55 – New Year Resolutions

Happy New Year!  This is the time of year we chase off the old and bring in the new.   Bad, old habits are soon to be replaced by new, healthier, more productive ways to approach life.  For my pups, it will mean more exercise, more practice at agility, new tricks, and lots more play.  That means I will have to shake off the comforts of warmth and dryness and venture out into the less-than-inviting winter weather.  To make it more tolerable, I’ll need to reshape my vocabulary.  “Snow” will become “a crunchy ground cover that hardens the mud.”  “Cold” will become “weather never seen in the Bahamas.”

When the positive training methodology began to gain recognition as the best way to train dogs, the vocabulary changed, too.  Reward-based trainers chose terms that would accentuate the partnership between owner and dog.  Thus, when you attend a class that focuses on dog training through cooperation and scientifically-based learning theory, you’ll find terms you may have used in the past are no longer in the curriculum. 

Take the word “command” as an example.  As a noun, most definitions refer to “command” as “an order given” or “the power to dominate.”  That’s really quite appropriate should you wish to set a military base, but hardly how you might approach a teammate.  Thus, the term “cue” replaces “command.”  “Cue” is defined as a “signal to a performer to begin a specific action.”  A much more friendly word, “cue” is the term used when working with a partner, someone with whom you wish to establish a productive relationship.

Is changing the words silly?  Maybe to some.  Advertisers are quite aware of the importance of words when they begin a promotion.  If you were shopping for greenery for your home – the kind that never needs water – which would you be more inclined to buy, artificial or silk?  For a new car, which color is more appealing, off-white or champagne?  Which vacation spot sounds more attractive, different or exotic? Words matter, they affect your decisions.

In advertising, words can also be used as tools to hide the insidious nature of methods that are harmful to animals.  Force trainers, catalogs, and pet supply stores no longer refer to electronic collars as shock collars.  They hide the painful truth by referring to them as “e-collars,” “remote collars,” “anti-bark collars,” or “underground fencing collars.”  The fact is, they all deliver painful shock (which is also euphemistically called a “tap,” “a stim,” “a warning signal,” or a “buzz”) to one of the most delicate areas on a dog, the neck.  In addition to causing your best friend pain, shocks can also cause or increase aggression, add to stress, and create physical and emotional damage.  I would ask you to check out two different sites:  http://www.hollysden.com/say-no-to-shock-collars.htm and http://www.trulydogfriendly.com/blog/?page_id=2 .  Listed are scientific studies as well as real life experiences of trainers who have had to deal with the fallout when owners bought into the feel good terminology. 

“No kill shelter” is another set of words whose time has come to be removed from conversation.   A more accurate description might be “limited access shelter.” Limited access shelters have the opportunity to select who they will or will not take.  If the pet is deemed unadoptable, they do not have to accept it.  If all of their spaces are filled, they can send the pet owner away or put him on a waiting list.  That leaves the “full access shelter” as the only option for the owner who cannot or will not continue to care for the animal.  Full access shelters accept all pets, regardless of age, health, or behavior.  If they are full, they must make room.   The sad reality is this: as long as irresponsible people refuse to spay/neuter their animals and overpopulation of pets continues, there will be the need to euthanize animals.  As long as there are pets in such bad health, the chance of them having any quality of life is impossible, there will be euthanasia.  As long as there are pets with behavior problems so severe they cannot co-exist with people safely, there will be euthanasia. 

So many people are working so hard to improve the plight of unwanted pets.  Television shows glamorize shelters who claim to house animals for life, who claim they never euthanize those they receive.  That concerns me and raises questions.   Is confinement for the remainder of an animal’s life, with no hope of it ever having a place with a family and severely limited (or no) social interaction, really better than euthanasia?  And what happens when an adoptable animal comes in, but there is no room to house it because all the spaces are taken by unadoptables? Is the limited access/no euthanasia shelter, the one who ends up warehousing animals in crates for extended periods of time, really better than a shelter who will gently ease a pet out of this life rather than confine him indefinitely? Limited Access Shelters and Full Access Shelters – neither is better than the other.  Both strive very hard to make a difference in the lives of unwanted pets.  Both need and deserve our support.

Words do matter.  They can affect your relationships, your outlook, your success.  Some very simple changes in language can make a world of difference. Let 2010 be the year we make a real difference for the animals and animal shelters everywhere!  Please, spay and neuter your pets.