Lazy Sunday

I like to take Kip to areas that will challenge him in terms of training. So today, taking advantage of the nice fall Sunday, we went to Niagara-on-the-Lake.


We saw historic buildings.


We met some horses, and sat pretty even though they smelled really really really good.


We thought about going here for afternoon tea.


But they said "NO dogs!!". We didn't want to go there anyway.


We pondered the wisdom of a tourist area planting poisonous plants.

We thought about going to the theater, but instead...


... we just sat on their bench.


We window-shopped for artwork.


And then we came home, made soup and went to sleep. Well, one of us made soup, and one went to sleep. Guess which one??

Tally-ho!!!

There is another debate raging over at the Pet Connection site, this time about declawing cats.

(A note here: on Yahoo Answers, every so often, someone gets all het up about "declawing" dogs. I find it indicative of the general level of knowledge of many "animal rights" people (mind you, most of them are teenagers, but still). They read "dewclaw" as "declaw", and proceed to try and change the world so no dogs are ever declawed again. How nice!! Anyhow, back to today's topic.)

I have mentioned here before that I'm against the vast majority additional of "anti-cruelty" legislation, mainly because such legislation has a number of unintended consequences, doesn't address the issue, and has a slim chance of ever being used to prevent abuse of any animal, since most Animal Controls (at least the ones I know of) are understaffed and under-funded, and the court system doesn't seem to treat any but the most egregious cruelty cases seriously (case in point - Michel Vick didn't go to jail for animal abuse).

It seems many of the proponents in the current debate are British (or English, although I don't know how one can be English and not British, but I digress). Which makes me think of the hunting ban over there that worked so well, that it's possibly in danger of being repealed.

We on the other side of the pond also have those that wish to ban hunting - both the mounted-fox-hunts kind of hunting, and the person-with-a-gun (or bow) kind.

Cuz you know, it's mean. It's nicer to let the poor little animals live their lives in peace. Yes ma'am, hunting and fishing is cruel and should be banned.

These same people, if one were to ask, would surely support environmental awareness and habitat preservation for those same poor little animals. But try to tell them that one of the BIGGEST supporters (in terms of cold hard cash, not just rhetoric) of habitat preservation was established, and continues to be supported, by hunters. It makes sense when one thinks about it - no habitat, no animals. Most hunters and fishers I know are environmentalists as well, but aren't the tree-hugger types one generally associates with that term. They don't have time to protest and sign petitions - they are to busy actually spending time in the same habitats they are trying to preserve.

These same people, if one were to ask, would surely be against having those poor little animals die of car crashes, starvation or disease. And of course they'd be against having Fluffy and Fido end up as coyote food, right? But try telling them that's exactly what happens to deer and coyote populations (and probably to more animals, but those are the 2 I'm familiar with) in areas where hunting declines. Deer populations increase (good, right?), and more get killed by cars, and more starve to death as food resources become scarce (this is Animal Ecology 101). As deer populations increase, so do their predator populations - generally coyotes in many areas of North America. And coyotes are incredibly adaptable. When the deer population crashes, they happily turn to the dog-and-cat buffet (FYI, the Beaches area of Toronto is most definitely NOT suburban or rural - it's right between downtown and Lake Ontario. Fort Erie is a town of ~30,000 right across the river from Buffalo - a bit more rural that Toronto, but a town none the less, and these attacks took place in a densely populated neighbourhood only a few block away from me. These are city coyotes we're talking about here, not their country cousins). As populations of animals increase, so do their diseases - like mange and rabies.

Like it or not, humans are part of the environment. We cannot be left out of the equations. Sure, it's nice to think about a "nature" where all animals are free from disease, starvation, and predation, but it just doesn't happen. So that's why I support hunting, and fishing, and even fox hunting (and please note, the fox is NOT killed in North American hunts). Even though I don't own a gun, fishing rod or fox hound.

Because, you know, I can separate logic and emotion, and use my little grey cells to try to understand what our world actually is, not what I wish it were.

Of fall and foam

Three things have recently made me realize that summer is indeed over.

Orion is back in the night sky.

The leaves are turning colours.

And these are back on store shelves:



It's odd - I'm not a big candy eater (Chocolate, yes, but chocolate isn't candy, it's a food group). But candy corn gets me every fall.

Since I've finally succumbed to the idea that fall is here, I really can't ignore the fact that winter is soon to follow. Last winter was COLD. Not outside, but inside - that's what you get when you live in an under-insulated house (or uninsulated) in Canada. But this year...

FOAM!! I got foam! Not the entire house, but at least the crawl space is finally done. I initially contracted the job out last November! But spray foam is applied with equipment that uses electricity, and a small wet crawlspace and electricity don't mix, so it had to wait until the crawl space dried out - which it should have done this summer. Except...

This summer was insanely wet. We finally got a run of dry weather, I repaired the cracks in the foundation, and wonder upon wonder, the company that was applying the foam was able to fit me in soon after I called to make the apointment and the weather stayed dry!!!

Why am I so happy? Well, all the plumbing is in the crawl space. Which means the crawl space needs to stay heated all winter. Which means a great deal of heat (and my $$) went into the crawl space last year. By simply insulating this area, I can reduce the amount of heat I divert to the crawl space, and either reduce my heating costs, or keep the house warmer this winter. One of these weekends, I also need to get my tallest, skinniest nephew over here with my dad to put plastic down under the crawl space as well - that should help keep the house drier (well, as dry as you can get when living within sight of one of largest lakes in the world).

So why spray foam? And not the standard Fiberglas batting (which I will be using in the walls of the house)? The only thing you can really do with fiberglass insulation in a crawl space is insulate the "ceiling" of the space (basically the floor of the house). This is a great and much, much, much cheaper option - as long as you don't need a heated crawl space. Additionally, spray foam provides a good vapor barrier (not really critical in this application, but it will help with the dampness). But spray foam is $$$, needs to be applied by professionals ($$$$), and off-gasses (UGH! That wasn't too bad with just the crawl space, but I can't imagine living here soon after the application if I was going to get the entire house done). So, it's foam for the crawl space, Fiberglass for the walls, and probably blown-in insulation of some sort for the attic.

It's fall. But I have foam and candy corn, so life is good!

Hey! Wasn't this supposed to be a home reno blog?

Yes, yes it was. So here, without further ado, some home renos.

Actually, making pie pastry is remarkably similar to mixing up concrete (mix wet to dry until the right consistency is achieved...), making this weekend eerily similar to last one, just with fewer peaches.

There were holes in the foundation, which allowed water into the crawlspace, which meant the insulation guys couldn't spray the foam onto the crawlspace walls (something about water and electricity not mixing). So, after a few (finally!) dry days, a batch of hydraulic cement, some grubby clothes, and hey presto, a patched foundation. And yes, I did this by myself!!


Those were the largest cracks; there were a few smaller ones that patched easily. In fact, it was all pretty easy. It's not perfect, but it will do the job until I get the entire thing re-parged (which won't happen until the new siding is put on, which won't happen for a couple of years yet).

The astute amongst you will wonder at my lack of hysteria re: a cracked foundation. That's because what was patched isn't actually what's holding the house up. The house is on a pier foundation, and the cracks are only in the areas between the piers, which are not structural at all. The astute may also wonder at the green pipe. We* think it was the old waste water pipe, but it's not actually connected to anything inside the house. Where is goes and what it's connected to outside the house is anyone's guess. I told my boss this week at work that the more I look into things there, the more mistakes I find, so I'm going to stop looking. The same goes for certain things in the house... like the green pipe :)

*We = Dad. I have no opinion on odd green pipes.

What to do on a rainy Saturday...

(Note presence of helpful floor cleaner)

Put 4 pies (unbaked) in freezer. Keep one out for lunch treats. Trade one for a steak and shrimp dinner at Mom & Dad's tonight.

A day well spent.

I'm living in a dream world, apparently.

I've recently been debating the whole "US vs. Canadian healthcare" system recently, with some friends and some Internet strangers.

And apparently, I know nothing about my own heathcare system. (According to one blogger anyway.)

You see, I'm almost 40 years old. I've lived in 6 different cities/towns/villages in two different provinces. I know people in almost every province (except PEI) and even in two of the territories. I have met literally thousands of people through work and volunteer efforts, from all tax brackets, from very rich to very poor. I know surgeons, doctors, and nurses.

I personally know Canadians who have or had breast cancer, a brain tumor, skin cancer, hip replacement, knee replacement, pace makers, organ transplants, gall bladder removal, leg amputation, high-risk pregnancy, cataracts, hernias, lung cancer, stomach cancer, heart attack, stroke, infectious diseases by the boat load...

And not ONE OF THEM HAS EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. Or wait times. Or the "fact" they couldn't choose their own doctor (an outright lie, BTW). Or anything, really. Sure, they may bitch about waiting around the ER for a few hours until they are seen for a non-emergency issue. And they may bitch about a particular doctor/nurse/technician (ask me about my "viral infection of the cartilage" one day, or the nurse that insisted on drawing blood from my right arm instead of my left, since she couldn't believe a young child actually knew which of her veins was better choice, having had to give blood every 3-4 months for years at that point). But that isn't a product of our system, simply human nature and the medical profession and system as a whole.

But my offering that up as evidence that our system does actually function is paltry compared to the clip someone once saw about some Canadian who had to go to the US or they would have died!! And that we as a country have nothing to compare our system to, so we cannot make valid comparisons (the hypocrisy of that statement is apparently missed by those who make it).

I have absolutely nothing to say about the US heathcare system - it is NONE of my concern. But I do get annoyed when misinformation about my country is used to argue the matter. One would hope that the debate could be done on it's own merits, but apparently not. All one has to do is look at the rumor that the 9-11 terrorists came from Canada that is still floating around - and is still believed by some high-ranking US politicians - to realize that facts are unimportant in the game of one-upmanship and point scoring that is politics.

Guilty, your Honour

If I lived in Raleigh, North Carolina, I could be charged with animal abuse.

My yard has no fence, and, until many more important issues are taken care of (like insulation, electrical work, drywall, etc. etc. etc.), it won't be getting one. Additionally, I have to make a decision about the four trees in the backyard (they are 80+ years old, have a lot of dead wood and some are starting to rot at the base. I need to get someone in to assess their health, and decide if they need to come down). Once that decision is made, then I need to figure out what I want to do with certain areas of the yard, which will finally lead to the decision of which areas will be fenced and which won't. There was also no storage for yard items, like lawn mowers, which led to the shed building of a few weeks ago. During construction, I tethered Kip outside.

For more than 3 hours.

Without access to food.

Mind you, I was outside with Kip that entire time, and obviously, I didn't break the spirit of the law. But I quite possibly broke the letter of that law.

This is my main problem with many animal anti-cruelty laws (and many laws in general). They are enacted to address a specific problem (in this case, dogs left tethered for the majority of their lives), but end up being so vague and broad that they could be used against a regular, non-abusive dog owner. All it takes is a nosy neighbour, a power-hungry animal control officer, someone out to make trouble, your local animal-rights activist...

Mind you, that link isn't to the law itself, just to an article about it. Hopefully, there are exclusions in the actual law to prevent situations like mine being considered as against the law. But there are many examples of laws having unintended consequences, and I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't another one.

P is for propaganda

Why I hate PETA.

I have a theory about any large non-profit organization, from unions to charities to PETA. At some point, they become more about the promotion and continuation of the organization than about the causes they espouse or the people/animals they are supposed to help.

I give the origins of PETA, and the majority of it's supporters, the benefit of the doubt. Their hearts are in the right place. (And I'll forbear to discuss why I despise that statement, except to say I wish their BRAINS were in the right place instead).

So, why do I hate PETA? I could discuss certain statements their leaders have made, and how I disagree with them. I could talk about the idiocy of their protests, and how equating dog breeding with the KKK or Hitler is the lowest or the low, and completely diminishes the suffering of the humans that were subject to such cruelty (and I could note that those protesting have never suffered anything close to genocide or slavery, and co-opting those issues in an attempt to legitimize their own issues should give them entre into the lowest levels of hell). I could find a PETA supporter, and go through their house and life, pointing out where they themselves are benefiting from the "abuse" of animals:

- the medications they take were most likely first tested on animals.
- any old books or furniture they own mostly likely made use of hide glues or horse-hair.
- the vegan diet they eat, and the cotton/hemp/linen clothing they wear, depends on vast acres of mono-culture that, even if grown organically, reduces wild-life habitat. If they truly cared that much, they should subsist on a gatherer lifestyle only. And go naked.

However, there is one main reason that, for me, completely puts PETA into the realm of noisy whackjobs for me.

They use propaganda to make their point.

I cannot adequately explain the depth of my abhorrence for propaganda. Even if it's for a cause I believe in and support, I don't agree with it's use. Any organization that uses propaganda is really making two points:


1. People are too stupid to understand the issue
2. Our argument is too weak to rely on facts


And that's what PETA is saying every time they speak on an issue.

Some purebred dogs have health issues. Yep. I completely agree. But let's not discuss genetics, gene frequency, the role of the breed clubs, kennel clubs, and breeders; let's not try to educate people on what to look for in a good breeder, and why breeding stock should be tested for genetic issues; let's not explain to people the myth of "hybrid" vigour when it comes to dog breeds. No. Let's assume the people are too stupid to understand any of that, and let's admit it takes too long to adequately explain the issue and let the people make up their own mind. And let's simply equate dog breeding to the KKK, dress up in robes and protest outside Westminster. Because that makes the newscasts, gets our name out there, and will make us money.

Let's re-name fish as "Sea Kittens", and try to brainwash children into thinking their parents are the scum of the earth, instead of teaching children about sustainable food production.

Let's make misleading statements about meat and milk production, and use newspaper articles as "primary" sources.

Let's use outrageous propaganda to increase awareness of our organization, because it's actually not about the animals anymore.

And let's assume humans are too stupid to understand the facts, the many sides of the arguments, and should never be allowed to think and make up their own minds, Because that may reduce the amount of money we make.


P is for propaganda.


And it disgusts me.

All stunts performed without a ruler

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, someone asked if anyone had trained their dog to put their toys away in a basket. This was my answer:

I tried. Mr. Potato Brain (aka Kip) would put one toy in the box. Then he would go get a second toy, bring it to the box.... I think the conversation in his head went something like this....

"Hey! Let's clean up the toys. I'll put Mr. Squirrel in the box. Now I'll go got Mr. Squeaky Ball. HEY!!!! Look, it's Mr. Squirrel!!!! I haven't seen him in ages!! Wow, lets play with Mr. Squirrel. Bored with Mr. Squirrel, let put him in the box - holy Moses, it's Mr. Squeaky Ball!!!!!!!"

So only one toy was ever in the box at one time. If I put the toys in the box, Mr. Potato Brain decides that the toys are complaining about being in the box, and so removes all of them.

So I gave up. The toys are all over the house. Sigh.

.................................................................................................

Basically, the toys are in their proper place if they are where Kip put them. If I move them, they are, by default, in the wrong place. (It's actually not all bad, since this trait can be exploited, I mean used, to entertain Kip on rainy/snowy/nowayinhellwe'regoingforawalkinthatweather days - I put all the toys somewhere, Kip goes and gets them. Wash, rinse and repeat.)

Yesterday, however...


I especially love the color-coded thing he has going on.

(Please note the carpet is actually worse in person. And no, I have no idea what made that stain. I try not to think about it. I cannot WAIT to tear it up)

Newton's Third Law and Dog Training

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Newton's Third Law of Motion.

And, the first law of dog training. Confession time first. Kip is my first dog, and he is only 2 years old. So, I don't have a lot of experience in dog training. But, being the left-brained type I am, I have invested hours in reading about dog training, talking about dog training, discussing dog training, arguing about dog training... and watching dogs. And of course, training Kip.

In that entire time, I have had a natural abhorrence for gentle leaders, front-clip harnesses (actually, harnesses in general) and the like for walking dogs. My opinion is that every dog should be taught to walk nicely on a simple collar and leash. And that those devices (herein after called GL/Hs for the sake of conciseness) simply prevent certain actions, but do not actually train the dog to walk nicely.

But today, I had a breakthrough. I figured out why GL/Hs don't work.

Because they punish instead of correct.

Yep, you heard me, they punish.

Stay with me here, we're about to take a detour.

Let's look at a dog that barks at the mailman. To simplify it, the mailman is a stimulus (S), and the barking is a reaction (R).

Thus, a dog that barks:

S ==> R

Now, enter the human. Generally, humans at this point will act in some manner to quiet the dog (Action, A).

S ==> R ==> A

But, an action that comes after the reaction is actually punishment (P), and any dog that learns from punishment is learning through fear. This is why trainers will tell you disciplining a dog after the fact for doing something wrong doesn't work.

S ==> R ==> A ==> P

Most trainers will agree on how you stop a dog from barking - you understand the stimulus, and stop the barking before it starts. You correct (C) the behaviour before it starts by reading the dog's body language. The onus is on the human, not the dog, to prevent the reaction, and to reward either the lack of reaction (NR) or a wanted secondary action.

S ==> C ==> NR ==> reward

That's what I've done with Kip. I know when he's about to bark simply by reading his body language. Stopping the subsequent barking started out with a larger correction on my part (clapping my hands, grabbing his collar, etc), but is now down to either a verbal cue ("shht") or just a look from me. And he gets rewarded (verbal praise) for not barking. If I'm not in the room, he gets rewarded for giving a single bark, then coming to find me (a wanted secondary action).

So, what does this have to do with leashes and collars? It sets up why those devices that prevent behaviour are actually working as punishment.

Please note - I am not using the term punishment to mean physically harming the dog, etc. I'm using in to describe an action on the humans part in response to an unwanted behaviour, after the dog has done it. Thus, yelling at your dog for barking is punishment. Traditional house-training ("rub his nose in it") is punishment. Any action on your part to change a behaviour after the dog has done it is punishment. In contrast, a correction is something given to a dog to prevent a behaviour. A verbal cue when you see your puppy start to squat in the house to prevent him from peeing is a correction. A hand signal given to keep a dog sitting before the dog can break the sit is a correction.

Corrections train; punishments either don't train at all, or do so by fear.

So, what do GL/Hs do?

The dog is walking on leash, and encounters a stimulus. The dog then reacts, generally by running towards (or away from) the stimulus, until it is prevented from doing so by the device.

S ==> R ==> A

But remember, any action that comes after the reaction is punishment.

S ==> R ==> A ==> P

So, anyone relying solely on a GL/H to prevent an unwanted action is actually punishing their dog for reacting to the stimulus.

Now, what do prong/choke/shock collars do? When used properly, they prevent the reaction. When learning how to properly use one, you are told to watch the dog, and act before the dog reacts. Thus, they are corrections. And the lack of reaction is rewarded.

S ==> C ==> NR ==> reward

And that is why they are so effective at training dogs.

I admit, you can probably use GL/Hs in an effective manner to prevent the reaction, again by watching the body language of the dog and using it to prevent a reaction (and many people misuse prongs, etc., as punishments). But no one that I have ever heard recommend them talks about that. It's simply "use it, and it prevents your dog from doing X". In other words, the onus is on the device, not the human. That's why it's easy to use. That's why so many people swear by them.

But that's also why they will never work in training any dog to be able to walk on a simple collar and leash, unless the human on the other end of the leash knows the difference between corrections and punishments.