About Ollies Law (and how to help)
1309/ H. 2019, is an Act to Increase Kennel Safety, aka Ollie’s Law, is a piece of legislation that will require safe and fair business regulations surrounding boarding and doggie daycare. Animal safety AND employee safety are of paramount importance for the bill. The bill has floated around for a number of years now and still waiting to be heard on the floor. It has been extended to June 24, 2024. The bill was carefully crafted and revised by a group of like-minded, diverse individuals who founded Ollie’s Law Coalition – named in honor of Ollie, a sweet labradoodle puppy who was attacked at a dog boarding facility and later died from his injuries. There have been many more lives lost due to poor supervision at daycare and boarding facilities.
As a former owner of a pet service business, where I managed a team of 15 people and provided dog walking and overnight care for hundreds of clients, I understand that it's not always possible to control the way dogs interact with each other. However, as service providers, we have a responsibility to be accountable and ensure the safety and well-being of our clients' dogs. One effective way to achieve this is by educating ourselves about canine behavior, including canine stress signals, and adopting reward-based management practices. Pet care professionals should establish guidelines to minimize the risk of escalation and stress, and to guarantee the well-being of the dogs under their supervision. If you are the client to, owner or staff member of a dog daycare I highly encourage you to learn more. You may start as early as today by doing visiting the program offered at FEAR FREE PETS at https://fearfreepets.com/fear-free-boarding-and-daycare-certification-program-overview/
What Ollies Bill Changes
The primary change in the existing law is, Ollie’s Law introduces is the need to comply with fair and attainable safety regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) to ensure animal and human safety. An advisory committee will be established consisting of stakeholders from various areas of animal care and expertise – including veterinarians, breeders, boarding and daycare business owners, animal behaviorists, and more – to assist with this process. While I would personally like to see more qualified staff members employed at these day care and boarding operations what's notable is the right to own and operate a business is not affected nor is an increase in operating fees.
What is in the Ollies Bill, Bill 1309/H.2019
The Bill Does NOT
How Can YOU HELP??
Write a letter to your State Representatives today urging their support of this bill.
SCRIPTED SAMPLE LETTER TO SIGN AND SEND TO YOUR REP
Dear Representative [NAME]:
As a resident of Massachusetts, I am writing to urge you to support Bill S. 1309/H. 2019, An Act to increase kennel safety, aka Ollie’s Law. Bill S. 1309/H. 2019 is reasonable, achievable, and necessary to protect the health and safety of pets, employees, and pet owners in Massachusetts. Without safety regulations and oversight, beloved pets will continue to suffer preventable injuries, sicknesses, and deaths at daycares and boarding facilities due to a lack of regulation for the business owners caring for these animals. Massachusetts pet owners deserve to feel safe when dropping off their animal companions at daycare and boarding facilities, and employees working in animal care facilities deserve to have proper safety precautions and protocols in place. We all deserve peace of mind knowing that pet care businesses are required to follow basic safety regulations to take care of their staff and our animal family members.
I urge you, and the entire Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, to act now on bill S. 1309/H. 2019 before another pet owner in Massachusetts suffers a preventable tragedy.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
As a former owner of a pet service business, where I managed a team of 15 people and provided dog walking and overnight care for hundreds of clients, I understand that it's not always possible to control the way dogs interact with each other. However, as service providers, we have a responsibility to be accountable and ensure the safety and well-being of our clients' dogs. One effective way to achieve this is by educating ourselves about canine behavior, including canine stress signals, and adopting reward-based management practices. Pet care professionals should establish guidelines to minimize the risk of escalation and stress, and to guarantee the well-being of the dogs under their supervision. If you are the client to, owner or staff member of a dog daycare I highly encourage you to learn more. You may start as early as today by doing visiting the program offered at FEAR FREE PETS at https://fearfreepets.com/fear-free-boarding-and-daycare-certification-program-overview/
What Ollies Bill Changes
The primary change in the existing law is, Ollie’s Law introduces is the need to comply with fair and attainable safety regulations promulgated by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) to ensure animal and human safety. An advisory committee will be established consisting of stakeholders from various areas of animal care and expertise – including veterinarians, breeders, boarding and daycare business owners, animal behaviorists, and more – to assist with this process. While I would personally like to see more qualified staff members employed at these day care and boarding operations what's notable is the right to own and operate a business is not affected nor is an increase in operating fees.
What is in the Ollies Bill, Bill 1309/H.2019
- makes changes to the definition of a personal breeder kennel.
- introduces state promulgated health and safety regulations for boarding and kennel facilities.
- gives the ability and authority for MDAR to assist Animal Control Officers in addressing problematic cases for regulated kennels.
- enforces injury reporting. Businesses will be required to properly report incidents involving dogs or staff in boarding or kennel spaces that have been opened to investigation and resulted in enforcement action. Injuries that result in enforcement action will be made publicly available.
The Bill Does NOT
- NOT limit business owners that want to operate a daycare or boarding facility for pets. Businesses need licenses to be run responsibly. At the moment, the only requirement in Massachusetts states that anyone with more than four dogs (or two, in select towns) is to obtain a kennel license from the city or town. Ollie’s Law will require the Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), along with a committee of stakeholders, to establish reasonable safety rules and regulations for boarding kennels, daycare facilities, and for “personal breeder kennels,” which consist of 5 or more intact female dogs on a single premise, kept for the purpose of breeding and selling the offspring.
- NOT change the definition of commercial boarding and kennels.
- NOT change kennel licensing requirements. The businesses required to obtain a kennel license are already required to obtain a kennel license under current law.
- NOT make changes to yearly kennel inspections. Animal Control Officers are and will continue to perform inspections and enforce licensing.
- NOT change the regulation of pet shops, shelters, and rescues. These facilities are and will continue to be regulated by the state.
How Can YOU HELP??
Write a letter to your State Representatives today urging their support of this bill.
- FIND your state representative here https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
- Write a letter and send by postal mail or email. See a sample script provided below.
SCRIPTED SAMPLE LETTER TO SIGN AND SEND TO YOUR REP
Dear Representative [NAME]:
As a resident of Massachusetts, I am writing to urge you to support Bill S. 1309/H. 2019, An Act to increase kennel safety, aka Ollie’s Law. Bill S. 1309/H. 2019 is reasonable, achievable, and necessary to protect the health and safety of pets, employees, and pet owners in Massachusetts. Without safety regulations and oversight, beloved pets will continue to suffer preventable injuries, sicknesses, and deaths at daycares and boarding facilities due to a lack of regulation for the business owners caring for these animals. Massachusetts pet owners deserve to feel safe when dropping off their animal companions at daycare and boarding facilities, and employees working in animal care facilities deserve to have proper safety precautions and protocols in place. We all deserve peace of mind knowing that pet care businesses are required to follow basic safety regulations to take care of their staff and our animal family members.
I urge you, and the entire Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, to act now on bill S. 1309/H. 2019 before another pet owner in Massachusetts suffers a preventable tragedy.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
Opinion editorial. Why I choose not to use punishment when teaching
Vivian Zottola, MSc, CBCC | 617.721.8025
The use of aversive equipment and methods are unnecessary and often detrimental to the welfare of animals including our pet companions. There really is no need to use force or pain when teaching a non verbal individual regardless if human or non human. This philosophy is held deeply following years of working with companion animals and, is predicated on and supported by peer reviewed modern scientific literature, American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), as well as medical and psychiatric community. We know from a litany of evidence (human and animal literature) when applying a fear and force free training/teaching protocol with wild animals, pet companions and humans there is improved compliance, less distress, improved learning and reduction in long term conflicts between human and non human animals. Understanding another's internal emotional state is difficult however over and over we see evidence of rewarding (R+ ) engagements lowering stress hormones where as the opposite use of pain and punishment or the threat of such use increase stress hormones (Blackwell et al,, 2008, Hiby et al., 2004).
When rehabilitating dogs who have suffered fear, anxiety or stress (FAS) due to either missing the young socialization /critical period or due to poor training methods, my preferred method is to employ the use of training methods free of fear, pain and intimidation. When rehabilitating dogs with moderate to severe cases of stress and anxiety, behavior medication is often necessary as a temporarily adjunct along with behavior modification training because of the need to quiet the mind. It is often prescribed by veterinarians to assist with underlying distress allowing the individual to learn. We know reward based training is not only humane but longer lasting. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of collars that illicit pain including shock collars (electronic or e collars) by trained professionals and untrained owners. Such studies are designed so that scientists may collect saliva and urine samples from the dogs to determine their subjective emotions from the experience. Both dogs trained using e-collars and a matched sample of those not using e collars are tested. Comparing both allow scientists to check for physiological signs of stress at various points in data collection. In a study evaluating cortisol leaves of e-collar-trained dogs, salivary cortisol increased significantly when they were wearing an e- collar, compared to dogs trained only using reward based methods R+ “suggesting a negative association with anticipation of stimulus application.” (Companion Animal Welfare Council, 2012 The use of electronic pulse training aids (EPTAs) in companion animals. See the study at www.cawc.org.uk. In this particular study it showed e-collar-trained dogs also had a significant increase in tense behavior, compared to other dogs. There are many more studies showing the same conclusions.
The issue with using pain and punishment as a method of teaching an individual (non verbal human and animal) is that we end up instilling more distress and confusion. Psychologically the learner makes a negative association with a host of environmental stimulus and more often then not either generalizes the negative association or develops phobias. Phobia is different than fear in that it is the anticipation of a threat toward the stimulus (Overall, 2013). The non human animals (dogs) trained using pain or averse methods (e collar, shock) even when thought to be trained correctly using low pain threshold by a professional, not only learn that being trained is a stressful experience and receiving shocks is painful, they also learn the presence of their owner or the cues their owner/guardian commands predicts the reception of a shock even outside of training context. This means the learner is constantly feeling distressed, the anticipation that something painful will happen (Schilder and Van Dee Borg, 2004). It means the associate pain and discomfort with their owner/guardian or other person using shock or aversive. I'm certain we can all agree no individual should be in a chronic state of uncertainty and distress as this is not an ideal way to live life to the fullest.
In the U.S. w lag behind when it comes to animal welfare and the use of shock collars as they are banned in many countries including Canada, the U.K., and Australia. Certainly world wide we are free to acquire and live with pet companions and and, in this country we are also free to choose the "teaching method" that suits us regardless of what the science currently says. And while it may not be my place to judge anyone who decides one way or another, it is my place to tug at public conscious. To provide facts and evidence and to help us consider the animals perspective and interest in our decision. And isn't this the rub? What is in the animals best interest? Are we capable of separating our own interests? Is there a better way? If it feels wrong, go with your gut instincts because it mostly likely is wrong. Considering our pet companion dogs (cats, rabbits, horses) are a different species then we, with unique sensory perceptions used to experience the world does not negate their ability to experience similar emotions. We know from the pioneering work being done by Dr. Gregory Berns and colleagues at Emory University on mapping dogs and other animals brains using fMRI, they do have the same hardware as we to experience similar range of emotions. While non human animals may experience life very differently, we cannot argue their ability to cognitively learn and feel the same emotions including love, joy, fear, pain, jealousy and anger. And we cannot deny the science proving positive reinforcement and kindness is improved welfare for our animals. I choose to use teaching methods free of fear, force and intimidation not only because it works, but more so because it supports a relationship of mutual trust and respect. Doing so helps me feel like a better human being.
--
Vivian Zottola, MSc, CBCC, CPDT, CSAT
Human-Canine Relationship Specialist
References
Arhant, C.,Bubna-Littitz, H., Bartels, A., Futschik, A., & Troxler, J. (2010). Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 123 (3-4), 131-142
Blackwell, E., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey, R. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3 (5), 207-217
Cooper, J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D. (2014). The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training PLoS ONE, 9 (9)
Gaunet, F. (2009). How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Animal Cognition, 13 (2), 311-323
Herron, M., Shofer, F., & Reisner, I. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 (1-2), 47-54
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., & Bradshaw, J.W.S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare Animal Welfare, 13, 63-69
McGowan, R., Rehn, T., Norling, Y., & Keeling, L. (2013). Positive affect and learning: exploring the “Eureka Effect” in dogs Animal Cognition, 17 (3), 577-587
Overall, K. L. (1997). Clinical behavioral medicine for small animals. Mosby-Year Book, Inc..
Chicago
Rooney, N., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132 (3-4), 169-177
Blackwell, E., Bolster, C., Richards, G., Loftus, B., & Casey, R. (2012). The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1)
Defra AW1402 (2013) Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs. University of Lincoln / University of Bristol / Food and Environment Research Agency. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Hannah Wright, Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln); Dr. Rachel Casey, Dr. Emily Blackwell (University of Bristol); Katja van Driel (Food and Environment Research Agency); Dr. Jeff Lines (Silsoe Livestock System).
Defra AW1402a (2013) Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs; field study of dogs in training. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman and Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln).
Herron, M., Shofer, F., & Reisner, I. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 (1-2), 47-54
Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R. (2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 105 (4), 369-380
Schilder, M., & van der Borg, J. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85 (3-4), 319-334
The use of aversive equipment and methods are unnecessary and often detrimental to the welfare of animals including our pet companions. There really is no need to use force or pain when teaching a non verbal individual regardless if human or non human. This philosophy is held deeply following years of working with companion animals and, is predicated on and supported by peer reviewed modern scientific literature, American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), as well as medical and psychiatric community. We know from a litany of evidence (human and animal literature) when applying a fear and force free training/teaching protocol with wild animals, pet companions and humans there is improved compliance, less distress, improved learning and reduction in long term conflicts between human and non human animals. Understanding another's internal emotional state is difficult however over and over we see evidence of rewarding (R+ ) engagements lowering stress hormones where as the opposite use of pain and punishment or the threat of such use increase stress hormones (Blackwell et al,, 2008, Hiby et al., 2004).
When rehabilitating dogs who have suffered fear, anxiety or stress (FAS) due to either missing the young socialization /critical period or due to poor training methods, my preferred method is to employ the use of training methods free of fear, pain and intimidation. When rehabilitating dogs with moderate to severe cases of stress and anxiety, behavior medication is often necessary as a temporarily adjunct along with behavior modification training because of the need to quiet the mind. It is often prescribed by veterinarians to assist with underlying distress allowing the individual to learn. We know reward based training is not only humane but longer lasting. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of collars that illicit pain including shock collars (electronic or e collars) by trained professionals and untrained owners. Such studies are designed so that scientists may collect saliva and urine samples from the dogs to determine their subjective emotions from the experience. Both dogs trained using e-collars and a matched sample of those not using e collars are tested. Comparing both allow scientists to check for physiological signs of stress at various points in data collection. In a study evaluating cortisol leaves of e-collar-trained dogs, salivary cortisol increased significantly when they were wearing an e- collar, compared to dogs trained only using reward based methods R+ “suggesting a negative association with anticipation of stimulus application.” (Companion Animal Welfare Council, 2012 The use of electronic pulse training aids (EPTAs) in companion animals. See the study at www.cawc.org.uk. In this particular study it showed e-collar-trained dogs also had a significant increase in tense behavior, compared to other dogs. There are many more studies showing the same conclusions.
The issue with using pain and punishment as a method of teaching an individual (non verbal human and animal) is that we end up instilling more distress and confusion. Psychologically the learner makes a negative association with a host of environmental stimulus and more often then not either generalizes the negative association or develops phobias. Phobia is different than fear in that it is the anticipation of a threat toward the stimulus (Overall, 2013). The non human animals (dogs) trained using pain or averse methods (e collar, shock) even when thought to be trained correctly using low pain threshold by a professional, not only learn that being trained is a stressful experience and receiving shocks is painful, they also learn the presence of their owner or the cues their owner/guardian commands predicts the reception of a shock even outside of training context. This means the learner is constantly feeling distressed, the anticipation that something painful will happen (Schilder and Van Dee Borg, 2004). It means the associate pain and discomfort with their owner/guardian or other person using shock or aversive. I'm certain we can all agree no individual should be in a chronic state of uncertainty and distress as this is not an ideal way to live life to the fullest.
In the U.S. w lag behind when it comes to animal welfare and the use of shock collars as they are banned in many countries including Canada, the U.K., and Australia. Certainly world wide we are free to acquire and live with pet companions and and, in this country we are also free to choose the "teaching method" that suits us regardless of what the science currently says. And while it may not be my place to judge anyone who decides one way or another, it is my place to tug at public conscious. To provide facts and evidence and to help us consider the animals perspective and interest in our decision. And isn't this the rub? What is in the animals best interest? Are we capable of separating our own interests? Is there a better way? If it feels wrong, go with your gut instincts because it mostly likely is wrong. Considering our pet companion dogs (cats, rabbits, horses) are a different species then we, with unique sensory perceptions used to experience the world does not negate their ability to experience similar emotions. We know from the pioneering work being done by Dr. Gregory Berns and colleagues at Emory University on mapping dogs and other animals brains using fMRI, they do have the same hardware as we to experience similar range of emotions. While non human animals may experience life very differently, we cannot argue their ability to cognitively learn and feel the same emotions including love, joy, fear, pain, jealousy and anger. And we cannot deny the science proving positive reinforcement and kindness is improved welfare for our animals. I choose to use teaching methods free of fear, force and intimidation not only because it works, but more so because it supports a relationship of mutual trust and respect. Doing so helps me feel like a better human being.
--
Vivian Zottola, MSc, CBCC, CPDT, CSAT
Human-Canine Relationship Specialist
References
Arhant, C.,Bubna-Littitz, H., Bartels, A., Futschik, A., & Troxler, J. (2010). Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 123 (3-4), 131-142
Blackwell, E., Twells, C., Seawright, A., & Casey, R. (2008). The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 3 (5), 207-217
Cooper, J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., & Mills, D. (2014). The Welfare Consequences and Efficacy of Training Pet Dogs with Remote Electronic Training Collars in Comparison to Reward Based Training PLoS ONE, 9 (9)
Gaunet, F. (2009). How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Animal Cognition, 13 (2), 311-323
Herron, M., Shofer, F., & Reisner, I. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 (1-2), 47-54
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., & Bradshaw, J.W.S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare Animal Welfare, 13, 63-69
McGowan, R., Rehn, T., Norling, Y., & Keeling, L. (2013). Positive affect and learning: exploring the “Eureka Effect” in dogs Animal Cognition, 17 (3), 577-587
Overall, K. L. (1997). Clinical behavioral medicine for small animals. Mosby-Year Book, Inc..
Chicago
Rooney, N., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner–dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132 (3-4), 169-177
Blackwell, E., Bolster, C., Richards, G., Loftus, B., & Casey, R. (2012). The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods BMC Veterinary Research, 8 (1)
Defra AW1402 (2013) Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs. University of Lincoln / University of Bristol / Food and Environment Research Agency. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Hannah Wright, Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln); Dr. Rachel Casey, Dr. Emily Blackwell (University of Bristol); Katja van Driel (Food and Environment Research Agency); Dr. Jeff Lines (Silsoe Livestock System).
Defra AW1402a (2013) Studies to assess the effect of pet training aids, specifically remote static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs; field study of dogs in training. Final report prepared by Prof. Jonathan Cooper, Dr. Nina Cracknell, Jessica Hardiman and Prof. Daniel Mills (University of Lincoln).
Herron, M., Shofer, F., & Reisner, I. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117 (1-2), 47-54
Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R. (2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 105 (4), 369-380
Schilder, M., & van der Borg, J. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85 (3-4), 319-334
