"Farm or Fenced", "Forever" Home

I keep seeing advertisements for dogs that need new homes. The owners request that prospective inquirers have either a farm or a fenced yard. The new home is then described as a "forever" home. What's wrong with this picture?

First, I think it is important to recognize that the "forever" home is a myth (I've posted on this before). The myth is that when you acquire a pet, you are only a responsible owner when you keep that pet "forever".

I describe this concept as a myth because we all know it isn't true. We're only human-- we make mistakes or run into difficulties sometimes. People often get a new puppy or dog and find out that it isn't a good fit for either. Especially in a difficult economy, it can become hard for people to give their pets the kind of care they feel they deserve. And of course, as a trainer, I know that when people don't manage, lead, or train their dog well, that dog can become more of a hardship than a companion. Sometimes it's best for everyone if the dog is placed with someone who has the resources and the willingness to provide better care.

I have placed two dogs in the past couple years myself. Both came from owners who were unable to handle some new circumstances with the dog. Neither acted irresponsibly by trying to find a new home for the dog, and they needed help to do so. So we helped.

Neither dog required a fence or a farm, but both got great new homes. One had a serious behavior problem that the new owners were ready, willing, and able to manage. They love him, and he is a safe, fantastic worker and helper to them. The other had no major behavior problems, but just didn't get along with another dog in the household. The family inherited a new home in an area which limited how many dogs they could legally own, so one of them had to go. They placed the one that they felt would be adopted out readily, and which would adapt most easily to a new home. His new owners proved to be a great match, and the transition with both dogs went well. Sometimes a new home is just best.

What does it mean when someone says they want the dog to go to a farm or a fenced yard? That's easy. It means that the dog hasn't got any quality training! No training = restraining.

This dog, like most of his kind, has lots of energy and needs an outlet that the current owners are unable and/or unwilling to provide. If you do not restrain him, he will likely run away. Somehow, in the minds of city-folk, if you just let that dog run free like he wants to be, he'll be happy and well-behaved. He can run free on a farm, but no one seems to own a dog that must be tied up or walked from time to time, so he should be fenced otherwise.

Apparently, such dogs are either expendable on a farm, or somehow just manage to stay put without restraint. They just figure out some sort of job to do, and love it so much, they don't stray at all. They have no desire to chase the livestock, the barn cats, the trucks or the horses that pass by on the road, right? Because they have a new freedom, they LOVE their new owners, and would never dream of being a problem. Alternately, if you really must tie him up in the barnyard when you discover these problems, your neighbors are less likely to report you to the authorities for being cruel.

Of course, we all know that any dog needs some training before he can be trusted with off-leash, un-fenced freedom, but they all deserve to have a shot at it.

ALL dogs should be socialized and trained from puppyhood on up. If they need a new home, it is much easier to find one which is suitable, farm or fenced, or none of the above. A well-socialized and trained dog can adapt to a farm life, or any new lifestyle, much easier than an untrained dog would.

Do Dogs Decide As We Do?

Will a dog always know a pet duck from a wild duck from a barnyard duck (can you?)? How discriminating can he be? How do we qualify a dog's mistakes?

How much can we rely on our trained dog's sense of "right and wrong"? Where does a dog's behavior cross the line from its responsibility to make good decisions to our responsibility to train, restrain or contain them? Is there ever an "intelligent disobedience", and what role does that play in the pet dog? What limits must we set on our expectations of a trained dog's behavior?

Before attempting to consider our questions, I feel the need to first qualify, once again, that we ARE discussing a trained dog. While a stray dog has, from time to time, saved the livestock or the baby and then made its way into the hearts and homes of new owners, we certainly do not expect them to have a sense of "right and wrong" upon the first meeting. We do expect more from a dog that has been trained.

So then, for the critics, we must answer, "What do you mean by 'trained'?" Let us suggest that for the sake of argument, our dog has a history of responding quickly and reliably to all the Novice exercises found in any major registry, such as that found in the AKC obedience competition ring, and can do so, off-leash, despite the presence of new and intriguing distractions. The dog has a sense of responsibility to its master, has learned to trust and respect the family, and has little interest in causing any harm to his neighbors or their animals. When a new and unfamiliar event develops, the dog readily looks to his master for instruction, and the master uses the dog's knowledge of basic commands to help him understand how he would like him to behave.

So we have a hypothetical trained dog. Our dog is so well-behaved that his owner leaves him alone inside the home with full access to every square foot. The family can come and go without fear that the dog will jump them at the door when they arrive, or charge out of it when they leave. Invited guests are welcomed with a little suspicion at first, but no molestation, and friends quickly learn not to fear the dog's watchful eyes.

One day, our hypothetical 12-year old daughter is left alone at home with the dog. She has picked up a cold virus and must stay home from school. As girls will sometimes do, she decides to wash her hair and practice some new styling technique. Half-way into her wash, the water runs cold. Something is wrong with the water heater. Well, this has happened before, so she takes matters into her own hands and calls in a pro.

So now we have a tired, cranky girl with cold, soapy wet hair, and a knock at the door. Our dog is instantly alert. You can guess where this is going. How does the story end?

If our hypothetical AAA Heating & Plumbing man gets bitten, should the family get sued? Should the dog be put down? How much do the circumstances matter?

Let's say the dog is trained to follow the daughter's command. She puts him at a stay and welcomes the help. The repairs get done, the dog stays, the man leaves, the daughter is happy to rinse her hair, and Mom and Dad get a surprise when they get home regardless!

Or, let's say the dog is trained to follow the daughter's command. She puts him at a stay and welcomes the help. But the man takes another look at this pretty young girl in a fuzzy pink robe and attacks her. If the dog breaks the stay to bite the man, this would qualify is "intelligent disobedience", wouldn't it? What parent would not gratefully accept the disobedience of such a dog under such circumstances? The dog easily recognized this as unwelcome human behavior on the part of a stranger, and reacted instinctively to protect a member of his family. While sometimes such criminals attempt to act against their victims (and their dogs) in court, most systems would deny him the right to sue for the bite.

Let's say that the dog has not been trained to follow the daughter's command. Once again, you have a couple of obvious scenarios possible. The dog may choose to follow her command anyway, and simply follow the man's behavior carefully until he leaves. Are we surprised by this decision on the dog's part? Do we find it acceptable?

In a last scenario, the dog breaks the stay and attacks the man as soon as he enters the home.

Would such a dog be considered "dangerous" or "vicious"? Do we hold the dog responsible, because he immediately violated a command? He understood the command. Even if not specifically trained to follow HER command, should we expect our hypothetical trained dog to?

Do we stop to wonder if the dog reacted instinctively to the man's hidden intentions when he first saw the girl as a potential victim, or do we automatically assume that he simply charged an innocent guest? Would you stop to wonder, or would you hold the dog responsible regardless? Do we hold the owner responsible, as in, he failed to train the dog adequately? As we can only guess at exactly what the dog was responding to, do we simply pay the man's medical bills and further train the dog? Or do we automatically assume the dog is dangerous and put him to death?

We must ask these questions from time to time, because it is easy to see our canine companions as intelligent, discriminating family members. We sometimes don't expect enough of them, and yet sometimes expect far too much of them. They are, after all, only dogs. Therefore, none of the above scenarios should come as a great surprise to our hypothetical family, really. He is just a dog, after all. He is a wonderful addition to the family, and he may help enrich, or even save lives. But he is just a dog.

We have taken a wild beast and tamed him enough so that we feel mostly comfortable with him in our home. But he cannot be held responsible for making decisions JUST as we do. He will sometimes make mistakes.

This is a risk that we must keep in mind, and we generally do, when we bring a dog into our homes. We also must take responsibility for the risk this animal brings to our communities. And so, the best we can do is train the dog to recognize that which is normal and "good" in our lives, and help him to respond in a way which we and our neighbors approve of. We must also recognize that he may make mistakes, and set up our management to help prevent serious ones. In many cases, the dog will then recognize that which is not normal about a situation, and do his best to behave within the expectations we hold for him.

Do Dogs Have Morals?

When we train our dogs, we sometimes think of what we're doing as teaching them "right from wrong". Is this a moral concept? Or are we simply teaching a set of rules? Is there more to dog training than rules and a goal of compliance? Can our dogs decide to act in a particular way because of what they feel is "right" or "wrong", in a human sense?

The biology student in me claims that we must be objective when analyzing animal behavior. Animals are not supposed to have morals. They only act on instinct, right? We know that we can shape their likely responses through breeding, socialization, management, leadership, and training (nature and nurture, when you break it down). But how much do they really understand about our moral world? How much do we hold them accountable for, whether they can or cannot understand?

I sometimes tell stories to my clients and students when I want to help them understand my goals in obedience training. My dog Rocky Road was not the smartest dog I've owned, but he had a fantastic temperament, and he took to obedience training well. I watched him mature into a wonderfully responsible and reliable companion. I miss him dearly, as we developed a strong bond in the short 6 years I was blessed with his company. This story is one of my favorite Rocky stories.

I was teaching a Novice class, and on about Week 5 or so, one student agreed to bring a large red hen to help serve as a distraction for our sit-stays. He let the chicken go, and she slowly clucked, scratched, and pecked her way across the yard to the line-up of trembling dogs and handlers. Rocky was also on lead, and also quite tempted to break his stay.

As we moved on, so did the chicken; she moved off into our backyard, away from the class, which settled into working on other exercises with a stronger sense of attentiveness.

When class was over, I stood with Rocky, facing the chicken, which was minding her own business some distance away. I mentioned to the class that I trusted his training, and I was going to prove it. I clicked off his leash and gave him an "okay" release. Off he went, running straight at the big red bird!

I stood firm, not panicking. I let my hands fall to my sides and called, "Rocky, come!". He slowed for a few strides, then turned and came to me. I straightened his crooked front (he wanted to see the bird behind him) and then called him back around to heel position. Still off-leash, he complied readily. He sat facing the bird again, and remained quite interested in what she was doing.

Most people would be pretty pleased to be able to call their dog off of a strong distraction like this, especially if the safety of another person or animal depended on that recall. But this was only an obedient response. I called; he came. There was no moral desire expected in the dog. After all, under different circumstances, both of us would happily eat the chicken. Chasing, killing, and eating chickens is not morally wrong, but it may be quite undesirable behavior in a pet dog.

While I could have chased after him and corrected him for the chase, I chose instead to trust his training to stop the chase and thus protect the chicken. But by choosing the recall to solve the problem, I was also able to teach him a new rule: "don't chase the chicken". In another sense, what I was really saying was, "control your predatory instincts". The "right" was, "come". The "wrong" was thus "don't come"/"chase and perhaps kill".

While the latter part, the "wrong" may be a leap of concept for some dogs to master, my Rocky found it easy enough. He comprehended that the chasing behavior was not desirable; he KNEW without a doubt that the recall was desirable. But the story doesn't end there. The first part is pretty cool--Rocky was able to control his instincts and obey a simple command which was in opposition to those instincts. But the last half of the story proves the "magic" of Rocky's training.

After Rocky returned to heel position, I set him free with another "okay" release. He left me, but in no particular hurry. I kept one eye on him while I helped answer lingering questions from the students. The hen made her way back to the driveway and training barn, and Rocky chose to follow her around calmly and smell her tail feathers out of simple curiosity. I sensed no "evil thought", or in other words, I saw in his body language no intention on his part to chase or harm the big bird. His self-control was evident, so I allowed him the freedom to learn more about the interesting creature, rather than restrain him and leave him wondering. How many dogs would never get this chance?!

I don't believe that a dog has morals, in the anthropormorphic sense of the term. I do, however, recognize that dogs are intelligent domestic animals that enjoy learning how to work within the social human network that is their "pack", "family", or working unit. When they respect your authority, and when you teach them how to follow obedience commands (rules) in such a way that they will choose to do so reliably, you then have a way to teach them other, new concepts. Concepts like, "don't chase or kill the chicken".

It is hard for some people to understand how a dog can develop good character through training. Responsibility, for example, is supposed to be a human quality. Whether you want to describe it in more scientific terms or not, I choose to describe Rocky as a responsible dog. I also describe him as loyal, reliable, peaceful, loving, etc. Some of those qualities, including the self-control discussed here, were nurtured through the obedience training process (yes, we have a process), and then became evident through his decisions and behavior responses.

Rocky was an inspiration to many people who met him, because this simple-minded dog was able to prove to them how wonderful a pet dog, or a "working companin dog" can be. While he was naturally inclined to be a "good" dog (he enriched our lives and made it easy to want to keep him in our home), his training helped him to better understand and interact with the world around him. This made him a more trustworthy and trusting companion, thus making him an asset rather than a liability to our community.

While dogs can learn a few things about our perspective of "right and wrong" through the rules we teach them, I think it is most important that we remember our responsibility to teach them those rules. That is simply the "right" thing to do. When we can teach dogs our rules in such a way that they can more easily learn to make "good" decisions in new circumstances, we know we have really done the "right" thing.

The Nose Knows

I've been considering the amazing powers of the canine nose lately. The dog's nose is an incredibly designed machine. I use the word "machine" lightly, since humans have spent years and millions of dollars trying to create a machine that can do what dogs to naturally and with ease. They are so valuable to us because they can do things with their noses that we can only dream about.

Have you ever thought about the variety of services dogs have provided us with, simply by using their noses? Well, it's no secret that we have long-eared hounds bred specifically to help us find lost people or wild game, and herding breeds and labradors to help us find illegal drugs and weapons, therefore helping us stay safe. But there's so much more!

There are dogs that keep our agriculture safe in a variety of ways. The Beagle Brigade sniffs out illegal fruits and vegetables in airports, which helps to prevent the spread of disease or other contagion. I remember learning about a dog that searches for a fungus that attacks bee colonies, an essential aspect of pollination for all sorts of crops. There are even dogs that look for wild animal scat with their noses, so their biologist handlers can study and protect endangered species more efficiently.

There are dogs that look for all kinds of insects and molds to help keep our homes safe. Lately, dogs have been in the news for detecting all sorts of cancer, too. All they need is a whiff of a patient's breath stored in a bottle, or just a tiny little tissue sample. They don't need to even meet the person to help them identify an illness. Even pet dogs can help people be aware of an impending seizure or diabetic event, or help find a lost child. All these dogs need to do is alert, but some also help in other ways as service dogs.

Dogs can keep our military troops and police safe by alerting to a human threat or a weapon of all sorts by detecting the evil presence with their noses, and then comfort them when they are stressed or lonely. No machine can do that.

Our pet dogs have these noses, too. We usually forget about that, since they are not often put to work for us, besides companionship or play. But when they have such a natural skill that they love to use, why don't we help them use it more often? We should tap into this large portion of the canine physique and psyche, develop it, and learn how to take advantage of it. The dogs deserve the chance to work for us, with us, and develop a deeper bond with us as a result. We can enjoy our time together even more if we give them the chance.

The canine nose is so wonderful. No machine can duplicate it. The best part about it is that it is attached to a four-legged creature we love to spend time with. So let's enjoy it!

Tools: Magic Wands, or Just Aids?

I've been increasingly frustrated with common misperceptions, myths, and downright lies spread throughout the general public regarding canine management and training tools. The problem is the idea that a tool will somehow solve a problem BY ITSELF, when what is really required is a little education.

It seems that most dog owners go to a pet store (or trainer) and ask for help with XYZ problems (usually, pulling on leash is priority one). Unfortunately, rather than be guided through a training PROCESS, the hapless dog owner is instead sold the latest whimsical gadget designed to somehow steer their dog into heavenly, joyful, "pain-free" submission. The "pain-free", or "humane" moniker is usually what finally sells the product. It doesn't occur to the seller or the buyer that long-term results might require more. Or perhaps, if it does, that doesn't matter anyway.

So the dog owner puts the device on the dog. They may have gotten lucky with some instruction on the "proper" (by manufacturer claims) instructions on how to fit said tool. They then happily, hopefully clip on the leash and observe. Have you ever witnessed this? It's as if some grand transformation, for better or worse, will suddenly take place right before their eyes.

With some tools, you will see something interesting happen right away. The dog may respond as the owner hoped, and perhaps there is a slack leash (or one pulled tight by the nervous owner, regardless of the tool's instant seeming success). In come cases, the dog throws an instant tantrum, much like a bratty child in a candy store who has just been told that the candy is off-limits. At least that's what this might look like. This event may include screaming, rolling on the ground, whining, frantic attempts to get the tool off, and/or biting. And that may only be from the owner!

Either way, the hopeful dog owner moves on, determined to give this miracle tool a try. The dog might be managed well, at least while on a leash connected to a reasonable person with some common sense. In other cases, the dog may actually exhibit great signs of discomfort or displeasure the more the tool is used. The walk is, for whatever reason, no fun for anyone.

Such owners are somehow persuaded that the TOOL is what it is all about. This "miracle tool", like a magic wand, will transform your misbehaving monster into a mannerly mutt in seconds. Or maybe a few days. But there is no need for any work, right?

Well, after such an owner spends some good, hard-earned cash on a box full of later-unused tools (some of which are chewed, falling apart, frayed, or showing bits of hair sticking out everywhere), they might just start asking for some real results. All of a sudden, the management plan has failed, Fido is fierce, and something has got to be done!

Ahhh. Here comes a PLAN. A plan! Who'd a thunk it?

Whether the owner figures it out on their own, with a good book in hand, or an experienced trainer as their guide, a plan carries with it more potential to have a beginning, a middle, AND.... an END. Ooooh, an end. End results. Measurable results! A plan with measurable results? It's a MIRACLE!

Ah, no it isn't. It's just reality, and back to basics.

So an owner and a trainer, perhaps, work together to determine: 1) what the end desirable result is, and how to measure it (we start with the Novice competition standard as our test. Some start with a CGC test. Some don't have any standard, unfortunately, but our imaginary new friend does), 2) where to start (every dog and owner need a firm foundation), and 3) how to connect part 1 and part 2 (a plan!).

Part 3, the plan, is likely to require a set of tools. Regardless of what type of tools are used, they should both have some understanding of how to fit it properly and how to use it safely and effectively (meaning a "method" made up of "techniques"). The goal is to teach the dog what is expected (a rule), how to follow the rule, that the dog can choose to follow the rule or not, and that the dog can expect consistent, fair consequences of those choices throughout the remainder of the training process. One rule leads to another, buiding on the previous steps. The monster figures out how to be mannerly, the owner is happy, and the nieghborhood breathes a collective sigh of relief.

At some point, some tools may lose their effectiveness and other tools may be required to continue a lesson. That's okay. It doesn't mean that any tool is inherently GOOD or BAD. It just means that for a certain stage in a certain plan with that dog and owner, there needs to be a new tool to help the dog learn what is necessary for the safety and contentment of both dog and owner. And sometimes you just sort of "graduate" into the use of a new training tool as a part of the plan. The key is to move away from "management" tools and instead use "training" tools as part of a plan. The results should eliminate the need for fear, heavy confinement, and constant restraint.

We all know that management fails sometimes, so what are you going to be left with?

Another point worthy of note is that no person should advise others on how to use a training tool (or why they should avoid it) if they don't have a clue how to use it safely and effectively themselves, while others clearly do.

Dog Licensing- What is it Good For?

Dog licenses allow for a local registry that enables lost dogs to find their way home through animal control, while also ensuring that these dogs (and thus people) are protected with rabies vaccinations. A small fee helps to pay for the paperwork required and also pay the salaries of the people who round up the stray dogs, while also helping to feed and house the dogs in the pound. Well, that's how it is supposed to work.

Dog ownership has changed, and so has the licensing system. There is much variation in how it is done. In some places, including our own county, dog owners feel vilified, highly taxed, and are suspicious of the system. They avoid contact with any form of law enforcement for dog laws. They avoid the shelter altogether. They sometimes behave irresponsibly either because they are ignorant or because they would rather simply avoid extra expenses associated with compliance. In other areas, dog owners comply with care, dogs are licensed regularly with low fees, and pets are overall better cared for as a result.

Let's look at Calgary, Alberta. They have a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate. According to this article, most North American cities are lucky to get 10-20% compliance. And they do this while charging $31-52 per year! If a dog owner gets caught not complying, they are generally be fined 10x the amount they would have paid if they had licensed their dog to begin with. Licensing is easy to apply for-- no searching for the little city/county office. Every dollar goes back to paying for animal control services.

Dog owners are always encouraged to be microchipped. But in Calgary, every AC vehicle has a scanner. They will take a dog directly home instead of to the shelter when they can. This reduces expenses and probably helps keep those dogs healthy. If a dog does get to the shelter, it is photographed and placed online within 15 minutes, and treated with veterinary care as needed. There are less tough decisions to make for strays, because there are less strays and there are funds to cover any necessary expenses. Dogs are typically only euthanized for severe illnesses or behavior issues. In other words, most true strays are adopted out, probably because people are more willing to work with such a shelter system to find new dogs there.

Calgary also focuses on educating dog owners, and children especially. They are actually included in the schools' curriculum to teach children to respect living things. They have 140--140!-- off-leash dog parks. This creates a much more positive, dog-and-people friendly community.

Over the past 18 years, they have cut the number of dog bites and chases by 50%, even though dog and human populations have doubled.

$31 may seem high when compared to our local $10 for spayed/neutered dogs. The fee for intact dogs is about the same. But how much would you be willing to pay for such a system? The system is helping dog owners find lost dogs, reducing the number of dogs in the shelter, educating children and keeping the community safe. They are working FOR the people and WITH the people instead of treating them like the enemy. This sounds like a pretty good deal. Why do we still have such high fees, but our community does not have the added benefits?

"Purebred" or "Mixed"? How are they different? Is one more valuable than the other?

I and my dog were participating in a special school program for elementary students yesterday when the teacher asked if mixed breed dogs were healthier than purebred dogs. Since at least three of the dogs present were mixed, she thought she was really doing us all a favor by mentioning this "fact". Since most shelter dogs are mixed breeds of unknown heritage, and since so many people promote "adoption" of shelter pets as a heroic good deed, it makes sense for people to promote the idea that mixed breeds are somehow better than purebred dogs because they are somehow healthier.

The truth is, mutts are not necessarily healthier than purebred dogs, if you separate them into just those two classes. Anytime you mix dogs together, you compound the number of illnesses each breed carries genetically. How could this make such a dog healthier? Well, some people think that if you breed away from "line-bred" dogs-- in other words, if you breed dogs like you might marry someone other than your hillbilly cousin or your sibling, you increase your chances of being healthy. But it's more complex than that.

The reality is, if you want a dog that you can count on to be healthy into adulthood, you increase your chances by purchasing a purebred puppy from a responsible breeder. A mutt from the shelter won't have the known history. It dog from a shelter might be a great pet, and it might live a long, healthy life. But if one of your top priorities is a quality, healthy dog that will likely live a long healthy life, research a healthy, particular breed first. Then check the shelter system for that breed if you like.

An example: For my next dog, I'd like to raise a puppy again. I want an intelligent, medium to large dog that I can count on to live and serve me well for as long as possible. I have other check list aspects I'm looking for, too, but healthy is at the top of my list. When researching breeds, I came up with two I have great interest in: the Doberman and the Giant Schnauzer.

Both breeds are very intelligent, highly trainable, incredibly loyal working companions. They were bred to work closely with their owners, and to be reliable, trusting family members. Both are attractive dogs to me. Unfortunately, one has a much, much higher incidence of several debilitating illnesses than the other. For me, that's a deal-breaker. So I continue to research the Giant Schnauzer.

I will keep my eyes open in the shelter system, but I really do want to raise a puppy. So I will look for quality breeders. I will look for someone that does health testing and has proven to produce healthy dogs with longevity. The temperament of the breeding should fall into my interests, and the individual pup will be carefully selected.

But oh! What if... what if someone bred a few healthier breeds back into a Doberman line? The Doberman was made up of a number of breeds to begin with, so we could still tap into some of those breeds for the best qualities, health in particular. We might be able to eliminate, or at least reduce, the incidence of some of those terrible illnesses.

Would the resulting puppies still be "purebred"? Would it still have quality? After reviewing this blog post, I come to the personal conclusion that most of our purebred dogs actually come from mixed breeds at some point in their history. "Purebred" to me means that we have breed those dogs to a point where we can pretty much predict what the future puppies will look like, work like, and act like as adults.

If we can keep the qualities we like most while eliminating the genetically inherited illnesses, why not? I would be interested in raising a Doberman puppy without worry that it will fall down and die of a heart illness or collapse from instability in the spine at a young age. If it looks like a Doberman, acts like a Doberman, and lives a long, healthy life, I'm all for it! Who cares what names are on its registration papers? I don't, really.

Then again, maybe by the time the breeders allow for this to happen, I'll have fallen in love with a healthier breed. Perhaps my pup will be followed by others that somehow ended up in a shelter system later in their development or in adulthood. Perhaps I'll even "adopt" one that is mixed with some other breed, and love them all!

I guess the point is, we all have our own priorities and interests in dogs, but we should remain open to the possibilities, and work to find the best fit for our own families, in what ever form that comes.