Responsible You

I cringe every time AKC sends out a notice about "responsible dog owners" and encourages us to have a day to celebrate them.

Why do we celebrate "Mother's Day" and not "Loving Mother's Day"?

Because there is a presumption of mother=love and nurture. Not always the case, I realize, but surely it is true most of the time.

Why do we have "President's Day" and not "Ethical President's Day"?

Again, there is a a presumption of ethics and honor among those who hold the highest office in our land. Not all of them, most likely, but the overwhelming majority have been ethical, honorable men.

Why do we have "Parents' Night" at school, instead of "Dependable Parents' Night"? After all, those who don't show up must surely be unreliable and uncaring! Why not infer that in the title of the event?

It's all in the nuance of the language we use, folks. Just including a feel-good adjective like "responsible" in the phrase "responsible dog owners" infers that there is a reciprocal and significantly large segment of irresponsible dog owners out there. And of course, we need more rules and regulations to deal with them! Just ask the animal rights groups, the humane societies and the "rescuers".

That's the short lesson for today. It seems so obvious and simple, yet very few people seem to have a grasp on life's self-evident truths.

So sorry, it was an "anesthesia reaction"

Either we dog breeders are turning out a bunch of severely defective dogs or our veterinarians are lying to us.

Can't count the number of times over the past few years that I have heard these stories:

Dog died getting teeth cleaned - anesthesia reaction

Dog died during spay/neuter surgery - anesthesia reaction

We are talking YOUNG dogs here, not old dogs with failing organs. Young dogs who were perfectly healthy prior to undergoing their procedures.

And if your vet says, it was an "anesthesia reaction" what are you to say? You weren't there, so you don't know what happened. You don't know if the dog was overdosed, or the tube came out before he was awake, or if it was really an "anesthesia reaction"; if your dog had some profound reaction to the anesthesia itself that killed him.

Would we accept our doctor's statement that our spouse/child/parent died during surgery due to an "anesthesia reaction"? You can bet the answer would be NO. There would be an investigation, and the parties involved would have to testify as to exactly what happened. Medical malpractice is the scenario, and thankfully is relatively uncommon. The threat of litigation keeps your doctor on his best behavior. He utilizes clinincal monitors and exercises his best judgement at all times. Anything less would be professional suicide.

But understandably, there is not the same standard of care for animals including our dogs. When the vet blames an "anesthesia reaction" you can suspect that possibly he didn't want to have to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't monitor him closely enough" or "Gosh darn it, I nicked an artery."

I hope to hear from some veterinarians on this, because I would love to be wrong on this. Are there many dogs who are so susceptible to anesthesia that it kills them outright, even while you have them intubated and on life support?

From Ron Hines, DVM: "We veterinarians are fortunate in that older, less predictable, anethesthetics have been replaced by compounds that are very predictable and safe when properly used."

http://www.2ndchance.info/anesthesia.htm

ASPCA - they're at it again

Hey, I was just sitting here, minding my own business, happily playing on Facebook, with Fox Business News on in the background, when WHAM! Suddenly I was subjected to a very disturbing interview. Some woman from the ASPCA was lecturing Lou Dobbs about pet store puppies.

You know, they are all from "puppy mills", they are selling sick dogs; rescued dogs are the way to go; 7 million dogs enter shelters each year and half are killed; and in surveys, 9 out of 10 dog owners prefers their "rescued" pet to a pet store pet. (A little bit of journalistic sarcasm there with the 9 out of 10 thing, but she did essentially state this, claiming this to be the result of some satisfaction survey)

Mind you, this is the ASPCA talking here. They just recently paid out a whopping $9.3 million settlement to Feld Entertainment (Ringling Bros Circus) when charged under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Seems they were involved in manufacturing evidence of animal abuse. Is it any surprise that their representative would LIE on national television?

So naturally, I had to pipe up and write to Lou Dobbs. Do you know that the ASPCA is not trustworty? Using pejorative slurs when referring to breeders is offensive and just plain wrong. Do you know that "rescues" are importing hundred of thousands of dogs annually? Do you know that consumer protection "puppy lemon laws" do not apply to shelter and rescue pets? And, let me fill you in on something; there were 2.3 million animals killed in shelters..that's dogs and cats combined, roughly about a 50-50 mix. NOT half of 7 million, or 3.5 million DOGS ALONE, which she impled was the case. Perhaps a million adoptable dogs killed because shelters don't make the earnest effort to find them homes...of which there are over 20 million opening up for pets each and every year.

There is also evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinarian care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."

After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.

In other words....pet store puppies are healthier than puppies from other sources.

I'll let you know if I get any feedback (not likely). Methinks Lou Dobbs has been hoodwinked. He took the lazy way out and let his "expert" do his research for him. Big mistake, but par for the course on television news lately.

Whatever happened to REAL investigative journalism, anyway?

Swap Meet Sales Targeted by Animal Rights Fanatics

I received the below message in my email inbox today. Here we have the quintessential example of the deception foisted upon society by animal rights fanatics. The message features pictures of puppies and kittens while imploring us to help stop sales of animals at swap meets.

 

Problem is, dogs and cats aren't generally sold at swap meets. What we would normally find sold at swap meets, auctions, fairs etc are various birds like parakeets, canaries and finches, along with assorted farm animals such as chickens, ducks, sheep, goats and so on. No puppies. No kittens.

 

But truth means nothing to these animal rights nuts. And even while we have come to expect them to routinely lie through their teeth about animal issues, still they needs to be taken to task occasionally.

 

What in the world is inherently "wrong" with offering animals for sale in a public place? This practice has existed since the dawn of human history, but now is suddenly taboo in the minds of a population that is increasingly urban and severed from agrarian roots. The very act of selling an animal is "abuse"? Absurd! And even one were to offer dogs and cats for sale in public, so what? There is nothing cruel about selling dogs and cats.

 

There is another arena targeted by AR groups as inherently "abusive" even when no blatant abuse is evident....the sales of animals in pet stores. Elizabeth Oreck of "Best Friends" is at all the hearings in southern California lobbying to prohibit sales of animals in pet shops. Instead of having purposely-bred dogs and cats available to consumers, she would like us to instead have only "rescued" animals available.

 

Because, you see, animals can be offered as impulse purchases in a pet store as long as they are from unscrupulous origins, with questionable genetic backgrounds and sketchy health histories. If originating from a known entity and  having received veterinary care since birth, the animals obviously would not be suitable for pets and should therefore be forbidden by law. Makes perfect sense.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding homes for animals that need them, but "rescue" is an industry that is completely unregulated. Dogs are imported from other areas, other states and even other countries to provide inventory for many shelters and rescues. (Check our post "It's Raining Dogs From Other Countries" for the proof of that statement.) With nationwide shelter intakes and death rates at the lowest point ever, we no longer can legitimately claim that "overpopulation" and "abandonment" are the pressing issues that they once were. Our nation is on the right track, and we need not fall for the animal rights propaganda to further their agenda of a future devoid of domestic animals.

 

The message below is a typical AR manipulative tool, rife with hypotheses contrary to fact and the overall "red herring" deception of conflating pets with livestock in the mind of the public. How much longer are we going to let them get away with their lies and deception? Enough already!

 

I believe the free market works, and it will work naturally to regulate the pets available for sale. Sick and overpriced pets don't sell very well (unless of course they are sold by "rescues" and shelters.) Allow consumers freedom of choice in the market and let the chips fall where they may.

 

These AR groups are allowed to blatantly LIE in their advertising and their lobbying. No other group of sales people could get away with such unethical behavior. Where is the California Attorney General?

 

 

 

 

 

CA: Let's Put an End to Swap Meet Animal Sales     Dear Friends,   Existing law in California prohibits the sale of animals in most unregulated public venues, such as parking lots, alleys and highways. However, the law does not include swap meets and flea markets, which has created a major loophole for irresponsible and unscrupulous breeders to sell their animals virtually under the radar. These sales contribute to unhealthy animals and breeding practices, overpopulation and animal abandonment.   Fortunately, Assembly Bill 339 has been introduced to close that loophole by prohibiting the sale of animals at swap meets and flea markets. This bill is designed to protect purchasers who may unknowingly buy an animal that is unhealthy or too young, or from a pet mill or backyard breeder who doesn't provide safe and humane conditions for the animals bred and sold.   Your representatives need to hear that you care about the way animals are treated and that you support this important bill to protect pets and consumers. Please urge your representatives to support Assembly Bill 339.     Click here to take action now.   Thank you for all you do for animals.     Warmest regards,   Elizabeth Oreck National Manager, puppy mill initiatives puppymills.bestfriends.org

 

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.