Large Fierce Mammal

Last night Mrs. LFM and I were watching Billy Joel night on American Idol, meaning that each contestant had to choose and perform a song from the Billy Joel play list. We’re both fans of the man himself, and I was delighted to hear a performance of one of my all time favourites – his 1981 hit, She’s Got a Way. Delighted and surprised to learn that Mrs. LFM had never heard the song before. Hearing it with her snuggled up to me last night was like hearing it for the first time myself, seasoned to taste by the fact that 31 years ago I still believed that such women were merely the stuff of romantic legend.

She’s Got a Way was a hit the year before Mrs. LFM was born, and yet it sounds like he wrote it about her. Turn up your volume, sit back, and get yet another glimpse of how it can be when you truly Love a woman, and find your Love returned in kind.

This is an "old tech" remote control vibrator. Nokia's patent application may take sex toy tech into a brave new world.

Let’s go back to that simpler time in the last century, when the internet was in its infancy, e-mail and ICQ were the go to cutting edge communications methods, cellular phones were simply that – phones, and a computer was just a computer. Moving forward from that time, the line has blurred so that hand held devices like phones, tablets, and netbooks now perform a lot of the same functions to the point where, depending on the user’s needs and lifestyle, they’re essentially interchangeable. The trend is obvious – the tools are evolving to integrate a user’s electronic communications needs into a single, highly mobile instrument.

And now, this concept has taken a step further with the announcement that, last September, cellular phone manufacturer Nokia, “… issued a patent for a material that could be attached to human skin and would vibrate to alert the wearer of an incoming call or text message,” for the purpose of creating, “… a material attachable to skin, the material capable of detecting a magnetic field and transferring a perceivable stimulus to the skin, wherein the perceivable stimulus relates to the magnetic field.”

In a 15 March 2012 article by Vlad Bobleanta on the blog unwiredview.com, the proposed “haptic feedbacK” technology is described thus:

In the first described embodiment of the patent, you’d wear a sort of material that’s attachable to the skin. On your forearm, for example. This material can do two things: detect a magnetic field, and emit a vibration.

The material could be paired with a phone, for example, like Bluetooth accessories are paired to electronics. The phone, however, would have to be capable of emitting varying magnetic fields.

So then, for example, when someone calls that phone, it will send out a specific magnetic field. The material will detect that, and will start vibrating in a certain pattern. That pattern could be different according to who’s calling, or it could be different according to what exactly is happening on the phone (a phone call, text message, and so on).

For this to work, the phone would have to send out a different magnetic field for each action, because the material would associate a different type of vibration with each kind of magnetic field it detects. The vibrations would happen by magnetically manipulating the material.

I refuse to believe I’m the only one who isn’t thinking “forearm” when considering potential attachment points for this stuff, and the last sentence in the quoted segment above made the little devils that sit on each of my shoulders, and that one who lives in another place, cackle and rub their little red hands even more gleefully. I am predicting, dear reader, that this marks a bold step into the integration of sex toys into the list of human communications “needs” our shiny and ever so portable instruments can accommodate.

Reach out and touch someone indeed.

Testicular harvesting implement deployed.

A seeming lifetime ago, it took me a few years to scrape off a bad marriage like shit from my shoe. Particularly during the last two of those horrendous years, when it was dead in everything but name, the state of things were kept a closely guarded secret for logistical reasons that have no bearing on today’s discussion. The important part is the two year secrecy – when the bomb eventually dropped, it was equivalent in the public mind to a sudden event.

One routinely sees music artists, who have plied their trade for 15 years in a variety of bands, finally find acceptance and get branded an “overnight sensation”. I know how they feel. My relationship with she now spoken of in reverent tones as Mrs. LFM became known to the world two years after my previous marriage augured in for the last time, but at pretty much the same time the Great Unwashed learned of the first event.

Naturally, the conclusion was that I had traded my previous wife in on a newer, faster, hotter model. While Mrs. LFM certainly fits that physical description, that wasn’t what happened, but what the hell. It was small town Nova Scotia, and in a month everybody had new things to gossip about.

The funny thing is, in the short interval between breaking news of the demise of my marriage and the seeming overnight explosion of my new relationship, I received a barrage of unsolicited and in some cases quite graphic advances from ten women and two men, all of whom wanted to console me in the most carnal ways possible. I know I’m nice to look at and fun to be around, but even I had no idea I had such a following. I let each one down as gently as they deserved, and more than a few took it personally.

Anyway, if you come here even once and spend any time at all, you will know I am married, and I will stress for the last time, to a woman of a quality I had previously spent my life believing only existed in exceptionally well written fantasy and erotic fiction. Some cultures accept it as a given that married couples will take lovers, and I completely get this. I have taken both a Wife and a Mistress, and they are both the same woman.

All this having been said, a dynamic, high profile, attractive couple will have its admirers, a few of whom will from time to time get pushy enough to require an adjustment in attitude. We are no different than Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt in this regard. We will not tone ourselves down, but will make our position clear in the form of the following poem. While it’s written from a male perspective, I can safely say Mrs. LFM applies the same sentiment.

To break apart a marriage
Requires one thing to be –
That where both thought of “Us” before,
Each feels there’s only “Me”.

Respect departs, and with it trust,
And when that day arrives,
The two are better off alone,
Than living toxic lives.

But when two people really are
As one in soul combined,
No force of Man can intervene
To break that sacred bind.

As long as such as they draw breath
They stand as One in all.
Multiplied by more than two,
And standing miles tall.

Yet there are those who still will try
To find their way between,
Who seek to scale a wall so high
Its top cannot be seen.

Such ones as they believe they can
Have anything they see.
Their rampant fancy struts about
And crows, “Hey! Look at me!”

With nothing in their lives to prove
“I’m married,” means a thing,
They soon forget that no means no,
And why one wears the Ring.

The only code they live by
Is that up to now they’ve won,
And up to now nobody’s come
To interrupt their fun.

But I live by a different code,
Of Honour, and despise
He who disrespects the Love
In my Beloved’s eyes.

No strutting cock can steal away
A woman from her man.
If she is truly his alone,
I say, no other can.

That one forgets a mother’s wish –
To have her grandchild born.
Born to son and wife in pride,
In wedlock legal sworn.

His mother would be horrified
If that day never falls.
Her grandchild never comes to be
For want of father’s balls.

So let me gentle that my boy,
To pacify your mother.
I’ll only take one testicle,
As warning to the other.

With the current media interest bringing public attention to bear on incidents involving dog bites and others in which police have felt sufficiently threatened by an approaching large dog to shoot it on the spot, some municipalities in Nova Scotia are looking at reviewing and possibly overhauling their existing by-laws to bring them more in line with current realities. Today we’ll be looking at existing by-laws that affect dog ownership within the municipalities of Lunenburg County, and highlighting some areas in which administration and enforcement can be constructively improved. The areas of interest, presented in order of population size from largest to smallest are:

• the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg;
• the Municipality of the District of Chester;
• the Town of Bridgewater;
• the Town of Lunenburg; and
• the Town of Mahone Bay.

As discussed in earlier articles in this series, much of what is contained in these municipal by-laws is aimed at dealing with the fallout of cases in which one or more dogs have threatened or attacked people or other animals without provocation, chased or attacked livestock (most particularly sheep), damaged property, or constituted a nuisance with incessant barking. They include details of each municipality’s dog licensing policies, and penalties for non-compliance with any areas of its application. The roles of personnel tasked with enforcement are defined, and normally also the chain of command within municipal government so that it is clear whose authority is being wielded whenever the by-law is applied.

With one exception, the websites of each municipality we are looking at today make some level of specific reference to who is to be called for information on dog regulation policies and for filing complaints:

• The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg incorporates what they refer to as “Dog and Domestic Animal Control” as part of their “Protective Services” along with Emergency Measures and Fire Services.
• The Municipality of the District of Chester includes “Animal Control” under the umbrella of Public Works, along with Municipal Sewer Connections, Municipal Engineering/Specifications, Private Road Signs, and Fire Services.
• The Town of Bridgewater presents “Dog Control” as its own issue connected with enforcement of their Dog By-Law. Their website includes a contact page with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for dog control, and an answer to the question, “My neighbour’s dog roams and barks all night, can you help me?” on their “Answers” page.
• The Town of Lunenburg website makes no clear connection to dog control responsibilities beyond listing the e-mail address of the Town Manager next to “Dog Control” on their “Municipal Contacts” page, and including their “Dog By-Law” among all the other downloadable documents on their “Town By-Laws” page. Historically Lunenburg employed a dedicated By-Law Enforcement Officer under whose purview the Dog By-Law fell, and that person worked out of the Lunenburg-Mahone Bay Police Service office until it disbanded in favour of policing under contract by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2001. I do know that there was an overture to retain the services of a new By-Law Enforcement Officer a few years ago with a job description that would include parking enforcement, the role of Emergency Measures Coordinator, and Dog Control, and that this resulted in a person being hired, but that fizzled after a short time. By all appearances, the position has not been revisited.
• A search for “dog control” on the Town of Mahone Bay website turned up the page from which a copy of their “Animal Control By-Law” can be downloaded, but no specific dedicated content beyond that.

It should be pointed out, and the Town  of Lunenburg’s situation serves to illustrate, that the realities of dog by-law enforcement have evolved over time, arguably due to the high cost of doing business that afflicts all areas of municipal service administration. This being the case, it should come as no surprise when the enforcement of a municipality’s dog by-law falls to a small portion of an already overworked staff member’s work load, or to a lowest bidder contract employee. Unlike other areas of law enforcement, there are no national or provincial standards that set out the minimum training and performance requirements, nor certification, of officials deployed in the name of a municipality to enforce its dog control by-law. In our opinion, this is a potential recipe for uneven and inconsistent interpretation and application of the force of the law which, coupled with the way the by-laws themselves are commonly written to begin with, opens the door for much injustice to potentially be done. We can never forget that justice must not simply be done, it must be seen to be done.

It certainly can’t be denied that enforcement of rules, regulations, and the laws of the land represent the single least popular aspect of government, at any level. Likewise, the application and collection of regulatory fees and taxation revenue run an exceedingly close second. While there will always be an outlaw component in society that will naturally veer onto the wrong path even when it makes more sense to stay on the right one, law enforcement becomes easier when coupled with well administered public education and support. This is why police agencies, fire services, building inspection authorities, and municipal emergency measures organizations budget resources to perform these functions, ensuring that the people living and working inside their jurisdictions understand not only the why and how of the rules that affect their lives, but who to talk to for clear, no nonsense information.

By comparison, the dog by-laws in Lunenburg County focus on enforcement and fees – all the money you’ll pay and the bad things that will happen if the rules aren’t followed – and while none of them are particularly ambiguous or hard to comprehend, they exist free from any structured public education programmes that might permit them to be administered in a more efficient, fair, and less confrontational manner. The advent of community policing programmes promoted and administered by specifically assigned community policing personnel came about because the modern model of policing has embraced the fact that people are more inclined to be preemptively understanding and cooperative when they are treated as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

In an upcoming article we’ll delve more deeply into the ways this can be accomplished, even without a complete rewriting of existing by-laws.

In the wake of my previous article, I’d like to pause and review. What did I learn from my experience with Pepper in the cemetery?

First and foremost, I learned that no matter how many precautions you take, Murphy’s Law will prevail in dog handling just as thoroughly as it does in every other endeavour. My policies and procedures that had seemed to serve me well for so many years became completely useless in the face of a situation that was worsening faster than every step I took towards mitigation, and while Pepper at no point actually meant to menace the child involved, the net effect of his behaviour was as though he did. Add to that the fact that the kid involved wouldn’t or couldn’t comply with my commands to stop, necessitating pursuit on my part, and it becomes even more likely he reverted at some point to running from me more than from Pepper.

Up until that day in the Hillcrest Cemetery, I had met many people, children and adults alike, who were fearful of dogs to one degree or another, but the boy in the Pepper case exhibited behaviours that I had never witnessed in a person who was permitted to walk around loose. Nevertheless, what happened had been a wakeup call. Going forward, I had to proceed as if everybody I encountered was going to behave the same way. After the incident played out to its conclusion, I changed the game plan for all activities that involved taking my dogs off my property. I continued taking Pepper to demonstrations when asked, but not before serving written notice to the organizers that only people known to be dog friendly be permitted to attend. Before bringing a dog into the venue, I first addressed the group and once again asked that anyone fearful of dogs leave the room. When out walking and asked by anyone I encountered if my dog was friendly or if it was OK for them to pet the dog, the standing answer became, “No, he/she is in training.” This is still our policy, and we likewise recommend it to everyone. We do not walk or work with a dog off lead at any time unless the environment is as 100% under our control as it is possible to be

People often fail to grasp their own threshold of tolerance in the face of fear inducing influences, and parents routinely misjudge this with their children. Back in 2008, Mrs. LFM and I had a meeting with a professional photographer in our home at which time the woman involved, a dog lover, met our pack of dogs on their home ground. There wasn’t much interaction, but it was calm and successful, and she subsequently got in contact with us after talking about them with her family. She had to drop by on another date, and asked if her daughter, approximately 8 years old at the time, could come along. We agreed with the usual caveat.

On the day, mother and daughter came into our kitchen, stood side by side as our dogs approached for a sniff, and then every one fled to their beds in panic as the child emitted ear splitting shrieks while attempting to climb onto her mother’s head. Had she not been inside the house, I’m quite sure she would have bolted just like the boy in the cemetery.

So, if I were taking every precaution I presently do and still encountered a person whose behaviour seems perfectly designed to undermine everything I’ve done, these days I’d make a formal complaint of my own to ensure it’s a matter of record that someone behaved provocatively, regardless of that person’s age. I completely accept responsibility for what my dogs do just as I will in handling a horse, operating a motor vehicle, a chain saw, a knife, or a firearm, and if the actions of anyone else put me and mine at any risk, I expect the same in return. If the provocateur happens to be a child, then parental responsibility comes into play just as thoroughly in the face of my dog as it would if the same child threw a rock off an overpass into speeding traffic. The world is not a child proof daycare centre, nor should anyone reasonably expect it to be, and this is particularly important to grasp if you are the owner of a dog that recognizably belongs to one of the demonized breeds. I have personal knowledge of at least one person, the owner of a well socialized Rottweiler, who no longer takes his dog into dog friendly stores and public spaces because he got tired of the passive aggressive mutterings of other patrons making reference to , “… taking that thing out in public.” Acceptable social conduct in the presence of unknown people and other animals is a volatile skill in dogs that requires constant exposure to maintain. Yet, routinely, we see clients stepping back from taking perfectly behaved dogs, that are more sociable than most people, into public spaces in the face of ill conceived, and mostly media driven, displays of animosity from the public. The dogs become more territorial as they are sequestered, particularly if their owners begin visibly avoiding anyone encountered when out walking with them.

More on this when we return next time.

Most incidents involving an alleged case of a dog biting a human start out with a few common elements:

• the dog accused of doing the biting;
• the dog’s owner. who may or may not be present;
• the dog’s handler, who may or may not be the dog’s owner, and who likewise may or may not be present;
• one or more people who were allegedly bitten by the dog;
• one or more witnesses; and
• circumstances that may or may not have been predictable in advance.

Note the references to, “… may or may not be present,” take into account cases in which a dog has for whatever reason gone off on its own, out of the sight and immediate control of its handler. For clarity and simplicity, let’s assume for purposes of today’s discussion that we have an incident involving one dog accused of having bitten one person in front of witnesses. If a formal complaint arises from such an incident, charges will most often be laid against the dog’s owner, and possibly against anyone else who was supposed to be in control of the dog in their stead. Dogs being considered property under the law, the one involved will in most cases be seized under the authority of the dog control by-law of the municipality in which the incident occurred, and held until it is established that the bite was actually delivered as alleged, the dog was not responding to provocation, and that it does not meet the definition of being “fierce and dangerous”. That last designation can come as the simple result of the dog’s breed being on the banned list, if one exists in that municipality.

There is room for discretion on the part of those empowered to enforce municipal by-laws, and depending on variables, the dog may not be summarily seized, but discretion is a two edged blade, and on the back swing it can also be decided that the dog is to be destroyed forthwith, long before any kind of detailed investigation has been completed that might exonerate it. This is the reality built into most municipal dog control by-laws. (more…)

As promised, I’m back with the first in a new series – Dog Days. Unlike my annual Dark Sentiments and A Long Winter’s Night segments, Dog Days will run intermittently for as long as it needs to. It will focus on municipal dog control legislation and its impact on the realities of dog ownership, examining specific case histories along the way.

Canada is a nation sorely needful of the kind of unified legal thinking necessary to formulate humane, reality based, enforceable community standards defining what is, and is not, acceptable when dogs and people live together. “Dog control” bylaws, created and enforced by municipal governments, form a ramshackle patchwork quilt from coast to coast. For clarity though, I need look no further than my own figurative back yard, and we’ll deal exclusively with illustrative events that occurred, or are occurring, inside of Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia – the very county in which Mrs. LFM and I reside.

This series has been simmering for some time, but got its seminal kick in the ass because of Sarge, the Rottweiler I wrote about in my 14 August 2011 article, Muddy Waters. If you haven’t already read that, please do it now before continuing.

A lot has happened since that article went up. Sarge was returned to his owners, but not before Mrs. LFM and I were retained to assess him to determine if he should be. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to our report that defines our involvement:

On 27 June 2011, Sarge, an intact male Rottweiler dog approximately 3 years old was involved in a bite incident on a 5 year old male child, Connor Purvis.

The dog was subsequently deemed fierce and dangerous in accordance with the dog control by-law of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, seized by the Municipal Dog Control Officer, and housed at a kennel in a neighbouring county, where he remains pending a court decision on his fate. His owners including their children are permitted to visit, and do so regularly to exercise and play with him.

Golden Mountain Dog Solutions was retained to perform a behaviour assessment on Sarge to determine if he is predisposed to displays of aggression, or other undesirable traits that might represent a danger to people he comes into contact with. We were also provided with a document package containing police reports, photographs of the victim’s injuries, and witness statements generated in the wake of the incident. These were reviewed in the light of our professional experience with, and expectations of, canine behaviour, and the results of our examination of the dog involved. Lastly, we were asked to recommend measures and/or conditions we felt appropriate to preventing a similar event if Sarge is released to his owners.

The report detailed our assessment protocols which included not only hands on work with the dog in question, but also an examination of witness statements, evidence photographs, and the incident scene to establish the timeline and the activities of all participants from start to finish. The details are a subject for another day, but our recommendations were that Sarge be returned to his family under specific conditions, wrapping up with:

There is nothing with regards to more training that would have made ANY dog bullet-proof under such conditions.  We do not feel it is necessary for Darren and Kelly to undertake further training with their dog, but it is imperative that they keep working with him. Isolating a dog, even one that has been fully socialized, will make all that good socialization disappear. Dogs need to be continually exposed to people in order to remain social. Dogs that are isolated are much more likely to bite than dogs that aren’t. This cannot be stressed enough!

And finally:

We conclude that this bite incident was an unfortunate and preventable accident, and see no reason why Sarge should not be returned to his family, with the recommended measures in place to prevent further incidents. We also see no reason for the “fierce and dangerous dog” designation to remain on his record. He is no more fierce nor dangerous than most other dogs would have been given the circumstances and sequence of events.

Sadly, since Sarge’s return, he was a party in another alleged bite incident involving a telephone utility employee who entered the property without permission or prior notice. Unlike the earlier case in which it was claimed that Sarge attacked the child, which he absolutely did not, the person involved in the second case alleges that Sarge charged at him and, at one point bit him, and as a result of that complaint, the dog was seized once again. There is a lot wrong with the way this all played out, including, but not limited to, conflicting witness testimony, and the fact that, as I write this, Sarge is once again home, begging the question of why he was seized again in the first place. He now has two court dates pending, and before those arrive we will be delving more deeply here into every aspect of his situation, and others like it.

Nothing in Sarge’s case is cut and dried, but one thing is certain – he is now the focus of attention and handling that holds every possibility of setting him back socially, making him progressively more vulnerable to a lethal end result. He and his family are now living under a microscope as the days tick down to the first of two court dates, the outcome of which might just eliminate the need for the second one by eliminating Sarge. His case highlights a vulnerability shared by all of us who own dogs, and the dogs we own.

Dogs can’t speak for themselves. As to people reporting on any given situation, some are right, and some are wrong. Some are mistaken, and some are outright lying. Eye witness testimony is so horribly inaccurate that investigators to an emotionally charged event need a large enough sample of statements to permit sifting for common threads and glaring anomalies. It’s absolutely crucial that enforcement actions taken in the wake of an incident involving a dog be constructively aimed at establishing the facts without doing further harm in the process. I am certain the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg has no intention to do harm to Sarge or his family, and let me be clear at the outset that this is not going to be a series of articles attacking them, or any other municipality located in this county. What we will be doing is highlighting the pitfalls that presently exist with an eye to making recommendations for change. Stay tuned.

To quell the panic that’s abroad in the land, I’m here today to assuage your fears that ol’ LFM has thrown in the towel or some such. Not a chance. Mrs. LFM and I have been grappling with the latest iteration of black death, and are now well on the mend. In the mean time, nursing my Woman took priority over all else.

Not to worry – much writing and research has been going on, and we’re about to embark here on a series of articles dealing with Sarge, the Rottweiler you’ve heard me speak of before. There is a desperate need for reform in municipal by-laws that exist for the purpose of “dog control”, as well as their enforcement, and right now Sarge has the unenviable honour of being its poster boy.

It has taken a fair bit of planning to put this together, and we had to combat the temptation to launch prematurely because much can be lost by moving too early. Sarge has a court date coming up soon, and the last thing we wanted was for the words of reason to have faded out before that event hits the press.

So stay tuned good readers. If a dog has ever mattered to you, you will want to follow what’s coming.

Sister LFM (left) and Mrs. LFM, both slightly blurred by alcohol, prepare for the ritual, post wish making, candle extinguishment.

A snowflake forms thousands of feet above the ground and makes its way, riding the many risings and fallings and seemingly random swirling pathways of the wind, to land exactly where it was meant to. In the practice of Zen archery, it is understood that as long as the archer does what is required in the moment, the arrow will strike its mark. ~ The Sword and the Snowflake – Chapter the First

Last night, Sister LFM threw a stupendous party in honour of Mrs. LFM’s birthday. Hosted at the Peter Thompson Estate, the gang that assembled were of the sort we’d drink with any day given even a half-assed excuse, let alone a good one like this. Many, many, and yet again many thanks to everybody involved in making the event happen.

Every time Mrs. LFM has a birthday, I get to feeling like I’m the one who got all the gifts. In the time leading up to the party, I put together a poem inspired by my beauteous bride that first saw the light of day last night – if that makes any kind of sense. Today, you get to read it.

A snowflake’s born in regions far
From where it’s meant to light.
It seems to ride without control
In random windblown flight.

But random isn’t what defines
Where snowflakes come to rest.
Their destiny will bring them home
On paths that can’t be guessed.

You see, wherever snowflakes land,
On ground or upturned face,
No snowflake can be said to find
A wrongful resting place.

Nature blessed me with this Truth,
She gave a gift to me –
My Snowflake landed in my arms,
Right where she’s meant to be.

Happy birthday Baby. Let’s have a thousand more just like it.

Dusty: 1997-2012

Today, at approximately 12:30 PM Atlantic Time, Mrs LFM and I were with Dusty when he took his last breath. He wasn’t in pain or discomfort, but the past 48 hours had seen a decline in his health and joie de vivre that told us it was time. He was 15, and throughout his long, happy life, had always been possessed of that kind of overflowing vitality that so often comes packaged in the form of a good old rangy mutt. Nature blessed him with that, and us with him.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a memoriam to Alf, another great spirit whose life enriched ours, and there were written some heartfelt words I will present again on this occasion. I feel compelled to revisit them here as they speak to the responsibilities of Leadership, of Trust, and the being worthy of it:

Any Leader of Dogs worthy of the title understands and accepts the responsibilities that come with fully embracing the beautiful thing that is a relationship with a Dog, and knows going in that the relationship comes with an expiry date – one that, with all likelihood, will lead to their being dragged kicking and screaming into being the one who must decide when to end the life of somebody they only want to love and protect forever.

This is the one terribly painful part of Leadership, for it tears at the heart and leaves a searing hole. Those who willingly walk this path in the joyful company of a Dog, who strive to lead wisely and well, and do not flinch from the final responsibility to lead their charge out of this life when the time comes, are far finer and stronger creatures than he who speaks the words, “It’s just a dog”, for that one will never enjoy aid, comfort, nor friendship from us. The lesson that life is too short and precious to waste is hard won, but as hard as it is to endure, to have your calming voice be the last thing your trusty comrade ever hears is a gift that carries power beyond measure.

I’ve written of Dusty at length in my 11 July 2010 article called She Brought Me Her Worst Born, and if you haven’t read it, then I invite you to do that now. There, I told the story of how he came to be with me, a gift from Shadow, his mother. Shadow too is now long gone, but I will be forever grateful to her.

Dusty was the perfect dog. He just wanted love, fun, food, and to be included. Not a nasty bone in his body, throughout his life he more than once charmed self-professed “cat people” so that, if they didn’t love dogs, at least they loved him; and several others, who were fearful of large dogs, not only into accepting his attentions, but into actually enjoying snuggling with him. I also have photographic evidence that he could get a woman on her back faster than anybody I’ve ever known.

So tonight, sweet Dusty’s absence will leave the LFM Pack smaller by what feels to be much more than one, and while we may not reply immediately, Mrs. LFM and I invite comments here from anyone who had the honour of knowing Dusty, wish they had, or otherwise want to express their feelings.

An album of Dusty photos is up for your perusal on Facebook. Feel free to go and admire them. He loved to be admired.