict punishment by means of remote electrocution on an animal we refer to as ‘man’s best friend’, strike you as being barbaric, hypocritical and contradictory to everything that modern society stands for?

I put it to you, members of the K9 Magazine jury that you use your jurisdiction to sentence the electric shock collar to death by way of your consciences compelling you to speak out against anyone reckless enough to use one or any business mercenary enough to sell or manufacture one for profit. I say stop this shocking tool from being made available for sale and spare the anguish of thousands of dogs. Call for a ban on the electric shock collar.

Case For The Defence: (In Support of the Electric Collar)

Members of the K9 Magazine reader’s jury. Before I say anything, I credit you all with the intellectual capacity to have already spotted the fundamentally flawed motives of the anti-electric collar bandwagon.

The charge levelled against this most innovative and successful product is without foundation and is confounded when you view the successes that have been achieved with electric collars.

Whilst it maybe true that many a dog trainer would have you believe they would never stoop so low as to use an ecollar, the facts are that many trainers who do sample the device when pressed with an apparently insurmountable behavioural problem capable of ultimately leading to the destruction of a healthy animal, discover a life-saving tool that is effective ONLY because it fits with the dog’s own understanding of negative or positive behavioural re-enforcement.

Jury, you must understand what the anti-collar browbeaters fail to acknowledge. Dogs are not humans. It sounds obvious, in fact it is obvious but the reality is lost on the anti-ecollar protesters. Dogs, not being human, have learning and thinking systems that are very different to our own. Dogs understand the blackness or whiteness of a situation but not grey. That is to say a dog has the capability to understand if a behaviour it participates in is acceptable or not. It does not have a comprehension of a behaviour being anti-social or ‘not in keeping with the expectancy level of its human counterparts’.

Let’s take a hypothetical case: A family dog, let’s say he’s a 12 month old Labrador. His owners let him sit on the sofa in the living room every day. Every day that is apart from Fridays when his owners hold a very important dinner party in which case he gets scolded for being ill-mannered enough to even attempt to get up on the sofa and carry out behaviour which he understands to be acceptable on other occasions.

He doesn’t know he can’t get on the sofa on a Friday. He understands a pattern that says he either can get on the sofa or he can’t. He’ll pretty much accept either rule but what he really struggles with is this horrible, human inflicted grey area. I will re-iterate, dogs understand black or white, hot or cold, acceptable or not acceptable. They do not have a great ability to add in scenario evaluation or circumstance-relevant decision making to their thought process.

The dog’s black or white learning pattern is the main reason why the electric shock training collar is so very successful and fair. It has the capability to instantly and effectively communicate a highly comprehensible message to the dog. ‘Your behaviour is acceptable or your behaviour is not’.

Dogs do not enjoy the shock. Some ecollar advocates try and play down the fact that the device can (and sometimes does) cause discomfort. This is true, conceded. But neither does a dog enjoy an existence where there are no clearly defined social boundaries or confusion, for example dogs who pull on lead and are constantly being ‘strangled’ by an owner who has never correctly taught the dog to walk properly. Dogs understand rank and the system of a pack which is why the most successful and contented packs consist of pack leader who is on hand to administer discipline and order to the rest of the pack the instant it is required.

That discipline may range from a ‘stare’ in minor cases of behavioural misdemeanor to a full scale exertion of physical dominance, including the infliction of some degree of pain, in cases where the pack leader’s authority is being severely challenged.

Here is where the case for the defence overwhelms any charges brought against the electric collar. If used correctly in accordance with manufacturers instructions and only in cases where there is a severe challenge of authority that threatens to destabilise the entire family unit (pack) either by way of the dog’s behaviour becoming a danger to people or to their own lives, the electric shock collar has the power to save thousands of dogs lives through its ability to act quickly and decisively leaving the dog with no grey area difficulties.

If dogs could speak they would all seek to communicate their desire to live and conform in a human-lead, modern society ahead of the prospect of having their life terminated as a result of our human inability to translate our acceptable behaviour standards sufficiently into a language that they can understand.

The case for the defence rests and leaves the jury with this final thought:

“Ask a dog to choose between certain death or one final chance at being shown the path to acceptable human-interaction and behaviour and you have the very reason why electric collars have a valuable role to play in modern society. There are thousands of dogs who are only alive today because of this ground breaking, innovative use of modern technology and advanced understanding of canine behaviour”

Witnesses Called To The Stand:

Hi to all of you at k9 magazine

I am one of those who think that the e-collar is a barbaric invention, one that if not banned should certainly be subject to strict legislation, only to be used by qualified behaviourists for extreme problems – where the only alternative would be euthanasia. They cannot be the way forward for modern trainers. Modern trainers mostly train with kindness and reward, positive reinforcement techniques, not by giving a dog an electric shock! I have been training my own dogs for twenty years and have not yet come across a training problem that can’t be overcome with patience and perseverance. The damage that could be done to a sensitive dog by an inexperienced handler using an e-collar horrifies me. E-collars are a step backwards in training methods and have no place in our canine classes or in general use.

Karen White

Hi K9 Magazine

Only barbaric man could invent such a thing.  Man’s best friend they are supposed to be.  I have done some studies with a reputable behavioural school and all studies have shown that this causes a dog more anxiety than anything we could imagine.

If a dog gets a shock at the wrong time, you are teaching it to be scared of all the wrong things.  A dog has to be taught no within 3 seconds, you can not possibly get that right.

How would man like this treatment? Can you imagine every time you did something wrong at work for instance and your boss pressed the button, what would your reaction be?

Ban the damn things, a nation of animal lovers, I don’t think so.

Dawn.

Dear K9 Magazine

Anything that causes pain to an animal should be outlawed! Would we use
the same device to get children to do as we want? I don’t think so somehow!

Kind regards

Adele Travis-Jones

Dear Sir/Madam

I read the last edition of K9 magazine and was pleased that the topic of electric collars has come up for debate having been an avid user for a number of years now. Whilst acknowledging that there is an element of concern over the use of anything electrical, this debate really stems from people not properly understanding on how it operates.

At no time when using our remote trainer have we caused our dog any distress, to the contrary it has saved our Labrador’s life. He had taken to worrying sheep down on Common Land and was liable to be shot if we did not immediately take corrective measures.

We did seek advice, train him and follow guidelines along traditional lines – however this proved ineffective and the sheep far more interesting. We were then recommended a remote trainer by a friend, and indeed we only used the electric collar once in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines and Wellington has never chased sheep again. This device was used to safeguard our pet within his home environment and has most definitely enhanced his enjoyment of being part of our family.

I have recommended these devices to a lot of people since first using it and the results are astounding.

Yours faithfully

Angela Brown

I read with interest your request for comments regarding electric collars. Although your magazine is aimed at dog owners it was passed to me by a friend as we use such a product with our cats.

We live in a semi-rural area on the edge of town, a reasonable distance from the main road. Several years ago we rescued three cats from a local centre all of who became much loved, and very settled members of our family. However one always had a tendency to wander, and frequently crossed the main road to go into the fields beyond. We always had a strong belief that cats being very independent creatures should not be restrained, however earlier this year my husband went out to work early one morning only to find our beloved “wanderer” dead by the side of the road having been hit by a vehicle on his way home for breakfast. We were devastated.

Since then we re-considered that possibility of some sort of device to restrict their wanderings a little. After much consideration we opted to install a radio fence and have the cats wear electric collars. This has successfully prevented them from leaving our reasonably sized garden and has given us so much more peace of mind. The thought of losing another member of our family in such a horrible way was just too much to bear, and I am so glad we have taken this decision. The cats were carefully trained in accordance with the manufacturers advice, and after having received one or two corrections in the early days now accept their collars and the limitations to their wanderings. They are still well-adjusted, and very contented pets.

I do understand the other side of the electric collar debate, but feel very strongly that in the right hands and used correctly and responsibly they are a huge asset from several points of view – the animal’s safety, the owner’s peace of mind, and reducing the possibility of causing a major road accident.

Regards,

SL

Dear K9 Magazine,

There has been a lot of controversy about electronic dog collars and restraints in the press and government recently. I write as a very happy user of such a system. We live on a couple of acres in a village in Leicestershire

A couple of years ago we had problems with our Retriever bitch escaping and wandering when on heat, causing a bother to our neighbours.

We then also got a Ridgeback dog who when 8 months old escaped and was hit by a car in the road outside. Luckily, neither dog nor car occupants suffered serious harm. However, there remained the risk of nuisance to other people and dogs.

At the recommendation of some friends, we had a Freedom Fence system installed around our boundary. We adjusted the levels so that the dogs received the minimum prompt they recognised. Our dogs took 2 days to learn where the boundaries are.

Since then, our dogs will approach the boundary but will not cross unless for example we walk across looking like we are going to take them for a walk. The collars emit a warning beep when the dog comes up to the boundary, and the dogs know not to proceed further and to retreat a little to stop the bleeping, without receiving any prompt other than the beep.

The system gives a great benefit to the dogs. It allows us to give the dogs freedom to wander in our garden without worry, when we are indoors.

The system is excellent. It has not shown any sign of malfunction or problem, and can easily be switched off when we want to take the dogs out. Our friends who recommended it to us have similarly had nothing but success with the system. I recommend it to your readers for 3
reasons:

It stops the problems of wandering dogs.
It gives us the reassurance that the dogs are safe on our land. It allows the dogs the fun of wandering on our land when we are busy.

Yours sincerely

Jan van der Post
Leicestershire

Dog Owners Live Longer, Are Happier and Healthier: Report

Academic research has revealed that dog owners are happier, healthier and likely to live longer. Whilst it has been established for some time that pet ownership makes people happier, it has now been shown that the benefits of owning a dog outstrip those of cat or any other animal.

A psychologist from Queen's University, Belfast, said dog owners tended to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol.

Writing in the British Journal of Health Psychology, she says that regular 'walkies' may partly explain the difference.

Dr Deborah Wells reviewed dozens of earlier research papers which looked at the health benefits of pet ownership.

In some cases, the research even ventured as far to suggest the social support offered by an animal is greater than the support than another human could offer.

She confirmed that pet owners tended in general to be healthier than the average member of the population.

As well as lower blood and cholesterol levels, dog-owners suffered fewer minor ailments and serious medical problems than owners of other pets such as cats.

It has been believed for some time that dogs can assist people in recovery from serious illnesses such as heart attacks, and act as 'early warning' to detect an approaching epileptic seizure. This research adds further strength to the claim.

Dogs as Stress Relief

Dr Wells was not totally sure why, exactly, dogs are so beneficial to our health:

"It is possible that dogs can directly promote our well-being by buffering us from stress, one of the major risk factors associated with ill-health.

"The ownership of a dog can also lead to increases in physical activity and facilitate the development of social contacts, which may enhance both physiological and psychological human health in a more indirect manner."

Police forces pay £700k compensation for dog bites

New figures released this week have shown that police forces across the UK have been forced to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in personal injury compensation to people bitten by police dogs.

Under a Freedom of Information Act request from BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme, it was disclosed that GBP 770,000 has been paid over the past three years to people injured by the animals, with the largest sums from Greater Manchester Police.

One victim received GBP 49,000 in compensation, while 2,725 suspects, 196 police personnel and 155 members of the public were bitten during the timeframe.

In one instance, Cheshire Police awarded a 13-year-old boy with a dog phobia a payout after he was bitten by one of the specially-trained canines.

Meanwhile, in another, GBP 7,000 was provided for a man in Durham who had been jogging past a police dog being exercised by its off-duty handler.

Assistant chief constable Nick Ingram from the Association of Chief Police Officers' (Acpo) police dogs unit denied that the animals are dangerous.

"The Acpo Police Dog Working Group seeks to ensure that optimum performance is achieved from these valuable resources and that the training, deployment and management of dogs is constantly improved, devised and developed whilst maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and welfare," he added.

According to the Metropolitan Police, general purpose dogs are usually German or Belgian Shepherds and can search for suspects, locate objects dropped during pursuits and detain a person who runs away when challenged by an officer to stop.

Spaniels and Labradors are typically used to find specific scents such as drugs, cash or explosives.

Happy New Year

Happy 2011 to all our readers! Keep watching this space for interesting doggy tips, stories, anecdotes and more.

More sickening animal stories

Company director, 49, accused of killing next-door neighbour's Alsatian with a carving knife

A millionaire property tycoon has appeared in court accused of stabbing his neighbour’s guard dog to death with a kitchen knife.

Mark Deeley, 49, knifed an Alsatian called Max below his front right leg after it ran into his garden and mauled his seven-year-old Labrador Bertie, it is claimed.

The alleged attack happened in the front garden of Deeley’s £534,000 detached house in an exclusive area of Coventry just after 8am on November 26.

Mark Deeley knifed an Alsatian called Max after it ran into his garden and mauled his seven-year-old cream Labrador Bertie, it is claimed

His owners, brother and sister property developers Susan Kaur, 39, and Tarlo Singh, 33, discovered Max’s body under a hedge and called the police.

They say five-year-old Max squeezed through a gap in the wire fence which separates the courtyard of their £1-million property with Deeley’s front garden.

On Tuesday the father-of-two appeared at Coventry Magistrates Court charged with criminal damage relating to the death of Max.

 

More...

• Caught on CCTV: The sickening moment diplomat's son battered lovable labrador puppy 20 times

Deeley, who is listed as a company director of a lettings agency in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, only spoke to confirm his name and address during the five-minute hearing.

Jez Newsome, prosecuting, told the court: ‘A neighbour’s dog got into his garden and attacked his own dog.

‘He went into the kitchen and put his hands on a kitchen knife and delivered one blow killing the dog.

‘A lengthy investigation still needs to be processed.’

Max was owned by brother and sister property developers Susan Kaur and Tarlo Singh. Ms Kaur is pictured outside his kennel

The alleged attack happened in the front garden of Deeley's home (pictured) in an exclusive area of Coventry

District Judge Ian Gillespie granted Deeley unconditional bail and ordered him to appear back at court on January 6.

Mr Tarlo and Miss Kaur attended the hearing and sat in the public gallery.

Today Miss Kaur, who is not married and has no children, said Max was trained by Sussex Police as a guard dog.

She added: ‘Max ran over to a gap in the hedge by his kennel. I came out half-an-hour later and found him dead on the floor under the hedge.

‘Max had obviously crawled back under the hedge where he bled to death. 

‘At first I thought he was sleeping but then I saw a huge blood patch spreading underneath his body. It was horrific.

Miss Kaur, who has lived next door to Deeley for five years, also has four other pet dogs, eight-month-old Alsatian Sky, Yorkshire Terriers Snuggles, three, and Freddie, one, and a four-year-old Miniature Maltese called Poppy.

Deeley, who is captain of Kenilworth Cricket Club in Warwickshire, bought his sprawling property for £345,000 in 1999 but it is now believed to be worth around £1million.

Animal abuse crosses all classes:

Caught on CCTV: The sickening moment diplomat's son battered labrador puppy 20 times because he was 'having a bad day'

A diplomat's son who viciously kicked and punched his puppy because he was 'having a bad day' after being turned down for a job has narrowly avoided being locked up for the horrific attack.

Mohammed Abou-Sabaa, whose father is a prominent Tunisian official, was caught on CCTV raining down more than 20 blows on his labrador, Poppy, as she cowered in terror.

In a final, sickening, attack, the 21-year-old student was filmed kicking the blameless pet down a flight of steps outside his luxury city centre flat.

Attack: Mohammed Abou-Sabaa was caught on CCTV brutally abusing his five-month-old labrador puppy

Abou-Sabaa was seen raining down more than 20 blows on the puppy as she cowered in terror

But despite his behaviour being branded 'despicable' by RSPCA inspectors, magistrates agreed to let him walk free from court, imposing a suspended prison sentence and banning him from keeping animals for four years.

They told him they were letting him off because he was in full-time education - however it emerged yesterday he is likely to face disciplinary action from the authorities at Manchester University over his conviction for animal cruelty.

Brazen Abou-Sabaa punched and kicked the dog outside the entrance to his building, stopping when a fellow resident went indoors before resuming the unprovoked assault.

Punishment: Diplomat's son Abou-Sabaa was given a six-week sentence, suspended for two years,

An investigation was launched after the appalled caretaker saw the attack on CCTV and contacted the RSPCA.

When he appeared in court, shocked magistrates asked for the gruelling six-minute video footage to be stopped because they couldn't bear to sit through it all.

It shows the uncomprehending, mild-mannered pet cowering while Abou-Sabaa beats it ferociously, stopping only to mop his brow.

At one stage he yanks the puppy up by its neck then slaps it to the ground, also standing on the terrified dog with his full weight.

Finally he uses his knee to launch her down a stairwell. 

Poppy was seized by RSPCA inspectors and has made a full physical recovery from the attack in July.

Abou-Sabaa told investigators he had been having a bad day after learning he had failed with a job application and was training the dog.

But David McCormick, prosecuting for the RSPCA, told Manchester magistrates it was a sustained and brutal attack – a 'wanton and deliberate act of cruelty.'

'The defendant was seen wiping sweat from his brow and only stopped the assault when people entered the building and then carried on when they had gone,' he added.

John Hera, defending, said Abou-Sabba had acted out of character. 'Something clicked inside him and there was lots of anger. He is full of remorse.'

Abou-Sabaa, from Manchester, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to Poppy.
Magistrates decided not to jail him immediately because of his age, his guilty plea, and because he was in full-time education.

Jane Dyson, chairwoman of the bench, said: 'This is simply a terrible demonstration of cruelty to a vulnerable puppy. None of us have seen anything like it – you have just avoided prison.'

He was instead given a six-week sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work. 

He was also banned from keeping animals for four years and told to pay £1,000 costs.

Afterwards RSPCA inspector Paul Heaton said: 'It was a despicable act. I was incensed when I saw the video – it just went on and on. 

Recovered: Poppy the labrador has now made a full recovery and the RSPCA is trying to rehome her

'He said he had applied for a job apparently and had not got it and he was having a bad day. 

'I do not know of any training school that says that smacking a dog is a way of training it.'

Abou-Sabaa's father, a Tunisian diplomat, travelled from his home country to hear the case. 

He said afterwards: 'I have had words with my son and my family and I want to apologise for what he did.'

Abou-Sabaa is studying mechatronics - a combination of engineering and electronics.

While a criminal conviction for animal cruelty doesn't automatically bar him from the course, he could be suspended for bringing the university into disrepute.

A spokesman for Manchester University said: 'We are looking into this case.'

Poppy is being looked after by the RSPCA and is likely to be rehomed in the new year after the court signed her over to their care.

Mr Heaton added: 'Poppy is fine now. She is doing okay.