A Good Dog: The Story of Orson, Who Changed My Life Reviews

• the poster boy of irresponsible dog ownership

  
  By A3KM9UA6MAVURN on 2007-02-01
  So he has money to elaborately renovate his playfarm, to landscape and hire gardeners and helpers, to buy an ATV (the better to "commune" with nature -- like he went to the mountain for solitude but quickly got MTV), and he didn't hesitate writing out a check for a new dog not long after he euthanized his "soulmate", but when it came to spending a few thousand for Orson to get a thorough vetting over, to build him a secure fence around an acre or two, or to even hire a competent dog trainer or a dogwalker to give him the supervised exercise the dog needs (riding on an ATV not much for an energetic border collie), Katz tells us it is immoral to spend that kind of money on a dog when there are people in his hamlet who live in tar paper shacks and hunt for food. Apparently not immoral, though, to spend the same funds on flowerbeds or repointing a fireplace, on ATVs or MTV.
  
  He tells us he can rescue fifty dogs for what it would cost to take Orson to one specialist. But he's already told us in previous volumes he doesn't believe in rescue dogs, in second hand dogs, but in getting "good" dogs from "good" breeders.
  
  This guy was too cheap and lazy to take his dog to even one canine veterinary specialist when the dog's behavior worsened, or to build him a decent fence with a beware of dog sign, to hire even one good dog trainer. All of those things -- vet care, training, fencing -- are basic responsibilities that come with owning a dog. But he didn't leash his dog when necessary (something he has a history of never doing), never put up proper fencing (Orson regularly got out of his NJ fence at home and even the puppy Clem was nearly mowed down by a semi at the farm), never supervised Orson properly around visitors. And then he was astounded when there were incidents. Orson changed his life, apparently, but he couldn't be bothered to make the necessary allowances for basic dog ownership.
  
  This has been his pattern through multiple years and books. When his two labs got sick, when he decided Homer his second border collie didn't love him enough, when Orson gave him trouble, he got rid of them or they got the quick needle. Nor is it limited to dogs. Winston gets plenty of page time in this book. Yet his first response when the rooster becomes ill is to go for his gun. With a neighbor's care it survived to roam the farm again. Surprise, sometimes a pet's care actually takes time, or costs money. Sometimes you have to accommodate a less than perfect animal. But not Katz.
  
  Responsible pet owners don't justify euthanizing their pets because in the past poor people have shot their dogs when they get ill -- as Katz rationalizes for not getting Orson a thorough vetting. Or because there are poor people living in tar paper shacks, so how can he spend money on a dog. That's a mind boggling excuse from someone who used, exploited and down right set this dog up to be the "bad dog of Bedlam" so he could write lucrative books about the relationship, and who has spent money freely on just about everything else on his playfarm.
  
  When you take in a pet, you commit to reasonable expenses -- a good fence. A leash. When the dog gets sick or his behavior inexplicably changes (or not so inexplicably given his mishandling and virtual torture of Orson) you get it vet care. And yes, sometimes it does require xrays, or a specialist. People with a lot less means than Katz do it routinely. And their pets are not even their cash cows.
  
  What is amazing is that this guy had the means, partially funded by Orson himself, and yet he did not make one single responsible effort -- even while he crows about how he loves this dog. Not even to give it to a rescue organization - which wouldn't have cost him a penny. I suppose he didn't want them to succeed where he so publicly failed.
  
  He does try "shamans" and animal communicators. Perhaps he thought it would make interesting copy. How does he justify that with the poor people in the tarpaper shacks, and without trying conventional medicine? But without changing his own behavior, which without a doubt contributed to this dog's problems, you couldn't expect much. Then, when the dog doesn't magically turn around, he dumps it like all the others.
  
  The story of another bad dog owner. Except he then crows about his lost soulmate, his sorrow.
  
  The only sad thing is that if this dog had been taken in by any reasonably responsible person or rescue organization, someone who'd provide an adequate fence and give him exercise, vet care and not taunted him continually with situations that he knew were triggers for the dog -- letting workman and delivery people continually come through the front fence with Orson loose when he knew Orson had a problem about that, this dog would probably have had a happy, healthy life.
  
  You get the impression he got this dog, like the farm, as a mid life crisis egoboo. The badder the dog was, the more it fit his constructed image of them as the two misfits, "soulmates", something he craved after getting tired of his "elderly sedentary labs" as he described his former two dogs. He screams at the Orson; he abuses him, he doesn't provide Orson with a secure fence and he gets hit by a car, and it all makes salable copy. Then he and his wild dog go to the farm and it makes better copy. Then having encouraged or allowed Orson to get this out of control, he continues to set him up in adversarial situations rather taking the precautions any sane person would make. He doesn't fence the dog securely from visitors, because it spoils his view of it as the "bad dog of Bedlam" who needed to be free. Then when the dog predictably fails in this chaotic environment, he makes a swift decision to kill him.
  
  Anyone who's ever owned a sharp shepherd could tell Orson could have been managed with a little effort. He deserved that much. But it's obvious this guy not only knows very little about dogs, but cares very little about anything but himself. (Even as he fires up the throttle on his ATV in the middle of the night, and gloats that there's no nearby neighbors to be disturbed, he seems totally oblivious that he just left his sleeping wife) The efforts Katz needed to keep his dog safe were possible. They were within his means. But they were efforts he couldn't be bothered with.
  
  He talks about how with the money he would save on not treating Orson, he could save fifty dogs. But there's no mention of even a portion of the proceeds of this self serving book going to border collie rescue, to save even one dog. Or to the "poor people in the tarpaper shacks". Instead he quickly writes a check for a replacement dog to one of his "good breeders".
  
  Orson may have changed his life but he didn't hesitate to ruin the dog's life, to set him up in situations that he knew made him unsafe, to let him get hurt, to not get him care, to kill him for falling into the trap Katz set, and then pander to readers for sympathy. All while raking in royalies.
  
  This book reminds me of those people who let their dog roam loose in the streets, when wail crocodile tears when it gets hit by a car, who dump a dog at a shelter so riddled with fleas or mange that its skin is bare and bleeding, but drop in two weeks later to ask if it got adopted, and say how much they loved it. There are plenty of ignorant, lazy, selfish pet owners in the world, too irresponsible to keep animals. Katz is their poster boy.
  
  
  

• Orson Never Had a Chance

  
  By A3M851VVE4DP3W on 2007-01-01
  I have been a fan of Jon Katz since I read "A Dog Year." I loved "The Dogs of Bedlam Farm." I expected this book to be a tribute to the dog that brought us those books, a final tribute about a man's love for his dog. I expected the ending to be a sad one, but the actual ending was far beyond sad - it was heart-breaking and unbelievable. I honestly thought this man loved his dog, but I see it differently now.
  
  This is a story about a man who gave up on his dog, perhaps always intended it to be so. Perhaps a story about a man desperate for another book, another heartwrenching tale. Perhaps he tricked us all. After all, as he so eloquently writes, "I am a writer." Maybe he is still suffering the "Midlife Crisis" he wrote about in "Running to the Mountain." I can see in Jon Katz a man who makes rash decisions just because he feels like it, because he wants different circumstances, and this book proves it so.
  
  He writes in a loving, heart-warming manner of his loving, close, committed, special relationship with Orson, the dog he wrote about in "A Dog Year." Then the tables turn and he writes of his horrifying "CHOICE." Might I add SELFISH. In horrifying DETAIL he tells the tale of Orson's fate and he doesn't stop there. He writes about how much better his life is without this dog. This dog whose work was Jon Katz, but Jon Katz did indeed fail him, though he reasons and justifies his actions as best as he knows how as a writer. I feel like he lied to all of us who loved his previous books. He fooled us, but most importantly Orson.
  
  If any of you enjoyed "A Dog Year" or "The Dogs of Bedlam Farm," I advise you not to read this book. Those two books touch the heart, caused me to be a better guardian, one in which I could relate to since I have herding dogs of my own. But how could I ever read those books again after reading this one? I can't and won't. It was all just a big lie.
  
  That poor dog never had a chance in the first place.
  
  

• Good Dog Meets Terrible End

  
  By ATK97TLHZ44WV on 2006-10-28
  I feel exactly the same way as the previous reviewer. My husband and I don't have border collies; we have dachshunds. Dachshunds can also be very protective of their owners and territory and also have a very strong prey drive. We have a dachshund that bit one of my neighbors while we had the dog out for a walk. Their cat was out and my dog went after the cat and bit the neighbor instead (he was in such an overexcited state he literally did not know what he was doing). Note: my dog was on leash when this incident occurred. He is never off leash outside our property. Luckily this lady was an animal lover and she was absolutely gracious about it.
  
  The incident taught me a very hard lesson...but a necessary one. I had to be absolutely vigilant about my supervision of this dog. How I introduce him. Where I walk him. I changed the leash from a regular 6ft leash to a 4ft slip lead (NOT a choke chain). I have also applied some local trainers' ideas about noticing the early signs of excitement in my dog and learning how to channel the dog's attention so that he never gets to the excited state. It has been over 2 years since the incident and we have had no other incidents. But, as I said, my husband and I are vigilant about our supervision. I do not take lightly the fact that my dog bit someone. I think I lost sleep for a month when it happened. But, that memory now serves as a constant reminder to me to maintain my awareness with my dog and be constant in my supervision - which really all dog owners should do with all dogs.
  
  I have all of the Orson books and I, too, was enjoying reading them. I thought, here is someone who understands what I am going through in dealing with an anxious dog. When I went to get "A Good Dog", I was so excited because I had enjoyed the other two books. The writing was so lovely and the author seemed to have such a deep love for his dogs. I was a couple of chapters into the book and I could sense where it was heading. I skipped ahead to the last chapters and was absolutely devastated.
  
  For this man to euthanize his dog when he himself says that he owed Orson so much for saving him in so many ways is (in my opinion) unpardonable. To think that Orson could not be given to another person to try to rehabilitate is absolutely arrogant. I have to even sympathize with another reviewer that wrote in and asked why wasn't Cesar Milan contacted? At least Cesar Milan always works to rehabilitate the dog - not put the dog down. But it didn't have to be Cesar Milan...many other trainers could have at least tried to work with this dog.
  
  My suspicion is that the arrogance of the author extended too far. How would it look to the public if he contacted another dog trainer? Didn't he write a book about common sense dog training? (And to think I almost bought that book...) I am sure that it would be just too humbling for him to try to consult another trainer on the issue - especially another well publicized trainer. Wouldn't that say that he didn't know what he was doing with his dogs?
  
  And did the author try to communicate with his "public" by putting a sign up that says "don't pet the dog when he is behind the fence"? Even to friends. I know that this can be difficult. But, with my dog, I tell my friends who come over...do not rush up to the crate or gate and try to pet the dogs. Let me introduce you first. It is difficult for me to do that, but worth it to me. This saves my dogs and any unfortunate incident with friends and neighbors.
  
  In the end, I just wish the best decision had been made for the dog. This dog that the author owed so much...that he "loved" so much. I think I had the hardest time with the scene at the end of the book when the author talks about the Dog Star and about how Orson knew it was time to go and about how Orson was at peace. I wish I could have taken comfort from this scene, but unfortunately it just left me with the feeling that the author was somehow trying to absolve himself from this terrible decision that he made.
  
  (Note: I do understand that there are some dogs that are truly a danger to society. I also understand that it is necessary sometimes with truly dangerous dogs to put them down. I understand that Orson was a much bigger dog than my 16 pound doxie and could potentially cause much more harm than my dog ever could. But, I think that we sometimes label dogs too quickly as "dangerous"... I do NOT believe from what I read that Orson was truly dangerous. I do not think enough was done for him. I believe that if an offer had been put out to some trusted trainers that someone would have taken him. I wish for Orson's sake that this had occurred.)
  
  
  

• euthanasia fans will enjoy it

  
  By A3DIDNFT7YDPWG on 2007-02-16
  This book begins with a recycled (if you've read "A Dog Year"), if selective version of Orson's past, then an account of his present troubles and finally Katz's solution.
  
  Lots of workmen, gardeners, visitors on the farm have renewed Orson's nippiness, He's always been anxious and uncertain about men driving up, coming through the gate or house, particularly carrying tools. In spite of knowing this, Katz sets out on a host of renovation projects, including one in the "dog's room" and leaves Orson unsupervised with these men continually coming in and through. Though there are escalating incidents, Katz continues the renovation, leaving Orson loose to challenge and be brushed aside by workmen, gardeners, deliverymen, visitors. Katz seems mystified as to why Orson gets more and more rattled and aggressive. He takes Orson to the vet, does some tests, but decides not to explore conventional medicine further because it's expensive and "it might not show anything". He tries alternative medicine. Before long, a hunter coming to the farm reaches into Orson's dog pen to pet the over-stimulated dog, and this time Orson gets more than a sleeve. Though the hunter seems unphased by it, though this has been one of Orson's triggers, Katz now becomes unglued (reminiscent of his panic when Orson chases school buses "we can't go on like this, he sobs"). Back then you wondered why he didn't just more securely fence and supervise his dog. Now you wonder that too. This was as predictable as a train wreck. And could have been easily preventable. But instead of supervising and managing the dog, Katz decides killing his soulmate is the only option.
  
  There follows a lot of strange justification as to why this is the only choice, none of it convincing. In fact, it sounds like Katz at his drama queen worst. He goes through the immoral expense of getting Orson conventional vet care, the unnnaturalness of keeping a dog behind a secure fence, his noble mission to protect humanity from a dog who seems in Katz's mind, to have metamorphisized from a nipping border collie suffering from stressed induced aggression to a killer whale.
  
  Then follows another predictable scene (if you've read previous books where he euthanizes his two labs, and gives away Homer) where he narrates the last hours while he and his happily unaware dog enjoy themselves, before the unhappy event. Then a storm of maudlin pathos, a la Katz, about how Orson is happier dead, his "mysterious" (to the author) problems now solved, but how Katz is suffering.
  
  It's hard to understand the purpose of this book. It reads, almost suspiciously, like he decided to euthanize the dog and wrote this book to justify it, because the case he makes is so out of proportion to the events, which he struggles to enlarge the better to ennoble this shoddily made decision. Suspiciously, he leaves out much of Orson's progress he described in his last book, and only recounts his problems. He takes his dog to the vet, but declines extensive tests, even though a dog whose behavior changes is usually a sign of illness. He doesn't consult a competent animal trainer, who could handle a case of sudden aggression. He doesn't consider managing Orson's environment, which seems to be the real problem -- and the real solution.
  
  He's put up ten acres of pasture fence for the sheep, and Orson supposedly has a "roomy dog pen", but he balks at puting up a more secure fence for the dog that he bought all this for, his supposed soulmate and forever dog. He has one discussion, not with a trainer or behaviorist, but with a friend. After discussing how they could build an elaborate fence with electric shock, (??) he dismisses the idea with "it would be a prison". Since a simple six foot fence that someone couldn't reach over would do, one wonders how this would be a prison, or how he rationalizes the dog would be better off dead. Every solution is half explored, if at all, then quickly abandoned for reasons that don't convince.
  
  How can you buy a farm for dogs, sheep for dogs, ten acres of fence for the sheep, and then refuse to put up even one acre of secure fence for the same dogs, particularly if one is your "soulmate"? How can you not consult with one good trainer, much less a vet? In the last book, Katz talks about how Orson is so improved, great with kids, visitors, calmer. That is all suspiciously left out of this book, the better apparently to make the case for euthanasia. Anyone else might have at least put the renovations on hold, given him a chance to recover in quieter atmosphere, built up the fence. But Katz seems to have decided Orson is now a threat to humanity and has blinders on to anything but his noble mission to save it by killing his dog. This book is a justification for euthanasia.
  
  It really seems like he got disenchanted with the dog, the same as with Homer and his two labs, and then wrote this self-serving account to justify euthanizing him. It certainly doesn't match with his last descriptions of Orson in "Dogs of Bedlam Farm". It's not a complete account of his life, unless the last book is false. It's a slanted case for euthanasia, and not even a complete or honest one.
  
  While no dog should bite, many owners would realize this was a sign of either a health or behavioral issue and would have tried to address it, at least to supervise the dog around visitors and raise the fence height. To make adjustments to keep their dogs with them. But Katz doesn't. In spite of having prated repeatedly about his "contract" with Orson, he reads philosophy to justify his decision for euthanasia, all interspersed with how expensive, immoral, and litigiously dangerous it would be to keep his dog. He might get sued and lose his Orson inspired gains. He might not be able to welcome the hordes of visitors coming to pay him homage now that his books are popular. He decides that his contract with and love for his dog doesn't justify making any adjustments to his plans or taking any steps (since he's taken practically none) to keep Orson safe from strangers and vice versa.
  
  Hard as it is to imagine anyone purporting to love their dog/soulmate but euthanizing it for convenience rather than keep them safe, it's still harder to justify writing such a self serving and dishonest justification for these actions. You hate to feel like he wrote this book solely to make a profit off the dog's death. But he so quickly gets rid of his dogs when they get ill or he comes not to like them that you wonder if he's just using them for book fodder, and one or two predictably get plowed under with every new contract. Even more offensive is that he blatantly exploits his so-called grief for sales.
  
  Because he rushed so to euthanize the dog, Katz's chapters on his grief read unconvincingly. He gloats about how peaceful his life is now, with Rose and his two complacent labs. Reading this litany of all Orson's shortcomings, so different from the last book which talks about all his progress, the reader comes to suspect nothing this man writes is really true.
  
  You get the feeling he'll put up this nice marker for Orson (he has the stone cut even before he kills him), and visit it daily to convince himself of his great love for his dog. He'll buy the headstone, rather than the fence, a trainer for aggression, or vet care. He'll look at the headstone and say, "oh, how I loved my dog." Right. Very convincing.
  
  A reader not given to this delusion has long come to the conclusion that Katz's dogs are the newest endangered species.
  
  As a book, the writing was poor, self-indulgent, histrionic, often repetitive. The narrative failed to convince, inherantly deceptive in an account that reads very one-sided. The facts certainly get skewed somewhere. This book fails on a number of levels. It's sad, but not sad in the way the author intended. It's sad someone so completely clueless and self-serving had his dog killed for his own convenience, and believes that if he trots out his grief and quotes philosophy, and cuts him a nice headstone, he's become noble in the act. And makes a nice profit too.
  
  But if you believe dogs prefer headstones rather than fences, if you believe euthanasia is the best solution to a dog's problems, then this is the book for you. In that regard, it's got it all: an outdated cliche of poor training, poor management, incomplete vet care, the predictable irresponsible owner's solution to a badly cared for dog. And then the account of how the owner loved it. It's a classic in its own way.
  
  

• A Good Dog: Bad Owner

  
  By AE69QUFHQIUHI on 2006-10-10
  Could I give less than one star?? If anyone thinks this book is going to be like Marley and Me, think again. This is not a story of an endearing love between man and dog. If anything, this book is about a previously abused border collie, that wound up with an owner who knew nothing about border collies, but for some reason got three of them at once, and surprise, surprise, it didnt work out.
  The book's finale was totally disgusting, and I think that given the right owner, Orson may have thrived. Unfortunately he did not have the right owner, and he suffered for it. Even more disgusting is the fact that Katz is now going to profit from it.
  Stylistically, the book isnt even good. It has no flow to it, and sounds like the ramblings of an old man, who needs to clear his conscience. Also, unlike Marley and me, you never seem to come to know "Orson." I guess, how could the readers know Orson though, when the author was so terribly inept at knowing his own dog or what to do to ensure that Orson lived a happy, full life.
  
  
• Profiteering from Animal Abuse
  By A3CF6ZO11J2NCO on 2006-10-12
  The entire first half of the book is a total repeat of the exact same story from the author's last two "border collie" books. Don't waste your time.
  
  The second half tells how he had his "life dog" killed as punishment for biting unaccompanied visitors on his property -- the same beautiful dog whose picture is shamelessly exploited on the cover -- the victim of a lazy dog owner.
  
  Border collies are sheep dogs -- they were bred to guard a flock, and attack intruders. They have extremely strong instincts, require a tremendous amount of real physical exercise and continual training -- and are intensely protective of their owners and property. If they don't get enough exercise (stuck at a writer's desk with a near crippled owner), or are confronted with too much noise or unaccompanied 'trespassers' (during lavish renovations of the new play farm in the country) -- big surprise, this breed will go nuts and can bite.
  
  If you're too lazy to take care of a border collie -- that is not justification to kill it -- just admit your problem and call a border collie rescue agency, there's one in every state.
  
  
• Deserves Negative Stars
  By A3IP29AVY3RRHD on 2006-11-17
  Jon Katz is an idiot. Anyone who sells him a dog better be prepared for him to kill the dog rather than deal with any issues. Although this book is being sold as a nice dog story, it is anything but. Jon Katz once again decides to kill his dog rather than put himself out. (In an earlier book, he killed his supposedly beloved labs because he couldn't bear to see them anything less than 100% healthy.) In this book, he decides to kill his supposed "soul mate" dog Devon AKA Orson, because he does not want to be bothered to manage the dog's enviroment. Orson bites a couple of people, and Katz decides he doesn't want to be bothered keeping the dog in an enclosed yard because it would "be a prison". If you are a dog lover, do NOT buy this book. You will just be pissed off by Katz's behavior.
  
  
• Motives, ego and the abuse and neglect of a dog
  By A4CNXNBVRF8KA on 2007-02-12
  Judging by most of the reviews I can add little more but this. I myself have put down 3 dear friends (dogs) over the years, the last coming just a few months ago. I therefore would normally fault no one for having to undertake such a painful experience. But these things must be done if we are to be humane and loving to our companions when their time is at hand.
  
  What this alleged author and unfit dog owner does, is not to be considered in any way to be in the same realm. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for Mr. Katz to have to contemplate the prospect of giving up his dog, the object of much of his literary affections, and ill gotten riches to another more dedicated dog trainer or border collie rescue organization. The thought of anyone else being able to give a good home to such a famed dog, when Mr. Katz himself could not, would have, of course, been unbearable to him. The notoriety, public embarrassment, and humiliation he would have suffered would have been immense for such an "accomplished" trainer such as himself. What choice did he have? How could he have done anything else other than to have killed this dog and saved face? After parading this poor creature all over the national media circuit including NPR and the like, and all the while growing, at least in his own mind, as some amazing dog trainer with great talents and abilities willing to take on such troubled dogs and border collies no less. And yes, I live with a border collie myself. It is no easy thing. Unlike how he portrays his "noble"responsibilities to his charge in his book, I am and will continue to be responsible for my dogs life and well being.
  
  A man who's ego and selfish motives comes before his dog to the degree that it has in this case, and then profits from it over and over again, even in the killing, is no man at all. He is merely a profiteer with the blood of an innocent creature on his hands. And now a movie too? Unbelievable really, quite unbelievable. Will there be no end to it?
  
  I very much suspect that he has grossly mischaracterized and underestimated the dog and book buying community that has embraced his dog books over these years, the same community that has come out against this book. It would appear that he has completely and permanently alienated most of them from any further writing endeavors that he may attempt to undertake regarding these beautiful animals we call dogs. He is no friend to dogs or to the honorable trade of dog training and sheds no light whatsoever on what it takes to live with and befriend a troubled and needy border collie. He knows nothing of what he speaks, that is now obvious.
  
  I don't know what awaits any of us on the other side but I do hope that I might meet my old and dear, four footed friends there in the hopes that we may run and play together yet again. I think poor Mr. Katz should greatly fear the prospect of meeting his dearly departed Orson there. I think it's a meeting that Mr. Katz would rather hope would not occur at all. One that would likely terrify him and rightly so. His motives and ego await him there.......... on the other side, as does Orson.
  
  
  
  
• ignorance, dishonesty, and bad writing
  By A1XH8S1ZI9COH9 on 2007-01-02
  Jon Katz possesses the trifecta of traits for the incompetent dog writer: he's ignorant about dogs, he's dishonest about his relationships with his own, and he's a poor literary stylist. Although these weaknesses are present in all of his dog books, nowhere are they more apparent than in A GOOD DOG.
  
  Before Katz began expounding on dog culture, he tried his hand at expounding on technology culture as a writer for HotWired and Slashdot. Slashdot readers did not take kindly to him, charging him with seeking to co-opt a subculture that he was not part of and did not truly understand, and asserting that his writings were uninformed gibberish. Katz's presence was irritating enough to cause some Slashdot folks to create special filtering software to block out his posts, as well as a "katzdot" drinking game that included, among other things, instructions to drink whenever Katz used the first-person singular pronoun. Undaunted, Katz decided to set up shop in another culture, this one with a more satisfying critical mass of people possessing a fondness for his new subject (dogs) without the same pesky, inconvenient level of knowledge about it that had troubled him on Slashdot. Although those with a deep understanding of dogs and dog training have always recognized Katz as a fraud, there apparently are enough casual pet owners and dog lovers out there for his uninformed gibberish redux to have been accepted with much less of the Slashdot backlash.
  
  Katz's general ignorance about dogs in general and border collies in particular is very evident in A GOOD DOG, in which he describes slowly destroying his high-strung border collie by subjecting him to noisy construction for months on end, refusing to relocate him during that time, deciding that building a higher fence for the dog would somehow constitute a prison, and then (surprised that the dog would bite after living in what was essentially a war zone) euthanizing him after very weak, fumbling attempts to solve what was a very solvable problem. Katz's dishonesty about his dogs is also evident to any of us who actually know something about the working border collie. Katz, for instance, has continually claimed that his border collie Rose is from "working lines." I am quite confident that she is not from any lines that any of us with *real* working border collies would recognize, and I challenge him to post her pedigree to prove me wrong. Katz also writes that the four-month-old Rose, unassisted, went into the woods and single-handedly retrieved wild sheep for a grateful owner. I am also quite confident that this never happened, and I challenge him to upload video of Rose working to Google Video or YouTube to show the world how unfair I'm being. When faced with charges such as these, Katz responds with a twisted appeal to populism, arguing that the "border collie snobs" can't possibly tell him anything about *his* dog, akin to the parent who insists that his child's finger paintings are Picassos despite what any "snobbish" established artists might say about it. It's certainly pleasant to exist in a fantasy world with no external checks on veracity, but it's not a luxury afforded to many writers.
  
  In short, don't buy this book. If you want to read about real working border collies, look up Donald McCaig's works. If you want to read about the relationship between dogs and their human beings, there are any of a number of choices that do not conclude with the pompous moral elevation of tragic incompetence.
  
  
• He couldn't have loved Orson
  By A355NZ7TA09N41 on 2006-10-29
  I have to add my voice to the others who condemn the actions of this author. Frankly, I think the guy is full of it. No one who loves a dog would have reacted in the way he did. He clearly didn't choose to explore the alternatives for this "problem" dog, instead chose the easy way out of killing a healthy dog, which is unconscionable. It's tragic to begin with that dogs live such short lives, and the thought of shortening that life even sooner is repugnant to me. His justification is not unlike that of the Nazis for the genocide they committed on "problem" people. This guy sucks, and I'll never read anything by him again. Poor Orson, he deserved so much better than this jerk.
  
  
• Should Have Been 0 Stars
  By A2KPPGFMPD20M6 on 2006-11-17
  I too will never buy another one of this man's books. How a person could have looked into this dog's eyes and then kill him without expending more effort on another solution is beyond me. I am skimmed through this book at the store before I bought it. I almost couldn't drive home for the tears and the rage I felt that Katz had done this to a intelligent and sensitive creature that loved him and trusted him. Shame on him. He doesn't deserve the love of any dog and Devon deserved a better "friend."
  
  
• bad bad human
  By AZAZF7THDAHY5 on 2006-11-16
  A supposedly compassionate human being who boasts of a dog changing his life and then opting for the death of the dog...it is mind boggling to me, I can't believe it....but it is selling his books and I think it is cruel to the reader. The world has enough tragedy, we don't need this.
  
  
• Terrible Terrible Book
  By A20H151BIEM6XZ on 2006-11-14
  I can't believe this guy actually writes books about dogs for a living. As other reviewers mention, he needlessly kills Orson after Orson bites three people. The first bite seemed to be just a case of Orson being a little too rambunctious, but the second and third bites were caused by people reaching into a fenced area to pet Orson, without getting the owner's permission or without knowing the dog first. Orson was killed because people are stupid. Besides, if you think your dog might bite someone, might not you put up a BEWARE OF DOG sign before he bites more people? Although this guy took Orson to pet "psychics" and "shamans" to try to fix him, it never occurred to him to try take some precautions around his farm to keep Orson from biting people after the first bite.
  
  Much like Marley and Me, this is a book about a really stupid dog owner who cashes in on his dog's suffering and tries to justify it as making a tough choice for a dog he loves. Don't believe it.
  
  If you want to read a truly charming and heartwarming book about dogs, try "The Dogs Who Found Me."
  
  
• Bad book. Bad author. Bad man.
  By A3RKR5HFJLFWTJ on 2006-10-25
  I agree with all of the negative reviews and will not rehash what they said here. Obviously, the author ran out of ideas and thought he could make a buck off of his lack of sensitivity or compassion; or both. If you can't handle a dog, give it to an animal shelter, give it to a border collie rescue organization, keep it in a pen; ANYTHING but kill it.
  
  I've heard of writers having muses. This is the first time I've read about an author killing one.
  
  Had I bought this book instead of getting it at a library, I would have demanded my money back. Mr. Katz doesn't deserve your money and this book doesn't deserve your time.
  
  
• Ex-Katz Fan
  By A2ADHGFZW5GOR2 on 2007-02-06
  I read Jon Katz's previous books and have loaned those out to friends and family. I have recommended him to other dog owners as a good read. I even started looking at border collies with new insight. When I saw that he had a new book out, I requested it for a Christmas present. I couldn't wait to read it. Even the cover was beautiful. I remember setting aside some quality time to read. First I found a lot of the reading repetitious if you've read the previous books but I reasoned that maybe he had first time readers who needed to catch up. Then I found a lot of the book more absorbed with Katz instead of Orson (who I had come to love). I started having misgivings about halfway through. I remember when I got to the page where he took Orson to the vet that I just closed the book and vowed not to read anymore. I did go back days later to read the conclusion and like everyone else I will never read another book written by this man. I feel betrayed. I thought he didn't try hard enough. I personally have a dog that has a nipping problem. All my family and friends have been warned. I don't let her out by herself unless she is behind a 6 foot fence because she also jumps low fences. I know her limits. If you have a dog like this you adjust your behavior if you love them. It seems Mr Katz didn't want to change. He wanted his dog to change. He never should have had a difficult dog like that. He should have stayed with easy going Labs. Don't buy this book if you love dogs. I won't be recommending it to anyone either.
  
  Zero stars
  
  
• No stars
  By A2SIC0EOF7CPB3 on 2007-03-14
  It's not asking for what Jon Katz calls a "Disney" ending to wish that Devon/Orson had had a long and happy life.
  
  Patricia McConnell, Suzanne Clothier, and Pamela Dennison are just some of the authors who have written movingly and objectively about how human beings communicate with their dogs and about responsibility in human-canine relationships and life-and-death decisions. Pamela Dennison's training diary "Bringing Light to Shadow" shows day-by-day how she was able to rehabilitate a human-aggressive border collie through positive methods and management, her skill as a trainer, and her absolute commitment to her dog.
  
  Pamela Dennison and Jon Katz both at times worked with the same trainer at a farm in Pennsylvania. (And a "Jon K." and his border collie appear briefly in one of Dennison's diary entries.) Near the beginning of "A Good Dog," that trainer tells Katz that he's stressing his dog. Katz says he understood that training was less about his dog's obedience and more about Katz himself learning to be calmer and clearer in communicating with his dog. He also decides to follow his own training methods.
  
  Two hundred pages later, in a "Postscript" about his decision to euthanize Orson, Katz writes that, in addition to Orson's genetics and early life, Katz's own personality and actions "may" have had an impact on his dog. Coming after injuries to three people, the death of his dog, and page after page about Katz, that "may" is shocking.
  
  Dogs are the closest observors most human beings will ever live with. Any dog owner constantly affects his dog's behavior even by default. Many readers have pointed out the dishonesty and arrogance of Katz's self-justifications. In the end, real people were injured and a real dog died. Whatever Katz may have intended to say about his "lifetime" dog, this book shows that it's quite possible to love a dog and still fail him terribly: much much sadder than a Disney ending.
  
  
• The cover is the cautionary for the reader
  By A2K1B46169798G on 2007-03-27
  I too wish there was a zero rating.
  I wish that I had looked more closely at the face of Orson on the cover of this book. If I had taken time to see his expression of sadness, confusion and fear I would not have purchased this book. I read it a month ago and it haunts me still.
  This poor dog never stood a chance because he had an owner so self-absorbed that the only thing that mattered was trying to find himself.
  I have read the wonderful book by Suzanne Clothier, "Bones Would Rain from the Sky". She writes about the importance in training to focus on the light in the dog's eyes. This is her guiding light. She writes,"Did my approach to the dog create resistance, fear, distrust or pain dimming the light in a dog's eyes." and "When I was not too arrogant or self-importantly busy to listen to that small still voice inside, I heard the protest deep inside me. I saw all too clearly the pain and confusion in far too many animal eyes. Always, I kept searching for an understanding of how and why what I did dimmed the light. And always, I kept looking for what my heart told me must exist: a way to keep the light shining."
  Orson had no such light in his dear eyes. It makes one realize the life he could of had with such a person as Suzanne Clothier. It would have been a wonderful life -one Orson deserved- and his little soul would have been full of joy.
  If you want to buy a book about amazing insight into the human and dog relationship, and the added bonus of beautiful writing buy Suzanne Clothier's book. It will leave you with hope and a path. Jon Katz's book does neither.
  
  
• Self-indulgent, with a sad and altogether avoidable ending
  By A1QD1TCJLN9AO9 on 2007-01-06
  In spite of the many times in this book Jon Katz speaks out against anthropomorphism, he indulges in it again and again in this sad story of a mismatch of dog and owner. He says many times that he feels that he should let Orson "be a dog," yet when the time comes to take stronger measures in Orson's training, Katz backs off, fearing for Orson's feelings.
  
  At first I enjoyed the book, but as the story grimly progressed to its conclusion I began to feel manipulated. Here is a story of a dog mishandled by its owner, dressed up to come off as an inevitable tragedy. Taking a dog to the top of a hill to indulge oneself in tripe about how much the dog enjoyed the view of the stars, then trucking the dog off to its sorry end are not the actions of a responsible pet owner. People who care for dogs and their well being would do well to steer clear of this book.
  
  *******
  It's two months later, and my perspective has shifted. Yesterday we gave away a border collie who lived with us four months. He was a rescue dog with the inevitable "baggage," and in those four months we spent time with vets, trainers, books and border collie recuse lists, trying to understand this loving dog and his explosive personality. Most of all, we spent hours and hours with Jack, trying to give him the love, direction and exercise we thought would help him. I could be more specific, but I know that would only leave me open to the opprobrium of everyone who thinks he or she knows Jack and his situation better than I. And before I hear from the "you-should-have-known-better-he's-a-border-collie-after-all" crowd, I should tell you that we already have a two year old female BC, rescued from the local S.C.P.A. with her own set of problems but now living with us happily.
  
  Let it simply be said that in the end my wife and I decided that Jack was the wrong dog for us and - more importantly, we were the wrong people for him. So yesterday the woman who was fostering him before we adopted him kindly took him back. She plans to consult her friend, an animal behaviorist, and probably won't put him up for adoption for six months.
  
  One of the hardest things I had to do was write VOID across our adoption agreement, thus giving up all claim to the little dog who followed me around the house, buried his face in my lap, did his best to obey my every command, and still failed. He's no longer mine. He's gone.
  
  I'd like to make three points. 1) Border Collies are among the most intelligent dogs in the world, and require handlers who know what they are doing. 2) There are resources available for people with difficult dogs - warm-hearted, generous people who love dogs and are willing to give their lives to them. These dogs DO NOT have to be put down. 3) None of us is capable of making an important decision like this without feeling pain, regret and loss. Anyone who denies this is either arrogant, or "jests at scars that never felt a wound."
  
  I no longer presume to know the workings of Mr. Katz's heart.
  
  
• The Broken Parts of Me ,The Broken Parts of Orson We Healed
  By A1TPW86OHXTXFC on 2006-10-06
  "Two things fill the mind, with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law with in me". Immanuel Kant
  
  "Owning and loving a dog is a very individual experience. Orson's story was complex, his behavioral problems probably stemming from multiple sources.' Jonathan Katz is a writer and a writer of prose where Orson is concerned. This book is one of the best love stories I have read between a man and his dog. It is so wonderfully amusing and heartbreaking that it is difficult to put into words what this book means to me. This is the third book of Jonathan Katz I have read, and each time I leave the book with regret and tears. With this book, the tears flowed freely and for a long time. This story of love and regret and survival and finding your way and the future.
  
  Orson came to Jonathon Katz as Devon. He was part of a brood of dogs and he was different. He needed a good home and his owner trusted Jonathan and thought this was a good fix. It did not take Jonathan and Devon long to fall in love with each other. A bond formed even though Devon would run out and try and herd anything in his way: school buses, boys on skateboards and cars, and Jonahtan wouold have to retrieve Devon. This was not the place for Devon, a New Jersey city. Jonathan had a small cabin in upper state New York- they went there while he looked for a farm. And, a farm he did find. He and Devon and Rose, the real sheep herding dog, moved to the farm. Jonathan's wife and daughter would come up for visits but their home and work was in the city. They found their niche and life was wonderful, well almost. Devon's behavior was not changing for the better so a friend suggested his name be changed to seeif his behavior woudl improve. Orson, was the name that was chosen and it worked. Voila, for a while things were better, but the behavior continued and it was not good for anyone. Jonathan must decide what is best. He and Orson are such a team and love each other. Again. there is a bond. This is their story. Jonathan, the man and Orson, the dog. Jonathan used to read this poem to Orson when they would go far into the woods and in the sky would see Sirius, the dog star.
  
  Dream by Boris Levinson
  
  "I, a child
  Try to reach the stars
  Sirius is no near
  I run to the nearest hill
  My reach is always too short
  Wait til I am a grown man
  NOW, I am old and bent with years
  No more running to the hill and mountain top
  Yet a warm, steady, life giving glow
  Reaches me from Sirius...the unattainable
  I collect'
  White iridescent and evanescent star beams
  For my trip home to
  Sirius the dog state."
  
  A lifetime treasure to savor, along with the other animals on the farm; the irritable rooster, Winston and his relationship with Orson, and the sheepherder dog, Rose, who makes it her life to herd those sheep. The picture of Orson on the book cover is so beautiful it will draw you in; ahhh you're hooked! So Heartily Recommended. prisrob 10-06-06
  
  
  
• A Good Dog . . . A Bad Book
  By A116ZUM4PW3LNR on 2007-01-03
  You need a strong stomach to read this book. I have to admit that I haven't liked any of Jon Katz's dog books. I found them self-absorbed and banal. His total lack of understanding of the dogs, and the bizarre explanations he would give for what they did and felt were hard to take, and became harder to take as he leveraged himself into a position of dog expert in the eyes of his readers and the media, based largely on his supposed success with the "difficult" Devon/Orson. I persisted in reading them only because I know and love border collies, and care about how they are represented to the public.
  
  Now he has written a book about how he had that dog killed, larded with hypocritical sentimentality about how wonderful the dog was, how the dog changed his life, how they shared a covenant, how he kept faith with Orson (or didn't), how his moral code forced him to do it, how he suffered, how their bond persists beyond the grave, etc., etc. As I said - a strong stomach. But there's a big audience of folks who love to read about dogs, and who fantasize about going to live in the country on a little farm, and if you fall into that category maybe you can stomach even this.
  
  The most notable feature of Katz's writing is incoherence. His muddleheadedness is everywhere evident: he is "not among those who believe that dogs have souls," but Orson is his "soulmate," and "the pairing of a human and a dog is a journey of two souls"; dogs are not little humans in furry suits (a truism that, like all his training advice, he offers as if he were the only trainer ever to grasp it), yet whispering he would ne'er anthropomorphize, he anthropomorphizes constantly; he and Orson made a solemn contract/covenant, but he knows dogs "cannot make agreements," but he constantly refers to their contract, has his shaman say that dead Orson is "remaining behind to fulfill the terms of our contract," and says in weighing Orson's fate, "To me, dogs that harm people violate the fundamental contract between humans and canines." All this, and the hundreds of other examples I could point to, wouldn't matter except that dogs HATE incoherence - it makes them crazy - and Katz's treatment of his dogs as he relates it is as incoherent as his philosophizing. To read Katz's dog books is to watch the process by which a dog is made crazy, and to read this particular book is to watch its denouement.
  
  Katz's explanations of why killing Orson was the only moral choice he had are as intellectually dishonest and self-indulgent as anything he has ever written. He has long known that Orson had aggression problems, and he has been unable to correct them. In that case, if you love the dog, you must MANAGE him, as countless people have been able to do in situations far more difficult than Katz's. Why would increasing the height of the fencing on Orson's kennel by a foot or two transform it into "a prison"? He had been putting Orson in there regularly, apparently. Orson had shredded the shirt of a neighbor who reached over that kennel fence on page 92 of the book (well before Katz created a "nightmare for Orson" with his construction chaos), in an incident identical to the capital offense for which Orson was later put down, except that in the second case Orson succeeded in biting the man, not just his shirt. Most people would have increased the fence height after the first incident; that apparently never even occurred to Katz, then or later. A six-foot fence would not have increased Orson's confinement, but it would have protected him from visitors invading his space, and protected them from him. He could still be spending all that time with his head on Katz's foot while he wrote, riding on the ATV with Katz, running around the outside of a pen with sheep in it ("herding," per Katz), communing with nature under the Dog Star with Katz, etc., when other people were not around. Better than being dead and eulogized for profit, from a dog's simple point of view.
  
  BTW, I am reviewing the book, not the author. But since the author has portrayed the book as a story about himself, naturally there is overlap. As regards the quality of the writing apart from its content, it is adequate.
  
  
  
• Doggone
  By A2BMJF02SPCEAW on 2006-10-01
  One doesn't have to be a fan of Cesar Milan to appreciate how the application of Cesar's formula of 1.Exercise 2. Discipline,and 3. Love could have saved Orson's sanity as well as his life. There is little evidence that Orson ever got any exercise (except for walking up the hill and chasing chipmunks) and even the hill climbing ended when Katz got the ATV. Too bad Katz didn't consult Cesar instead of a shaman.
  It is hard for me to separate the fate of Orson from the readibility of the book,but that being said, the book is highly readable and Katz seems well on the road to finding himself.
  
  
• A Disappointment-first book I ever threw away
  By A1YUF5M9O0JLE on 2007-02-27
  After reading A Dog Year, I was looking forward to reading more about Devon. I was very disappointed with not only the book, but the author as well.
  
  Our family adopted a formerly abused Border Collie to save him from euthanasia. This was out second adoption of a troubled dog and we've learned from experience how to make our pets, guests and ourselves safe while giving them a loving, forever home. When the time came with several of our ill pets, we made the tough decision to take them to our Vet for a humane euthanasia so I do not believe in keeping animals alive past their time.
  
  It appears that Katz created in his mind a justification for his action with Devon (I won't call him Orson-that name didn't help him in the end, either) by setting up his four alternatives as the only alternatives. He then wrote the book to rationalize his decision. To Mr. Katz: please don't adopt any more troubled animals. There's a difference between a troubled animal and an unredeemably vicious one. Devon was let down by people his entire life. You, despite your naming him your soul-mate, were no different.
  
  
• Katz's self-absorbed neglect killed this poor dog; now he makes money from his pet's death
  By A814SGYFD4KG0 on 2006-12-22
  I guess confessional books about one's miserable failures as a dog owner are all the rage these days. Certainly rage is what I felt as I read Katz smugly citing Hannah Arendt and Kant as moral authorities on why it was good and right to kill the dog he'd neglectfully set up to bite three people. While neither philosopher had a particular interest in dogs, I can see both spinning in their graves at being cited as sources of effortless absolution by someone who made a problem he created "go away" and then proceeded to make some more money off of the experience.
  
  Gee, bribing with meatballs and pet psychics didn't work. This is supposed to show us that Katz "tried everything." I suppose consulting a competent results-based trainer AND ACTUALLY TRAINING THE DOG would have been far too radical a step for Katz. Balanced, traditional training and a crash course in ethology could have reformed this animal, and it is no trade secret how it works. Or, just perhaps, SUPERVISING THE BLOODY DOG. Nevermind that he'd already milked the dog's short, confused life for enough literary lucre to buy a nice little hobby farm, and is now doing so with the animal's utterly preventable death.
  
  I don't have a lot of patience when my clients tell me that Bobo "oops, slipped his collar again" and ran off, or that they "forgot" that it wasn't safe to leave him unattended in the front yard where he could munch on leg of UPS man. I have no patience with them because there is no excuse for that kind of self-indulgent, willful incompetence. A dog is the responsibility of his owner, period. An owner who continually abrogates that responsibility -- as is clearly evidenced in Katz's stories of Devon/Orson's serial escapes and attacks on people and machines -- should not be permitted to have a dog.
  
  It's very nice for Katz that Devon/Orson "changed his life." Must feel really good to have blithely forgiven himself (without benefit of learning or repentance, apparently) for failing to provide leadership, training, and appropriate management to the dog, and then killing him when the inevitable happened. Hope those royalty checks are worth it.
  
  I used to have a quote from Jon Katz on my business website, something from his first dog book about how valuable it was to hire a dog trainer. Sure wish he'd taken his own bloody advice. That quote is a goner.
  
  Katz sets himself up as an expert, someone who has some special insight about dogs. I'm sure not seeing it. The dullest and most disengaged of my paying clients does better than Katz with a little help. I don't see a dog owner with insight here -- only a writer who has given himself permission to profit materially from the tragedies that he caused.
  
  Arendt had a phrase to describe human beings who did unspeakable things without ever owning their personal agency. When she encountered Eichmann, she said she had confronted "The banality of evil." And THAT is where Arendt belongs in this book.
  
  An addendum: I had no idea that there was "discussion" of Amazon reviews. I am gobsmacked that Mr. Katz, who has had great swaths of forest felled publishing whatever it is he wants to say (ostensibly about dogs) has taken time out of his navel-staring schedule to *argue with reviewers* as well as provide me with gender-reassignment surgery. He's set his story out there; I think readers are perfectly capable of evaluating that story and drawing their own conclusions about the "moral center" of the autobiographer.
  
  I'm just happy that the people who love me have a better record of caring for the other beings they say they love. I'm not as afraid of becoming inconvenient and helpless as some other people's relatives might be.
  
  As for Mr. Katz's claim that he never presented himself as an expert on dogs -- perhaps we could be forgiven for that presumption, since we are evaluating the insights of the author of something titled *Katz on Dogs.* Were I to publish *Houlahan on Computers* and fill it with my rants about how buggy my laptop has become, so I'm throwing it away and buying a new one, I imagine that the computer-literate would find some fault with that claim to authority.
  
  
  
  
• NOT a dog expert!!!
  By APD2ORMW3Z19E on 2007-02-08
  Jon Katz writes with an engaging, readable style, but he is NOT a Border Collie expert. He is not a dog expert. He is just a dog owner who makes both good and bad decisions, just like the rest of us. I think he made a bad decision in ending a dog's life because he could not work through the dog's problems. Maybe he was going to the wrong trainers, gurus or whatever - but his scope of knowledge of the Border Collie seems to be too narrow. He - and readers of this review - should read the books of David Kennard, or even Cesar Millan - one a British shepherd, the other a dog behaviorist. Kennard's books are particularly excellent.
  
  
• used to be a big fan.
  By A3S9YIDB7310B7 on 2006-10-19
  very upset about jons latest book.it really is just a rehash of his past books and not to his usal standard.there are dog people who specialize in dogs that bite why not consult one of them instead of a witch doctor?to do what he did must have been very very hard,and hurt very much .i was a huge fan ,read all his other dog books,this ones a big let down.
  
  
• Troubled Dog/Bad Trainer
  By A6M0LCBOP3F1P on 2006-11-16
  This man calls himself a dog trainer. Granted Devon/Orson came to him with problems, some of which he tried to solve by picking up the dog and throwing him. I've never read that in any training book. It seems that if he sticks to labs (stable ones) he can train dogs, if he ventures into the world of unstable border collies he is way out of his league. Not all border collies are sheep herders. Perhaps some of Orson's anxiety came from being forced to face his failures in sheep herding over and over again (kind of like kids whose fathers want them to play baseball even though their kids have no sports ability). Rosie was a success story but she came practially herding right out of the box so to speak. Then there was Homer who didn't quite measure up so he gave him away.
  
  If you can't manage a dog like Orson on a farm, where can you manage him? And where does it say that those people had the right to swarm all over his farm uninvited?
  
  Needless to say I was very disappointed with the book. I have six rescue dogs of my own, I know they aren't perfect and need work and to his credit Mr. Katz did seem to work with Orson, but some of his work did seem misguided.
  
  The work with the Shaman was interesting but at the end it seemed like it was just thrown in to make him feel better. I won't be buying any more of his books.
  
  
• Should be Zero...
  By A3PZL32XAY4167 on 2006-11-28
  I cannot condone taking responsibility for an animal & not following through-frankly even though I'm a sucker for animals, and books about them, I always thought Katz was a lousy writer. This is a new low, & just reveals that he really has no idea what he's talking about. As the proud owner of a rehabilitated German Shepard (when I got him, he'd never been in a house, wanted to kill my roomate, & went after any man w/in a 3 block radius-he's now a couch potato, & loves everyone), I just feel that Katz is a cop-out, or worse, a sell out-unfortunately it was his dog who had to pay with his life for this book to be written. Don't buy it.
  
  
• A stirring tale of incoherence, cowardice and betrayal
  By A217KDFE1075V6 on 2006-12-24
  Vicki Hearne wrote, in 'Adam's Task', that "Biting is a response to incoherent authority."
  
  Mr. Jon Katz wrote "I tried everything." This is a line that every trainer has heard a zillion times. Most clients say it. It's NEVER true. They haven't tried anything EFFECTIVE. There's a difference.
  
  Poor Mr. Katz flounders across the ice field of his ridiculous excuse for an epistemology: "Sadly, dogs are animals, and there are some things about them that are just not knowable." (What on earth does that have to do with the relatively simple task of getting a dog to stop biting?) This is his excuse for utterly failing this animal who, obscenely, he claims changed his life.
  
  [I cannot fathom the commitment that knee-jerk postmodernists have to defending the idea of the unknowable. It must be some kind of turf war. You'd think that the behaviorists, in their zeal to be recognized as "scientific", would run the other way. What does defending the idea of the unknowable have to do with excusing Katz's (and the behaviorists') ideologically based, willful ignorance of dog training?]
  
  This pathetic statement only underscores that Mr. Katz NEVER QUESTIONS the PREMISES of the cadre of "positive reinforcement experts" he consulted about this dog, even when his dog's life is at stake. Unwilling to peek outside the ideological box he's wrapped himself in, he fails to suspect that the problem is the very people he's asked to help him, and their mutual lack of a coherent epistemology. Bill Koehler, unencumbered by academic behaviorism, can say, "Dogs are gamblers," and proceed to act in a way that persuades the dog not to gamble on a bite. But Mr. Katz and the behaviorists, musing smugly on the unknowability of dogs' intentions, cannot act in any forthright manner. They are trapped where no sun shines.
  
  Of course, maybe a story about firing an incompetent behaviorist wouldn't sell as many books. Creepy.
  
  In dogs, as in cycling, you have to keep your eye on where you DO want to go, not where you don't. If you focus on the pothole, that's where you'll end up.
  
  Mr. Katz, his eye firmly fixed on his dog's dysfunction, falls into that crevasse and, unable to find his bearings, wallows in sentimental treacle about his "wonderful" dog -- so wonderful he had to kill him rather than learn about him.
  
  This man never even knew his dog.
  
  Obscene.
  
  
  
  
  
• Good dog, bad owner, awful book
  By AVKLCXWJOL29G on 2007-01-30
  It's already been expressed eloquently in previous reviews, I just wanted to get my vote in. When you read a dog book you're pretty sure you're not going to get a happy ending-- dogs don't live as long as we do. But at least you expect the dog to have a good, full, long life, not be thrown into the bushes for acting like a herding dog or killed because the fence isn't tall enough to keep people out. How about some anti-anxiety medicine? Mightn't that have helped more than a shaman?
  This is a very disturbing, poorly written book by a self-centered dog abuser.
  
  
• More Than Just Orson
  By AREYMA1HRK5Q3 on 2007-07-17
  There are more problems with this book than just Mr. Katz's decision to put down a perfectly healthy, loving dog.
  
  I have had a similar situation to the one Mr. Katz writes about. My wonderful, gentle Boston Terrier was known to nip and bite around people who made loud noises. Like Orson, she did it only 3 or 4 times. Did I kill her for it? Nope. We avoided people who were loud and I kept a steady watch on her in situations where there were people with high-pitched voices. Always, I'd warn new company. When she did die, a friend of mine complimented me on being a great parent to a handicapped dog (she was blind as well). I wish I could have offered Mr. Katz some simple tips before he made the awful decision to kill Orson.
  
  There are other problems with his story as well. First, it rambles. He goes from place to place and time period to time period with little explanation. Second, I'd love to have read a chapter on how his wife and daughter managed to live with an absent father and husband. I'm not criticizing his decision to buy the farm; I just don't understand it unless it's the self-absorbed fly-by-night decision of a spoiled adult man with more money than sense.
  
  Third, I remember thinking when Mr. Katz wrote that he could save 50 dogs with the money he would have to spend on Orson these two things: Sell the ATV and help Orson or clear out an animal shelter or two and bring those animals to the farm. He clearly had the cash. I'm sure there would be some good stories about a farm with 50 rescued dogs.
  
  Fourth, maybe I'm being overly-sensitive on this one, but as a handicapped person, I took offense at his three descriptions of the man in the fish department of a local store as "the one-armed man." Call him the "shy man," the "irritable man," the "knowledgable man" but why refer to him by a physical characteristic he cannot help? Why couldn't the reader know this man by his own name instead of "the one-armed man"?
  
  There are too many other wonderful books being published these days to waste time reading crap. This book is crap.
  
  

• A Dog Year: Twelve Months, Four Dogs, and Me
• The Dogs of Bedlam Farm: An Adventure with Sixteen Sheep, Three Dogs, Two Donkeys, and Me
• Dog Days: Dispatches from Bedlam Farm
• Running to the Mountain: A Midlife Adventure
• From Baghdad, With Love: A Marine, the War, and a Dog Named Lava