Saturday Dogs...and the owners they trained

Ditching Treats, Choke Chains, and Shock Collars

New book gives remarkable insight
to dog behavior and the mistakes owners make

Though the recent history of dog training suggests otherwise, treats, choke chains, and shock collars ignore what makes a dog a dog.

In fact, the overuse of such stimuli in combination with owner ignorance has created generations of hyperactive, disobedient dogs, some of whom are put to death.

In her critically acclaimed book, Saturday Dogs...and the owners they trained, Susan Overfield outlines her proven training approach, focusing on behavior and social identity in a relationship-oriented way.

Written in the spirit of James Herriott, Overfield's book is an anecdotal manual that examines common mistakes owners make in the realm of dog behavior.

Overfield's unique insight to both man and dog focuses on the stress and misery caused by insecure owners. Her stories focus on clients with common behavioral problems that cause their animals to jump, pull, lick, and bite.

Her method trains the owner to see their dog for what it is (a dog) and analyzes how the behavior and response of both parties results in either joy or abject misery.

Written for any owner who has ever been trained by a dog, Saturday Dogs opens the door to a relationship with long-term stability within the behavioral, psychological, emotional and social parameters of man's best friend.

Praise for Saturday Dogs

"...Susan Overfield's work is noteworthy...she focuses our attention on the dog's behavioral properties, on its social identity...her contribution is to remind us that...successfully living with a dog is not a process of rewards and punishments, it is a relationship..."

Stewart Hilliard, PhD, one of the world's leading authorities on canine psychology, behavior and training, co-author of Schutzhund: Theory and Training Methods

"The wonderful stories are the stories my rescue dogs have experienced...because of the wealth of common-sense information, the dogs and I now communicate easily...this knowledge has literally saved dogs' lives."
David Powers, Montana coordinator, American Brittany Rescue

Softcover
$16.95

ISBN: 0-980-2199-5-7

Available immediately from
Overfield Kennel.com
MuddyCreekPublishing.com

Available May 2008 through Barnes and Noble, Amazon and other fine book dealers

Great Falls develops parameters for Baker

I understand that the City sat down and developed parameters for Ms. Baker, the investigator.
How can one investigate if there are parameters? I would like to address Ms. Baker in the following letter:

Ms. Baker:

We, the citizens, would ask that you investigate everything. Speak to everyone involved. We would ask that you realize that the City Commission and Mr. Lawton ARE the Board of the Animal Shelter, and as such, will, in all probability, develop "parameters" that shy away from certain of their behaviors.

Here are some issues we would like investigated, please:

1) Cashing of HSCC checks without their authorization
2) Hiring of an unqualified individual as Director of the Animal Shelter
3) Acts of cruelty by Shelter staff
4) Negligence and lack of oversight by the Board of the Animal Shelter, which is comprised of City Commissioners and Mr. Lawton, which resulted in this investigation
5) Involvement by that same board with the Animal Foundation of Great Falls and the intended purpose of the original take-over and future "hand-off" of the shelter to the AFGF or its sub-group which resulted in this investigation
6) The amount of money spent by the City on the Shelter to date
7) The purported claim by the City that over 70% of the Staton Report requirements for Shelter improvement has been met by the City since taking over the facility.
8) The shut-down of the foster-home program
9) The number of animals killed to date within the Shelter
10) The lack of records kept for public inspection (violation of MCA)
11) The exact amount and types, i.e., fines, licenses, etc., of monies collected by the Shelter and City to date, and to whom they were funneled i.e., the Animal Foundation, Spay of the Falls, back into the Shelter or into other City accounts
12) The qualifications of the personnel currently writing policies and procedures for the Shelter
13) The intent by the current Shelter director to eliminate specific animal-related duties, such as temporarily caring for certain wild animals until such time as they can be handed off to another authority.
14) The lack by shelter personnel & board to ensure performance of their duties, i.e., collection of licensing fees, inspection of commercial kennels/pet stores and subsequent reissuing of annual licenses, education programs for the public, adoption fees, etc.

Thank you and we await your report,

The Concerned Citizens

Great Falls HAS a dog park

Interesting the information one finds that isn't public knowledge. Once found, one asks why ISN'T this public knowledge?

Great Falls HAS a dog park. It's Wadsworth Park, though it's not termed a "dog park".

It's owned by the City of Great Falls, and it is just outside the City limits. You may run your dog there off-leash. John Thompson, City Forester, run HIS dog there. The City even has a development plan for Wadsworth.

Here's what I find interesting. It's free. Tax dollars are already paying for it. So why did the City keep the information quiet?

Perhaps it's so the Animal Foundation could PR their way into a dog park which would make them look good, especially in light of the fact they've done nothing else with the money we've donated.

I can see another reason why Dona Stebbins and the Foundation haven't told people about the park. The people MOST interested in a Animal Foundation dog park have the LEAST control over the behavior of their dogs. (Lattes, cell phones and poorly behaved dogs, yep- really makes me want to take my dog there.) By creating a FENCED dog park, the Animal Foundation has simply created a big backyard for the owners that can't keep their dogs off-leash behavior in line in the real world.

A very good example of the type of dog and owner which one will find utilizing the Animal Foundation dog park is here. (Since many won't purchase this archived blog, let me quote it as I used it in my newsletter as a perfect example of WHY DOG PARKS ARE A BAD IDEA.)

"The first time we took Bailey to the dog park, we kept him on leash for awhile. Much like parents sending their kids off to kindergarten, we weren't sure if Bailey would make friends (or if he'd return when called)...Bailey can be aggressively playful, ready to wrestle whether other dogs like it or not. He seems to get along with dogs that either let him run the show or that like to wrestle as much as he does. Samba was neither...Within seconds of the initial sniff test she had Bailey pinned to the ground and her teeth were inches from Bailey's neck...After that, my husband wouldn't let Bailey play with other dogs--unless they were pocket pooches or labs (sic). I guess his logic is that all labs (sic) are nice and Bailey could squash even a really mean mini dog." (Kim Skornogoski, Aug 7, 2007, Dog Blog, Great Falls Tribune)

Let's recap:

The Animal Foundation, because they don't have enough money to erect their Taj Mahal of shelters and has pushed a dog park because it wants to have good PR.

Dona Stebbins, (Spay of the Falls, Mayor of Great Falls, and part of the Animal Foundation,) doesn't inform the public of this City park. Why? In order to continue funneling money to her personal projects? Because she's noted for not telling the citizens much? Because she & her dog can't correctly utilize this park's off-leash abilities?

City Parks & Rec isn't announcing this park, either. Could this be because they follow the orders of the Commission and the Commission has created a closed-door deal with the Animal Foundation?

Not the Mayor, the Commissioners, nor the Animal Foundation have done a single thing for the animals in the shelter, but they certainly have supported the idea of a dog park under the auspices of the Foundation, with the help of development by Melanie Lattin (city employee and Foundation board member).

If we have an off-leash park where dogs may run and play, why do we need the Animal Foundation's dog park? Why do we need them to waste ANY money on another playground for dogs while what is truly needed is a realistic, workable shelter?

Why are they trying to us sell political swill as bouillabaisse?

Animal Foundation Quotes of the Week

In a meeting between HSCC and the Animal Foundation on July 9, 2007, after the takeover of the shelter Bob James and John Gilbert suggested the HSCC merge with the Animal Foundation and the following quotes were taken down verbatim in that meeting:

"The Animal Foundation has worked for years to build equity with the City, County, police department and media, and would share some of their equity with the City to smooth things over for the HSCC and can make the MOU* go away, and the HSCC Board members would not have to resign" B. James

(Ed. - *MOU - memorandum of understanding proposed by John Lawton, which included the requirement that all current HSCC Board members resign, with new members to be appointed and overseen by the City.)

"We have a lot of equity with the Tribune, and if we merge, we could meet with the Tribune editorial board about a story on the new situation." B. James

"Negative PR has hurt fund raising so we are focusing on the dog park because it is good PR."
both B. James and J. Gilbert

Ed - My, my...Kind of makes one stop and consider all the statements from the Foundation about NOT knowing what's going on, what's happening, not being involved with the City, and reading the recent Tribune articles about the Foundation with a healthy bit of skepticism, doesn't it?

HSCC Steps Up

Since so much goes astray within the City halls, so many meetings go unreported, so many "dual purpose" employees seem unable to keep track of specific items and lead the public into the idea that "it never happened", I have taken the liberty of posting this (I have added a page I missed):

Animal Foundation Funding Stats

I read it. Yes, thank you for all the e-mails which started at zero-dark-thirty.

Let's dissect what seems to be a great PR job for the Animal Foundation in the Trib, yet doesn't seem to add up.

BASIC MATH
(see article side bar)

If you add the Contributions = $1,145,995
plus, Fur Ball proceeds = 161,863
TOTAL =$1,307,858

Foundation says in the article that it has: $1,308,907
Minus TOTAL from above 1,307,858
MISSING =$ 1,049


Investments total = $97,352
Expenses total = 96,349
PROFIT = $ 1,003

Let's call the missing and the profit money shown above as an equal amount or a "wash", nothing lost, nothing gained.

Sheltering Skies
(pg 4) states Foundation has contributions in the amount of: $1, 426, 207
Subtract today's TOTAL (above from Trib) - 1, 308,858
Please account for the difference of = $ 117,349

Humane Society Checks Cashed by City of Great Falls

The City of Great Falls and the Police Department which operates the Animal Shelter admitted in their report (for download) that they accepted checks made out to the Humane Society of Cascade County and cashed them. The HSCC did NOT authorize this and it is unlike when Albertson's took over from Buttrey's, and there WAS authorization to accept checks and cash them, regardless of the name. In this case it is outright THEFT.

Ask yourselves...How could both entities, the City and Police, NOT know that was an illegal act? Yet, they did it. They didn't make the person alter the check. They didn't bother to hold the check and give it to the HSCC. They didn't contact the person who wrote the check and correct the endorsement.

I can only surmise that they did this deliberately, with malice and intent. They are the POLICE DEPARTMENT. The Fiscal Services Asst. Director HAD to know that the HSCC is NOT a City entity. Is incompetence so rampant within our City? Is corruption so ingrained that not an eye is batted? Looks like it to me.

Then, to top it off, I was looking for something else and came across this:

It seems in July 2006 at the Commission Work Session (minutes) in which they were discussing the Animal Control Ordinance, a citizen, Mr. Olson, was allowed to express concern for dogs off-leash. He was followed by Mr. "Bob James, citizen member, suggested that fines could be reduced for an unaltered animal if they had the animals altered within 30 days. He also requested that the Commission consider forwarding a percentage of the fines to the Animal Foundation to help pay for the new shelter."

I spent quite a bit of time running through EVERY meeting from Jan 2006 to Dec 2007. Mr. James was the ONLY citizen member to make ANY REQUEST OF THAT NATURE. In fact, there were very few incidents of "citizen members" speaking. Many consultants. Many reports.
Many updates. But, only 3 citizens, one of whom asked a question, one of whom made a statement about preparing a firework safety brochure, AND MR JAMES' REQUEST FOR MONEY FROM THE CITY COFFERS.

I would be interested to know if this request was honored. Particularly in light of the fact that in 2006 the HSCC was STILL operating the shelter. I don't know who was the designated recipient of fines collected on such things as unaltered animals. But, I intend to find out.

I then intend to find out if the City, did indeed, allocate a percentage to the Animal Foundation.

I expect the books of both the City and the Animal Foundation to be opened for public review. This kind of theft, from the HSCC and taxpayers should NOT be tolerated.

In light of all of this, I suggest the Animal Foundation reconsider putting in a bid to run the Animal Shelter until such time as they can produce proof that they are NOT connected to the City in any manner (which looks pretty difficult) and their books have been reviewed publicly by an independent audit/review chosen by a citizen's committee and pronounced clean.

Unless the Feds beat everyone to it.