Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Upcoming schedule of seminars and appearences: WARNING-CONTAINS ME

For the many people who have asked for my schedule of appearences for the next couple of months, here it is. Brace yourselves!
April 24, 25: Alfred College, Alfred (Rochester) New York-the 24th is for LEOs, "Investigation of Animal Attacks for Law Enforcement", the 25th is "Dealing with Aggressive Animal Behavior: Training for Animal Care Personnel" Contact by email for registration at
May 13-20: New Jersey with New Jersey Aid for Animals. Seminars on several days, including one on May 18 for the public and a couple radio/media visits. Also appearence with Camp Bow Wow for their bite safety kids program. Contact Kathy McGuire for details of individual sessions and times.
May 21st: Augusta, Georgia. Join me and my friend and colleague Attorney Claudine Wilkins as we contribute to the EMSc Day Conference at Georgia Regents University. We will be speaking about dog law, dog bite prevention, and strategies for First Responders to guard their and their patients' safety when dealing with dog encounters.
May 30-31: Victoria Stilwell and I , with a few of the best trainers in the world, present our National Bite Prevention Conference just outside London, England. This is a public event and all are welcome to attend. Check with the Victoria Stilwell Positively website for more information or look here:
June 16-17: Dog Attack and Bite Investigation Seminar at Wood Green Animal Sanctuary, Cambridgeshire, England. Link here: Jim Crosby 2014 Seminar Update

Please, if you are nearby (or want an excuse to travel!) come on and join us.  The events in New Jersey will be supporting the efforts of New Jersey Aid for Animals. The Seminar at Wood Green supports the rescue and sheltering work of the Wood Green Animal Sanctuary. The Dog Bite Prevention Conference supports the Victoria Stilwell Positively Foundation and Victoria's extensive work to improve owner and child safety around pet dogs and her work to promote positive based training methods. 

I hope to make these very informative and also entertaining seminars, despite the fact that some of the subjects are very serious. Those aimed at Animal Care personnel will be more technical on the behavioral side. Those for Law Enforcement will address more enforcement and invetigative issues. The Bite Prevention Conference is dedicated to education and information aimed at reducing the needless negative interactions between humans and our canine companions that happen each year, with information linking welfare and training issues to these incidents.

So come on out. Meet with me, my friends, and other interested professionals and doggie folks and hopefully you will take home a few ideas on how to improve your relationship with you furry friends.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

DANGER! Or: the worst can happen to any of us.

Before Christmas I got a text from a trainer friend that grabbed my undivided attention: he had just left the Emergency Room with multiple punctures and sutures in both his arm and his neck. A large German Shepherd he was working with had "gone off" and attacked him. He was shaken, upset, sore, and above all worried that he had just cost this dog his life. He knew that after inflicting these extensive injuries the dog would most likely be killed.

Two days later he messaged me. The message was "Thankful to be alive but not handling this well. They are going to euthanize the dog. Physically I will heal, but emotionally I am torn up." The dog had been destroyed.

The next day he came over. We sat out in the carport and in between emotional flashbacks and tears he told me the story.

His call had come in a few days before. A local owner had been referred to him for an "aggressive" dog. My friend (for ease of reference we will call him "Joe"-not his name) is an experienced trainer, and has worked with many difficult dogs, so he listened. The owner, an elderly lady, explained that she had been told to call him by a Veterinary Behaviorist (who we will call VB) because they had heard that he was capable. The dog, a seven year old German Shepherd, was showing troubling behavior towards the owner and others. The behaviorist had been out and met the dog but did not observe any problems.

Joe was excited at the prospect of being referred by a high level professional. After all, recognition by a professional colleague as competent is always a big deal. Joe took the client's information and called the Vet. They spoke for some time about the dog and the Vet's observations. The Vet had been at the home for two hours and had not seen any of the problem behaviors the owner had complained about. No blatant aggression, no guarding issues, no hazard flags waving. This sounded like a pretty routine case, more a matter of reactivity than open aggression. The general plan was to make friends with the dog, find the specific behavior triggers, establish some routines and progressive desensitization protocols to reduce the dog's reactivity-another regular day at work.

So Joe made his appointment and went to work. He called and talked with the owner, a slight older woman. She explained that the dog was her husband's. He had wanted a German Shepherd for much of his life, and was rapidly dying. To ease his last days they had found a dog for adoption on Craigslist. The dog was presented as a mature 7 year old male with no problems. The original owners had the dog since puppy hood but were moving and could not take the dog with them.*

The husband met the dog and fell in love with this beautiful male. They went home thinking that this companion would make the man's last days more comfortable.

The dog appeared to love the man. He was a little touchy around other people, she said, but the man and his wife were more focused on the man's deteriorating condition. After the dog had been in the home about two months the man died. It was three weeks after the man's death that the woman contacted VB and Joe.

Through her grief the woman explained that the dog had shown aggressive displays towards other people while with her husband, and even some "difficult" reactions towards her husband, but the behaviour had become worse. She was torn between keeping a dog that was too big for her to handle and difficult towards others and the alternative of letting go of something that was, at least for a while, part of her late husband. She was not actually afraid of the dog, but she was becoming less comfortable, which is why she sought help. Her feelings towards the dog were colored by the association with her late husband, so she was motivated to do what she could to keep the dog.

Joe arrived at the house and spoke to the woman for a few minutes. Joe was seated in the living room when the client offered to have him meet the dog. Instead of bringing the dog in safely on lead the dog cam bounding in, straight for Joe. The dog placed his large head right in Joe's lap. Unsure of the dog's intentions, Joe did not touch the dog but spoke calmly to him "Good dog, good boy". Joe had a large amount of treats in his hands, and began feeding the treats to the dog, telling him "Good boy, easy dog". So far, thought Joe, so good.

Joe had been told that the dog had been kept on a prong collar. When Joe looked at the dog's collar he also saw that the dog was simultaneously on an electronic fence collar. The client explained that the previous owners told them the dog had been on both a prong collar and an electronic collar since puppy hood. They said that the prong was the only way to control the dog on leash, and that the electronic fence was the way to keep him in the yard.

Joe is a trainer who is dedicated to only using positive methods to train. In his mind his first priority was to get the prong collar off the dog, immediately followed by removing the electronic collar. Joe had not yet even touched the dog other than to give him treats. Joe decided the best way to "make friends" was to go from seated in a chair to sitting on the floor, at face level with the dog, to make himself seem less potentially threatening.

This succeeded momentarily. The dog allowed Joe to quickly reach towards his collars, even though he was tense. Joe, after two tries, got the electronic collar free, madly feeding the dog treats. Joe was still on the floor, with the dog right in his face. The woman seemed to be unable to direct the dog by voice, and Joe was determined to get the prong collar off.

Joe reached for the prong collar and the situation immediately changed. The dog "roared" (as Joe described it later) and engulfed the side of Joe's face and neck in his mouth. Thankfully for all involved the dog honestly showed substantial control of his powerful jaws-he did not rip Joe's face off. His upper teeth connected with Joe's left eyebrow and corner of his eye, while the dog's lower teeth engaged Joe's neck and the side of his lower jaw. Joe drew back and got his left arm up when the dog reengaged, grabbing Joe's forearm and latching down.

The dog's owner, meanwhile, began screaming. At less than the dog's weight she was physically not able to pull the dog off, and even though she did wade in to try and help she was unable to disengage the dog. Joe managed to grab the dog's collar and could somewhat control the action, but he was bleeding, still on the ground, and rapidly getting tired. He told me that he was afraid of the dog getting him again and afraid of the dog engaging the owner since she clearly could not fight the dog off or absorb the kind of punishment that he could.

Joe finally gained his feet and managed to shove the dog into another room. The owner screamed "he can open the door" and that was enough. Joe wisely headed for the street, with the front door between him and the dog, bringing the owner out with him.

Standing in the street a neighbor saw them both and brought Joe a towel with which to staunch the blood. After a few deep breaths he assessed his condition and found that he had been fortunate: the face and neck injuries were relatively minor (no pieces hanging off) and the arm bite was deep but of limited scope. Deep punctures and unquestioned deep bruises but nothing torn or substantially slashed. During the bite he had the presence of mind not to pull away as the dog grasped him, so there were no withdrawal tears.

Animal Control was called but never responded. After waiting for an hour Joe decided that the Emergency Room was calling his name and, after the owner assured him repeatedly that she could control the dog until she got him to her regular Vet's office, Joe left. At the hospital he texted me, which brings us back to the beginning of this story.

Joe was terribly shaken by this incident, even a few days later. He kept repeating that the dog's first rush was faster than he could have responded to, even in the best of situation, and he dwelt on what he called the "roar" of the dog as he closed on Joe's face. Joe said he had never heard such a terrible sound come from a dog. He had been waking at night, shaking and sweating, with that roar in his ears.

Joe explained that he had called VB the day after this incident and explained what happened. Several phone conversations and emails ensued, and the matters discussed will remain between the two of them as there are always two sides to any issue. One salient factor that caught my attention was that VB explained that they never laid hands on the dog: all of the "evaluation" was conducted by watching the owner interact with the dog. Not once did VB touch, handle, or directly interact with this problem dog. VB allegedly told Joe "It's not my job".

Before we move on to a detailed analysis of the incident, I want to mention one thing: when I evaluate a dog, especially to try and develop a treatment plan, I absolutely must lay hands on the dog to get what I feel is a valid evaluation. This is not some ego trip or contest to say "Oh, I can handle anything-I'm a badass!". No. Not even close. My feeling is that I can not adequately evaluate what a dog's triggers might be, where his/her sensitivities might be, and whether the problem lies in the dog or the owner, without directly interacting with the dog.

This takes time. I have to develop a relationship of trust-even fleeting-and cooperation to see where the dog's problems might lie. How much time does this take? As much time as it takes.

Why do I insist on this? Let me use a human example. A good physician never just looks at tests-they meet the patient, make a connection (despite the volume of patients corporate health care systems require doctors to see) and usually, even for a few minutes, lay hands on the patient. Maybe this laying on of hands dates back to times of superstition and magic, but it is still part of our human makeup. We touch each other to get to know each other. Our touch can transmit-and receive-threats, trust, compassion, love, violence. Feeling a dog react and relax or tense under my touch is essential to search for problems. Some professionals extend this need for touch with systems such as T-Touch. I am not trained in that discipline but I definitely value the input of direct interaction with a dog.

This is the long way of getting to the point that I feel direct interaction is essential to proper diagnosis and evaluation of a dog. In methods such as the SAFER test there is direct interaction with the animal. Even in the evaluations I have conducted with dogs that have killed people I try my best to directly handle and interact with the dog. Again, not to prove that I can, but to see what the dog can tell me by its behavior.

Now, back to this incident. We can all now, I am sure, see a series of mistakes. Joe also sees them and, as a result, has asked me specifically to share my observations with the rest of you to let us all see just how easy it is to get in trouble.

First, Joe was surprised by the dog while he was sitting down. This has happened to all of us. We tell the clients to have the dog secured when we get to the home-and how many times do the dogs run up barking and greet us at the door, bouncing between wanting so meet and eat the new guy. Sitting places us in a state of limited mobility and brings us much too close to the business end of the dog to start.

Secondly, Joe tried to defuse the situation by making himself less threatening by going to the floor. Bad move. This makes mobility even harder, and exponentially increases the level of threat the dog can present. Down is not good. Down is exposed, vulnerable, dangerous.

I understand why he did this. He was trying to make the best of a situation where the dog was already in his space-and face. Joe was focused on getting the collars off the dog. Being so focused on the collars Joe lost sight of safety and the body cues the dog was sending. A better plan would have been to disregard the collars for the moment, instead waiting to establish a safer physical position and then building connection and trust with the dog. Joe would have been better served by having the owner retreat with the dog, even if to another room, to let Joe get to his feet. I might have even, at that point, had the owner remove the dog and then had us reintroduced outside the home, in relatively neutral territory, with me securely on my feet. In the street the dog would not have seen me as an invader into his home but as a relatively neutral figure to check out.

Once Joe was on the floor with the dog in his face he pushed too much too fast by grabbing for the collars. We have all seen that many dogs have sensitivity to reaching for a collar. Dr. Ian Dunbar recognizes this issue and in his puppy socialization training stresses the absolute need to acclimate pups to reaching for the collar. His plan: reach for the collar, pup gets treat. Touch collar, pup gets two treats. Grab collar and we go the full payout of three treats. Thus we build a dog that looks forward to having his leash and collar put on-good things are coming!

Here there were warnings that the dog might have collar sensitivity. The owner explained that the dog had been habitually on the prong and electronic collars for his whole life. The aversive association with collars in general, and people reaching for the collars, would of course be likely to establish a negative reaction to someone reaching in to grab, or even kindly remove, the collars. This case would have had me approaching the collar slowly, in stages, with reinforcement for accepting contact.

One other lack that too many of us do not consider is the matter of protective gear. I always wear Kevlar/Spectra bite-resistant gloves when first dealing with a new dog. I have learned the hard way that not wearing these gloves has resulted in a couple nasty bite. All my fault I must add-and I would not have been hurt if I had worn them. This lesson goes back to my police officer days of wearing a bullet proof vest. I thankfully never needed it, but it was there just the same. With this dog I would have also worn my full length snake-proof bite chaps. They are heavy and hot, but I am on my feet and wearing them I can be bitten by a very large dog with no effect other than some minor bruising. I am not looking to be bitten mind you; but better safe than missing pieces. I am currently working with the manufacturer of the gloves to develop both sleeves and leggings for trainers that are lighter, cooler, and less restrictive than a bite suit or the heavy leggings I use now, but more on that in the future. Bottom line: if a dog has aggression problems, use protective gear. Too many dogs I deal with are one bite away from a Dangerous designation or death. Some have already killed. It is not about ego. It is about risking a dog's life if you make a mistake.

To sum this up, Joe was kind of doomed here. Although VB shared all of the information they had, according to what I was told they never placed the dog in a situation wherein the dog actually displayed the problem behavior-contact with a stranger. The owner was physically unable to assist when things went bad. Joe made some poor choices out of his desire to help and remove the aversive collars from the dog without making a connection first. The placement of this dog with an elderly couple that had limited physical ability, with possible knowledge that this dog was powerful and had potential behavior issues fed into the storm.

This post is not to criticize Joe or anyone else. We all have our styles and habits. Joe asked me to share this case to help educate other trainers and professionals about just how quickly things can tumble out of control. We can use our experience too minimize the danger, but there is always a risk. And remember-not everyone wants to, or needs to, address serious aggression issues. Too often I have seen people that, after training for a relatively short time, think they are equipped to handle such clients. And they may get away with it for a long time. But again, dealing with aggression cases is not a contest. No one cares if you deal with the hard cases or spend your time house training puppies; you are contributing to the health and welfare of dogs and owners in a positive and constructive way, no matter where you draw the line. There have been a couple dogs I refused to interact with-they were obviously too dangerous. I had nothing to prove by getting hurt.

Be safe. Be smart. Plan ahead. Look for cues and warnings. And wear your bullet proof undies.

*We hear this excuse all of the time. If you have had a dog for seven years, unless a lot of things (loss of job, terminal illness, military being sent to a country that won't take your dog, etc.) there is a simple answer; if your new home won't allow the dog, DON'T MOVE THERE. Usually we find that it is simple laziness. Oh, and by the way-your child didn't suddenly become "allergic" to a dog you have had for seven years. That is the oldest and lamest excuse in the book. What if your dog "became allergic" to your new kid? Dump the kid on Craigslist? Sorry. Rant over.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Memphis Revisited-an overview one year out.

On September 6, 2012, I had the pleasure of meeting a dog named Memphis at the Bloomfield, New Jersey animal control facility.  Memphis was a solid, healthy looking Pit Bull Type dog that had been picked up by Animal Control as a stray a few months previously. Memphis was held past any required holding period and became the property of the Township of Bloomfield. He stayed in the shelter for a number of months, labeled by the staff there as a potential problem dog with aggression issues.

Before my entrance on the scene Memphis had been sent to live with local trainer Jeff Coltenback, under an agreed-upon training contract, to see if Jeff could improve Memphis to the point that Memphis could be adopted to a permanent home. The Township never adopted Memphis to the Coltenbacks-this was, at that time, a business transaction.

During the eight days that Memphis lived at the Coltenback kennel/residence Jeff watched Memphis and worked with him. Jeff, according to his own statements, did not observe any troubling behaviors. In fact, Jeff felt comfortable enough with Memphis that he posted photos of Memphis in close, controlled proximity to a few children.

The Bloomfield shelter staff saw these pictures as Jeff had posted them openly on Facebook. The shelter director was concerned by the photos showing the kids and Memphis together so soon. The Town of Bloomfield exercised a provision of the training contract with Jeff and took Memphis back into their custody.

This was where I entered the story. The Township and a group called Neighbor to Neighbor brought me in to evaluate Memphis as an outside, independent expert-and evaluate him I did.

For those who never read my evaluation, I am attaching it to the end of this post. Please read the report in full.

I appeared in a open meeting with residents of Bloomfield, the Bloomfield Health Department representative, and the shelter staff at the Bloomfield Town Hall. During that meeting I presented to all  my findings. That meeting was professionally recorded by the local Township television station and was, for a while, available online through the station website.

Since then Memphis has been moved to an undisclosed location for "retraining". I am not privy to the location, not have I seen him since September 6th. I have not spoken to the trainer, nor have I seen the facility.

During the past year I have had a number of people claiming that my "words were twisted" and that someone has been misrepresenting my report. That is why I am writing today, and attaching the report showing exactly what I did, and didn't, say. To repeat the statements that I made at the meeting, let me say this. I spent time with Memphis for a couple of hours on September 6th, 2012. My observations were made at the shelter, both in and out of his kennel. I had him out on leash, and was in the office (after the general public was excluded) with Memphis loose and freely interacting with me and Township staff. At that time, under those circumstances, in that environment I observed that Memphis was a good dog. He did have a few behavior issues that concerned me. I felt, and stated clearly, that although Memphis was not suitable for adoption to a general member of the public at that time, that I felt there was a good prognosis for Memphis to eventually be placed in a permanent home.

Time passed. I heard bits and pieces of rumors. Memphis had been sent away. Memphis was being trained. Memphis' training was taking too long. Memphis needed to "go home" to the Coltenbacks.

Before we get spun up any more here, let's look at the facts. Memphis was initially a stray. The Bloomfield shelter kept Memphis long past any legal holding period and at least appears to have wanted to make Memphis an adoptable success. They brought in Jeff, a well known trainer, under a contract to try and rehabilitate Memphis' few noted behavior issues. During the eight-day stay at the Coltenbacks, they fell in love with Memphis. The Township became concerned (justified or not) and exercised their rights under the agreed contract to take Memphis back. They brought me in, I met Memphis, and I gave my report explaining what I saw in a specific place (the Bloomfield shelter) at a specific time (September 6th). The Township then made a decision to send Memphis to another trainer.

Whether we agree or not, dogs inn our society are considered property. Under the law Memphis was the property of the Township. They did not transfer that ownership to Jeff, to me, or to any outside organization that I am aware of. Agree or not Memphis was theirs to dispose of as they saw fit. They made no promise to Jeff on paper that I have seen that guaranteed Jeff could adopt Memphis. Jeff and family generously offered a number of times to take Memphis, but that was not the contracted deal.

So where is Memphis' home? Well, first it was with some unknown person who was so irresponsible that they never came to find him after he was initially picked up. In too many places that would have been an instant death sentence-but fortunately for Memphis it wasn't. He then lived at the shelter for a number of months. Then he went to the Coltenback's for eight days. Then he was back at the shelter, until at some point he was sent away.

Where is home? By length of time one would say either at the Bloomfield shelter or at his current location. Those are the places he has lived the longest. Are either of those the best placement for Memphis? I personally do not think that long term residence at the shelter would be fair to Memphis. A shelter is a busy, chaotic place and any animal living in that environment, no matter how well they are treated, would in my view be better in a permanent home with less chaos and more opportunity to live a more normal life. IS his current placement better than being placed with Jeff and family? I don't know. I have never been to Jeff's home, and likewise have never been to Memphis' current residence. I did clearly tell everyone at the Township hearing that I was not going to make a determination of where Memphis should go or who Memphis should live with. That was not my purpose, and I still will not make that determination. Memphis belongs to the Township of Bloomfield, or whatever legal entity the shelter operates under, and it is legally their decision as to the disposition of Memphis. Should we send Memphis "home"? He may well be there now.

I feel that Memphis was, and is, a good dog. I stand by my statements that Memphis was not ready to be adopted at the time (September 6th), based on my observations that day in that environment , to a regular pet home. Whether his behavior in another environment would have been different I cannot say. Whether he would have progressed or developed other problem behaviors in another setting I also can't guess at. I can say that in my career I have had dogs, in training, live with me for months on end. I had accepted these dogs under contract to train for specific tasks. Many of these dogs I fell in love with-they were wonderful dogs by and large, even those with behavior issues. Yet they were never "mine". I was not "home" even though they had been with me for months. And in talking to the owners of these dogs some of them behaved as I trained them-and some did not. Owner input and action has a lot to do with a dog's long term behavior, and once out of my sight they were no longer under my control. I also had a few that showed problem behaviors with me, over time, that had not been seen by the owners in their environment. Did I cause them? No: it was simply a behavior that they exhibited in a different environment.

So what should happen to Memphis? He should wind up living out his life in the best place he can. Where is up to his owners.

Here, once again, is the full report to the Township regarding Memphis.


Karen Lore
Township of Bloomfield, New Jersey
1 Municipal Plaza
Bloomfield, New Jersey, 07003

Dear Ms. Lore:

On September 6, 2012, I traveled to the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter facility to evaluate a dog there.  The dog is known as Memphis.

On my arrival I observed Memphis closely.  Memphis appeared healthy, in very good physical condition, and using the Tufts Animal Care and Condition body scale (TACC) would all score in the Ideal (1) range. 

To evaluate dogs I use a combination of the SAFER testing protocol, the AKC Canine Good Citizen examination, and elements of the American Temperament Testing Society process, tests that are generally accepted in the canine behavior community.  These tests are adapted and I may not follow them exactly for safety concerns: I initially observe the dog within their kennel to determine if the dog is safe to remove from secure containment for evaluation and handling purposes.  Progressing through the full range of tasks may be interrupted due to specific responses in earlier portions of the test: for instance, if a dog is reacting with open aggression to safe control, I will not place my face up to the dog.

Further, I do not consider these tests to be “pass/fail”.  If a dog shows a negative behavior, or if in my judgment a dog is not safe to conduct a particular test, the dog does not “fail”.  A negative reaction to a particular stimulus is an indicator of a need for training/treatment and may assist in evaluation of the appropriateness of placement in a particular environment.  Such “failure” may also indicate, in the case of a post-bite evaluation, a potential trigger for the dangerous incident under investigation. Results from a temperament/behavior evaluation are also not necessarily predictive of success or failure in another environment; they are indicative of the reactions to specific stimuli in a particular environment on a particular day.  No guarantees are made or implied, as dogs are living creatures and are deeply affected by environment, training, and experience, both before and after any testing.

Specific indicators examined in a full evaluation include:

Dog greeting to strange person (evaluator).
Dog permitting non-threatening physical contact with dog (gentle petting)
Dog permitting leashing by evaluator.
Dog body posture and non-verbal signaling to evaluator.
Dog willingness to work with the evaluator.
Dog permitting full handling and manipulation of body (ears, tail, feet, muzzle, etc.).
Dog seeking or avoiding voluntary physical contact with evaluator.
Dog’s response to more intense physical manipulation, including “squeeze” and “scruffing”.
Dog acceptance of treats and/or kibble, and allowing or resisting the removal of high value treats. 
Dog response to sudden startle-inducing noise and recovery to startle.
Dog response to a neutral stranger (not evaluator).
Dog response to, and recovery from, sudden approach of “threatening stranger”.
Dog response to direct visual contact/frontal body posture of stranger, neutral and/or “threatening”.
Dog response to proximity of both non-reactive and reactive dogs brought within the testing area by a neutral handler.
Dog response to the actions of other dogs in close proximity not controlled by neutral handler (other kennel dogs acting/reacting from within their enclosures).
Dog response to evaluator’s body language, including appeasement gestures, dominance-type posturing, apparent threatening posture (including direct frontal stare and stare with restraint of dog’s face at close range).
Dog’s response to verbal cues.
Dog’s response to leash application and moderate leash correction, response to strong verbal correction.
Dog’s ability to exhibit appropriate play behavior with evaluator.
Dog’s willingness to initiate, on and off leash, voluntary human contact.
Dog’s response to presenting/removing food bowl, possibly permitting presence of hand in food bowl without guarding response.
Dog’s response to a simulated infant (baby doll).

Other controlled interactions may also occur to expand and clarify any observed behaviors.

My specific behavioral observations for Memphis are as follows:

Memphis.  Male, neutered, Pit Bull type dog, approximately 2 years old.  Reddish-tan, solidly built .  Posture and position on initial observation-alert and calm. When I approached and turned my back Memphis stayed at the front of the kennel and observed calmly.  When I approached with a treat Memphis immediately accepted the offered treat with tail wagging and gently took the treat.  When I stared directly at Memphis he barked once but quickly (less than 2 seconds) averted his eyes to defuse the challenge, tail wagging and showing several appeasement lip licks.  When I did not respond by averting my gaze Memphis faced off and barked briefly, but then re-averted his gaze to defuse the contact, wagging his tail.  Memphis also gave several appeasement licks.  When I banged the kennel door he briefly barked and faced me, but immediately again sent appeasement signals.  When I stood up Memphis voluntarily sat and gently accepted treats.  I again approached closely, staring directly at him and rattled his kennel door.  Memphis jumped up and barked, but quickly regained a stable stance and accepted treats.  Memphis’ posture continued to be frontal but relaxed, with tail wagging.  I turned my back to Memphis, then suddenly turned back around and jumped towards him making full eye contact.  Memphis did respond by barking and jumping up on the kennel door, but calmed within approximately ten (10) seconds.  Memphis’ reaction was consistent with a normal dog being suddenly challenged and showed good recovery skills.

I entered Memphis’ kennel and he was immediately accepting, walking with me towards the back of the kennel.  He voluntarily sat and then came back to the front of the kennel when called.  He accepted treats gently and sat quietly when I placed the leash on him.  Just outside the kennel Memphis readily complied with both Sit and Down commands while remaining attentive to me and my actions.  Memphis walked easily on the leash into the building and up the stairs to the testing area.

On entering the testing area I released Memphis to roam free.  Memphis began to check out the room but readily came to me when called.  I then sat quietly and gave no instructions.  Memphis began to check out the room but voluntarily returned to make contact with me within 15 seconds.  He then spent some time (1 minute 32 seconds) checking the entire perimeter of the room, but then returned to me without command. At that time I took him back under leash control and began the handling tests.

I was able to fully handle, pet, stroke and manipulate Memphis with no reluctance.  I forced Memphis into a down position and restrained him with mild resistance but no aggressive or challenging behavior on his part.  He allowed full manipulation, pulling of his tail, squeeze test, and responded calmly to a sudden scruffing and verbal “no” command.  He tolerated all physical handling without sensitivity or resistance.

The next test was reaction to the sudden object (opening umbrella).  Memphis briefly startled, was alert and cautious, barked twice, and retreated behind me.  Recovery time from this exercise was fourteen (14) seconds.  I then conducted the loud noise test.  Memphis briefly startled but recovered within two (2) seconds with one small lip lick. 

I tested Memphis for food guarding.  In preparation for the test he had not been fed yet this day. I presented him a bowl of soft dog food and allowed him to start eating.  While he was eating he let me pet him on the head and face with no guarding behavior.  I placed my gloved hand directly in the bowl as he was eating and he was tolerant and willing to let me take morsels of food directly from his mouth.  I gave him, and removed, his food several times and he never showed any aggression or protective behavior.  He gently accepted food directly from my hand.

I then retested him with bare hands.  He accepted full handling, squeeze, manipulation of his mouth, and overall handling with no sensitivity or aggressive response toward my bare hand.

Memphis was then exposed to the “stranger” tests.  The first encounter was with a passive stranger wearing a raincoat.  To prepare for this I held Memphis’ leash, but gave him no direction or correction, regardless of his response.  I only restrained him by passive holding of the leash.  The passive stranger was instructed not to make direct eye contact with Memphis. 

When the passive stranger entered and walked across the room Memphis did take notice and approached to smell the stranger, but made no aggressive moves, instead wagging his tail.  When the passive stranger walked out Memphis looked to follow him, but still with positive body language.  In the next test the stranger approached me directly and then ran away after expressing surprise (“Ah! It’s a dog!”).  During this test Memphis did strain towards the stranger and barked several times, pulling against the leash.  Memphis then quickly (11 seconds) backed off and looked to me for guidance.  He briefly renewed his forward motion and barking (18 seconds) and then returned his attention to me.  He was still somewhat tense and watchful.  He then sat on his own, watching the stranger prepare to reenter with a hoodie over his head.  When the stranger approached Memphis began to bark, pulling on the leash, out in front of me and oriented in a frontal posture to the stranger.  Barking/pulling was for a period of about 8 seconds. 

Next the stranger was instructed to reapproach, but this time to look Memphis directly in the eyes in full challenge posture.  Memphis responded with a full lunge, barking and growling, mouth partially open with partial exposure of teeth to the stranger.  This behavior continued for 20 seconds, at which time Memphis looked back to me for guidance.  When given no instruction Memphis sat for 9 seconds without barking, although tense and breathing quickly.  The stranger was then told to avert his eyes, and when he did Memphis looked back at me for guidance again, still in a voluntary sit.  I then instructed Memphis to “leave it” and walked sideways, away from the stranger.  Memphis readily complied, disengaging with the stranger and reverting his attention back to me.

After we walked around the chair one time I tested Memphis for any learned aggressive commands.  I told Memphis “Get Him! Several times and pointed towards the stranger.  Memphis gave n o reaction that would indicate any training or previous behavior shaping of aggression towards a specific target (person) on command.  I also tried Spanish commands and got the same lack of aggressive response.  During the attempt to have Memphis respond aggressively on command he instead kept his attention on me, with receptive and positive body posture.

The stranger departed and I allowed Memphis to voluntarily take a small break.  He lay at my feet, relaxed.  I then had a female (Karen Lore) who Memphis had previously met approach our position, walking and facing directly towards us.  I told her to look Memphis directly in the eye.  Memphis averted his gaze within approximately three seconds and remained lying on the floor, despite the female trying to maintain direct eye contact.  I had the female approach two more steps toward his position, maintaining frontal position with eye contact and Memphis did respond, leaping up and barking and lunging towards the female.  She quickly backed up several steps, still maintaining frontal position, and Memphis continued barking at her for 9 seconds.  I then had the female subject run away screaming in a high pitched voice, leaving Memphis’ view.  Memphis did respond by barking and lunging, but discontinued the behavior is less than 7 seconds, returning to my side as the female target left his sight.  Memphis immediately thereafter complied with my command to “down”, and then accepted me grabbing him by the face and directly challenging him at close range with no negative response.  During these tests Memphis never redirected at the camera person present in the room. 

I then had two dogs brought into the testing area, one at a time.  First was a non-reactive dog, then a more reactive dog.  During this test I sat quietly in the chair, holding Memphis’ leash, but otherwise giving no direction.  Memphis did give a high pitched bark in response to the many barking dogs in the kennel while we were waiting for the test dogs.

The first test dog was a small, white, poodle-type dog.  Despite the quick motions of the dog back and forth in front of Memphis he sat by my side with no commands on a loose leash, showing no aggressive behavior or pursuit of the smaller dog.  While waiting for the second dog Memphis sat, loose leash, although he was very focused on the doorway where the dog (and the strangers) had left the room.  He appeared tense and expectant.

The second dog was larger.  Memphis initially observed the dog’s entrance while laying down, but then as the dog approached Memphis he jumped up and began barking and lunging at the approaching dog.  The reactive dog was likewise pulling towards Memphis.  When the dog left Memphis sight he stopped barking and stood focused on the doorway.  At +20 seconds he diverted his attention briefly towards the side and by +1 minute he was relaxing and easily redirected back to me, allowing petting and seeking positive contact.

I then exited the testing area and took Memphis downstairs to the kennels.  I walked him past the front of a row of kennels filled with dog, most of which were barking and giving visible aggressive displays towards Memphis.  I gave him no verbal instructions and let him engage as he wished, only holding him back by the leash.  Memphis, on our first pass by the dogs, directly responded to the clear challenges of the barking, lunging dogs with similar behavior.  He did not ever redirect back towards me.  As we went back the way we came I was able to get Memphis to respond to my direction and sit, looking at me, despite a dog barking and lunging at him within less than six feet.  Memphis held his quiet sit until I released him (10 seconds).  I had Memphis sit a second time, directly facing a kennel with a barking, lunging dog, and he broke the sit after 8 seconds to respond to the other dog.  I was able to have Memphis sit a third time, facing a different dog, barking and lunging at Memphis, and he held the sit facing that dog for 15 seconds before I quietly walked him away.

I took Memphis for a brief break in the yard area outside the kennel.  We approached a cat that was sitting in the brush, and although Memphis was alert to the cat, he never lunged or tried to chase the cat.

I then took Memphis back through the same row of dogs, this time with treats and direction, to ascertain his response to positive redirection.  In this pass, each time we came in front of a kennel with a responding dog I had Memphis sit quietly and then reinforced the quiet sit.  He responded as before to the first two dogs, but he also took redirection to the sit.  After the second dog we repeated that exposure and Memphis sat without engaging the dog first.  The next dog we passed Memphis gave to response to, instead sitting and looking for his treat.  On the last two dogs Memphis was alert, but did not respond to either of the dogs, turning his back on them and keeping his attention toward me instead.  He in fact turned his back on the other barking, lunging dogs.  Even when I tried to guide him physically back towards the other dogs he maintained his focus on me.  When we walked back down the row of dogs he remained focused on me and did not respond to a single dog.


Memphis is a healthy male dog that does present a few behavior issues.  Specifically, Memphis is sensitive to the approach of strangers, particularly those who exhibit direct challenge behavior.  Memphis’ response is lunging and barking.  Memphis did not redirect that behavior to me or others in the immediate area he was already accustomed to, such as the camera person and observers in the testing room.  Memphis recovered rapidly from the presentation of the challenging stranger after the stranger withdrew without specific direction such as a “Leave it” command.  When given such a command Memphis accepted the redirection of his actions and recovered even more quickly.  His reaction to the active stranger is troublesome at this time, but he showed the ability to readily accept redirection and acceptable replacement behavior.  Memphis did not show any response to my attempts to have him “get” the stranger, and thus there was no indication that human focused aggressive display has been reinforced or trained.  I saw no evidence that Memphis has received any protection, guarding, or other aggression training.  Prognosis for retraining on his stranger sensitivity is very good.

Memphis also currently shows sensitivity to other dogs, particularly those his size or larger that show direct challenge behavior (barking, lunging, frontal confrontation).  Memphis strained at his leash and returned the behavior, but readily accepted my redirection.  Memphis responded quickly when presented with positive reinforcement for alternative behavior (sitting, ignoring the challenging dog), successfully sitting with his back to the challenging dogs and paying full attention to me.  In just a few repetitions Memphis began to generalize the alternative, calm behavior.  Memphis never redirected towards me, even when I physically reached to his head and moved his face to look at me while he was barking and lunging at the challenging dog.  Memphis’ receptivity to positive redirection of his behavior with relatively few repetitions gives a good prognosis for retraining.

At the time of the test, due to the above described issues, Memphis was NOT appropriate for adoption into a regular pet home.  With retraining and continuance of positive behavior reinforcement I believe that Memphis has a very good prognosis for eventual adoption and placement.  My recommendation for a permanent home would be to a physically capable owner who is experienced with bigger dogs and who is committed to continuing to reinforce Memphis’ good responses with regular training.


James W. Crosby CBCC-KA

Friday, October 25, 2013


As readers have seen before (my post of 7/17) I have been working on the case of Phineas, the dog in Salem, Missouri accused and sentenced to death for "biting" a child. As I said in my report then, the bite was NOT consistent with Phineas...and I excluded him from the case.

Last Thursday I went to Salem, Missouri and testified as to my findings. Despite the continuous objections of the City of Salem Attorney, the judge listened to my testimony excluding Phineas from having caused that injury.

Today the court order came out, and Judge Bernstein has exonerated Phineas!

A section of the court order issued reads:

 "Accordingly the court finds that (1) Phineas had never bitten before and (2) Phineas is excluded as the cause of the injury to [the alleged victim] on the date in question...This court hereby, in accordance with the above, enters judgment in favor of Petitioners, orders that Phineas be returned to Petitioners, and permanently enjoins the City from euthanizing Phineas."

Judge Scott Bernstein 10-25-13

So now we wait patiently to see if Phineas, who disappeared from the Veterinarian's office where he had been kept pending this hearing, is returned safely. Although I do not support the removal of Phineas, and I still believe that the system of justice tends to work, I understand the motivation of any person who thought they were "helping"- BUT- it is time for Phineas to go home.

Kudos to Attorney Joe Simon and thanks for bringing me in to assist. I have enjoyed being able to do something constructive to aid in the exoneration of this dog wrongly accused.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Eight years on-Looking back at Hurricane Katrina

My drive in to work today here in Nassau was past placid turquoise seas, under an outrageous blue sky broken by morning tropical thunderheads. The golden light off the edges of the clouds reminds me of a different sunrise overlooking the levees of East New Orleans. The water that morning was equally placid, but the context was far different from my current assignment.

Eight years ago today Hurricane Katrina swept ashore into New Orleans, changing not only lives but the physical map of Louisiana. I arrived a short time later, sent in by the inimitable-and formidable-Diane Albers of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs. Diane faced off against the devastation of two horrors called Katrina and Rita, and was more than equal to the task. I will never forget her cigarette-graveled voice on the phone; "Jim, get your ass in there and tell me what the hell is going on!"

And so I went, mini-van loaded with supplies.  To give an idea of what I found, here is an excerpt from my notes and the written account I have been working at for eight years:

Watching the news reports as Hurricane Katrina churned north and west across the Gulf of Mexico was like watching a train wreck.  You knew it was going to be really bad when it hit.  You knew the damage was going to be something awesome to behold.  And for those of us in North Florida, although we wished no ill towards any of our Gulf Coast brethren, we were praying it tracked west instead of making a curve back into the armpit of our state.

When she blasted ashore along the Louisiana coast, punching New Orleans right in the face on August 29, 2005, our prayers were sort of answered.  We ducked out of this one, and we hoped maybe New Orleans had ducked The Big One they had been ducking for years.  After all, the initial reports were good.  Governor Blanco and President Bush said everything was fine.  They had no idea.

Reality painted an ugly picture.  The bullet-proof armor that New Orleans wore was made of Kleenex, not Kevlar.  Katrina’s impact brought the city to its knees, and the levees’ failure to hold their own administered the killing blow.  Later, by the time Rita hit, recoil had become redundancy, and as some wags put it at the time, the Big Easy had gotten the Big Flush, followed by the Big Rinse.

Bad humor aside, the city was not flush.  Before Rita ever hit, the situation was beyond critical and the call went out far and wide-HELP SAVE NEW ORLEANS.  Homes gone, people dead.  Infrastructure was invisible and salvation nowhere to be seen.

I sat by and watched, and waited.  As a retired Police Lieutenant, I hadn’t kicked any butt in almost six years, and I was itching to do…SOMETHING.  Jump into the fray, get involved, put on my Superman undies and ride in with the cavalry. When Diane Albers of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs called and asked if I could run a load of supplies in to New Orleans, I jumped at the chance...

Driving in to New Orleans actually had me thinking, "This isn't too bad.”  For a few minutes anyway.  It was well after dark, and I had to go around the long way because the bridges over Lake Ponchartrain were out.  The electricity had been out since Alabama.  Darkness softened everything outside the glow of the headlights, and only the faintest hint of damage leaked through.  A road sign here, a bit of tree debris there.  Nothing major, nothing worrisome.

Until I had to swerve around the house.  I rounded a curve on I-10 to find a house sitting in the two left lanes.  It wasn't a big house, and it had suffered from the trip, but it was undeniably a house in the middle of a major interstate.

From there on the highway was increasingly littered with debris.  The first concentrations of junk on the road were items carried by wind and waters; furniture, boxes, assorted trash and bits people had left unsecured in yards.  But closer to the center of the city the character of the detritus changed.  Bags of clothing, assortments of bundled belongings, objects and orts dropped by refugees.  The tattered trail of things abandoned by people stumbling into an uncertain future.

And the darkness.  Although there had been no electric service since before Mississippi, I entered New Orleans and the darkness seemed to get thicker, heightened by looming unlit buildings, the shadow of a city.  Occasionally the faces of the buildings were broken by darker spaces, jagged black on black of broken windows.

The first security checkpoint materialized under an overcast of light.  Police cars and humvees blocked entry into the city proper, manned by haggard officers and Guardsmen.  The tiny amount of traffic did not linger long, and with a quick check of credentials and destination I was cleared through.

Exit off the highway on what I hoped was Crowder.  One twisted sign alongside the ramp, maybe in the right place.  Onto the surface streets, no lights, lines down all over, into the mouth of the beast. I had never before seen cars parked on the tops of houses, or boats in trees.  Flicker of images just beyond the spread of my headlights.  Gap-toothed windows and an over-layer of dirt on cars, homes, rubble.  Delay while it sank in – this dirt was sediment, not the dirt of neglect.  Settled out of water above, not just the product of poor upkeep.

Crowder ends at the Ponchartrain levee.  A huge earthen wall, behind which the lake stewed quietly.  Stairs led up and over, walkway at the apex.

Facing the levee were two camps.  On the left an unfinished office complex had become Field HQ for two companies of National Guardsmen.  The Guard camp was circled by free standing floodlights, tall on their generator bases, towers of light ringing an armed camp.

Across the street, in the complex that had been the Lake Castle School, was Muttshack.

Muttshack was an immediate response shelter and triage area that had been set up by two wonderful people from the Los Angeles area, Amanda and Marty St. John. Although they had never done anything of this magnitude before, they likewise could not just stand by. And as the Zen parable says, "Jump and the net will appear." These two jumped, made a net on the way down, and we fell into it.

Although there were tons of challenges, there were success stories. Animals were recovered and reunited with owners like the "pissed-off Pekingese" that needed just a bath and a warm place to stay until Mom and Dad could come get him.

The "Pissed off Peke"
Thousands of animals were rescued and treated so they could move on to new homes. Dogs like Pugsley, who spent 49 days on top of the freezer he had been washed onto after the flood, before we entered the house and rescued him. Kris and I brought him out and then handed him to Sue, who wrapped him in a towel while we drove like mad back to the Vet.

Kris and Pugsley
After the initial response was the follow up and clean up. I tried to escape in October-and wound up back three more times before I could finally get the swamp water out of my shoes. The last time was both sad and glorious: an airlift, arranged by the FAKC and coordinated by the unbelievable Jennifer Rowan, when we carted 77 dogs north through the sky to Indiana and Wisconsin aboard a World War Two vintage cargo plane. On our return south we watched sundogs chase us off the wing, escorting us safely home.

There were the tragic cases. Animals left behind by those who thought they would only be gone for a day or so died, in kennels and crates, in living rooms and attics. Animals found inside homes with their caretakers who refused to leave their companions, with both animal and human perishing in the flood. In the aftermath of the storm, the response, and the clean up, there were those humans who could not carry the burden of what they had seen and ended their lives prematurely.

Today we look back through a filter of eight years. Time allegedly heals all wounds, and many of the wounds of Katrina have at least long scabbed over. But the echoes of that time and that place linger on. Some have been good echoes; progress in disaster response planning, networks of shelters and activists that are ready and willing to step in (for example: the response of the Alabama Animal Control Association and the area shelters after the tornado in Birmingham and the massive response of activists and animal rescue organizations after the Joplin, Missouri tornadoes). Some of the echoes, such as who was really responsible for the levees and why so many people and animals died, still have us scratching our heads. And some echoes, like those of the people that died in the disaster, the animals that we found dead and dying, and those who have died since of varying associated causes, still haunt us. A friend still has dreams of the "Hell House" wherein 72 animals drowned. I still look up when I hear helicopters, and some days I catch a whiff of death on the breeze off the ocean. To hear Sonny Landreth, a Louisiana native, sing his rendition of "Louisiana 1927" still brings back the heat and the silence of New Orleans, 2005.

So eight years on we look back and remember, and just for a moment we who were there see and hear the ghosts of the bayou, the spirits that hover faintly above the waters of Ponchartrain, and we remember.

"Some people got lost in the flood, some made it out all right.
Busted through clear down to Plaquemine.
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline."

"Louisiana, 1927"  written by Randy Newman.