I Have a Headache

Today I read a veterinary blog post where the author, a Jennifer Coates, criticizes the Golden Retriever study referenced here earlier this month. Her criticism centers on the claim that the study doesn't talk about the "benefits" of spay and neuter. She states that the study gave her a headache! Gosh darn those scientists, they only give the facts without any animal rights spin. How dare they!!

I'm betting if this study had different results the article author would be singing a different tune. There is a definite bias in the veterinary community toward indiscriminate neutering of pets, emphasizing what they perceive to be "benefits" while totally ignoring any risks....and failing to inform their clients about all the facts.

Let's address the stated "benefits" listed in this article, shall we?

"Getting rid of heat cycles"

This is a valid reason to choose spay for some owners. However, spay for convenience is totally unrelated to health. A common risk of spay is incontinence in up to 30% of cases, due to the effect of the estrogen deficit on the genitourinary system. The decision for spay should be left up to the individual owner to decide. There is also a recent study done on Rottweilers that shows that bitches left intact or spayed after middle age lived about 30% longer, on average, than their spayed counterparts.

"Preventing unwanted litters"

We can also use the tools we have at hand, such as fences, doors and leashes. Very effective. Owners should confine their dogs. If they don't, then the dog has bigger problems than an unwanted litter. Like being hit by a car, or killed by a coyote.

 

"Eliminating the dangers associated with whelping"

There are dangers to everything in life, including the danger of choking to death on kibble. Quite frankly, without whelping, we'd soon run out of dogs. A good vet can greatly reduce the risks associated with whelping...if you can find one. A red herring argument if I've ever heard one.

"Preventing potentially fatal uterine infections (pyometra)"

A large percentage of spay surgeries are associated with complications such as potentially fatal infection or bleeding. Again, it boils down to a matter of risk vs. benefit. Pyometra can be effectively treated if and when it occurs. Pyometra is a risk that varies by breed: some breeds are predisposed to pyometra and the owner can certainly weight the risk of pyometra against the other risks involved with spaying prophylactically if they are fully informed. The risk of developing pyometra is greatest in an intact bitch who has never whelped a litter.

"Eliminating the chance of ovarian or testicular cancer"

Testicular cancer is rare in dogs and seldom a cause of death. When it occurs, surgical removal of the affected testicle is generally curative. According to the National Canine Cancer Foundation, ovarian cancer is almost unheard of in canines.

"Significantly reducing the risk of prostatic hyperplasia and infection."

Yes, neutering is an effective treatment for refractory prostatitis and anal gland infections. However, neutering also dramatically increases the risk of prostate cancer and bladder cancer...conditions that can be fatal. Again, the choice for neutering should remain with the owner who should be informed of risks in addition to potential benefits. If a dog develops a refractory genitourinary infection, he can certainly be neutered at that time, there is no rush to go in and neuter with the idea of preventing an infection.

"Lessening aggression and other unwanted behaviors like mounting, roaming and marking"

Studies to date show that neuter may reduce dog-to-dog aggression; however, it will tend to actually INCREASE dog-to-human aggression. Neutering often results in increased fearfulness. Other unwanted behaviors are not reliably reduced by neutering. Effective training is always the preferred method to handle behavior problems. Neutering should be a last resort if the goal is behavior modification.

Also, this author claims that other countries spay and neuter less because they have more restrictive ownership and breeding laws. Where is the evidence for this totally unsubstantiated and untrue assertion? Only here in the US do we require government permits to breed a litter. Only here in the US is neutering SADLY required by law in some places. Some European countries have restrictions for those who choose to breed within the confines of a kennel club, but by no means are people required to belong to a kennel club or follow their rules in order to breed their dog...in any country, except perhaps in certain areas here in the US.

In fact, in some countries, like Norway, it is legally forbidden to neuter your pet without proof of medical necessity.

This whiney blog post on PetMD is just more of the same propaganda from the animal rightist section of the veterinary community.

A headache that I have been dealing with for many years now.

Think Twice



Avoid Spay/Neuter. His life may depend on it.

According to a piece of email propaganda that I received today from the HSUS, Californians took ample advantage of a feature on the state income tax form to donate to spay/neuter programs in our state. And donate they did, to the tune of approximately $250,000.

Spay/neuter tax fund. Spay/neuter laws. spay/neuter license plates. Spay/neuter advertising. Spay-neuter promotion in veterinary schools.

We are subjected to so much brainwashing, it's no wonder we mutilate our animals unnecessarily more and more every year.

Like dutiful little citizens, we comply in droves with societal pressures to neuter our pets. 4 out of 5 dogs....sterilized. 19 out of 20 cats....sterilized.

Veterinarians surely should rejoice at this trend, as it assures them abundant work. It's the ultimate "job security".

More and more dogs with incontinence, bladder stones, hypothyroidism, hip and knee joint problems, and life-robbing cancers of various types including bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, prostate cancer and bladder cancer.

More dogs sickened with weak immune systems, unable to tolerate simple vaccinations or recover from infectious diseases. More fearfulness, more anxiety and more dog-human aggression.

Naw, let's ignore all these scientifically proven facts and believe the politically correct mantra. SPAY NEUTER. BE RESPONSIBLE. Just ask the paradoxically-named "animal rights" groups like HSUS, PETA and Best Friends.

Spay/Neuter. It's dandy. It's the responsible thing to do. After all, if we told you the truth, you'd never voluntarily choose such a course of action.

So, the lies trip off our tongues so often that you believe them. After all, everyone says spay/neuter is beneficial, so it must be.

Ignore those pesky studies that show how much longer intact animals live. That show how much healthier they are.

Now I expect to hear from the normal pack of animal-rightist people who will recount how their neutered pet lived a long and healthy life. Who believe that everyone's pets should ALL be sterilized.

Rational people will draw the obvious conclusion; that pets will go extinct and/or suffer immensely from dangerously narrowed gene pools produced as a result of mass sterilization. But, your veganized, vitamin-deprived pea-brain just doesn't "get it" because you are incapable of independent thought and reason. 

Besides, your individual, anecdotal experience in meaningless. The STUDIES that compare vast groups of animals in a scientific manner are what provide us with useful information.

Those studies show that dogs are healthier and live longer when they remain intact. They have all their organs for very specific reasons, and those reasons extend beyond simple reproduction.

In my humble opinion, it is criminal to do something to your dog that will likely result in painful problems like arthritis and cancer. Don't our companions deserve to live their optimal lifespans, without our inflicting pain and early death upon them? After all, companions, we want them around us as long as possible.

Look it up. Study. Read. Make your own decisions.

Don't let AR nuts with their misanthropist, nihilist world views dictate our policies and our societal norms.

If you love animals, think twice.  

New Study: Neutering Affects Dog Health

"The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were
significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early
or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs."

University of California, Davis


February 13, 2013



GOLDEN RETRIEVER STUDY SUGGESTS NEUTERING AFFECTS DOG HEALTH



Neutering, and the age at which a dog is neutered, may affect the animal's risk

for developing certain cancers and joint diseases, according to a new study of

golden retrievers by a team of researchers at the University of California,

Davis.



The study, which examined the health records of 759 golden retrievers, found a

surprising doubling of hip dysplasia among male dogs neutered before one year of

age. This and other results will be published today (Feb. 13) in the online

scientific journal PLOS ONE at http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937



"The study results indicate that dog owners and service-dog trainers should

carefully consider when to have their male or female dogs neutered," said lead

investigator Benjamin Hart, a distinguished professor emeritus in the UC Davis

School of Veterinary Medicine.



"It is important to remember, however, that because different dog breeds have

different vulnerabilities to various diseases, the effects of early and late

neutering also may vary from breed to breed," he said.



While results of the new study are revealing, Hart said the relationship between

neutering and disease-risk remains a complex issue. For example, the increased

incidence of joint diseases among early-neutered dogs is likely a combination of

the effect of neutering on the young dog's growth plates as well as the increase

in weight on the joints that is commonly seen in neutered dogs.



Dog owners in the United States are overwhelmingly choosing to neuter their

dogs, in large part to prevent pet overpopulation or avoid unwanted behaviors.

In the U.S., surgical neutering -- known as spaying in females -- is usually

done when the dog is less than one year old.



In Europe, however, neutering is generally avoided by owners and trainers and

not promoted by animal health authorities, Hart said.



During the past decade, some studies have indicated that neutering can have

several adverse health effects for certain dog breeds. Those studies examined

individual diseases using data drawn from one breed or pooled from several

breeds.



Against that backdrop, Hart and colleagues launched their study, using a single

hospital database. The study was designed to examine the effects of neutering on

the risks of several diseases in the same breed, distinguishing between males

and females and between early or late neutering and non-neutering.



The researchers chose to focus on the golden retriever because it is one of the

most popular breeds in the U.S. and Europe and is vulnerable to various cancers

and joint disorders. The breed also is favored for work as a service dog.



The research team reviewed the records of female and male golden retrievers,

ranging in age from 1 to 8 years, that had been examined at UC Davis' William R.

Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital for two joint disorders and three

cancers: hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma,

hemangiosarcoma and mast cell tumor. The dogs were classified as intact (not

neutered), neutered early (before 12 months age), or neutered late (at or after

12 months age).



Joint disorders and cancers are of particular interest because neutering removes

the male dog's testes and the female's ovaries, interrupting production of

certain hormones that play key roles in important body processes such as closure

of bone growth plates, and regulation of the estrous cycle in female dogs.

The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were

significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early

or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs.

Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence

of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and lymphosarcoma in males and

of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females. Late neutering was associated with

the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females.



In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with earlier studies,

suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The new study, however, was the

first to specifically report an increased risk of late neutering for mast cell

tumors and hemangiosarcoma.



Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or

doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. Earlier

studies had reported a 17 percent increase among all neutered dogs compared to

all non-neutered dogs, indicating the importance of the new study in making

gender and age-of-neutering comparisons.



Other researchers on this UC Davis study were: Gretel Torres de la Riva, Thomas

Farver and Lynette Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine; Anita Oberbauer,

Department of Animal Science; Locksley Messam, Department of Public Health

Sciences; and Neil Willits, Department of Statistics.



About UC Davis



For more than 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public

service that matter to California and transform the world.

Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has more than 33,000 students, more

than 2,500 faculty and more than 21,000 staff, an annual research budget of

nearly $750 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research

centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than

100 undergraduate majors in four colleges -- Agricultural and Environmental

Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science. It also

houses six professional schools -- Education, Law, Management, Medicine,

Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.



Media contact(s):

* Benjamin Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine, (530) 752-1555,

blhart@ucdavis.edu

* Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu



View this story on the Web at

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498



Trina Wood, Communications Officer

UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine

Office: 530-752-5257

tjwood@ucdavis.edu



UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine -- Leading veterinary medicine,

addressing societal needs

www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu

www.Facebook.com/UCDavisVetMed

www.twitter.com/ucdavisvetmed

Dogs and Wolves

Test time here!

"True" or "false": 

Dogs are not wolves.

If you said "True"....oops, you flunked. While there are minor differences, dogs and wolves actually belong to the same genus and species.

But you certainly would not be alone in this belief. Plenty of conventional authors and canine "nutritionists" are calling attention to an article published in "Nature" magazine Jan 23, 2013. This article claims that dogs have only recently developed the ability to digest carbohydrates. We now see many canine nutrition websites blaring the headline: "DOGS ARE NOT WOLVES"! The purpose of such sensational and misleading headlines seems to be to justify the pet food industry's continued abuse of dogs' digestive systems by intentionally feeding them a carbohydrate-based diet like kibbled dog food.


What this study does not highlight, however, is the fact that, genetically, dogs ARE wolves. Based on genetic research done by evolutionary and molecular biologist Dr. Robert Wayne at UCLA, in 1993, dogs were re-classified from Canis familiaris" to "Canis lupus" ssp "familiaris"

In other words, dogs are the same genus and species as the gray wolf. They are merely a subspecies of the grey wolf and do not differ significantly from the grey wolf. All breeds of dogs are still just variations on the grey wolf.

Let's repeat that again, for emphasis. In all significant ways, there is no meaningful difference between the grey wolf and the dog. The gray wolf and the dog share 99.8% of the same mitochondrial DNA. For comparison, the gray wolf and the coyote only share 96% of the same mitochondrial DNA. Dogs are directly descended from the gray wolf, sharing their anatomy and physiology.

The basic definition of a species is the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring, and dogs bred to wolves produce fertile offspring.

Simply because selective breeding in dogs has produced various types and colors, sizes and shapes does not mean that dogs are a separate species from wolves. It's been long established that dogs and the gray wolf have the same genes, and the same basic anatomy and physiology. Based on appearance alone, dog breeds are more dissimilar from each other than these breeds are from their prototype ancestor, the grey wolf. Are Chihuahuas a different type of animal than a Scottish Deerhound? Nope. Any difference wrought by human selective breeding could be wiped out in just a generation or two of breeding back to the grey wolf.

However, let's examine the digestive tract, which seems to be the "proof" that is spurring this recent claim that because dogs can digest carbohydrates, they are therefore separate and distinct from wolves. Dogs and wolves both have jaws that move only up and down, not side to side, with teeth that mesh in a scissors-type fashion. Their sharp pointed teeth are meant for shearing, not grinding. They are carnivores. Omnivores and herbivores have flat molars and jaws that can move in a side-to-side fashion designed for grinding grains, fruits and vegetables. Neither dogs nor wolves have saliva that produce amylase (the enzyme that begins digestion of starch in the mouth). Dogs and wolves both have short intestinal tracts, designed for quick digestion of proteins and fats. Vegetable matter takes many hours to digest and process in an animal's gut. Unless carbohydrates in the diet are highly processed and refined, they are not able to be digested and absorbed by dogs.

And we all know how much valuable nutrition is left in processed, refined foods, right? Think white flour or white rice. Nothing left there but "empty calories"....or so dieticians have informed us for years. Virtually no vitamins or minerals remain after processing. But now, we are supposed to believe that empty calories are beneficial for our canine pals.

The dog's liver produces all the vitamin C he ever needs. No need to derive that from fruits. There is, however, a significant need for specific amino acids in large quantities in the diet, particularly during growth and development. Proteins that are complete, in significant amounts, are necessary to keep a dog healthy. Rather than try to keep complete proteins at the essential bare minimum, dogs should be fed more in line with their natural diet which is protein-rich. No need to feed your dog on the "minimum wages of nutrition" that are so stingily provided in commercial foods.

It is well-documented in multiple studies that unless a dog has kidney or liver disease, protein in the diet does not pose any sort of health risk whatsoever. Even elderly dogs with compromised kidney function related to old age do better with higher protein than was currently believed to be "safe".

The fact that dogs (and wolves) can ingest some carbohydrate-based foods is not a secret, nor is it any new development. Check any scientific wolf website and you will find that wolves do eat fruits, vegetables and berries in small amounts. However, at issue is the huge percentage of carbohydrates that we feed the domestic dog in the way of commercial dog food. (Usually well over 50% carbs). No wolf or indeed any canid can remain healthy on a diet that is primarily grain-based carbohydrates.

In fact, recent studies on HUMAN diet demonstrates that high amounts of carbohydrates are unhealthy for us, too. Since mankind began to farm, and agriculture "improved" our lives to provide us a diet based on grains, the human brain has become significantly smaller. Vegetarian humans also have smaller brains than their omnivorous counterparts. Hmmm. Why even herbivores like cows are said to thrive more healthily on diets where they graze on natural grasses and vegetation instead of being fed strictly grains in a feed lot.

Evolution over 10,000 years of domestication has failed to produce any significant mutations that separate dogs from wolves to the extent that they have evolved into a different species.

For some reason, folks out there....veterinarians, dog food companies, canine "advisors"...are just itching to turn back the clock of genetic science and molecular biology and convince us that dogs and wolves are DIFFERENT. After all, you can tell just by looking at them...it's obvious, right?

Wrong again. Looks only show us the characteristics that man has intentionally bred for. All those characteristics had their potential in the genetic makeup of the wolf. THAT is what should be obvious to anyone with a background in science.

It's convenient for some to attempt to justify the recommendation for feeding a cheap diet based on grains, and to try to support the status quo of using inferior foodstuffs from the dregs of the human food chain, but it also is disingenuous to our claim of caring enough about our dogs to want to provide them with optimal nutrition.

Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism



Unsourced photo attached to referenced article. We don't know exactly what is going on here, or where the picture is from. But hey, it LOOKS dramatic, and the emotional impact is more important than any actual FACTS.

Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.

Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.

While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.

Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.

But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.

Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.

And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.

The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.

That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.

Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.

Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.

That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.

The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.

WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?

Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.

Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.

But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)

Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?

According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)

The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"

Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.

But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.

http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html

Love Hurts

Americans have always had a love affair with pets. Stories about pets are common subjects for “human interest” pieces in news publications. We read about dogs who save human lives and the lives of their canine companions. We read stories about long-lived dogs, talented dogs and ugly dogs. We read about dogs who are so faithful to their owners that they remain steadfast at their gravesite.

Cats also provide displays of affections for their owners that inspire news reports. We read about Toldo, an Italian cat who regularly visits the grave of his deceased owner. The man’s widow, Ada, said the cat “brings little twigs, leaves, toothpicks, plastic cups. A bit of everything really,” everyday to the grave of his former owner who has now been deceased for over a year. 1

Then there was the story just this week about the cat in Florida who spent nearly two months walking home after being lost from the owner’s motor vehicle almost 200 miles from home. 2

We also often read stories about animal cruelty and abuse. Tales of “hoarding” and “puppy mills” grab the interest and sell news. These stories serve to solicit contributions by the organizations who are the self-appointed saviors of abused animals. This is mostly a black-and-white issue, or so it might appear on the surface. Animal abusers need to be stopped and they need to be punished, while animal saviors desperately need our financial support. A no-brainer, right?

Well, maybe things aren’t quite as black-and-white as they might seem. Some “abusers” have themselves been affected by financial ruin, a sudden turn in their health, loss of job or home, or even a death in the family. All these factors can affect the ability to care properly for their pets. Even if the accused abuser is completely broke, or physically or mentally disabled, the reports of abuse are completely lacking in sympathy for the person down on his or her luck. Oftentimes, rabid followers publicly call for a lynching of purported “abusers”. If we were talking about children in these households instead of animals, there would be assistance available. Instead, we deliver only scorn.

Pet “rescue” on the other hand, has become the trendy activity. “My pet was rescued” Jane announces proudly. Her friends and relatives congratulate her for her largesse. Win-win, she gets to enjoy a companion and get a boost to her self-esteem at the same time. Proclaiming that you just BOUGHT a new puppy or kitten does not produce the same warm public accolades. On the contrary, you may be derided with jeers about supporting evil breeders, causing shelter deaths and contributing to pet overpopulation (all of these silly notions have been thoroughly debunked here in the past).

And never mind the fact that you do BUY pets from rescues. They aren’t giving them away, folks!

Then, oddly enough, we sometimes also have cases of saviors-turned-abusers. There are also plenty of news stories recounting tales of animal “rescues” where the care has gone sour, and the animals have to be rescued from the rescuer. Generally, what happens in such cases is that a rescue entity becomes overloaded with more animals than it has the resources to care for. Now, the very group that we trusted to “rescue” has suddenly become the “hoarder”. How can that be? How can a hero one day become a villain the next?

“Hoarder”, “abuser”, and “puppy mill” are all pejorative slurs that are thrown about handily in the popular news media. Similarly brainless terms like “rescue” and “shelter” are thrown about in a self-congratulatory, feel-good manner, when in actuality they are meaningless and do not necessarily reflect any actual beneficence on the part of the person or group being described. Such stereotypical monikers do not often reflect reality, and that is a major reason why we should refrain from using them.

Americans donate to various animal charities by hand over fist each year. The ASPCA rakes in $144 million per year, with net assets of $188 million, while the HSUS receives about $177 million each year. 3

This is mostly accomplished through donations from a generous, pet-loving public who are urged by these self-appointed saviors to please donate a certain monthly amount. Say around $19 a month? Just a suggestion, since hey, you really want to help poor suffering animals. “Look at these horrific pictures and please open your wallet!!!” And people do, by the hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year.

In February, 2012, a cat “rescue” called Caboodle Cat Ranch Sanctuary near Tallahassee, Florida was raided. The rescuer had hundred of cats on the premises. Animal rights operatives spent many months gathering up “evidence” in the form of photographs taken of sick animals that were being housed on the premises. The cats were removed from the rescue and remanded to the care of the local law enforcement agency. ASPCA immediately stepped in and sent literally HUNDREDS of people in to care for the cats.4


The ASPCA subsequently asked for $1.8 million dollars in reimbursement for care of
these “rescued” cats. From their website:

“In a letter to the judge, Director Tim Rickey of the ASPCA details how $1.2 million [as of June 22] has been spent on care for Caboodle Ranch cats. In addition to medical care and basic necessities, the cats are receiving behavioral enrichment to “remedy the effects of the severe neglect and lack of socialization they experienced during their time at Caboodle Ranch.”

Problem is, the itemized list of expenses was released to the public, and very little of those expenses were related to actual care of the cats. Most of it was for airfare, hotels and meals for the humans involved. The expense statement the ASPCA turned in was simply outrageous! Listing “plumbing”, “carpet cleaning”, “chocolates for the ladies”, “lunch at Panera’s for 100+” (totaling over 1200.00), resort hotels, $400 thousand in airfares and rental cars and the list of vacation expenses goes on and on. $1000 for snacks in a two-day period. One person even submitted the charge to replace her cell phone battery. What gall! Very little was listed in the way of actual veterinary expenses. 5

On the other hand, the owner of Caboodle cat ranch claimed to be able to produce over $90,000 in veterinary bills for the cats, that he personally had paid when the cats were in his possession. Hmmm. Which “rescue” was truly legit here? The jury seems to be still out on that.

Knowing the manipulative history of animal rights fanatics, I am very skeptical about the Caboodle Cat Ranch Rescue. If you’d like to read more information about the case, check this post on YesBiscuit (and please do read the comments):

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/700-cats-seized-from-cat-sanctuary-in-fl/#comments

So just how reliable is the ASPCA.....really?

Recently, the ASPCA agreed to pay Feld Entertainment a whopping $9.3 million settlement in a suit brought against them under the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Seems they manufactured evidence. Are they admitting guilt? It certainly seems so. 6

Well, now we know how the ASPCA will use your $19 per month automatic payments; they will be sending them to the Ringling Brothers circus, even though they originally conspired to bring the circus down. Poetic justice! At least THOSE donations will actually to go care for some animals. Good deal.

The request for the $1.8 million dollars expenses reimbursement was denied. Here is the trial court ruling:

“The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, hereafter referred to as ‘ASPCA’ did NOT have an agency relationship...”

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxEJ5J_n7tIqY0hTcEF5VEVyOFE/edit?pli=1

Perhaps the courts are waking up to the blatant abuses of groups who, despite their self-proclaimed sainthood status, are not necessarily the do-gooders one would expect based on their names.




1http://digitaljournal.com/article/340666#ixzz2HVRbXSEo

2 http://www.wafb.com/story/20533966/lost-cat-walks-190-miles-to-get-home

3http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/14/charities-11_American-SPCA_CH0234.html

4http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Caboodle_Ranch_Cat_Sanctuary_Operator_Faces_Cruelty_Charges_140581263.html

5 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhEJ5J_n7tIqdHNTNmJfZ1Fwc2RuazR2RHJpVGVqSmc#gid=0

6 http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/aspca-382414-ringling-elephants.html

Trolls - mostly kept under the bridge

I suppose it is natural that since this is a  high-traffic site, we get lots of comments from trolls. There are plenty of wild-eyed alarmists out there who cruise the web and look for places to post their nonsense.

We get many comments from trolls who can't believe the statistics, because, well, they KNOW that there is pet overpopulation, they KNOW that people are inherently "bad" and that animals have the "right" to be free of our influence. They KNOW that anyone who presents the facts about the adverse health effects of spay-neuter surely must be wrong. They KNOW that "rescue" is noble, while breeders are greedy, evil animal abusers. They want to contradict anything and everything we post here. These people have been so deeply brainwashed that they can no longer think rationally. Responding to such fools is a waste of time and energy. Therefore, long ago the decision was made to only selectively post a representative sampling of such comments.
 
The good thing about having a private blog is the right to deny others the opportunity to use your forum to grandstand their position. When people want to look for real, hard facts on current animal issues, they check our blog. We are not here to allow "animal rights" fanatics a place to push their extremist agenda. 

Climate Control

"We" the responsible show breeders deserve to breed our dogs, because we are so, well, AWESOME, right? We pamper our pooches, we lose a ton of money breeding and showing our dogs. We seldom have litters, we screen our homes, we health test, we belong to breed clubs, we are motivated by love, not money.

Yes, we ARE the bees knees!!! But what about those who might have different goals and different purposes from ours? Are they less “worthy” of breeding? We seemingly don't have a problem with laws that limit those unscrupulous "other" breeders. And they may do things that most of us don't do. They sell dogs over the internet, or to "pet shops" or through brokers or they breed their bitches every year. But, we have to STOP assuming that every broker is bad, that pet stores are merchants of greed and horror, that anyone who is motivated by money is necessarily an evil abuser.

Because it's just plain not true.

All dogs are not destined to serve as primarily as "pets", although even those with jobs are usually dearly cherished by their owners. Military working dogs are procured via brokers and breeders who specifically breed for that market. Guide Dogs for the Blind organizations breed dogs for a specific “helpmate” function. They crossbreed, they breed for aptitude, and they certainly have more than one or two litters a year. Dogs used on farms and ranches have jobs to do, and those who are the strongest and smartest and demonstrate the best ability will probably be selected to be bred to provide us with the next generation.

Traditionally, we have had choice. The choice to own a purebred dog, or a mixed breed dog, to breed as we see fit, whether we want a pet litter of "doodles", or a show litter, or a litter to hopefully produce a dog who will excel at a certain function. (Even if that function is catching frisbees). Do we really want the government stepping in and setting up ridiculous breeding rules? Must belong to a breed club, must do X-Y-Z health certification, must not crossbreed, and on and on ad nauseum.

Do we really want the government demanding that we forego the purebred puppy in the pet shop, with a pedigree and a health history, in favor of imported strays with completely unknown backgrounds? Families who want a pet currently can pick up the newspaper want ads and find one to suit their needs (although last time I checked, there were NO pets advertised in our local paper). Should it be illegal to advertise animals over the internet or in newspaper want ads? Should people have to beg permission from the government in order to breed a litter? These are all issues we currently face in today's climate of government control of our hobby.

Animal Rights extremists want to replace puppies resulting from planned litters with unplanned, crossbred street dogs, many of which are from foreign countries. They've already gotten laws passed to make this the ONLY sort of pet found in a pet stores in many localities in California. They want strict government regulation of all breeding in the US. If the side effect of such over-regulation is causing most breeders to give up entirely, that would be dandy with them. If there were no pets in pet stores, or in newspaper ads, or on the internet, it would be "mission accomplished" for these Animal Wrongists.

Patti Page, famous for the songs "Tennessee Waltz" and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window," died January first at a nursing home in Encinitas, California. How different the climate was toward pets in the mid-twentieth century! Purebred puppies were regarded as one of life's treasures. Pet shop puppies went from societies’ darlings to social pariahs, because the Animal Wrongists have convinced the public that surely they are the product of unscrupulous animal abusers.

We need to get past such attitudes. We need to recognize that passing laws intended to eliminate the few "bad apple" breeders will not accomplish that goal, but such laws will eliminate all the great dogs that we love in the process. The show dogs, the working dogs, the mixed breed "doodle" pets, ALL of them! Patti Page was even pressured to re-write her "doggie in the window" song to one that promotes adoption of shelter dogs.

"Dog breeding is a privilege, not a right" someone recently commented on this blog. I think many people are beginning to fall into this sort of mindset. On the contrary, I believe it is our RIGHT to breed our dog, our cat, our bird, our hamster or our farm animals. They belong to us, and it is our right to breed them. And once we give up that right to government control or even to the discretion of dog clubs, then woe betide us.

We are a nation where choice and freedom are supposed to be guarded and cherished. Our freedom to breed in an unrestricted manner and our choice to own the pet that we want should not be determined for us by others who believe that somehow they know best. When we arrive at the "no breeding" goal of animal fanatics, life as we know it will never be the same. We'll be missing a very important part of our heart and soul.

License Plate Propaganda

You remember PETA, the people who would rather kill dogs and cats than find them homes? Yep, aren't they just too precious. We've blogged about them here on many occasions. Check out www.petakillsanimals.com for some eye-popping truth about the underlying evil nature of PETA.

In 2007, PETA employee Jane Garrison, her buddy Judie Mancuso and their husbands formed an animal rights group in California. They called it “Social Compassion in Legislation”. The goal? Agitate for spay and neuter laws in the state of California. The method? A relentless political campaign for spay-neuter legislation, enabled by well-planned  propaganda to promote public acceptance.

The left wing slant in the state of California has gotten so out of control that we actually had Judie Mancuso, a PETA supporter and founder of “Social Compassion”, recently appointed to the California Veterinary Medical Board! Fresh from her crusades sponsoring failed bills that would have required all pets in the state of California be sterilized, Mancuso continues to push her anti-pet breeding agenda from a position of authority as a member of the CVMB.

“Social Compassion” was behind two recent onerous pieces of proposed legislation; AB 1634 and SB 250. The former would have required all pets in the state to be sterilized, with a few narrow exemptions. The latter would have required mandatory sterilization and would have also prohibited the sales of unaltered dogs and cats. Several other animal rights groups also joined Social Compassion in official support of these bills.

So far, our state legislature has rejected this proposed intrusion into pet owners' rights to choose their pet's reproductive status. However, with a newly-elected Democratic supermajority in both the California Senate and Assembly, the next legislative push for spay-neuter laws will likely be successful. Meantime, as the animal rights groups strategize their next move, the focus has temporarily shifted to spreading propaganda.

And what better way to spread propaganda than on the back ends of thousands of cars?

Almost two years ago, "Social Compassion" began a push to mass produce a California spay-neuter license plate. With "Social Compassion" founder Mancuso sitting on the California Veterinary Medical Board, it was easy to solicit CVMB support for this license plate program. A minimum threshold of 7500 orders is required to begin production of special license plates; that's the break-even on the expenses of printing up special license plates. Yet today, many months later, the animal rights groups can't quite manage to sell the minimum amount of spay-neuter license plates. They desperately pushed a bill attempting to get themselves a special exemption to reduce the numbers of pre-orders down to 2500 to get their “pet project” rolling. When that effort failed, they introduced another bill, AB 610, that passed and successfully extended their pre-order deadline for another year, until June 2013.

Why there's some of the perps now!!

Now mind you, our state has nearly 40 million residents, yet the spay-neuter fanatics can't seem to find more than about 6,300 people gullible enough to pre-order this special license plate. That's only 0.016% of the population, or less than 1 in 6200 people. Understandable, because not only is this plate UGLY, but this license plate promotes the urban legend that sterilization is healthy and beneficial.

Seems that “Social Compassion”, PETA and the HSUS are devoting a great deal of time and effort to promoting these license plates. But don't be fooled; propaganda is the top priority; they don't care about actually funding any pet clinics; nor finding homes for shelter animals; nor setting up programs and policies that help people keep pets in their homes. The priority is to push lies about “overpopulation”and the presumed need for widespread pet sterilization.

This week, “Social Compassion” sent out an email blast with a special offer. Pierce Brosnan, the Hollywood actor/artist who designed the license plate, is offering to PAY for a free license plate for anyone who wants one. He is being joined in this offer by Katherine Heigl, another Hollywood celebrity nutjob. Heigl recently set up a website in support of animal neutering proclaiming “I hate balls”. (www.ihateballs.com) This website demonstrates how misguided, sick, twisted and desperate these animal rights nuts are.
A friend of mine who spoke out against the license plate program received this note by email:

“Can't figure out what was wrong with AB 1634. Also can't figure out what is wrong with the California Pet Lover's license plate. Proceeds from the plate provide funding for free or low-cost spay and neuter surgeries across California and do not go to PETA or HSUS. They also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering.”

“I want to emphasize that the sponsor of this program is the California Veterinary Medical Board. Yes, HSUS is listed as one of the “supporters” but there are many other supporters...None of these supporters receive financial benefit from this license plate program. Proceeds from the plate would provide funding for free or low-cost spay & neuter surgeries across California. They will also help to raise awareness about the importance of spaying and neutering. So, its up to you to decide whether you want to show an “ugly” and distinct license plate in support of what I think is a worthwhile endeavor … And you can get it now for free!”

Uh, OK. Where do we begin to address what is “wrong” here?

First off, if Brosnan and Heigl were really interested in spay and neuter as a presumed cure for the imaginary problem of pet overpopulation, their money would be much better spent in directly providing for free spay and neuter clinics. But no, their main interest is advocacy for the cause of animal rights; the elimination of pet breeding and strictly limiting pet ownership. Brosnan is also seeking the ego boost of seeing his great art masterpiece plastered about the state.

Secondly, there is no guarantee that any funds beyond the cost of production will go to any spay-neuter program. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA.

IF there are profits from the license plate program, the sponsoring agencies collect the money in a License Plate Fund. Per the text of the agreement “ the sponsoring agency shall expend all funds received under this section exclusively for projects and programs that promote the agency's official policy, mission, or work.” And, "to allow the Veterinary Medical Board to support the critically important efforts of city and county animal shelters to address serious animal care and control problems facing the state."

You may have noticed that the words “spay-neuter program” are nowhere to be found. Imagine that!

The VMB may collect the profits and use them as they see fit. Why, they could even decide to funnel that money to [wink wink] Mancuso's “Social Compassion” group.

Funny thing about "Social Compassion" is that those who work for them are unpaid “volunteers”. Volunteers who have endless resources and time to travel thousands of miles back and forth across the state of California, to produce multiple propaganda websites, to lobby incessantly in Sacramento and at the local levels. Mancuso owns a lovely house near the ocean in Laguna Beach. How does she pay her mortgage? How does she support her lobbying lifestyle? Perhaps now that she is on the CVMB, Mancuso does actually receive some sort of salary, but where has her support come from in the past? It can only be from animal rights groups such as HSUS and PETA. They are paying her for her tireless work toward the extinction of pet ownership and breeding.

It is disgusting that an unscrupulous lobbyist like Mancuso has wormed her way into an influential position in state government. It's galling and appalling that this woman, a vegan animal rights fanatic, has weaseled her way onto the California Veterinary Medical Board.

The admitted goal of animal rights groups behind these initiatives is NO BREEDING. They prefer to force us to import mutts from other countries, especially from nearby Mexico, but also from as far away as Taiwan, the Caribbean and Europe. These dogs are often street dogs who bring with them other special bonuses like parvo and rabies. So you can forget about finding an intentionally-bred healthy puppy, a purebred dog, or a “designer” dog bred on purpose, if the animal rights groups have their way. Breeding laws here in the US are now so restrictive that it is difficult to find a puppy of any sort....purebred or street-bred. And in an animal shelter? No puppies. When they occasionally enter they are stolen by staff, snapped up by “rescues” and sometimes even raffled to the highest bidder.

Despite being touted by animal rights groups as being “healthy”, sterilization surgery, especially when performed while the dog or cat is immature, is ironically responsible for many health problems..... everything from spay incontinence, to a depressed immune system, hypothyroidism, and orthopedic disorders as a result of abnormal bone development. This is just the tip of the iceberg; we have detailed many of those problems here in the past, check our tags “spay/neuter” and "rethinking spay neuter".

These license plate proclaim "Spay-Neuter Saves Lives"? There is absolutely NO data to support such a ridiculous claim. Spay-neuter is certainly not a "PRO LIFE" agenda. It is ANTI BIRTH. And it is certainly not "PRO CHOICE." The extremists want to take the CHOICE of spay-neuter away from the person who owns the animal.

Considering the adverse health effects of spay-neuter, we should use the existing excellent tools readily available for doggie birth control. They are called DOORS and LEASHES. These amazing tools are very reasonably priced. Even low-income individuals have access to them. As an added benefit, these great tools are highly effective in preventing death from a car or a coyote. They also work perfectly to prevent your dog from chasing the neighbor's cat or using the neighbor's lawn for a toilet.

Where is the license plate educating about the need to confine your pet? I sincerely doubt that Judie Mancuso, Pierce Brosnan, Katherine Heigl or anyone at PETA or HSUS give a flying fig about your dog being hit by a car.

And then there is the obvious disingenous nature of this offer. If these celebrities and PETA people really do want to subsidize spay and neuter clinics, why don't they just open some up themselves? Or donate directly to those already in existence? We all know the real agenda here. Propaganda regarding spay and neuter is the priority. Control the public psyche and you win the debate. The public must fervently and earnestly believe in “pet overpopulation” in order for the animal rights groups to pass more laws regulating pet ownership and breeding rights. If state-sponsored license plates urge us to support spay-neuter, it reinforces the public perception that more laws are necessary to address a “problem”.

And if you believe in the notion of supposed “overpopulation”, then do I have a bridge to sell you.

Check our posts on this blog for articles that blast the notion of “pet overpopulation” right out of the water.

DOG BREEDING IS ILLEGAL.

Dog breeding is illegal in most states and most localities. For that matter, so is owning a kennel. Or even owning a dog, in most places.

What? Don't be ridiculous! I'm a licensed breeder! I have a kennel license! My dog is licensed!!

Do you understand what a "license" IS?

A license is special permission from the government to perform an act or conduct an activity that is otherwise illegal.

So the truth is -- dog breeding is illegal, having a kennel is illegal, and even owning a single dog is illegal. Some people get special permission to perform this otherwise-illegal act. But the cost of the permission (license) is often prohibitive, if not for itself, then for the mechanical requirements (what you have to build) and/or the conditional use permits (another form of government permission to do something with your own property, that would otherwise be illegal... such as own a kennel).

According to municipal estimates, 75% or more of all dogs are unlicensed. And I'd hazard that 90% of all hobby breeders are keeping and breeding dogs illegally -- at the very least, in excess of their license (which is to say, their limited grant of immunity from prosecution). Which means -- breeding or even possessing any of those dogs is illegal.

Next time you complain about all those terrible unlicensed kennels, think about who that really is, and that what you're really asking for is that ALL dog breeding and ownership be declared illegal -- except for those special individuals granted a license by the government.

And when you declare that "most of those breeders shouldn't be licensed anyway" ... consider that as the regulatory noose continues to tighten, someday you too might not be considered good enough to get that special permission to breed and own dogs.