Own a pretty rooster, go to jail

Do you really need to hold cockfights to be considered a felon? Apparently not. Merely breeding or owning pretty roosters will suffice. Witness this curiously nonspecific article trumpeting the takedown of a chicken breeding operation:

Montebello Cockfighting Raid

Now, whether these chickens were bred or used for fighting isn't the real issue. It's that no actual crimes were witnessed -- and since the "evidence of cockfighting" is unspecified, we don't really know what was found. But think on this:

Chickens that are not cage-confined FIGHT. It's just the nature of the species. Both hens and roosters will fight, often to the death, whether encouraged to do so or not. Even "placid" breeds will occasionally fight.

Now, consider a flock of free-range chickens intended for egg production. Chickens being chickens, there will occasionally be bloody fights, among both individuals and sometimes as "gang warfare" among rival social units. (And no way to predict when this will happen. The only way to prevent it is by individually caging each chicken.)

Now, imagine if an HSUS representative were to witness and document those chickens fighting, as chickens will do when let "act naturally". Under a hostile reading of the law, could an egg producer then expect to get raided for "cockfighting"??

Words of Wisdom

Hellmuth Wachtel, PhD, was born in 1925. He studied agriculture at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna with emphasis on animal breeding and genetics. For over forty years, he kept dogs and was a particularly involved in Agility. He is committed, above all, to the dissemination of knowledge about genetic health maintenance and improvement of the dogs and their breed populations.


He has worked for the past 25 years as as free consultant of the Austrian Kennel Club (ÖKV), is a regular contributor to "Our Dogs" magazine, and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board Vienna Schönbrunn Zoo, and is a writer of articles and books on canine issues particularly regarding dog breeding. Here are Hellmuth's words of wisdom on June 28,2010 (posted here with his permission).

"There are good breeders and there are bad breeders. But whatever

they do, it won't change the system. And the system is wrong.

It was made when population genetics was unknown.

So today not the least inbred dogs, not the best performing dogs,

not the healthiest ones are highly rewarded, but the "best quality" dogs,

i.e. the best conforming (or overconforming) to the standard.

In some breeds these cannot breathe, run, let alone work.

Many have a short livespan. Many can not normally

whelp or even mate. This is what happens if appearance

is the Number 1 for success. Even if many try to do their best

for the dogs, this does not change a bad obsolete system."



Hellmuth Wachtel

"Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws"

Seven False Premises of Mandatory Spay-Neuter Laws

Testimony of Dr. John Hamil regarding AB 1634. The phrase "mandatory sterilization" is substituted for "AB 1634" in some sentences. The rest of the text is unaltered.

Twenty five years of experience in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia leads me to request that you reject this ill-conceived bill which can not solve these problems and, more likely, will worsen them.

Mandatory sterilization is based on seven false premises:

1. That current policies and programs are not working.

The numbers of dogs entering and being euthanized in California shelters has dramatically decreased over the last 30 years in the face continued population growth. Unfortunately, the number of cats impounded and euthanized has not decreased significantly in the last 10 years. We have two entirely different dynamics which require very different approaches if we are to be successful. Mandatory sterilization does nothing to reduce the numbers of cats in shelters.

2. That the numbers of animals impounded and euthanized is due to a “Pet Overpopulation Problem.”

The study done by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy found that the top five reasons for animal relinquishment were moving, landlord issues, cost, lack of time for pet and inadequate facilities. None of these factors are influenced by the purported “overpopulation” of pets mandated sterilization does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. If the animals in the shelter were due to “overpopulation;” we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well-bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California.

3. That being sexually intact equates to being bred.


We know that for personal reasons many owners choose not to surgically alter their pets and they are never bred. It is improper that the government impose its will on these responsible citizens in the absence of any public benefit.

4. That neutered animals are healthier physically and behaviorally.


Recently published data indicates that for a significant percentage of dogs this is not the case.

5. That mandatory spay/neuter will significantly reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia and that Santa Cruz is an example of its success.

MSN is a documented failure. Analysis of the Santa Cruz data and the rejection of this policy by its originator; the Peninsula Humane Society, the No Kill Community, Best Friends Sanctuary, and many other groups refutes this assumption.

6. That mandatory spay/neuter will greatly reduce the Animal Control costs.

Analysis of animal control data indicates that most costs are the fixed costs of facilities; administration, equipment, staff and retirement benefits. The continuous rise in California animal control costs in the face of decreasing numbers of animals impounded refutes this assumption.

7. That the law will not involve veterinarians in enforcement.

The requirement for veterinarians to write letters of exemption and to turn in rabies certificates indicating the reproductive status of the animal to animal control identifies the owners of intact animals. The public will correctly view veterinarians as enforcers.

SPECIFIC VETERINARY CONCERNS


• This law would intrude into the Doctor/Client/Patient relationship. This is an invasive procedure accomplished under general anesthesia with significant risk to the patient and there are significant physical and behavioral consequences for some animals. For these reasons this decision should not be mandated by the state but, rather, be made by the owner after discussion with their family veterinarian.


• In many jurisdictions with mandatory spay/neuter owners have tried to drop out of the system by not licensing their animals. Many owners know that veterinarians are required to turn in copies of rabies certificates and may decide to forego needed rabies boosters, thereby creating an increased public health risk.


• The contentiousness of this bill has driven apart the groups that contribute to and desire to solve this dilemma. If we are to be successful in solving this problem, we need to bring these groups together in developing innovative programs in the future.


If passed, this law will be unfair to the economically disadvantaged. They are the least likely to neuter their pets, see animal control as a threat, and have limited access to low cost clinics. We need to find ways to help this group enjoy the benefits of pet ownership.


If passed, communities in California will no longer have access to Maddie’s Funds. It is their policy to not provide funding for mandatory governmental programs. “Maddie’s Fund is committed to volunteerism” and is intended to foster innovative collaborative programs like the CVMA Feral Cat Sterilization Program that resulted in the sterilization of almost 200,000 cats over a 3 year period. To date, Maddie’s Fund has provided over 19 million dollars to communities in California.

If passed, this bill will eliminate many local sources of healthy, well-bred and socialized pets. Because it will not decrease the demand for puppies and kittens, the bill leaves the people of California vulnerable to puppymills, unregulated internet sales, sellers of smuggled animals and unscrupulous brokers of animals from out of the US. These poor quality pets will be a burden and an expense and many will end up in our shelters.


Finally, it is my belief that locally developed, voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always out perform punitive, coercive ones.

Thank you for your kind attention. As a veterinarian, past president of the CVMA and an animal advocate I ask you to vote AGAINST this bill.

(Adapted from Dr. Hamil's testimony at CA AB 1634 hearing)

Kids do the Darndest Things!

Do childhood animal abusers move on to abuse fellow humans later in life? Walt Hutchens provides a GREAT answer to that question. Take it away, Walt!

Are you going to argue the point that alot of people who in childhood hurt/maim/kill animals *alot of times*, (not all the time so don't misquote me) move on to fellow human beings later in life ?


Yes, I'll argue exactly that.

Children grow up more or less experimentally. They DO things, many of them bad things. Parents correct them, they also set the example and talk about principles and philosophy. The great majority of kids grow up just fine, looking back (when they remember the things they did while young) with a combination of shame and amazement: They would NEVER do those things as adults.

Show me an adult who never did anything bad enough to be charged as cruelty to another child or to an animal, I'll show you a person with a memory disorder, an old person (youthful memories do fade) or a liar.

Read up on pretty much any infamous psycho in history and you will read the animal connection.

Sure. Read up on George Washington and you'll read the cherry tree connection, too. For ANY sort of adult you can find a youthful antecedent -- most of them more truthful than the Geo. Wash. story.


Does that mean that every kid (or even most kids) who do such things  grow up to be that kind of adult?

Of course not. All kids play some baseball; very few wind up in league play as adults -- or even want to. All of us kick our sisters but parents usually fix that real fast and very few abuse our wives. So too with animal abuse: I'd bet that most boys (and at least a few

girls) who are around animals while young do some abusive things, but the fraction who grow up to do similar things as adults is tiny. This 'connection' is basically a AR phantasy, intended to give credibility to their calls for ever more severe punishment for animal offenses because "You're just punishing a future wife beater, serial killer, or child abuser in advance. Isn't that a good idea?"

You can look for the studies proving what the ARs claim but you will look in vain: There are NO studies showing that most children who ever abuse animals grow up to be violent or abusive adults. And the studies of serial killers who abused animals as children are about as meaningful as showing that most American adults with flat feet wore shoes when they were kids.

It could be otherwise for a child with a pattern of real abuse
extending over at least a few years. That's a seriously disturbed child and he does not have a good future as an adult. But assuming that every case of abuse proves such a pattern is ridiculous and would do far more harm than good. We are all familiar with children arrested for giving another kid an aspirin or accidentally bringing a pocket knife to school: is any such overreaction likely to be good for the child?

A second problem with the AR-claimed connection between youthful abuse of animals and adult violence is the broad (nearly unlimited) definition of 'abuse' they've popularized. Failure to give food or water, or clean an enclosure on the schedule required by law is now often a criminal charge that will be cited thereafter as 'abuse' or 'cruelty.' No violence was involved, in many cases no animal was hurt, the charges may have been entirely fabricated, and when something bad did happen, it may all have been an accident, but nevermind, you are now a convicted animal abuser.

Did the case of Mary Wild (several dogs in her care died of heat stroke) make her likely to become a violent criminal? Or is she more likely someone who was very seriously negligent, possibly even someone who has learned a valuable lesson at a very high price? How 'bout Richmond SPCA Director Robin Starr, whose dog accidentally died of heat stroke in her car due to miscommunication with her husband? About to grab an AK-47 and spray a crowd or just human and thus subject to an occasional mistake, sometimes serious, like the rest of us?


All of this stuff is utter rubbish.

Walt Hutchens


Timbreblue Whippets

Any puppies?

Email received today: "Hi, I am interested in a puppy. Are you expecting any soon? Please call me."

My response:
Hi, didn't get your name.....Sorry but at this point with all the anti-dog legislation being proposed and enacted in our state....mandatory sterilization, limit laws, excessive fees for intact dogs and oppressive regulation regarding breeding, outrageous fees for a litter permit....I have no future plans to breed! I just have one female left, and if/when I breed her it will be to continue my line; I'd be keeping any pup for myself.

In addition to all the above, if I were to sell two puppies in a year, I would have to register with the state for a sellers permit and collect sales taxes. Basically, anyone who breeds dogs as a modest hobby has now been made into an outlaw.

Sellers must provide Buyers personal information to the state. Puppies must be neutered by four months old....horrible for their long-term health! They must be microchipped....whether you like it or not. If there is any sort of health problem that your local AR vet can blame on "genetics" I will have to pay the vet bills. If there is any sort of contagious disease that the dog contracts, well, that's my fault too and I must pay.

And there are plans by our animal control officials to crack down and fine those who don't comply with all the rules, fees, limits and regulations. In addition to fines, the penalties would include taking our dogs away from us. FOREVER. And selling them as "rescues".

I will not risk losing my dogs for a few measly bucks from a puppy sale.

Too much red tape and too expensive, selling puppies is just not worth the hassle. It's hard enough to just feed, house and pay vet bills, health testing is expensive....the occasional C-section can run you into the thousands. If you show your dogs, there's more thousands spent every year. Add the government fees and regulations into the mix, and unless you breed commercially you will be suffering huge financial losses that you can never recoup.


The animal rights activists want to eliminate your choice in obtaining a puppy and force everyone to "rescue" older dogs instead.....they won't be satisfied until the day when there are no more purpose-bred domestic animals. Or just no more domestic animals PERIOD.

Tomorrow the Riverside City Council is voting on mandatory sterilization and pet limits per household. Los Angeles already has such rules on the books. Many other cities and counties in CA as well.

Best regards and good luck in your search. May I suggest you check with our local breed rescue. You can get on a waiting list and pray you measure up to their high and mighty standards.Me, I'll be taking up golf and spending more time in my garden.

Yours truly,
Former Dog Breeder
AKA
Disheartened and Discouraged

Lassie Come Home

LOST/FOUND DOG TIPS


By Bonnie Dalzell, MA Copyrigh 2010

Reprinted with permission of the Author

Contact bdalzell@qis.net
Web pages:
http://www.borzois.com/
http://www.boardingatwedge.com/

June 5, 2010.

I originally put this essay together in 1996. There have been a number of advances in technology since then, but dog still get lost.

From a practical point of view the most useful tech tools that have come along to aid in FINDING your lost dog are the cell phone and, if you can afford it, GPS (Global Positioning System) dog collar tracking devices.

The GPS collar is of use if there is already one on the dog, so as with microchips and tattoos, one needs to plan ahead and have one on the dog.

Since you may be reading this essay because your dog has become lost I will cover strategies for locating a lost dog first. Preventative measures will be later on.

The Chicken Plucker

Hey, isnt this the Chicken Plucker from "SouthPark"? Officer Barbrady is looking for you!! Turn yourself in NOW and nobody gets hurt!!

But you might better recognize him on a terrorist raid, impersonating a police officer:

Rabid Debate

Debate rages on canine mailing lists over new legislation regarding rabies vaccine, and whether vaccination requirements should be mandated, reduced, dropped altogether, and whether, how, or if "exemptions" for immune-compromised pets should be included. They're all missing the real point. As one response to the debate implies, if you put too many strings on rabies vaccination, it stops being about disease control (the real issue) and starts being about social control:

Want to fix that problem? Stop using rabies as a "track you and your pet" thing. Make it a mobile clinic where anyone can show up, ANONYMOUSLY present animals (to any number or description), and have them vaccinated for a buck or two apiece. (Rabies vaccine costs about 60 cents per shot in bulk.) Hand out certificates which only describe the animal, frex "canine, male, black" and maybe a guess at the predominant breed. Print 'em on watermarked paper to prevent casual counterfeiting, so they'll be legal as proof of vaccination in the event that the animal bites someone. There is NO need to include the owner's name (who else would have the certificate??) and if it's cheap and anonymous, there's NO incentive for a black market.

And do NOT use these clinics as sting operations to nail people with too many animals (which I have heard is being done in some areas) NOR those with animals in poor condition (would you prefer they didn't bother vaccinating them at all?? why further disincentivize good husbandry??)

STOP linking rabies vaccination to licensing and/or Mandatory Spay/Neuter, STOP forcing people to hide breeding stock from limit laws and MSN, STOP making it a pricey affair involving a $40 office call to the regular vet, and compliance will skyrocket. People do the cheap, easy, and risk-free. They resist the risky and expensive: I'd guess most of the ravings against vaccine risk have little to do with real risk and a lot to do with the fact that most breeders (who are almost the entirety of said ravings) are hiding over-limit dogs and ducking MSN.

So, all you Departments of Public Health out there -- if your true goal is indeed rabies control, put your policy where your mouth is. Remove rabies vaccination from Animal Control's clutches and put it back where every pet owner can comply -- without putting their pets at a far more immediate risk (of fines, confiscation, or MSN) than rabies could ever be.

Canine Nutritionist writes a letter to Delta

Dear Delta Society,

While checking http://www.google.com to investigate your claims of raw protein causing a significant shed of pathogens in the dog's stool, I found the largest amount of information on an internet search shows that dry dog food is the biggest offender of carrying salmonella contamination:

http://www.webmd.com/news/20080915/salmonella-risk-prompts-pet-food-recall
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/digestive-disorders/articles/2008/11/06/salmonella-outbreak-tied-to-dry-dog-food-continues.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19076207/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356203,00.html
http://pet-nutrition.suite101.com/article.cfm/salmonella_pet_food_recall_expanded
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502363.html
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/117/24691.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dog-food-recalled-for-possible-salmonella-problem
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/05/15/salmonella-outbreak-linked-to-dry-dog-food.html?PageNr=2

One expert thinks contamination of pet food is likely to become more commonplace.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/05/15/salmonella-outbreak-linked-to-dry-dog-food.html?PageNr=1

"There have been problems with pet foods before," said Dr. Pascal James Imperato, chairman of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in New York City. "If the food had any animal product in it, there could have been contamination, or if it was being processed in a plant where they were also processing animal product, then contamination can easily occur," he said. "There is greater industrialization of the production of food products, both for humans and animals, and these are complex processing systems. Therefore, there is greater opportunity for contamination," Imperato said. "We are likely to see many more of these problems."

Secondly, a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. This has been known for some time:
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223

Animal-to-Human -- Salmonella can be acquired directly from pets (e.g. cats and dogs), reptiles, and birds. The feces of pets, especially those with diarrhea, contain Salmonella and humans can become infected if they do not wash their hands after contact with pets or pet feces.15
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223#15

The pets may suffer Salmonellosis as a reverse zoonosis, with infection transmitted from human-to-pet and subsequently back to other humans. Salmonella can also be found in healthy dogs and cats at rates of up to 36 percent and 18 percent, respectively.52
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223#52
http://www.bravorawdiet.com/recallinfo.html#merck

Here's what the Merck Veterinary Manual says about Salmonella in pets:

"Many dogs and cats are asymptomatic carriers of Salmonellae. Clinical disease is uncommon, but when it is seen, it is often associated with hospitalization, another infection or debilitating condition in adults, or exposure to large numbers of the bacteria in puppies and kittens." 2

To translate: Many dogs and cats carry Salmonella in their systems (as evidenced by the presence of Salmonella in their feces), but they rarely become ill. It is just a natural part of what lives in their GI systems. When illness does occur it is usually associated with an already ill animal who is already immune-compromised. Illness may also occur when young animals are exposed to very high numbers of the bacteria. This might happen if a puppy finds and licks the inside of an outdoor garbage can that has never been washed and is teeming with bacteria.

Research indicates that approximately 36 percent of healthy dogs and 17 percent of healthy cats carry Salmonella in their digestive tract.3 The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) agrees with these numbers.4 It is interesting to note that these numbers are based on kibble-fed dogs-which means that Salmonella is a natural part of life for our pets regardless of what they are eating.

The resistance to illness in dogs from Salmonella is apparent in a study of raw-fed dogs in Canada. In that study 16 dogs were deliberately fed commercial raw diets contaminated with Salmonella. None of those 16 dogs became ill. Additionally, only 7 of those 16 dogs shed Salmonella in their feces.5 While it was not further studied, one might speculate that the 9 dogs who ate Salmonella-contaminated food but did not shed it in their feces effectively neutralized the bacteria.

Even the FDA, in the FDA Consumer magazine, acknowledges that healthy pets rarely become ill from Salmonella contamination.6

2. http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfle=htm/bc/20900.htm

3. Hand, M.S., Thatcher, C.D., Remillard, R.L., and Roudebush, P. (2000)

Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. Mark Morris Institute. Pg. 36-42,188.

4. http://www.avma.org/reference/zoonosis/znsalmonellosis.asp

5. Finley, R., et al. (2007) The Risk of Salmonellae Shedding by Dogs Fed

Salmonella-contaminated Commercial Raw Food Diets. Can Vet J. Vol 48 #1. Pg. 69-75.

6. http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/departs/2000/500_upd.html#pigs

It is also interesting to note that humans can transmit salmonella to dogs:
http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/pbs/zoonoses/GIk9fel/salmonella.html

Dogs and cats may suffer salmonellosis as a "reverse zoonosis," with infection transmitted from human-to-dog and subsequently back to other humans. Similarly, outbreaks of Salmonella infections in large animal teaching hospitals have been linked to the introduction of bacteria from infected human personnel, with subsequent spread to animals and then back to other human workers.

In one of the studies quoted on your website as part of your proof, in the first article only ten dogs were used to test for salmonella. The authors themselves state:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

"Although these results are suggestive, they are not statistically significant owing to the small number of dogs studied. Larger numbers of dogs or multiple stool samples from each dog might have allowed the results to reach statistical significance. Unfortunately, the limited funding to this private clinic for this study did not allow for the inclusion of more study animals or multiple cultures from individual subjects."

And, in another study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716752/

Since this study was an experimental trial with laboratory beagles, results may not be completely indicative of what would be experienced with owned dogs of various breeds. Determining that the raw food diet was the main source of salmonellae shedding in owned dogs would be more complicated, as they could be exposed to several other possible sources of salmonellae, including other animals; other food items, including treats; the environment; and their owners.

http://www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt
www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt

And information from your friends in Canada again. This is slide show that has been prepared to show the dangers of raw fed foods for therapy dogs. It was a great job of skewing the results. They show the high incidence of bacteria found in 40 raw fed dogs stools, but somehow tend to downplay the amounts found in dogs fed a dry diet. This study shows:

Raw fed dogs (40)
Dry food fed dogs (156)

0 - for Vanomycin resistant enterococci
1 - for Vanomycin resistant enterococci

1 - for Methicillin resistant S Aureus
8 - for Methicillin resistant S Aureus

5 - for Clostridium difficile
40 -for Clostridium difficile

19 - for Salmonella
12 -for salmonella

31 - for E Coli
32 - for E Coli

While this study may show more Salmonella and E Coli in raw fed dogs, it shows higher results for the bacteria Clostridium, Methicillin resistant S Aureus and has Vanomycin resistant enterococci. And the amount of Salmonella and E Coli, while not as high as raw fed dogs, is significant.

My conclusion is that, in your hurry to label the raw diet as the culprit, and eliminate its use from your volunteers in your program, you are only putting the spotlight on the issue that all dogs can carry pathogens regardless of diet . This could cause all dogs to be banned from use in any health facility. In essence, I see your new rule as 'shooting yourself in the foot'. I feel in your confidence and your bias of proving a raw diet could spread pathogens, you forgot to do a full research on the issue. Salmonella is everywhere, including dry dog food, the soil, pond water and even from humans. Understand you are looking at narrow parameters that need a more careful and extensive study on how pathogens are spread and how to use sensible and effective prevention.

I don't see a problem with allowing dogs into nursing homes, hospitals or hospices, as long as good hygiene is applied. That would include bathing the dogs, insuring therapy dogs are flea and tick free, making sure the dog's are properly exercised (ie pottied) before a visit, and carrying sterilization equipment (bleach, bags and paper towels) in case of an accident. All research points out pathogens are spread by stool or saliva. That would mean not allowing the dogs to lick the clients, making sure the coats and skin are recently bathed and trusting your volunteers. Your volunteers are the backbone of your organization, and they do this loving volunteer work without compensation and give the Delta group thousands of volunteer hours. I hope you take this email in the light it was written, in that sometimes, we need to look at any situation with more study and thought, and understand the healing, joy and encouragement dogs give so many people. Being a patient with serious illness and being away from home often stifles recovery. Pets, as you know, bring hope, happiness and support to begin the process of healing.

I hope you rethink your position on this matter, and continue to allow your therapy dog work to bring joy to both your clients and your volunteers. My interest in researching this and writing to you is in memory to my Ch Blackwood Dante V Lyvngwerth CD and Ch Bourbon's Bravo of Blackwood, two Rottweilers I owned who were the recipients of the American Rottweiler Club TRUE award, for their many hours of therapy work. And yes, they both were fed a raw diet. They both worked in the intensive care units of hospitals in Tyler, Texas, for many years.

Lew Olson
PhD Natural Health
http://www.b-naturals.com/
Author of, "Raw and Natural Diets for Dogs"

Purina Peddles Influence at Delta Society

Is Delta's recent ban on raw fed dogs a payback for Purina's HUGE donation in 2008? The money was spread over two years, so that dried up this month.

Does Brenda Bax remain seated on the Delta Society Board of Directors as a result of her employer's financial muscle?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Talk about your conflict of interest!! I think we have found it! 

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+news/Purina-giving-400000-to-Delta-Society/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/514828?contextCategoryId=204

http://tinyurl.com/DeltaPurina



Purina giving $400,000 to Delta Society


May 1, 2008


By: DVM Newsmagazine


DVM NEWSMAGAZINE



ST. LOUIS — Purina will dish out more than $400,000 to the Delta Society for its animal-assisted therapy.


Purina's two-year pledge ranks as the largest grant ever received by the Delta Society.


"Through its Pet Partners program, Delta Society shows that dogs and cats are unique creatures that can help benefit the health and well-being of humans," says Brenda Bax, brand director at Nestle Purina PetCare.