Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Dangerous Dog Congress?

The Dangerous Dog Congress website is full of sensationalized images of "dangerous" dogs while promoting an event to be held in November in Toronto:
The most significant animal policy event of the century, delineating evidence-based peer-reviewed solutions to the problem of dog-human attacks

The keynote speaker at the event is Adam Goldfarb from HSUS and the host is a company called Dog-Trax which appears to sell some sort of dog bite tracking software. The folks at dogsbite.org indicate the person behind Dog-Trax, Tamara Follett, is a dog breeder. In fact the Dangerous Dog Congress site says:
As a long-time owner and breeder of one of the most aggressive of the protection dog breeds, Tamara is uniquely qualified to assess the practicability and fairness of existing controls on dangerous dogs, and to propose additional controls which specifically target the source of the problem – not specific breeds of dogs, but any dog at high risk of attack, as well as irresponsible owners and breeders.
This seems to me to be saying Ms. Follett is an owner/breeder of a very aggressive breed of dog and that specific breeds of dogs are not aggressive. Make sense? *Head: Wall*

Anyone who can shed any light on this event or the folks involved, please share.

74 comments:

NYCKitten said...

THANK YOU for pointing this idiotic conference out. I sent it my contacts at the HSUS and asked for an explanation why they would support this bizarre conference.

Mind boggling. The site is so sensational and violent! Ugh... Will post the response(s) I get.

Anonymous said...

As best I can tell, Follett is a self-proclaimed expert (I've never heard anyone other than her consider herself one) who essentially has a microchip/software system that she is selling to cities. Essentially, it seems to me that she is doing a lot of fear mongering about dog bites in order to, Surprise!, sell the solution to the problem she just scared them about.

I'm stunned that HSUS didn't see through this. Everyone else of significance in the AW world has seen through the little scheme.

Tamara Follett said...

As George Bernard Shaw observed so accurately, "Every great truth begins as a blasphemy."

Hi, I'm Tamara Follett, CEO of Dog-Trax North America, the only company in the world to use trending and situational analyses to identify dangerous dogs before they ever take the first bite. I invite all to download my free e-book, "Dogs of Fury: The Solution to Vicious Dogs" from www.PreventDogBites.com. Also, please check out my radio show at: www.BlogTalkRadio.com/DogBlogRadio. I think you will appreciate that I believe that some breeds are "naturally aggressive" but that I do not believe that any breeds are "dangerous". I developed this entire approach (all free) to provide legislators with a feasible comprehensive solution to breed bans. --One would think that anti-BSL groups would be promoting this conference instead of disparaging it, regardless of whether or not they approve of the ads!

As far as the validity of the issues, the newest keynote speaker to sign on is Dr. Kris Robertson of the Centers of Disease Control, the preeminent authority on dog bites. The CDC only signed on after a lengthy review of our work, our websites, and our methodologies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me through the websites, and I will be happy to answer them.

Best Regards,
Tamara Follett
Dog-Trax North America
Event Host: 1st World Congress on Mitigating the Risks of Dangerous Dogs, www.dangerousdogcongress.com

YesBiscuit! said...

Your system, even when it gets out of beta, will be entirely free?

Also, how will targeting breeders of dogs reported as biters in your database be helpful to anyone? Isn't the owner responsible for the individual dog?

Alex V. said...

How about we address the fact that people are 'tards when it comes to owning/training/socializing their dogs, who breeds those dogs, and people who are just 'tards in general when it comes to interacting with dogs?

YesBiscuit! said...

I wanted to specify that when I say "entirely free" I mean that there will be NO COST to cities using your system. They will not be charged for the software, any periodic maintenance type fees, separate shipping and handling for the second "Free" widget, etc. Because this really looks like a sales pitch to me and if it's actually a charitable endeavor, I suggest you change the website and state up front that all software and related database services are provided at no cost. I don't see that anywhere on your site.

Tamara Follett said...

Very good questions!

Funding: I am looking for a corporate sponsor, (like State Farm), who has much to gain by promoting responsible ownership of all dogs. However, the prospects are slim, given the amount of bad press my efforts have received. If I simply cannot find a sponsor, after Beta Trial and a proof-of-concept pilot, I will be forced to start charging a subscription fee of $25/month. This is inexpensive enough for the smallest township to afford, but it is necessary in order to fund this enterprise-class database.

Our 3-year Dangerous Dogs Investigation confirmed that there are many owners who should not own aggressive dogs (of any size or any breed). I believe I have identified a comprehensive solution. First I created a quick risk assessment methodology called C-TAG to objectively assess a dog and if the dog is "high-risk" it must obtain a "Restricted Dog" Municipal License. This specialized license must be applied for -- this means we can demand that owners of these dogs must be qualified, experienced, and trained or they don't get the license and have to give up their dog. This will remove aggressive dogs from people who can't handle them. But this is reactive, not proactive -- that is, we need to do more than take dogs away from unqualified owners -- we must prevent these unqualified owners from getting these dogs in the first place. The only way to do that is to regulate breeders of aggressive dogs and hold them accountable if they sell to inappropriate homes.

It is from irresponsible and negligent breeders that criminals, dog-fighters, and gangs get their dogs. When these owners breed, the cycle perpetuates itself. We need to break this cycle.

The C-TAG and the 7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol are available free from our website, but both tools have evolved quite a bit. If you'd like the newest versions of them, please email me at dogtraxinfo-at-aol.com with "Send Methodologies" in the Subject line.

I am impressed with the quality of questions, and am happy to answer any more that you may have.

Best Regards,
Tamara Follett
Dog-Trax North America
Event Host: 1st World Congress on Mitigating the Risks of Dangerous Dogs, www.dangerousdogcongress.com

Tamara Follett said...

I failed to include the website where folks can download the C-TAG and the 7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol, as well as my free e-book, "Dogs of Fury: The Solution to Vicious Dogs". Get these tools and more from www.PreventDogBites.com. If you'd like the newest versions of the first two, please email me at dogtraxinfo-at-aol.com with "Send Methodologies" in the Subject line. Thank-you.

Tamara Follett, CEO
Dog-Trax North America
Event Host: www.dangerousdogcongress.com

Anonymous said...

You mention a 'dog bite epidemic' many times throughout your material. What do you base this on? I follow dog bite statistics pretty closely, and dog bite hospitalizations and fatalities have remained fairly constant.

In fact, dog bites are remarkably rare. What is your justification for pushing such extreme measures and using such alarmist language?

smartdogs said...

I'm a professional trainer and foster home for dogs with issues. I wanted to check out your evaulation protocol so I went to www.PreventDogBites.com - and Kaspersky Anti-Virus promptly shut down my browser with the message that it was trying to autoload a virus.

*If* the site tries to autorun software on ALL visitors - you're really going to have a H of a time getting prudent, responsible, even moderately web savvy folks to visit it.

I'd rethink that as you look for sponsors.

smartdogs said...

OK, I'm back.

I managed to download Ms. Follett's Canine Threat Assessment Guide and I have to say I think its an utter piece of crap.

I rated each of the dogs I've owned in the last five years and they all ranked as "Potentially Dangerous". I'm sure that will come as quite a surprise to the hundreds of school children, senior citizens and hospital patients they've visited; the hundreds of clients whose truly problematic dogs they've helped me re-train; the friends and neighbors who dote on them - and even the UPS driver who they have occasionally charged at (a 'bonus' worth 11 points!).

FWIW the UPS guy is not bothered by the rare charge that happens when he pulls up unexpectedly. He offers them treats them and pets them.

I'm not an idiot. I've handled some very large, very dangerous dogs. I fostered one dog I deemed to dangerous to send on and held her as she was euthanized. I've cried with clients as I counseled them on euthanizing their pets. I understand how dangerous a dog can be - but Jesus Freaking Christ - to get a score of less than ten and be classified as a 'benign' dog - one would basically need to keep a comotose, speutered toy dog in near total isolation.

So - is the end goal of this program extinction of dogs as a breed or pushing them to evolve into subanimate teddy bears with a pulse?

Lisa said...

For anyone interested, here's a clip featuring Ms. Follett that explains some of her background:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwYxRGV-kBc

She intentionally breeds her dogs to be vicious. She advertises them as such, and, based on the video footage, she then happily sells them to people who are unable to even control them either through training, or even physically.

I'm no big fan of the HSUS, but even I am surprised to see them throwing their support behind this initiative and this person.

NYCKitten said...

TAMARA - my question to you is are you a breeder or do you work to rescue/foster the multitudes of unwanted power breeds?

The answer to this will tell me all I need to know about you and your views.

Thank you,
Susan

The Dog House said...

My cattle dog mix (who, incidentally, comes to work with me and interacts with about 250+ members of the public DAILY) scored a 52 - which deems her a "Lethal or Potentially Lethal Dog."

Holy $hit what a total load of BS. 31 points are given for a dog who bites and causes NO damage (what I would call a good dog, showing incredible bite inhibition and judgement) and yet retracts only 10 of those points for mitigating circumstances.

So when my girl nipped someone who had been utterly manhandling her for almost half an hour, using the utmost in doggy restraint to get her point across CLEARLY and GENTLY she is immediately deemed an "Aggressive Dog" without ANY other contributing factors.

Honestly, "alarm barking" is worth two points? Your average sheltie would earn at least an "Aggressive Dog" title. As we all know, they are horribly vicious dogs, those shelties.

This test is horribly biased and leaves no room for a dog with a protective nature AND good judgement. A well socialized dog will exhibit many of these behaviours - however a well socialized dog has been taught what constitutes a true threat and what constitutes an appropriate reaction.

Incredibly frustrating that this drivel is actually being backed by the HSUS. No wonder the sponsors aren't lining up.

Incidentally, I find it VERY interesting that you claim to hold breeders responsible for selling to the "wrong people" and yet the video shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwYxRGV-kBc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogsbite.org%2Fblog%2F2008%2F09%2Fdangerous-dogs-caucasian-ovcharka.html&feature=player_embedded shows what I would consider an inappropriate placement. Wonder of wonders, it's one of YOUR dogs Tamara... and YOUR placement.

The Dog House said...

Quick note on the strong pro-speuter issue in the C-TAG.

ThunderHawk (Tamara's kennel) speuters the PUPPIES before placing them. One of her puppy owners claims she does this "to prevent mixing." Uh-huh. Gotta protect the money tree, right? ;O)

To hell with the fact that large (and particularly giant) breed dogs do not fare well with early speuter - but what's the sacrifice of long term health when "breed purity" is involved...

Gag.

Anonymous said...

Tamara said: "However, the prospects are slim, given the amount of bad press my efforts have received".

Wow. I wonder why all the bad press? Seems like everyone here loves the system. >sarcasm<

If it were me, and I had received a ton of bad press and feedback about my "system" from people very knowledgeable about the topic I built the system for, I'd at least entertain the idea that maybe there was a flaw with my system instead of assuming everyone else is wrong.

Boycott Ontario said...

Why would anyone who is opposed to BSL hold any kind of a conference in Toronto,Ontario?
Hopefully anyone opposed to BSL will boycott this or any conference held in Ontario.
Thousands of innocent dogs have been killed in Ontario due to BSL.
(Just recently I saw someone post a figure of 12,000 dogs)
I don`t know if this was for all of Ontario or just Toronto.
I know the OVMA had estimated 4000+ dogs per year in Toronto alone.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2005-01-24_M009.htm#P672_181318

[quote]If Ontario's experience is similar to Denver's, we might see 4,300 euthanasias a year in Toronto alone.[/quote]

Anonymous said...

As the quite responsible owner of one of the breeds of dogs that Ms. Follett is choosing to throw under the bus to make a buck, I am disgusted. Less with Follett as she is clearly just in this to make money (the American way, right? Oops, she's Canadian) but I cannot believe that HSUS would support something that so clearly places the blame on the dogs! If it didn't it would be called the "Dangerous Owners Congress". Shame shame shame. Make sure you watch the video posted by Lisa. Follett breeds the dogs the system is supposed to protect us from!

Susan

Tamara Follett said...

I was frankly stunned by the level of aggression evidenced by these responses.

No, I didn't put a virus on my website, and if one is there, my new version of Kaspersky is not even alerting on it. Rather than attacking me for it, how about sending me a screen-print so I can forward it to Kaspersky?

Regarding the dog bite epidemic: In 1989, in the report "Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989-1994", the Centers of Disease Control called dog bites a "largely preventable epidemic". In 2008, the CDC (Gilchrist, J., J.J. Sacks, D. et al), stated in the report "Dog Bites: Still A Problem?" the conclusion that dog bite numbers are unchanged. Therefore: The CDC called dog bites an epidemic in 1989. In 2008, the CDC says dog bite totals are unchanged == ergo, there is still a dog bite epidemic. This is the same logic as in math: If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

I'm a breeder that averages 1.3 litters per year, and I breed only to get my next generation. I breed for genetic health and temperament, not for what will win in the show ring. Every year I rescue more dogs than I produce, and I've been doing that since 1983. I've started 2 animal rescues, and I specialize in aggressive dogs of any breed, which I then rehabilitate and place, or keep, if they are not adoptable. I have made mistakes in puppy placement, which is how I've learned.

My breed is a naturally-protective breed, and I don't breed them to be vicious, I breed to preserve the aboriginal type and temperament. But I also have a 4-page Application and a 5-page Contract on every puppy to make sure they go to qualified loving permanent homes. (Copies available upon request.) Pups are spayed and neutered to prevent irresponsible breeding. If someone can demonstrate they are qualified to breed this naturally-aggressive breed, I will sell them an intact puppy. I have several dogs out on breeding contracts.

I do wish folks would listen to my radio program on Regulating Breeders: www.blogtalkradio.com/DogBlogRadio. It would answer SO MANY of these questions!

More answers in the next Comment -- I've exceeded the character limits for this Comment.

Best Regards,

Tamara Follett, CEO
Dog-Trax North America
Event Host: www.dangerousdogcongress.com
Producer/Host: www.blogtalkradio.com/DogBlogRadio

Tamara Follett said...

Regarding risk analysis methodologies:

The C-TAG Canine Threat Assessment Guide has been reviewed by a number of Animal Behaviorists, including Dr. Ian Dunbar. All my dogs rank as "Category 4 - Potentially Dangerous Dogs", and I contain them as such. Where the lives of children are concerned, I prefer to err on the side of safety. I believe firmly we all should be willing to do the same, and if we will not voluntarily comply then it should be mandated.

The end goal of the C-TAG is risk assessment to enable implementation of appropriate controls commensurate with the level of risk a given dog presents. Right now, municipalities are declaring dangerous dogs based on breed. Wouldn't it be much better if they were deciding which dogs are dangerous based on objective evaluation of risk factors?

Regarding Owners Justifying their Dog's Biting:
A dog that has successfully bitten to resolve a problem will almost certainly use their teeth to solve future problems, typically with an increase in intensity as confidence is gained. Like it or not, once a dog's bite inhibition has been breached, you can't get it back.

As for early spay/neuter being problematic with large breeds, there is only one thing I can say: not with my breed.

To me, these arguments sound like a breeder who doesn't want to bother protecting their genetics or preventing unwanted litters. If early spay/neuter was utilized widely, there would be untold numbers fewer animals being euthanized in shelters yearly.

Basically, the fact remains that ethical breeders use early spay/neuter to protect their lines, their gene pool, and their breed. Spay/neuter contracts are not effective, as they often achieve only 10% compliance.

Finally, I am consulting on an as-needed basis with the Royal SPCA in the U.K., as well as with Queensland, Australia. If that's not "international recognition" I don't know what is.

If there are any other questions, would it be too much to ask for a bit more civility? I don't think aggression is conducive to productive communication. Thank-you.

Best Regards,

Tamara Follett
Internationally-recognized thought leader and Subject Matter Expert in Mitigating the Risks of Dangerous Dogs
Event Host: www.dangerousdogcongress.com
Producer/Host: www.blogtalkradio.com/DogBlogRadio

Boycott Ontario said...

I suggest you do some reading over at NCRC Tamara.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/

And I hope you cancel your Toronto Conference if you care anything about dogs.

Just one example of what`s going on in Ontario(Toronto to be exact)

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090617/pitbull_oca_090617/20090617/?hub=TorontoNewHome

How would you like to fight for your dog`s life simply due to it`s look.
Do you have any clue about what`s happening in Ontario?
Do you have a conscience or is it all about money?

Lisa said...

Tamara, I suggest that, if you're going to push your agenda as some kind of scientific approach, you should be a little more careful about using scientific terminology correctly.

Yes, the CDC did say that the dog bite problem should be reconceptualized as a largely preventable epidemic. I believe that was sloppy of them, as it creates the impression in some people that they're calling it an epidemic. Which they are not.

An epidemic occurs when new cases of a disease greatly exceed predictions. So even if they had called dog bites an 'epidemic' then (which they didn't), the fact that the numbers have remained steady means it would no longer be classified as such.

And this is just one example of how your site and your methodology are alarmist and damaging. Serious dog bites, by all reasonable accounts, are incredibly rare. Yes, dog bites should be addressed and prevented, but not through histrionics. You give dogs aggression points for playing with toys, living near children or the elderly, for barking, showing hackles, and any number of other things that, to a reasonable person, are normal, healthy dog behaviors.

Measures like yours would only serve to put dog ownership out of reach and reason for many. And that does a huge disservice to dogs and their (potential) families.

Boycott Ontario said...

All you`re doing is promoting yourself and your business Tamara.
I saw you attempt to do this on another blog and all your comments were deleted.
You should be ashamed of yourself,promoting this nonsense of dangerous Breeds.
Anything for the almighty buck eh?
You should feel right at home in Toronto.
Absolutely sickening.

The Dog House said...

As a "specialist in aggressive dogs", huh? Interesting, given that the VAST majority of dogs (read: all dogs who act... like dogs!) would be considered aggressive based on your C-TAG assessment.

Perhaps, dear expert, you could use a course on bite inhibition. A dog's bite inhibition is not "breached." Honestly... fear monger all you want, but as my dogs lack the ability to raise their middle toe, they don't really have much else to rely on, do they?

Since you drag out the name of Dr. Dunbar, here are a few articles from the purely positive crowd that may school you about bite inhibition and what it REALLY means.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/725

http://www.crickethollowfarm.com/biteinhib.htm

http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/puppy-outside-home

The fact is that ALL dogs bite. The fact is that some have less bite inhibition than others. Do I consider what my ACD did to be positive? Yes, yes I do. No damage was done (in fact, her bite failed to even cause discomfort) and given the incredibly high stress situation she was in, the fault was MINE for not removing her sooner. As it were, she reacted fabulously.

I also have to point out that I find it incredibly telling that your dogs supposedly score a 4 according to your little test. I've run through the behaviours I saw on the NGC video and I get a rating of 50 for an intact female of your breed (and breeding, apparently). This classifies the dogs as "Dangerous" and only one point off from being "Lethal or Potentially Lethal". This is, of course, assuming that there are no stress factors and the dog does not live with an elderly person or child (which, apparently, is enough to ratchet the dog up a few points).

NYCKitten said...

TAMARA -
Since you are kindly responding to questions...
a) Why are you breeding intentionally aggressive dogs not appropriate for most people to own?

b) What are the names of your rescue groups? Where can I find your 2 groups on Petfinder?

c) 5,000,000 dogs will be euthanized this year because no one wants them. Your 1.6 litter(s) will take away homes from those dogs. A rescuer never breeds and a breeder never rescues - they have opposite goals.

Thank you,
Susan C.

BlueDogState said...

"long time owner of one of the most aggressive breeds" indeed. . .

shivers are going up and down my spine -- how absolutely thrilling!

So tell me, Ms. Follett. . .

Since "aggression" is a poorly defined term that nevertheless is generally accepted to include beneficial--in fact, vital behaviors for species survival (maternal aggression comes to mind, as a teensy little example),

And since "aggression" is a behavior present in all mammals--in fact all animals of any sort. . .

And since "aggression" is a behavior--NOT hard-wired into a given animal's behavior and NOT " genetic". .

...what the fuck do you mean by "naturally aggressive breeds"? Huh?

I mean. . just for starters. . .

When you and Dog-Trax are busy taking dogs that have never bitten anyone away from people (presumably to languish somewhere for a length of time and then die). . .

what distinguishes you from any other ambulance chaser and snake-oil peddlar?

Little feet are tap tap tapping, Ms. Follett. . .

smartdogs said...

Dangerous dogs aren't born - they're created by idiot owners.

What we really need is an DO-TAG or dog owner threat assessment guide.

RU Kidding? said...

Ms. Follett,

The most aggressive person on this blog is you. YOU are sacrificing dogs so you can make money with your little system. YOU are making it easier for communities to round up and kill dogs. YOU are intentionally putting my dog in danger and that seems pretty darn aggressive.

Do you really think that places will use your little system for the purpose you claim it is for? I have lived with BSL threatening in my community and I can tell you that the fear of "what could happen" whips people into such a frenzy that any logical thinking goes out the window. Your entire system is based on "what could happen". Communities set on killing pit bulls, rotts or any other kind of dog will use your system to track those dogs whether they have failed your little test or not. State of Ohio -- dog is identified as a pit bull -- automatic failure!! Into the database it goes...

Think about it! What you are doing is putting dogs in danger. Dogs do not live independently of people. Where does human incompetance factor into your test or "congress"? I suppose if you place the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the owners, nobody will buy what you are selling because it is easier for lazy politicians to blame the dogs.

You care about dogs but you are holding your meeting in Toronto. Indeed. Was Denver closed?

I have searched for any mention of Kris Robertson at the CDC and have found nothing. I will call the agency tomorrow to find out who he is and if the CDC knows what its name is being used to endorse. I hope other bloggers do the same.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)
4770 Buford Hwy, NE
MS F-63
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
800-CDC-INFO
(800-232-4636)
TTY: (888) 232-6348

cdcinfo@cdc.gov

Heather Houlahan said...

OMG, what a load of horseshit.

Miss Follet's website is so transparently a scam to harvest email addresses, and she's so persistent in "signing" with a hard-sell pitch that it's laughable that ANYONE should regard her as anything but a buffoon.

I'll skip downloading her software.

I guess as the breeder of one of Janeen's maneating dogs, I'm fully accountable for his downloadable vicious propensities.

Oh well, I guess I should go on the TeeVee and brag about how nasty my puppies are, then sell them to quivering weenies who try to use a giant slavering beast to compensate for a small and docile something else.

THAT should create demand for profiling software.

Tamara Follett said...

Lisa -- please check your facts. The term "epidemic" was used by the CDC in several dog bite studies that spanned multiple years. It was also used in a 2006 report published by the highly-respected Fordham Law Review: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus74fordhamlrev2847.htm

The term "dog bite epidemic" was also used in a research report: "Creating a Social Remedy to the Dog Fighting Epidemic" at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=amanda_searle

The term "dog bite epidemic" was also referenced by Dr. Andrew Rowan (lately of the HSUS) in his report : "AN OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE OF DOG AGGRESSION, DOG BITES AND SOCIAL POLICY"

The term "epidemic" is also mentioned in the American Journal of Public Health 68:593-595: Berzon, D.R., "The animal bite epidemic in Baltimore, Maryland".

As is abundantly evident, "dog bite epidemic" is not my own term -- it was well and truly established prior to my use of it. If you have a problem, take it up with these researchers. (Sheesh! -- So quick to blame me, without even researching the origin of the term!)

Thank-you, Boycott Ontario, for bringing up the website http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/ which states:

***What About Dog Bite “Statistics” or Dog Bite Numbers? Do they give an accurate picture of which dogs bite, why dogs bite, or the frequency of “canine aggression?” ***

I'll answer it for you: No -- and that's why the Dog-Trax Dangerous Dog Tracking System is needed. It will track which dogs bite, why dogs bite, and the frequency of “canine aggression!" Thank-you for the recommendation, Boycott Ontario! May I quote you?

The NCRC needs to put their money where their mouth is, and sponsor Dog-Trax themselves, so they once and for all have the HARD data they need to SCIENTIFICALLY establish the grounds for their arguments. Right now all they have is conjecture based on their own research, which is EXACTLY what I have, only my research indicates dog bites are Increasing -- and that it is the REPORTING of dog bites that is Decreasing. (My data come from 3 years of field research and investigative journalism, and my data have been reviewed by experts in the field, including Bill Bruce, mastermind behind the Calgary Model, as well as the Dangerous Dog Issues Specialist at HSUS. Can NCRC say the same?)

--I'm out of space on this Comment. Please see next Comment for answers to the remaing quetions!

Tamara Follett

Author of the FREE Canine Threat Assessment Guide (C-TAG), the ONLY risk assessment protocol applicable to ANY breed in existence: download FREE from www.PreventDogBites.com

System Designer of the FREE "Public Sightings of Problem Dogs" service -- empowering residents to protect their communities from dangerous dogs & to report animal abusers! Check it out on the above website and spread the word! Neighborhoods now have the tools to fight Irresponsible Ownership, courtesy of Dog-Trax North America!

Heather Houlahan said...

A rescuer never breeds and a breeder never rescues - they have opposite goals.

Thank you,
Susan C.

**********

Oh bikini-ass vegan girl, wiggle yourself back to the land of the petaphiles where such Manichean delusions are supported by the collective.

Geez Shirley, you are really smoking out some winners today.

Tamara Follett said...

(Continued from previous Comment)

Boycott Ontario said, "And I hope you cancel your Toronto Conference if you care anything about dogs." -- I walked away from a 6-figure salary to spend my life dedicated to ending breed bans -- can Boycott Ontario say the same?

Honestly, does this have to be so confrontational? It looks as if you know your argument doesn't withstand scrutiny, and you are trying to deflect same with aggression. Please, let's try to be a little more courteous. We are both trying to end BSL, each in our own way.

I consider this topic in the same arena as religion -- you have yours, I have mine. We don't need to agree, but we DO need to allow each other to follow our own beliefs without harassment or condemnation. That does not exclude questioning each other's positions, but please try not to be so confrontational about it. We both want the same thing! It is not outside the realm of possibility for us to work together to achieve this mutual objective, if we can just set our separate approaches aside...

To put it bluntly, (unfortunately), with all your arguments and facts and statistics you have not been able to eliminate BSL -- so why not give me the chance? If you REALLY care about eliminating breed bans and not just promoting your own views, you will give me the unhindered opportunity to try it with my own approach! I have let you have your chance, and I am not satisfied with the results. Now let me have my chance!

BTW, the female dog that Dog House rated as a C-TAG 50 was well over that, and evaluated as a "Category 6 --Potentially-Lethal Dog". And she was contained as such. That's my point -- no matter HOW aggressive a dog is, if it is adequately contained and controlled, it poses NO RISK to the populace. This Category-6 female lived to the ripe old age of 14, without ever connecting with human flesh. Her line has produced the most trainable, owner-submissive, naturally-protective, genetically-healthy specimens in the breed. Such is the benefit of a knowledgeable breeder -- to direct such qualities into service for man. I'm proud to have been owned by this loving-but-extremely-aggressive dog, and honored to have been able to pass on these superior genetics to later generations! It is this that has made my kennel Number 1 in the breed, despite producing only one litter per year!

PLEASE -- a little less aggression in future communications...?

With Respect for Our Different Positions,

Tamara Follett

Author of the FREE e-book: "Dogs of Fury: The Solution to Vicious Dogs", download FREE from: www.PreventDogBites.com

System Designer of the FREE "Public Sightings of Problem Dogs" service -- empowering residents to protect their communities from dangerous dogs & to report animal abusers! Check it out on the above website and spread the word! Neighborhoods now have the tools to fight Irresponsible Ownership, courtesy of Dog-Trax North America!

Join this grassroots movement and end BSL in YOUR township by forwarding our website to your legislators!!! Consulting FREE to townships considering BSL!!!

Thank-you for your time and consideration!

Kind Regards, Always.

--Tamara Follett
CEO, Dog-Trax North America
dogtraxinfo-at-aol.com

Tamara Follett said...

The Ultimate Argument AGAINST Breed Bans:

A Perfect Storm of events has to happen for a serious dog bite to occur. As Dr. Randall Lockwood of the Centers of Disease Control pointed out, "You have the drugged-up mother who doesn't know where her child is, an unsupervised toddler getting out of an unlatched screen door, wandering over to a chained un-socialized dog used by the boyfriend for fighting, and a tragedy occurs."

It is a grossly-overlooked fact that the VAST majority of dog bites have multiple contributory factors. A dog attack is NOT due to one single aspect such as breed - it's a Perfect Storm of contributory events.

So ALL dog bites are caused by a series of risk factors piling up, not one specific factor like breed or neutering or age.

Example: You have a child new to the neighborhood, a bored neglected intact male dog escapes from inadequate containment, he's already all riled up because there's a female in heat down the street, the dog's owner with the TV on too loud is oblivious to the increased intensity of his dog's barking, and doesn't notice the screaming of the child and a rescuing neighbour, until it's too late, and is unaware of the entire incident until the police arrive.

If the dog owner had not had the TV on so loud, if the dogs' containment had been more inescapable, if there were multiple levels of containment between the dog and the public, if the owner had checked to see what the ruckus was about and quickly retrieved the dog before it breached the fence, if the owner of the female dog down the street had spayed her -- if even ONE of these contributory factors was absent, it is quite possible the entire incident would not have happened. --Or if it HAD happened it would have been considerably less serious.

So understand that a Perfect Storm of Events must occur, and be watchful for these elements of risk building up, (in all aspects of your life, by the way!)

Excerpted from : "Kids-n-Dogs Safety ==> for Parents and Dog Owners", on www.blogtalkradio.com/DogBlogRadio


Best Regards,

Tamara Follett, CEO
Dog-Trax North America
www.PreventDogBites.com
www.dangerousdogcongress.com
www.DogBlogRadio.com (see Kids-n-Dogs Safety)

The Dog House said...

Oh. My. God.

Are you telling me your system might be -- GASP! -- subjective!!?

Holy crap Batman, what a revelation!

A quote from Tamara:

"All my dogs rank as "Category 4 - Potentially Dangerous Dogs", and I contain them as such."

The following quote:

"BTW, the female dog that Dog House rated as a C-TAG 50 was well over that, and evaluated as a "Category 6 --Potentially-Lethal Dog". And she was contained as such."

Uh-huh. If that's what you call the "containment" of a "potentially lethal dog" then I'll be a monkey's aunt. Watching that inept owner dragging down the street on his ass... oh yeah, that's reassuring.

I also LOVE the "aggression tests" you perform on three week old puppies in the NGC video. Yep, considering that Pfaffenberger(among others) determined that eight weeks was the proper time to puppy test - in fact, puppies have only gained their full senses at 21 days. They are still 100% malleable at 4 weeks.

As for the "dog bite epidemic" who gives a flying turd who used the phrase first?? RE-applying it incorrectly just makes you seem even slower.

The dictionary defines epidemic as "extremely prevalent; widespread" and "a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something." Two fairly simple criteria, no?

Let's start with the FACTS, shall we?

In the 1980s through 1990s the average number of fatal attacks was 17. By 2007 that number had risen to 33. A large jump, when looking at the individual numbers. However, when you consider that between 1995 and 2004 a total of 1,646 people died in vehicle collisions *involving animals* (an average of 165 people per year). Hell, in 2002 ALONE 13,322 people died because they FELL DOWN. In 2007, *42* people died by LIGHTNING STRIKE.

Here's a remarkable one... in 2007, the number of fatalities due to skydiving was 17. By 2008, the number was 33. Huh, seems we have an epidemic of skydiving deaths on our hands! Alert the media!!

There are an estimated 74.8 million dogs in the US. And an estimated 800,000 people seek medical attention for dog bites each year. That totals 1% of the canine population, assuming that each person was bit by a unique dog.

In comparison, there are an estimated 3 million injuries reported due to car accidents, with 40,000 deaths. There are an estimated 195 million drivers on the road during this time (more vehicles, but an individual can only drive one vehicle at a time) meaning that 1.5% of vehicles cause bodily damage. Oh, wait... I mean 1.5% of DRIVERS.

You see, drivers are responsible for their vehicles. Just as skydivers are responsible for their own asses. And yes, just as dog owners are responsible for their dogs.

One last interesting FACT. The National Canine Research Council has a wonderful website regarding the guidelines used for collecting dog bite stats. You can view it here: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/

I suggest you pay special attention to the section dedicated to "The Myth of the Dog Bite Epidemic." Of course, your assertion is that the NCRC needs to "put its money where its mouth is" and pay up for your oh-so-remarkable software. The truth is, their mouth is saying that your software (even if it DID work, which I do not believe it does) is unnecessary. And yes, they are relying on their research. They are, after all, the NATIONAL Canine RESEARCH Council. Oh, but you're a journalist with a product to sell. Surely we should listen to YOU, right??

NYCKitten said...

HEATHER
This bikini-ass vegan saves a great deal of Pits, A. Bulldogs and mixes left to die in shelters because they are overbred.

I can send you the euth list from the pound I get every day and perhaps you can justify breeding overbred breeds. Rescuing and breeding do not mix - period.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to attack me on this forum but I am concerned about Tamara's conference and am here for that reason.

Moving on, the HSUS said A. Goldfarb was participating to "dispel the negative myths of pit bulls" - I told them they might want to ck the site out as it seems more like the HSUS is supporting it.

RU Kidding? said...

Randy Lockwood does not work for the CDC. You have just outted yourself. Lousy research. Lousy fact checking. Lousy product?

Heather Houlahan said...

Oh bikini-ass vegan girl, poor dearie your brain is starved for protein.

Have I never rescued a dog?

Or have I never bred a litter?

It must be one or the other. Otherwise there will be a most impressive meltdown, like those serial-wired androids on Star Trek that time.

Consult the googles and get back to us.

Heather Houlahan said...

I find it interesting that Ms. Follett keeps demanding less "aggression" from the commenters in her serial infomercial/harangues.

I get it now.

People who are discerning, unafraid, and eager to call bullshit are "aggressive."

Oooohhhh ....

I consider any rating lower than level six an insult, in that case.

YesBiscuit! said...

Thank you to everyone weighing in. My take is that, even if you believe your way is the only way Tamara, it's worth considering that you feel unable to secure sponsorship due to so much negative press regarding your endeavor. Unless you are of the mindset that "everybody else is wrong", I would think you'd want to examine the reasons why the anti-BSL community is largely against your efforts. Starting with your fundamental ideas that dogs are dangerous (not owners) and breeders are at fault (not owners). These form the premise of your work yet are not at all accepted by the anti-BSL community. Therefore you are bound to face ongoing conflict.

The problem is that BSL, like breeding and many other issues in dogs, is a nuanced topic. Were any of these things so easily cut and dried as you seem to feel, I think you would see massive support and agreement for a resolution. Unfortunately a bite is not a bite in the same way a breeder is not a breeder. That is, we can not paint all dog bites with the same broad brush just as we can't paint dog breeders as being all the same. That's just not reality.

NYCKitten said...

HEATHER
Your commentary towards me has been very rude and condescending. My point is that a true rescuer would never bring more dogs into a world that is overpopulated with homeless dogs - 20% of them being purebreds. They would spay/neuter their dog and work to find homes for those in need.

I hope you can find more inspiriation in your life than to smugly attack someone for views different than yours...and if you try a veg diet you might one day fit in a bikini too.

Heather Houlahan said...

Oh bikini-ass girl -- and I have & wear 'em too, just don't feel the need to present that particular side to the world on blogger, as it is neither my best nor my only asset -- perhaps when you pull your silky head out of the bottom section, you will stop your self-indulgent whining about someone being "rude" and "condescending" when you have just unilaterally declared that THAT VERY PERSON, as well as untold thousands of others, many of whom are here right now, is "not a rescuer" because she has the temerity to produce the occasional litter of carefully-selected, lovingly-raised, meticulously-placed, purpose-bred dogs.

I suppose the hundreds of dogs (and a few cats) I've fostered, placed, transported, vetted, pulled, retrained, consulted on, hand-held over are, you know, incorporeal.

And it would be so much better for our rescue organizations to all follow your lead and reflexively vilify every breeder, no matter how ethical, because that leads to such outstanding goodwill and cooperation from the animal-loving people with the most expertise in any given type of dog. Good thinking! How's that workin' for ya?

I see you have now closed your blogger profile, with its long list of AR and vegan followings, and are hiding behind a screen name. Way to establish credibility, baby.

The Dog House said...

Rescue and breeding are NOT mutually exclusive. As a full time rescuer, I own two intact females and I am actually going Saturday afternoon to potentially pick out our newest (purpose bred) puppy.

Would I breed a litter myself? Sure would - if I had a truly worthy pairing and screened homes for all the resulting offspring.

However, I prefer to leave that (for the time being, anyways) to folks who have spent many, many years with their breed of choice (or crossbreed of choice, as the case may be) and have dedicated time, effort and money to raising the best litters possible.

Do I resent backyard breeders, puppy mills and thoughtless puppy purchasers? You betcha - every time I look into the eyes of a rescued pet (which happens to be hundreds of times a day). But all breeders are NOT created equal, just as not all rescuers are created equal either.

Do I believe that there is an "overpopulation" issue? Nope. I believe that there is a stupid human issue. Stupid humans who breed for financial gain and give little thought to the forever lives of their puppies and even stupider humans who purchase puppies willy-nilly with no consideration regarding where the puppy came from or what it will require of them.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Redemption and educate yourself. While you're at it, track down a few reputable breeders (of which Heather is certainly one) and learn how it's done - RIGHT.

RU Kidding? said...

Let's not forget why we are on this blog...to keep Tamara Follett from contributing to the death of more innocent dogs. And to shame HSUS and whoever Multnomah County is for participating in Follett's farce.

smartdogs said...

I think that those of us with blogs should further assist Tamara's credibility by posting links to these comments.

Heather Houlahan said...

Thanks to my secret admirer for a copy of the "test."

All of my current dogs are "menacing." Except Rosie, who by virtue of her toxic ovaries, is "aggressive."

Who knew that my several elderly neighbors had the majikal power of making my dogs meaner? I guess I better stop bringing them by for those day-brightening visits. Mrs. Bauder just passed away at 99 and we all miss her, does that make my dogs sweeter?

Our dear departed Mel was apparently "LETHAL." Whew! Good thing she never ate no babies during her long life.

Her deadly mein would have been news to the families who wept into her fur in thanks when she restored a child or an elderly parent to them, found alive and greeted with kisses and wags.

Anonymous said...

Heather said: "People who are discerning, unafraid, and eager to call bullshit are "aggressive."

Remember, this is the person who designed a "test" that essentially declares about 75% of the dogs out there potentially dangerous. I think her definition of aggressive is a little more liberal than most.

Pai said...

NYC, there is not a -pet overbreeding- problem. The ASPCA, Maddie's Fund, National Council on Pet Population, and Spay-USA could tell you that.

There is, however, a very real 'SHELTER POPULATION' problem, as in, not enough people adopt. But you do not solve that problem by demonizing breeders.

17 million people will bring a pet into their homes this year. 180 million cats and dogs total in the U.S. (and growing), 75% of which are ALREADY S/N, and around 4-5 million pets are euthanized in shelters annually. How do you figure that an 'overbreeding' problem exists from those facts? It's not that simplistic, and the math just doesn;'t support such a belief.

We need to increase adoption rates only a tiny amount to get nearly all animals in shelters right now into homes. There is no need to attack or demonize breeders in order to achieve that goal.

Anonymous said...

Follet said - "The newest keynote speaker to sign on is Dr. Kris Robertson of the Centers of Disease Control, the preeminent authority on dog bites."

Preeminent? You can't be serious - I cannot find a SINGLE reference to this "expert" on dog bites.

Nothing, nada, zip, goose egg.

Well, I guess we can't accuse Follet of being tighfisted in bestowing bogus "expert" status on others beside her herself -

It seems that if you agree to talk at her "congress" that makes you an expert.

And the HSUS??

Shame, double shame on them. Do they realize that once they hook their train to Follet, it will further ruin their already questionable motives?

themacinator said...

tamara- i would be intersted to see that contract/application you mentioned.

Fred said...

Tamara, I don't know where to start and it's already late and I have to work tomorrow but basically ... WHY ARE YOU BRINGING THIS SENSATIONALIST ANTI-DOG MARKETING CAMPAIGN TO TORONTO??? I'm definitely slapping down the NIMBY card on this one. NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!! Please.

Look, I applaud the fact that you are trying to promote a system that's tries to determine dangerous dogs based on behaviour rather than on breed but the system you've come up with is premised on the assumption that you can gather all the pertinent facts and use them to predict the future. There are monster computers built on the research of thousands of scientists out there that can't even predict tomorrow's weather, how can any simple checklist system accurately predict the future risk of a dog? There are so many variables which go into that, most of which cannot be accurately, precisely or consistently quantified. By presenting such a system as "science", and apparently a system that slants way more towards dangerous than towards cute and cuddly, I'm afraid you'll be putting a lot of innocent dogs, unpredictable creatures all, in extremely negative light and that's the last thing we need in a province where there is already enough malignant political frenzy over "dangerous breeds".

In essence, your system labels a dog a criminal before a crime has been committed so unless it has God like abilities in predicting future behaviour, it will brand a lot of dogs as high risk dogs and given the fear of liability and insurance costs and general public hysteria, if your system is adopted, a lot of those dogs will likely be killed.

As for the marketing: A Dangerous Dog Congress? No, we don't need a dangerous dog congress anymore than we need a Dangerous Immigrant Congress or a Dangerous Teen Congress or a Dangerous Vampire Strippers from Hell Congress. It's way way too sensationalistic a marketing strategy for such a serious and life impacting topic. And the websites with the scary dog photos don't help. I mean who exactly is that supposed to be targeting? Foggy minded, dog hating politicians or responsible, level-headed people who actually know and recognize and deal with dangerous dog behaviour because I'm pretty sure the latter don't need to be reminded of what that looks like. It smacks too much of theatre of the worst kind, the kind meant to incite fear and loathing on a group that does not have a voice to defend itself with.

Okay, I really got to go but as a final note for tonight, I'd like to suggest that if you actually do have a system that can predict the future risk upon society posed by a living creature then you should tweak it for humans and sell it to the cops in Toronto because it's not the dogs in the city that pose the most threat to people, not by a long shot.

Heather Houlahan said...

Fred, after reading your comment I was going to invite you to come sit by me.

But after checking out your profile, cleaning up the spatter-spit on my monitor, and reconsidering the possibility of stocking Depends, I think we should skip straight to the tongue-kissing.

I'm heading up to Ontario on Saturday (just a day trip, and I won't spend a US dime in the dog-killing Province -- will gas up in NY before crossing). Maybe I could ditch my Moms and you and could, you know, walk some dogs.

The SLOH doesn't ever need to know ...

Boycott Ontario said...

If you`re boycotting Ontario completely or visiting but not spending any money because of Bill 132(The Ban),please let the appropriate people know.
Thank You

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&list_type=ministers&go=go

AG Chris Bentley and
Tourism Minister Monique Smith
and please cc their respective Critics
Garfield Dunlop-AG
Ted Arnott-Tourism

Premier McGuinty
Contact Info
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_detail.do?locale=en&ID=66

Website
https://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/feedback.asp?Lang=EN

Retrieverman said...

Before I say anything, I'm not against Caucasian Ovtcharkas. They are a livestock guardian breed and were used by Communist governments as police and border patrol dogs.

We often say that a performance bred retriever or a working border collie is an inappropriate animal in a pet home because its behavior is wrong for the average home. Now, they aren't suspicious giant mastiffs that have more than just a slight streak of territorial aggression.

Those dogs have very low prey drive or at least lower prey drive than herding dogs and working gun dogs-- not to mention terriers.

As I've said before, livestock guardians are selected for what are almost the exact opposite behaviors in other working dogs.

So how anyone whose expertise is in these breeds can devise a system that explains the behavior of higher prey drive dogs is beyond me.

My best goldens are high prey drive, but very low in aggression towards humans and other dogs. Some anti-dog legislation would declare them vicious, simply because they have high prey drive. And that seems to be the major flaw in this Dog Trax system.

This whole thing reminds me of that film Minority Report, where you have people arrested for crimes they are supposedly going to commit in the future.

Falen said...

These comments were awesome everyone. Great job. Heather, as usual, you made my day. And glad to see that you popped over here Fred.

Laura said...

I honesty can not see how ANY dog would get lower than the "menacing dog" category. Question #15 on previous history ensures that by saying:

"Menacing Behavior may include: growling, stiff posture,
hackles raised, stalking, running towards perceived threat, etc.,
but no skin contact"

I think the key word is "perceived threat." If a dog feels threatened, I would hope that they make that fact known by growling and getting stiff- if they didn't the other dog/person can't read them and this can easily lead to a bite. I want my dogs to communicate, they are all well socialized and have very good dog body language. They will *gasp* even air snap at other dogs if their signals aren't being read. Especially since you are saying "no skin contact" this type of body language means the dog has very good control.

I also work at a doggy daycare and obviously every dog that comes in is sometimes going to have to tell other dogs off, in an appropriate way, but one that entails an escalation of signals from turning away, getting stiff, growling, air snap... We rarely need to step in, and there are very very few fights, since the dogs respect this communication.

So based on that question alone, ALL dogs are at least a level 2 on the assessment and if they have a high prey drive that is automatically a 3.

Boycott Ontario said...

[quote]and my data have been reviewed by experts in the field, including Bill Bruce, mastermind behind the Calgary Model, as well as the Dangerous Dog Issues Specialist at HSUS. Can NCRC say the same?)[/quote]

I wrote to Bill Bruce(Calgary) about this DogTrax Program and the "Dangerous" Dog Congress in November.
Unfortunately I`m prohibited from posting his exact response here.

Suffice to say he looked at the program a couple of years ago.
He`s aware of the "congress" and Calgary is not participating or involved in any way.

Tamara Follett said...

I've pretty well given up on explaining to the many denigrators here, who can't let go of their anger and bitterness long enough to see that I am working hard and making progress on fighting BSL. It is hard to fight deeply embedded bias, even with the truth, as most Pit Bull owners know.

My email address is dogtraxinfo-at-aol.com. The numerous tools, guides and methodologies I have developed (ALL FREE -- not charging a penny for any of it!) have been reviewed by an entire list of experts in the field, including Bill Bruce of Calgary, and Dr. Ian Dunbar.

I'm holding the 1st World Congress on Mitigating the Risks of Dangerous Dogs in Toronto, because I believe more BSL advocates will attend it there, and be convinced that BSL is NOT the way to go. Why would I "preach to the converted" and hold the congress someplace where there weren't any advocates of BSL? Think, people!

If you want a list of my expert reviewers or a copy of my Puppy Application and Purchase contract, or if you have real questions, not snide remarks, email me.

I don't care if you good folks believe me or not -- I'm not sure I want such negativity in my corner, anyway. Further nastiness will be ignored. I just don't care. I'll accomplish my objectives despite your malice.

Controversy is always good, because it helps the intelligent folks decide! If you'd like to discuss this civilly, email me or invite me on your list, as I won't be back here. I'm too busy promoting a feasible alternative to breed bans!

Have a Great Day, all!

Tamara Follett
Consultant to the Royal SPCA (UK)
Consultant to Queensland (AU)
www.dangerousdogcongress.com
(If you want to hear more of my "propaganda", check out the most recent show on www.blogtalkradio.com/DogBlogRadio)

Dog said...

Wait, I have to change my shoes... I've been wading through bull$hit - I mean, listening to Tamara's audio broadcasts.

I couldn't even get through the whole thing... seriously, the stench was unreal.

A few of the finer points from her "Regulating Breeders" audio cast.

She talks about two breeders who she deems irresponsible - one who sedates their unmanageable dogs with lithium, one who sells what she classifies "aggressive" dogs as "little Russian teddy bears." Interestingly, she fails to name the breeders. Way to protect the public!

Compares breeding "this calibre of dog" to neurosurgery in that neither is "an inalienable right." Uh-huh. Breeding vs. neurosurgery is the most accurate comparison you could come up with...

She comments several times about criminals using dogs as weapons - despite the fact that she brags her own dogs are like "45 caliber guns".

The first (and only) "aggressive" dog she names - the pit bull. Despite the fact that these dogs fail to make the top ten lists for dog bites um... everywhere??

Claims that aggressive dog owners have "discovered" their ability to move "two towns over" to escape their dog's rap sheet - and are exercising this ability in large numbers. Uh-huh. Anyone else seen this phenomenon?

Compares breeders to cows in that they will "not voluntarily comply" to anything. Nice.

States that "casual" breeders produce "unsound, unhealthy dogs" while at the same time railing against the "best" breeders who, she claims, are not utilizing available health tests and breeding "unsound, unhealthy dogs". Riiiight. Cause no one can to it right except Ms. Follett.

Is an advocate not only of MSN, but of MSN BEFORE the puppy leaves the breeder. I'm not going to bother posting the countless papers pointing to the dangers of performing immature spays and neuters (including increased cancer, endocrine disorders and structural issues).

Is an advocate of PAYING people to rat on breeders who aren't following her rules.

Suggests POLICE REPORTS be sought by breeders during their screening process.

Ok, so here's where my head explodes. You've all watched the video of her inept puppy purchaser dragging down the street, and even bragging about his dog being a "weapon" and how his dog will attack anything that moves (such as the car it goes after in the documentary). She has offered her puppy contract/application, and yet has failed to actually cough it up anywhere.

She fails to contain her own aggressive dogs - in the video it is very clear that the dogs are potentially in danger of escaping or at the very least having access to curious passerby.

It should also be noted that the only comments I can find about Tamara by other CO breeders are regarding how HORRIBLE that NGC piece was for their breed and how uncontrollable her own dogs are.

In fact, this page http://leerburg.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/74927/page/4/fpart/3 has an interesting comment (second from the top) from an individual who supposedly assessed her dogs for a protection display for the NGC piece.

The deeper I dig, the more $hit rises to the surface.

Boycott Ontario said...

The OVMA gave solutions to the Ontario Gov`t Tamara.
Even they realized that it`s a people problem NOT a dog problem.
Ontario didn`t have a problem with the dogs they banned.
It was a crock,a diversionary political tactic.
Have you even read the committee testimony?

I also hope you`re not claiming on here that people who "reviewed" your program think it`s useful??
I`d attempt to get their permission and quote them if that`s what you`re insinuating by throwing out their names.

You could hold your "congress" in Quebec or any other Province to show your opposition to Ontario`s BSL.

Chelsea said...

Ha ha! I love the douchebag posing with a bunny next to sensationalized images of violent dogs. The bunny he's cradling is a New Zealand white. I know because I have one. I also have a Mini Lop. Both buns live indoors and use a litterbox. I have two because they need to be able wash each other's heads after my pit bull has bestowed a big wet kiss.

smlg.ca said...

Tamara said in her first posting here: "I do not believe that any breeds are "dangerous""

Yet, everything else she has written, and even the name of her gathering in Toronto, gives strong evidence to the contrary.

FrogDogz said...

This is fabulous. According to their assessment 'tool', almost all of my dogs are category 3 - aggressive. This applies even to the ones with their CGC and therapy dog certifications. How on earth will I ever sleep at night, knowing they could snap at any minute and eat the neighbour's baby?

Also, hi! I'm a breeder who also rescues. And, in fact, established not one, but two rescues. I fear the world will now implode, and I do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

workthatdog said...

Wow, what a crying shame this whole situation is. You have such a valuable opportunity to do great things for dogs - so misunderstood by the public at large - and you are flushing it down the toilet, Tamara.

What we, as dog owners and members of the public, NEED is a scientific way to collect data about dog bites. No one has this down in a quantifiable, reliable way yet.

You ain't even close, either.

There is no "dog bite epidemic" either. You are more likely to slip in the shower and fall to your death than you are to be killed by a dog. You are feeding into the sensationalist media vomit that floods TV & radio today. You aren't doing any of us any favors, lady.

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/part-ii-dangerous-dog-diatribe

Great blog, hitting key points.

I own a pit bull. I'd prefer that if someone is going to represent me as a dog owner, of pit bulls no less, that it is ANYONE but you, Tamara.

You can crap in a box and mark it "guaranteed" but it's still just a box of guaranteed crap.

Anonymous said...

OMG what a load of BS. Hey guess what, my toy fox terriers, the ones my vet raves over and the staff love because of their temperaments are also category 3! Thank god I found this info, they might have gone all "killer rabbit" on me and the kids!

I hope this gets mocked. A lot, cause something really really deserve it. Any dogs are killed or relinquished for this nonsense, well you know whose life tally their deaths will be on.

Oh, and "Hi" from another breeder who rescues. And I also have been part of a TNR effort for going on 15 years now. Our 501c3 rescue was founded by breeders, is run by breeders and most of our fosters are breeders. How often do we get dogs in who came from show breeders, once in a flippin blue moon and then they come get the dog lickety-split.

FYI good breeders do not have a conflicting goal with rescue or rescuers. We ALL want to see every pet in a good and safe home. There are a LOT of responsible breeders out there cleaning up the same messes other rescues and shelters do. Responsible breeders produce only a smallish proportion of available pets, because the way we do it COSTS us money and the responsibility to the dogs is for life, not 8-10 weeks. It is also why we rescue. We take our responsibility to a breed very seriously.

If you who rescue and despise breeders would stop believing all the "breeder is a breeder is a breeder" propaganda and brainwashing, you would find many allies in the fight to save pets and protect them from puppymills, abusers and also hogwash like this.

JenniferJ

Anonymous said...

This was a response to NYCKitten, not the blog itself.

Which is FABULOUS btw. :)

JenniferJ

Anonymous said...

"A rescuer never breeds and a breeder never rescues - they have opposite goals."

REALLY? I guess I'd better get off of the board of 501(c)3 I co-founded that has assisted 1100 dogs and return the 3 rescues and 2 fosters that I have since "rescuers never breed".
Thanks for the heads up.
PS breed rescues orginally started with BREEDERS who were concerned about seeing their breed in shelters or in need of homes and in most cases they are mopping up after the backyard (uncaring) breeders or puppy mill messes not from those of their own breeding

FrogDogz said...

breed rescues orginally started with BREEDERS who were concerned about seeing their breed in shelters or in need of homes and in most cases they are mopping up after the backyard (uncaring) breeders or puppy mill messes not from those of their own breeding

Isn't that the truth. I've been on the phone the last 24 hours, trying to arrange transport and a foster home for a Boston/French Bulldog cross that's been living in an undersized cage in a pet store, ever since his first purchasers returned him.

His Frenchie sire, of course, came from Russia. The Boston mom, who knows.

What I do know is that those of us who are actually trying to do something for this little guy are ALL breeders - evil, evil breeders. In between trying to find him a trainer, a vet and a foster home, we all sat around and stomped on some bunnies. Because that's just how we roll.

Anonymous said...

Two weeks ago I drove a bulldog home from Southern California. He was in a SoCal shelter facing euthanasia due to serious knee problems.

Tomorrow I drive two hours to pick him up after his surgery to repair bilateral CCL ruptures.

He was pulled from the shelter by breeders, transported by breeders, fostered by a breeder. His surgery was paid for by donations much of which came from breeders and he'll be rehabed and placed by THIS breeder, yo.

Oh and if he ever again finds himself displaced again, he'll come back to rescue, probably to myself or another breeder 'cause that's who founded the local 501c3 rescue that will help him and about 100 others this year.

Oh and from 2006-now, I sold one puppy. I am RAKING it in let me tell you! :D


JenniferJ

Boycott Ontario said...

"As far as the validity of the issues, the newest keynote speaker to sign on is Dr. Kris Robertson of the Centers of Disease Control, the preeminent authority on dog bites. The CDC only signed on after a lengthy review of our work, our websites,..."

Response I received from CDC when I wrote and asked if this was true.

[quote]Thank you for your inquiry to CDC-INFO. We are sorry for the delay in responding to your email. A recent high volume of inquiries has slowed our response time. Your request for information on participation in a dog bite prevention conference was forwarded to CDC s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). We are pleased to provide you with their response:

"Thanks for your inquiry regarding CDC's participation in 1st World Congress on Mitigating the Risks of Dangerous Dogs. I have been asked to reply as a staff person in CDC's Injury Center that works on dog bite prevention and education. After some investigation, I have found that a person working in Rabies prevention was approached regarding presenting at this conference. Without a review of their work, websites, or methodologies, she tentatively agreed with the understanding that she is not an expert in dog bite prevention but rather in rabies prevention and that her presentation would focus only on rabies. However, due to scheduling conflicts, she will be unable to make the presentation; but the conference is clearly not geared toward the information that she
could provide. She is requesting that her name be removed from the website that you reference.

CDC has joined with the Humane Society of the United States and the American Veterinary Medical Association to reinforce that any dog can bite and any dog can kill. There are more appropriate and effective policies than breed bans to reduce the risk of dog bites. Please review the discussion section of the attached JAVMA publication to understand our stance. In addition, we've participated in a group to develop guidance to communities wishing to reduce dog bites. This Task Force document is also attached.

I might suggest that if the group is in fact aiming to reduce dog bites without resorting to breed bans (which is what the conference website suggests), that having it in a location with a breed ban in place might be a strategic move to try to educate policy makers. I do not know their motivation but that possibility came to mind.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Julie Gilchrist, MD
CDR, US Public Health Service"[/quote]

Kim said...

Thank you, Boycott Ontario!

There really should be a site dedicated to negating this woman's BS... she certainly seems to have an abundance of it flinging around...

Matt said...

If your software is anything like your website then I don't support anything you create.

Every time I try to open your website at www . preventdogbites.com (spaces intentional to keep anyone from clicking on that link) it tried to install a virus.

Anonymous said...

To Boycott Ontario:

Awesome, awesome work, getting that response from the CDC!
Would you be willing to share the CDC email with me - it has some excellent talking points about their policy and breed bans (even though they were addressing their "dog bite expert" and the "congress"
If you are willing to share, please email me at:
Kaynine3@aol.com.

Thank you
Karen Delise
www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com

Social Mange said...

Interesting. I clicked on the link for DangerousDogsCongress and my software told me it was an attack site.

Social Mange said...

Hey, somebody send me the test and I'll try it on my cats.

If HSUS is involved, I'd run as far as possible FROM the event. Wassamatter, Wayne needs a new suit?