 |
| Photo of bimbo from "D Cups Saving Teacups" website |
Yes, folks, it's the Blonde leading the Blonde in southern California.
If it isn't bad enough that there are self-proclaimed bimbos calling themselves "D Cups Saving Teacups", we continue to have other empty-headed morons protesting pet stores on a regular basis.
The animal extremist group "Companion Animal Protection Society" or "CAPS" is planning a protest tomorrow of a pet store in Orange County. It seems that CAPS is buoyed by their successes with previous pet store protests. In several communities in southern California, CAPS has achieved legal bans on sales of pets in stores, and they plan to continue their crusade.
And now, a CAPS leader has stated in a public forum that no one should breed dogs as long as there are animals in shelters. (In other words, no breeding until hell freezes over.) Now anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that there will ALWAYS be animals entering shelters. But then, these gals don't seem to have two brain cells among them.
Are these pet store picketers really such empty-headed bimbos as they portray themselves?
Apparently, yes. Those who want to ban sales of pets in pet stores (except for "rescues") are completely clueless about the demographics of pets in our nation. They are asking for "proof" of the decline in shelter numbers in our nation. Seems they think that shelter numbers have INCREASED since the 1970s and 1980s. WRONG! DUH, ladies.
It seems ludicrous that the people who want to force everyone to stop breeding are totally ignorant of shelter statistics.
According to “Maddie’s Fund” president Richard Avanzino, in the 1970s, our country’s animal control agencies were killing, on average, about 115 dogs and cats annually for every 1000 human residents. This amounted to about 24 million shelter deaths every year, or a rate of 11.5% per population.
In recent years, according to Avanzino, annual shelter death numbers have dramatically declined to about 12 per thousand human residents, or about 3.6 million deaths each year. This amounts to a staggering 85% reduction in killing since the 1970s.
We have reached a nationwide pet shelter death rate that averages just 1.2% per population. Down from 11.5% in the 70s. I think that's pretty darn impressive progress.
Source:
Fry, Mike,"Reflections from the No Kill Conference in Washington DC":
http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/3A078C33CD079D17862575AD00471A9B
We already have "rescues" importing dogs into the US by the hundreds of thousands from Taiwan, Mexico, Romania and the Caribbean. "Dogs Without Borders" right here in LA advertises on their website that they will "order" a dog for you from another country if you want it.
There are actually breeders in these other countries who are breeding for export to meet the pet market in the US. This is a horrible practice because not only are the dogs bred under questionable conditions, they can also bring with them rabies and parasites. In 2004, a dog from Mexico came in to LA with rabies and just last year, dogs imported from the Caribbean by a rescue group suffered a parvo epidemic where many died. Another dog recently imported brought screwworm with it...a livestock pest that had been eradicated here in the continental US.
But hey, it's OK for rescue groups to import dogs that are bred under unknown conditions, with unknown health history and ancestry, but not OK for pet stores or breeders here to sell dogs who are raised under strict regulation. Go figure.
Let's see now, we sterilized almost all the dogs, (over 75% of owned dogs in the US are sterilized), and then for good measure, we will criminalize public sales, internet sales, newpaper sales, pet store sales, and private sales unless breeders are willing to allow strangers into their homes, thereby subjecting themsleves to theft and assault. If we ban imports (as we should) then where will the pets of the future come from? Why aren't we prosecuting these terrorist bullies, under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act, who brag about shutting down legitimate businesses?
Yep, the animal extremists' plan to end pet ownership is moving right along. Pretty soon there won't be any teacups left for the D cups to save.
 |
| Animal Enterprise Terrorists-HEY! It's Miss D Cup. Whaddayaknow. |
 |
| The sleazy bimbo on the far left recently attended a public shelter event pretending to be "looking for good breeders". Yeah, right! |
Sorry, I neglected to post the info about the store and the protest. It is "I <3 puppies" in Corona del Mar. Here's a recent headline about it.
ReplyDeleteI Heart Puppies Does Not Heart Animal ActivistBy Matt Coker Wed., Jul. 27 2011 at 4:07 PM
The owner of a Corona del Mar pet store has filed for a restraining order against a Los Angeles activist who has accused the merchant of acquiring dogs from puppy mills.
I Heart Puppies shop owner Brooke Ann Bradford filed the request Friday in Orange County Superior Court to stop alleged harassment by Carole Davis, the West Coast director for the Companion Animal Protection Society.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/07/i_heart_puppies_brooke_bradfor.php
carole davis
ReplyDeletePosted August 6 at 4:39 PM
Response to time4dogs
I can only surmise that you are a commercial breeder. Who else would like to put whistle-blowers in prison? We are merely investigating wrongdoing and protecting consumers AND animals.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created for entirely different reasons. It is to protect big Pharma, one of the most powerful industries in the world. It will never be used against a group like ours, which works daily with government agencies, law enforcement and lawmakers to protect dogs and cats from inhumane treatment.
Our activities are entirely legal. Only someone profiting from the mistreatment of dogs would think otherwise.
Time4Dogs
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Posted August 6 at 8:56 PM
The activities of the pet store that you are harrassing are entirely legal. But that doesn’t seem to stop you in your quest to shut them down by any means possible. I can certainly see why a restraining order is being sought against you. You even bragged about closing them down a week or so ago for some technical violation of a fire safety law. Brrr, you are really a piece of work.
Funny, MS. Davis, that when you cannot refute the facts you resort to mudslinging. I do not “mistreat” dogs, and have never sold an animal (not that it would make any difference if I had). I am a pet owner.
CAPS wants pet stores to stop selling puppies you believe to be raised in a state of abuse and neglect, and replace them with….dogs raised in conditions of abuse and neglect from shelters and rescues instead. Hypocrisy…..
So 3.6 million deaths each year is acceptable? You set the bar pretty low, my friend. The shelter where I volunteer killed 3,750 of the 3.6 million dead dogs you mention. Mind you, these were not sick dogs. They weren't vicious dogs. They were healthy, well-adjusted dogs that would have made great family pets. They were killed because there are simply more dogs in shelters than there are adopters. The group protesting this pet store understands the problem and they want others to understand it as well. What is it about people who want to save the lives of shelter dogs that bothers you so much?
ReplyDeleteHi Mark,
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of information out there about how all shelters, including the one you volunteer at, can go no-kill tomorrow if they so choose. The dogs and cats are killed because the shelters choose to kill them. End of story!
Feral cats should be TNR instead of killed. That would cut the deaths by more than half right up front.
Did you read the stats in the post? There are more than enough adopters to go around. There are 17 million homes every year opening up for pets, who could absorb the 3-4 million adoptable animals needing homes. It's a solvable problem if you have progressive shelter management. Read "Redemption" by Nathan Winograd; it will change your outlook forever! Saving shelter dogs is not the issue....all of them SHOULD be saved. There is no excuse not to!
The issue at hand is ignorant fascists bullying the rest of society into acceptance of their WRONG-HEADED ideas. It's not better to offer "rescues" from unknown backgrounds and of undetermined health history, or to have dogs imported into the US from third world countries, than it is to have dogs intentionally bred for the pet market under regulated conditions right here in the USA.
I am really tired of these old huge ass broads looking for fulfillment at other peoples expense. Throw these well manicured old sisters and fake boobs in the clink.
ReplyDeleteGoods riddance! Has anyone told you people in California that the majority of you are bunch of nuts??
Anonymous, we are not "nuts"! We are mostly "fruits".....Hmmm. Well, the "fruits" are probably the fruitful, like farmers, breeders, those who own businesses. The nuts are the ones throwing the monkey wrench into the activities of the fruitful, like those who want to drive people out of business, end agriculture and squelch dog breeding. I think that sounds about right!
ReplyDeleteHA! A friend just sent me this link. Carole Davis of CAPS was in this crap move from 1981.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082910/
Guess we need a new blog entry...
"D Cup Protestors Make B Movies"
"Pirahna Part Two; the Spawning"
Or maybe it's just "the Yawning?"
I’ve read Redemption. To achieve the solution Winograd describes in his utopian manifesto, virtually every home would need to adopt their pets – which is exactly what the people protesting I Heart Puppies are advocating.
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as I do that “regulated” means nothing. And you know that when you buy a pet store puppy, you are also buying a dog with an “unknown background and of undetermined health history.” You’re obviously versed in the statistics and scope of the problem, so I’ll ask you again - What is it about people who want to save the lives of shelter dogs that bothers you so much? Why are you such a staunch advocate for the commercial breeding trade? I can only assume you have a financial interest at stake here.
What is an acceptable rate of "euthanasia"? True euthanasia, performed for animals too sick, too injured, or too temperamentally unsound? We kill well under 2% per 100 dogs and cats per capita in our shelters nationwide as a whole now. What purpose "should" shelters serve? Between 18 and 23 million homes are looking for a new pet annually...so why can't we place 3.6 million if they are healthy and adoptable? Why are shelters in the northeast and midwest empty and devoid of small and medium sized dogs? Why are families in those areas waiting literally months upon months to "adopt" a shelter animal? Yes, large metropolitan shelters still have overcrowding issues as do many shelters in the south...but it appears that is due more to poor policy than real overpopulation. I live in a community in Texas, population almost 300,000 with an open-admission shelter (meaning they must ACCEPT all animals surrendered to them...) and they have a SAVE/PLACEMENT/ADOPTION rate of 77%, and are still seeing improvement. We have three or four other communities in the same area that are having the same success. No-Kill is NOT just about not-killing, it's about FINDING alternatives TO killing. And IMPLEMENTING THEM!!! It doesn't happen by "magic". It requires work, creative thinking, and thinking "outside" the box. It requires the shelter being open when the public is not working, It requires a clean and bright area for the public to see the animals, it requires taking the animals out TO the public (off-site) adoptions, how it requires a dynamic TNR program, how it requires actually giving the public/volunteers credit, asking for and graciously accepting their help, and allowing them to foster, especially injured, pregnant, or very young animals, IN their homes. It requires allowing volunteers to help with whatever job or task they may have experience with. And it requires that they NOT be assumed to be criminals, and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, and to be treated like second-class citizens at same shelter. It requires working with every rescue group possible. It requires marketing. It requires comprehensive health policies. It requires networking. If the shelter simply takes the animal in, throws it in a run...and waits 72 hours for someone to walk in a scoop it up...yes...they are going to kill the FAR majority of the animals they have. If they continue to immediately kill owner surrendered animals, they will keep their kill numbers up. If their intent is to do nothing to place the animals, and just warehouse them in the run until their time has run out...yes, they will kill most of them.
ReplyDeleteAmericans spay neuter 75% of all owned dogs and 93% of all owned cats. Spay/neuter has been a great asset in reaching a 1.2% kill rate in our country...but that "solution" has about seen the end of it's productivity. After all, you cannot spay and neuter every owned animal, or there will be no more pets. Or at least the only pets will be those where ferals or strays have bred, or those imported from southeast Asia, Puerto Rico, or Mexico. Or perhaps, we can start importing other countries "stray" animals?
No one in their right mind buys that 3.6 million animals being killed per year cannot reasonably be placed when 18 to 23 million homes are available PER YEAR. THAT excuse doesn't work. The homes ARE available. So, what the next excuse?
Well, Mark, you know what happens when you
ReplyDeleteASSume. I have no financial interest at stake. I am a pet owner and have never sold an animal. Unlike the "rescues" who get free product.
Let's start with your first ASSumption. Basic math tells you that 17 mill minus 3 mill leaves 14 MILLION homes for dogs and cats each and every year. even if every single adoptable dog in a shelter was placed, we'd still need 14 MILLION more pets. Every year.
If "regulated" means nothing then why is HSUS pushing so hard for more and more regulations? Let's just do away with all regulation, because based on your ASSumption it means nothing. Silly!
And pet store puppies, if they are purebred, come with registration papers which can be used to obtain pedigree, and sometimes even the health history in the CHIC database. CHIC is a great program started by AKC which includes health certifications on the pedigree. No it is not as ideal as obtaining a dog from a private party who is knowledgable about the history of their dogs, but those people are few and far between.
And your mantra question in which you accuse me of dislike of people who want to save shelter dogs is simply another "ASSumption" on your part that does not merit an answer.
When did you stop beating your wife, Mark?
You are done posting here because I suspect you are really a D-cup named Michelle.
@Rosebud75093; thanks for the wonderful post. Yes, that is how we get to No Kill. Stop blaming the public and get rid of that defeatist attitude and do whatever it takes to find homes for the adoptable animals.
ReplyDeleteThat includes off-site adoptions, meaning that I wholeheartedly support sales of shelter and rescue animals in pet stores. However, that does not mean that we need to ban the sales of purpose-bred pets! Such policies/laws will have many unintended consequences. The most somber of those would be an increase of importation of pets from other countries. Rosebud, that is already happening on a large scale here in the US! Check our articles under the tag "humane relocation". "It's Raining Dogs, from Other Countries" probably has the most comprehensive information on that subject. Patti Strand has written several articles on this topic, including "Humane or Insane?" and another more recent one, check the website www.naiaonline.org for more info on that.
I'm really impressed by the success of your shelter there in Texas. You must have a wonderful director and staff! Hats off to them!
So "Mark" is actually a D-cup? I wonder what size cup is the guy in the middle of your picture? -Or is that "Mark"?
ReplyDeleteMy question has to do with all those imports. Does anyone for a moment believe they come with papers and a medical history? And if so, are those papers legit? If you or I cross the border with our pet, we MUST have current paperwork. The same requirements should be enforced on all animals being imported. Strays and rescues should not be allowed across the border any more than if I picked up a stray (or an undocumented hitchhiker)on my Mexican vacation and tried to bring it home.
PS, Starbreeze- Texas is the same, if not worse than, any other state. Houston has a simply horrible kill rate and they "rescue" right and left on a whim or anonymous tip. They aren't after humane interests, but publicity -probably due to "Animal Cops TV". It's only thV privately run rescues that are doing anything "good".
ReplyDeleteThere are many shelters across the US that are doing it right; or at least right for the most part. these are the shelters that are low kill or have achieved no kill legitimately. What's the difference between them and the high kill shelters? Regulations and conditions.
ReplyDeleteThese are actual requirements to be able to adopt(buy) a dog from various shelters.
1, you must not have children (age is not specified so if you have adult kids with their own families, no adoption for you)
2, Do you have any unaltered pets? (again, extremely vague. I have a reef aquarium and altering fish is impractical and damned near impossible).
3, you must have a containment area that provides shelter, cool clean water, protection from the elements and must be at least 150 sq feet and 6' high. This applies to any animal you wish to adopt at this shelter, including cats.
4, you cannot own another animal (obviously having prior experience is not recommended)
5, you must agree to unannounced inspections - 4th amendment be damned
6, you must undergo a financial check and background check - are you F&%KING kidding me?
7, You must provide the name, address and phone number of your vet (ok, so this is your first pet and you just happened to get a vet before even considering owning a pet)
8, Animals cannot be adopted out to the following:
Same sex families
families with elderly
families with children
couples undergoing divorce
families undergoing bancruptcy
anyone under the age of 21
any single person
anyone who has had a medical history consisting of heart conditions, stroke, diabetes, alcohol or drug abuse
anyone who has been charged (not convicted) of violent crimes, abuse, alcohol or drug charges.
any member of the military
any person in college
Families living in HOAs
Non-residents of the township, county or City
Given the restrictions, who CAN adopt?
Please keep in mind that these shelters also charge excessive amounts for their adoptions ( I've seen upwards of $200) and Prices are higher for cute cuddly pets, puppies and kittens.
Anonymous, you hit it right on the head. They cannot be placed unless the home is perfect, and unless the owner is perfect. Unfortunately, there aren't any perfect homes, nor perfect people. Therefore, it's much kinder to kill the animal than to allow it to "live" in an "imperfect" home, regardless of how "good" or "loving" that home might be. I've had to educate our Dane rescue that Danes can make perfect apartment dogs, especially older Danes. We do require a letter from the management permitting that large a dog, but we have very successfully placed them in apartment environments. And a fenced yard is not a necessity, IF we can be assured that the dog will be walked sufficiently, again, especially if it is an older Dane. They used to not place Danes with families with children under six or seven. What they learned to do, was to observe the entire family at the mobile adoption site, and then to observe the entire family at home during the home visit...and if the children were well-behaved, and the parents kept a good handle on the kids at home, if the kids treated each other well...well, chances are, that's a good home for a dog as well. Parents in control, children with respect for their parents and other siblings, is a reasonable expectation that a dog would do well there. One can begin the adoption process from a list of "rules". Yes, they make a good "guidleline" from which to start...but, it is a guideline ONLY!!! A 73 year old man in Florida, who had adopted rescues from the shelter his ENTIRE life, and who had dogs that lived to ripe old ages, was denied a dog after his last Jack Russell (shelter dog) passed away. The shelter would not allow him to adopt, because he was TOO OLD!!! He was in good health, in great physical condition for his age, but he was 73. THAT was the reason he couldn't adopt. And a dog that could have had a wonderful home, most likely met a needle (or gas chamber). For NO good reason. We have lost our minds...
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, anonymous...I was also going to mention that your "list" sounded vaguely familiar to me, and I couldn't quite place where I knew it from, as our shelter here basically takes your address, your license number, and as long as you are not on their "Do not adopt to" list...you have a new pet. BUT...the infamous Dallas Animal Services basically has all the requirements and restrictions that you listed, as part of their six page "volunteer" application. In addition, they ask that you list every pet you have ever owned, where it was obtained, how long it lived, how it died, if you ever had one euthanized, if you ever placed one you couldn't keep...so between the list you provided and having to provide an autobiography for every pet you had ever owned, they were amazed when they didn't receive many volunteers. I'm not sure whether Dallas requires a non-disclosure agreement, but there was a fair amount of backlash against the employee who blew the whistle on the "cat in the wall" incident.
ReplyDeleteRosebud,
ReplyDeleteI'm quite familar with the DAS incident at the Westmoreland Facility and probably talked with you dozens of times on TX pet law. I'm one of the few Rescuers on the list. I even had Lunch with Bolivia and survived it. Ask her about the Redhead with the ponytail.
Coincidentally, KCDogBlog today had a post on the topic of policy barriers to adoption. He also mentioned the policies of requiring a fenced yard, or denying adoption to a dog as a outdoors farm dog, or denying adoption at a holiday time, or to those living in apartments, or to those who have an intact animal. Never mind the fact that they are placing a neutered animal who could not breed with said intact one!! Nutso!
ReplyDeleteAnd there is a wonderful essay by Nathan Winograd called "Good Homes Need Not Apply" that delineates this problem. Such strict policies only result in more killing.