Rescue and Shelter Abuse

What is "rescue", exactly? My online dictionary tells me it is defined as:

:  to free from confinement, danger, or evil :  save, deliver: as

a :  to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
b :  to recover (as a prize) by force
c :  to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force

I'd have to agree that most pet "rescues" involve taking forcibly or recovering a prize through use of force. And if the "prize" happens to be a desirable small breed dog, so much the better for the rescue raiders! Their prisoner is then offered up for sale in a rescue retail store.

However, I'm betting most pet "rescues" view themselves as freedom fighters; nabbing animals from their horrible confinement.  By Jove! They derive a great sense of satisfaction and self-worth from this altruistic activity.

Sometimes this feel-good feeling is justified. When we rescue a pet from a shelter, we are saving it from certain death. But what about other situations?

What about "Rescuing" animals from their owners? Who decides what constitutes a dangerous situation for the animals? Could it be possible that this is not always the humane course of action? And if there is abuse and/or neglect involved, why isn't the first thought to provide assistance to the person involved? Many times animals are rescued from genuinely bad conditions, while the humans (usually elderly or poor, or both) are left behind, broken and forgotten. How "humane" is that, really?

There are actually many "rescue" situations which fall under definitions "a" and "b".  The elderly are often preyed upon by rescuers. The elderly don't often have the resources or the energy to fight for their ownership rights.

Take, for example, a situation in this week's news. A "rescue" deceptively confiscated an elderly couple's pet Chihuahua. The couple believed they were sending their pet off to training school. Instead, their dog was taken from them to be offered as product on the shelf of the rescue retail store.

This news team gets it, and the newscaster tells it like it is. "They intend to sell him for profit" she stated in the news report.

Here's the link to the news program. Check the lovely house the director of the "rescue charity" lives in. It pays to rescue! And they are not above taking advantage of the elderly in order to profit.

http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/animal-charity-accused-taking-dog-19150.shtml?wap=0

And sometimes, the very groups that supposedly "shelter" and "rescue" are the very places that animals need to be rescued FROM.

Even as dogs in some areas are being taken from their rightful owners by animal rescuers who believe that double-coated dogs can't be kept safely outdoors in the winter weather, a shelter in Oklahoma left their door wide open and allowed their charges to freeze to death in the concrete-floored cages.

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Healdton-animal-shelter-closed-242584451.html?llsms=675591&c=y

Where is the public outrage? If this were a private party they would have already gathered up the pitchforks and torches for a fine lynching. But because it's an altruistic "shelter' there's barely a ripple in the news about it.

Shelters and rescues need to be held to the same standards as any other pet store, seller, breeder or broker. Heck, they need to be held to the same COMMANDMENTS as the rest of us.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!

Instead, the current trend is to give these unregulated rescues and shelters preference in the marketplace.

While breeders and pet stores typically must be transparent in their dealings and provide health guarantees on the animals they sell, shelters and rescues can literally lie, cheat, steal and abuse with impunity. They have no ethical standards. They have no regulation. They provide no health guarantees and rarely any history on the animals they sell.

And for all these abuses, what is the penalty? Why, no penalty at all! They are even being rewarded  with a market monopoly in some areas.

Puppies Are Products

Puppies are products. They are a commodity that the animal shelter pet stores should relocate according to supply and demand. At least, that's the opinion of an ASPCA senior director, who was quoted in a news article yesterday about the reasons that dogs and puppies are shuffled from shelter to shelter. She said:

"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"


So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.

However, we should all be outraged.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.

Yes, Puppies ARE  Products.....

There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.

The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!

But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.

So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders."  You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!

Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.

Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.

You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.

It doesn't get any sweeter than that.

ASPCA: Puppies Are Widgets in our Stores

The rescue relocation shuffle among animal shelters, the new pet stores, is being justified by this statement from an ASPCA senior director:

"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"

Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.

www.adn.com/2014/01/22/3285442/map-pinpoints-shelters-with-too.html#storylink=cpy

DON'T Spay or Neuter Your Pets!

We shouldn't be listening to the Bob Barkers of the world.

Two significant new studies were released in 2013 on the adverse health effects of spay-neuter. This adds to a large body of previous information.

A study on Golden Retrievers done by UC Davis revealed some SHOCKING facts about what we are doing to our canine companions when we neuter them.

"The study examined hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumor...... The disease rates for ALL FIVE diseases were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females."

"In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with that of earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The UC-Davis study, however, is the first to specifically report an increased risk of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma with late neutering."

"Furthermore, the new study showed a 100 percent increase in the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males."

Read all about it in the AVMA Journal:

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx

The study report:
 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937


Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breeds in the US, and the vast majority are going to end up as sterilized pets.

Why are we as a society setting up our dogs for pain and early death? Are YOU inflicting pain and suffering on your dog by spaying or neutering, just so you can feel morally superior and politically correct?



Now here's the other major study, just released. It's a retrospective done on literally THOUSANDS of Vizslas.

The study showed that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."

Female Vizslas spayed (regardless of age) had "significantly increased odds of developing hemangiosarcoma, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs" as did males spayed AFTER the age of 1 year.

The study concluded that spay/neuter when done prior to six months old "significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder."

"The younger the age at gonadectomy, the earlier the mean age at diagnosis of mast cell cancer, cancers other than mast cell, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, all cancers combined, a behavioral disorder, or fear of storms."

Translation: The sooner the neuter is done, the sooner your dog will likely develop a health or behavioral problem.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309

Of course, for followers of this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. We've posted many previous studies that come to the same conclusion. For more information , do a search on the blog for the label "spay/neuter" or "rethinking spay and neuter".

Don't pretend you're spaying and neutering to keep your dog healthy....because, in most situations, you're NOT.

Vizslas Roscoe and Daisy, from Wikimedia commons.
 Poor Roscoe is only nine months old and missing a very important part of his anatomy, wouldn't you say?

That'll Never Happen!

What do veganism, the movie "Blackfish" and the proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses all have in common?

They are all results of the extremist animal rights agenda to eliminate animals from our lives.

The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes these statements of policy:

• We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
• We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
• We call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture.
• We believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes.
• Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.

People scoffed at groups like PETA. "Those crazy ideas will NEVER take hold!" they said.

But here we are, nearly 30 years later.  And we can see that the campaign for animal rights has had a definite influence on society. Inch by inch, bit by bit, these animal rights concepts are taking root in the public psyche.

Veganism is promoted in our schools and in many commercial food enterprises.

Laws restricting breeding of pets are being seen in many areas.

Pet stores are being attacked for selling pets, and laws are being passed to prohibit them from doing so.

Humaniacs are infiltrating agriculture with moles and fabricating videos that supposedly demonstrate "abuse".

In California, the name of the Department of Fish and Game was recently changed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A subtle but disturbing shift. The term "wildlife" is not necessarily synonymous with "game".

Animals have lived outdoors in a wide range of temperatures since time immemorial, but suddenly the government is confiscating dogs that are kept outdoors. "Too cold", they claim.
 
Demonstrators attacked the Sea World float at this year's Rose Parade in Pasadena, and masses of ordinary people who saw the movie "Blackfish" are now proclaiming "I'll never go to Sea World again!"

The film "Blackfish", filled with misrepresentations and lies, was produced by anti-captivity animal rights activists with an agenda. The lies are being slowly revealed, but the damage to the reputation of marine parks has already been done. It's a little too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube now. Animal activists know that getting in the first strike is imperative to shock and sway the attitude of the public.

Horses have been bred for centuries to pull carriages, but according to animal rights extremists, this is now an abusive form of "slavery".

The comparison of animals to human "slaves" or animals to human victims of genocide should be deeply offensive to people everywhere.

New York City's new mayor DeBlasio has vowed to put an end to the horse carriage industry in that city. He is not only pandering to animal rights groups; he has an ulterior motive for banning horse-drawn carriages. The pricey real estate currently occupied by the stables has been promised to a campaign contributor. 

The mayor has hidden his agenda to pad his own wallet behind wild-eyed humaniac crusaders who want to "free the horses". Freed, to join the masses of other horses who are slaughtered because of lack of resources to feed and house them. A horse without a paying job is a dead horse.

The campaign against animal agriculture could not be more clearly delineated. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”

And thanks to this "work", humane and ethical measures designed to keep animals safe, such as cages for chickens or prods to keep cattle on their feet, are now viewed as "cruelty".

Our largely urban society does not have any realistic understanding of agricultural animal management. Few people nowadays live on farms, and those who never gave a second thought to where their dinner came from see a video with trumped-up incidents of farm animal cruelty, and suddenly they embrace veganism with a born-again religious fervor.

The end justifies the means, to radical activists. Lies about supposed animal cruelty and abuse justify the goal of getting people to reject the very basic and natural human-animal relationships. Once the humaniacs gain public acceptance of their claims of exploitation and abuse, it is easier to push through more and more laws that restrict animal ownership.

Step by step, eliminating the human-animal connection. That's the goal of groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA, and that goal is  gradually becoming reality.

Government-forced neuter kills dog

Not that this is a unique situation; I've known of other small dogs who died from procedures like dental cleaning and yes, sterilization surgery. This came from the Encino-Chatsworth Patch comments section on an article on top ten popular dogs. Of course, we have to have an ignoramus come along and immdiately rub salt in the wound, wondering aloud how she can possibly believe his story.

....

·        Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:06pm

I had four healthy, loveable, playful "chihuahuas. The most cruel thing is when I complied with a law that the county of Los Angeles passed, that said I had to have my little dog friends spaded and nuttered if I wanted to have them or they would fine me and take them away from me. So I complied wth the new law. Three days after I HAD THEM MUTILATED one of them died (he was only three years old), another one became a hatefull little recluse, if you tried to pet her, she would try to bite you and run off and hide. All she wanted to do, is sleep and eat everything she could get her mouth on. Other two two dogs became sickly, they wouldn't play any more and came doun with a breathing problem. I will take care of my little friends until they die and then no more dogs for me. I am 90 years old and find it to up setting to loose a little friend like this. I have had pets all my life and allways took care of them. A lot of people say "so what" they are only a dog, just go get another one at the dog pound. To me they are family.

o    

o   Report abuse

o   87

·        Mahkidzrpupz

To Ed Ferrett

05/20/2013 03:33pm

I am terribly sorry that this happened to you. I am a strong spay/neuter advocate; all the pets I have ever owned including the two my husband and I have now have been spayed. I've never, ever had any who experienced any terrible side effects such as you are describing. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I've just never heard of such a thing! It makes me wonder about the vet/clinic who performed the surgeries, or if your dogs suffered some other trauma besides the surgeries. At any rate, as I said, it makes me very sad that you had to go through such an awful thing. I know it's true that there are some people who may say "it's just a dog" but I think I can safely say that anyone posting here wouldn't feel that way at all. It brings me to tears even to THINK of losing one of our girls! In my opinion, a person who cannot appreciate the unconditional love that a pet offers and who looks on dogs - or any animal - with callous disregard is seriously lacking something personality-wise and isn't a person I would want to have anything to do with. Again, my sincere sympathy - never mind what uncaring people might say - there are plenty of us who completely understand what it means to consider pets a part of the family.