Tuesday, March 15, 2011

"Social Compassion", PETA, and the great California license plate scam






The term Social refers to the characteristic of living organisms to interact with other organisms and to their collective co-existence. The word compassion, derived from Latin, means to suffer together with. Together they make up a nice touchy-feely phrase, "Social Compassion", selected as an oxymoronic title  for a group that promotes spay-neuter.

Does the concept of "Social Compassion" really jive with spay-neuter? We've seen plenty of documentation lately that spay and neuter causes some pretty nasty health problems. And, in all areas where mandatory sterilization has been enacted, shelter intakes and deaths inevitably increase. So indeed, perhaps there actually is a whole lotta suffering....er, compassion....going on. And it's epidemic. It's suffering caused by our society. You might even call it a case of Social Compassion.

Take, for instance, the figures from the City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control. It has now been three years since mandatory spay and neuter became the law in the City of Los Angeles. Shelter numbers exploded with the passage of this ordinance in early 2008, and continue to steadily rise.

Here are the figures from the LAAS website, just plucked them from there this morning:

Intakes from 2007-45,461
Intakes from 2010-55,780

An increase of 23%

Euthanasia in 2007-15,091
Euthanasia in 2010-20,856

An increase of 38% in shelter killing!!

When will they ever learn? This is the quintessential example of what happens when Big Brother tries to bully John Q. Public into having unnecessary sterilization surgery performed on his pet.

SPAY-NEUTER LAWS KILL PETS. 

Killing pets is certainly a far cry from the concept of "compassion". Plus, there won't be any collective co-existence (The "social" part of the equation) if pets are sterilized to extinction.
If there is widespread sterilization, along with bans of pet store sales and onerous breeding restrictions, then pets will necessarily be supplied from other countries, where such draconian regulations are nonexistent. How is that better than having healthy, intact pets that are bred here by known entities?


Why are pets in shelters? Certainly not due to any supposed "overpopulation". The top reasons given for pet relinquishment are moving, landlord issues, behavior problems etc. And more than half the animals in shelters did not have owners in the first place; feral cats, for instance.


However, shelter numbers have plummeted dramatically since the 1970s because we have been using methods that WORK....public education related to responsible ownership, low-cost voluntary spay/neuter clinics, and support for rescues and adoption events. Shelter numbers have plummeted in California by 86%....These programs have worked very very well. So well, that we currently have a less than 1% euthanasia rate per human population in the state of California. 

We have attained a no kill success! The vast majority of pets..... 75% of all owned dogs and 86% of all owned cats... are ALREADY spayed or neutered. The only way to reduce shelter numbers further is to outlaw pet ownership completely. And BINGO, that's exactly what the animal rights kooks have planned for us next. They will pass laws making pet ownership so expensive that ownership of a pet will just become just an unattainable dream for most people.


But animal rights groups have been conspiring for decades to push their agenda of a petless society. "Social Compassion", a California "non-profit" group, was recently founded by Judy Mancuso, her husband Rolf Wicklund, Jane Garrison and her husband Mark. News flash, these people are PETA operatives. Jane Garrison, who was employed by PETA for at least six years, believes that animal use equates to abuse. PETA, under the auspices of their central headquarters in Virginia, has a pet "rescue" for their area that kills upwards of 90% of the animals that they take in each and every year. Who are these PETAns to lecture the rest of us on "compassion"? How dare they! 


Social Compassion happily accepted PETA's sponsorship and money to push its mandatory spay-neuter bill in California, CA AB 1634. And, why shouldn't they? Spay-neuter laws kill pets, just like PETA does. Thankfully, that bill and it's succesor CA SB 250, both died their well-deserved death.


 
But now, "Social Compassion" has it's next project in progress in the relentless propaganda campaign for pet sterilization; a license plate program they are promoting here in the state.

Here's the update on the latest promotions of this license plate propaganda scheme from "Social Compassion":

When we hit 7,500 pre-orders to make the plate official, the organization with the most plate orders to its credit will receive a $7,500 donation courtesy of our friends at Found Animals Foundation! 2nd place will receive $5,000 and 3rd place will receive $2,500.
 Every new plate buyer is automatically entered into a drawing. For every 100 new orders received after March 1st, 2011 one person will be selected to have a $300 donation made in their name to the shelter or animal non-profit of their choice. So, shelters and non-profits have another way to earn! The process is easy and fun, and we'll provide all the materials you need.
Actually providing cash prizes to promote fraud, lies, and deaths in shelters! Please, buy our license plate and send us money so we can campaign hard for programs that cause MORE DOGS TO DIE! Thankfully, this license plate project is far short of the implementation goal of 7500 orders needed by July. Let's hope these license plates will never be seen on the back end of any car in California!

Get some REAL "social compassion"....contrary to the stated goal of the "Social Compassion" group, it is virtually impossible to "reduce the number of abandoned and euthanized animals through spay and neuter programs"...particularly when such programs are mandated by law. In fact, requiring spay-neuter makes shelter situations worse.

But then, it's not about the animals, is it? Ed Boks testified to that fact in state hearings.

Mandatory sterilization is not about pets, it is about total government intrusion and control of every aspect of our lives!

Here's a more truthful license plate slogan:

SPAY/NEUTER KILLS

Perhaps that's the reason that most people in Europe do not sterilize their pets. In Norway, it is actually ILLEGAL to spay or neuter your pet unless it is a medical necessity.

Do "U" love pets?

Guard them under your tender, loving care....and keep them INTACT if you so choose!

"Los Angeles Animal Shelter Becomes Slaughterhouse after Spay/Neuter Law

It has now been three years since mandatory spay and neuter became the law in the City of Los Angeles. Shelter numbers continue to explode, steadily rising since the passage of the mandatory spay/neuter/microchip ordinance in early 2008.
 
When will they ever learn??....
 
Intakes from 2007-45,461
Intakes from 2010-55,780
 
An increase of 23%
 
Euthanasia in 2007-15,091
Euthanasia in 2010-20,856
 
An increase of 38% in shelter killing!! This is completely UNACCEPTABLE!
 
These figures are from the LAAS website.
 
As background, please read the below article from 2008. John Yates is no longer with us, but the toll of mandatory spay/neuter in the City of Los Angeles continues unabated.
 
Los Angeles Animal Shelter Becomes
Slaughterhouse After Spay/Neuter Law


by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline. net

Sept 1, 2008
LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles animal shelter system has become a slaughterhouse for dogs and cats less than six months after City Council passed an ordinance mandating pet sterilization, an analysis of official city statistics shows:

· Euthanasia rates for dogs and cats have increased by 28-percent, compared to the same period a year before the ordinance was enacted.

· There was a 20-percent increase in impoundments for dogs, and a 21-percent increase for cats, compared to the same period a year ago.

Those numbers came from the official shelter statistics compiled by the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services. We encourage our readers to verify the accuracy of this report for themselves. Here is a link to the actual city data:
 
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf.

In only six months, Los Angeles has mirrored the same brutal results that have been proven in every other community in America that has enacted mandates to spay and neuter pets. All of these ordinances have failed, and dogs and cats have paid the price in blood.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance attempted to warn Los Angeles City Council members of what would happen before they passed the ordinance, but the truth was drummed out by the shrill voices of animal rights groups that knowingly and deliberately misled Los Angeles officials into believing that the ordinance would save animals' lives.

The animal rights agenda is the elimination of animal ownership in America, but these plans are concealed from elected officials and people who love animals. The leaders of these groups know full-well that spay and neuter mandates will result in the abandonment of thousands of pets, and an increase in shelter killings as a result. They know it, and these brutal deaths are a major part of the animal rights game plan.

Now the truth has come home to roost in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles ordinance became law in early February, 2008, following several months of intense media coverage and a coordinated disinformation campaign by animal rights groups.

City Councilman Richard Alarcon called it a "humane" ordinance that was needed to save the lives of cats and dogs.

Since then, this "humane" ordinance has taken the lives of 1,667 more dogs and cats than were killed during the same period a year before, the data shows.

The first six months of 2008 represent the first increase in Los Angeles shelter admission and euthanasia rates in more than 15 years, official data shows. These rates had dropped steadily over that period.

In a single sweep of the pen, the ordinance has destroyed more than 15 years of hard work and dedication by many people who had succeeded in moving Los Angeles much closer toward "no-kill" status.

In just six months, the Los Angeles shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared back to levels that have not been seen since 2002, the data shows.

City Council's vote turned back the clock six full years, and at its current rate Los Angeles will likely descend once again into the Dark Ages of animal shelters of the early 1990's.

Euthanasia Rates

The impact of the ordinance on euthanasia rates can be seen clearly in a month-by-month analysis of the shelter data, beginning with December 2007, two months before the ordinance was passed. Here is the month-by-month body count:

· In December of 2005, 1,011 dogs and cats were killed. This dropped to 827 in December of 2006, and again to 769 in December of 2007. This month represents a fair baseline of the situation before the ordinance became well known. It is typical of every other month during the three previous years, and shows the great success that had been achieved in Los Angeles before the ordinance was passed.

· In January 2006, 768 dogs and cats were killed. The January death count fell to 739 in 2007, but rose to 820 this year. This increase was 11.6-percent. During January of 2008, the pending ordinance received much press coverage.

· In February of 2006, 569 cats and dogs were killed. This rose inexplicably to 644 in February of 2007, but soared by 17.5–percent to 749 this past February. This was the month the ordinance was passed

· In March 2006, 763 cats and dogs were killed. This fell to 547 in March of 2007. But it rose by a frightening 50–percent to 824 this past March. This was the first month following passage of the ordinance.

· In April 2006, 1,100 dogs and cats were killed. This fell sharply to 856 in April of 2007, but rose to 1,257 in April of this year, two months after the ordinance was passed. This is a 47-percent increase.

· In May 2006, 2043 dogs and cats were killed. This fell to 1,339 in May of 2007, but rose by a heart-stopping 68–percent to 1,762 in May of 2008.

· In June 2006, 2,636 dogs and cats were killed. This fell sharply to 1,849 in June of 2007, but climbed back to 2,229 this past June. This represents a 21-percent increase.

The picture painted by this data is clear. After a 15-year decline in euthanasia numbers, they increased somewhat in January of this year, when the ordinance was being publicized. The increase was steeper the month that the vote was taken, and then went through the roof over the next four months as the news of City Council's action began to sink in.

If the experiences of other cities holds true, it will take at least five years for euthanasia numbers to get back down to 2007 rates.

Shelter Admissions

While shelter admission rates increased by 20-percent over the most recent six-month period, as compared to the same six months the year before, the increase has been much steeper in the months following passage of the ordinance. We will focus on the last four months of data beginning with the month after the ordinance was passed, although readers can verify the trend over previous months themselves by following the above link to the documents.

· In March of 2007, 3,067 dogs and cats were impounded. This rose to 3,491 in March, 2008, the first month following passage of the ordinance. That is a 13.7-percent increase.

· In April 2007, 3,462 cats and dogs were impounded. This rose by 24–percent to 4,315 in April 2008.

· In May 2007, 4,299 dogs and cats were impounded. This rose to 5,507 in May 2008. That is a 28-percent increase.

· In June 2007, 4,601 dogs and cats were impounded. This rose to 5,371 in June 2008, for a 17–percent increase.

The pattern of escalating shelter admissions in the wake of the ordinance is very clear from this data.

What Will Happen Now

Based on both the actual trends shown in the Los Angeles data and the experiences of other cities and counties, there is little room for doubt that shelter admissions and euthanasia rates will continue a steep rise for the next several years.

We expect the rates of increase shown in the past six months to continue to grow, as soon as the City of Los Angeles begins to enforce the ordinance. The above data represents people who abandoned their pets because they were frightened of the ordinance, but there has been no actual enforcement to date.

When enforcement begins and many people begin to pay large fines and see animal control officers at their doorsteps, we expect these abandonment rates to soar. Other people simply will surrender their pets or allow them to be confiscated.

The noose already has begun to tighten.

Los Angeles Animal Services already has informed rescue groups and pet stores that they will have to turn in the names of everyone who adopts or buys a pet.

This has caused much dissention among rescue organizations, including New Hope Partners, the city's main rescue program, and threatens to disrupt or destroy the fine work that has been done over many years to find new homes for abandoned cats and dogs.

Pet stores also have received official notice that they must turn in the names of everyone who buys a pet. The notice says that all pet stores must:
"Submit to LA Animal Services a monthly report to include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers, of persons purchasing pets, to include the date the animal was purchased by each person."
From this notice, it would appear that pet stores also have to turn in the names of everyone who buys a pet fish, turtle, bird or gerbil. It does not specify only kittens and puppies.

All city veterinarians also have been notified that they must turn in the names and addresses of everyone who gets a rabies vaccination for a pet.

Recent minutes from a meeting of the Animal Services Board say that "…we are notifying all veterinarians in the City that they are required to send rabies certificates, with owner name and address, to the Department."

In other cities, this requirement has caused many people to refuse to take their pets to a veterinarian to get a rabies vaccination. This creates a public health hazard that is a direct result of spay/neuter mandates.

What You Can Do

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all dog and cat owners from Los Angeles to write to their City Council representatives and ask them to quickly repeal the mandatory pet sterilization ordinance, before more harm is done to animals. Please let them know the information contained in this report reflects their own internal reports, which conclusively show the high price that is being paid by dogs and cats in the wake of the ordinance.

We strongly suspect that Animal Services is trying to hide this carnage from City Council.

Here is a link to contact information for Los Angeles City Council members: http://www.lacity.org/council.htm.

Attending City Council meetings and speaking during public comment periods also would be very important. Ask Council to repeal the ordinance, and tell them what has happened at the shelter.

Chicago City Council is expected to vote on a similar ordinance in September. The Chicago ordinance will be modeled on Los Angeles.

Please let the Chicago aldermen know about the terrible tragedy that is unfolding now in Los Angeles, and ask them to completely reject a similar ordinance. Their contact information is available at: http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html.

Also, Dallas City Council passed a very similar ordinance in July that goes into effect in October.

For Dallas residents, it is important to let City Council know quickly about the inhumane carnage at the Los Angeles shelter and the destruction of the shelter and rescues system there. Please ask City Council to repeal this ordinance before it's too late for dogs and cats in Dallas.

Here is how to reach them: http://dallascityhall.com/government/government.html.

(Special note: We are deeply indebted to California Pomeranian fancier and activist Geneva Coats, who discovered the shelter statistics and made them available to us. Every dog and cat owner in Los Angeles thanks you, Geneva.)

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.

Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net. Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
 

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Vaccination-Addressing Common Concerns

Vaccination

The basics explained; addressing common concerns

Vaccines are one of the greatest medical developments of the modern era. Thanks to vaccines, many formerly common diseases have been controlled. Fatal and crippling diseases such as polio, whooping cough, measles, rubella (German measles) have been so reduced in incidence that many people today have never seen a clinical case. Smallpox, once a great killer, has been practically eradicated. Our dogs also reap the benefits of vaccination science for control of once-common diseases such as distemper, parvo and rabies.

However, in recent years, questions have arisen regarding the safety, efficacy and advisability of vaccinations for our canine friends. Most of these concerns are based solely on anecdotal evidence. A vaccine is given, and days, weeks or months later, a health problem surfaces. As we search for reasons why our dog was so unlucky to develop this problem, we wonder: did the vaccine cause the health problem? While it is tempting to blame the health problem of our dog on a prior vaccine, this is the logical fallacy of coincidental correlation. Simply because one event follows another does not mean that the first event caused the second. It is just as logical to state that putting gas in your car causes car accidents. Medical problems that occur after immunization are often blamed on the vaccine, but, in most cases, solid evidence is lacking.

Search the internet and you will find innumerable websites claiming that vaccines are unnecessary, even harmful.

Much research has been done on vaccination in humans. Despite the many wild claims about alleged dangers to humans from vaccines (liver cancer, autism, brain damage, etc), the studies do not support these claims. It is likely that the case for vaccine dangers in dogs has also been overstated.

Let’s examine some of these concerns about vaccinations for dogs:

“Vaccines don’t work”

Vaccines are highly effective. In several studies, vaccination against specific canine diseases is 100% effective in producing immunity. However, there are always some individuals who will not develop immunity after vaccination. Poor response to a vaccine may be due to the neutralizing effect of maternal antibodies circulating in very young puppies. It can also be a result of the vaccine losing its potency when stored improperly. Poor immune response may be due to a weak vaccine challenge (for example, killed vaccines are not as effective as modified live virus vaccines). Fever and impaired immune response of the host can reduce vaccine effectiveness. Regardless of the cause, these individuals with poor response to a vaccine have the same risk of contracting a disease as non-vaccinated dogs. It is due to the variability in response to vaccine that most veterinarians recommend a puppy “series”, and a second “booster’ vaccination for adults with unknown vaccine history.

In general, live vaccines are more effective than killed vaccines, and viral vaccines are more effective than bacterial vaccines. Bacterial vaccines such as kennel cough and leptospirosis, only provide immunity for a few months to a year at most. Luckily, the core vaccines are modified live viral and, in the case of rabies, killed viral vaccine, with a very high rate of successful, long-lasting immunity.

Vaccines are effective in preventing disease not only in individuals, but also in communities. This type of protection is called “herd immunity.” Herd immunity works by decreasing the numbers of susceptible individuals. When this number drops low enough, the disease will disappear from the community because there are not enough individuals to carry on the catch-and-infect cycle.

According to Ron Schultz, PhD, vaccine researcher the University of Wisconsin, although the US probably vaccinates more dogs than any other country, our coverage is only about 50% of the total canine population. “With anther 20-25% covered, we could, for all practical purposes, eliminate these disease, because we would have so much better herd immunity,” Schultz stated at a 2007 canine health conference.

“Vaccines are not safe”

In truth, few things meet the definition of “safe”. For example, every year in the U.S., 350 people are killed in bathroom or shower-related accidents, and 200 are killed choking on food. Yet few of us regard taking a shower or eating as unsafe activities.

No vaccine is 100% harmless. Almost all vaccines can cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of the injection. In addition, vaccination during the perinatal period can cause abortion, congenital anomalies, fetal death, and failure to conceive. More rarely, some individuals may develop transient immune suppression, arthritis, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, encephalitis, and seizures, The distemper vaccine is also under investigation as a possible cause of hypertrophic osteodystrophy. Vaccines can also cause fever and malaise, and (extremely rarely) death. It should be noted that these risks also occur with a naturally-acquired infection.

Allergic responses can result from serum components in the vaccine. A Banfield study done in Florida in 2001-2002 revealed a rate of severe anaphylactic reaction of 1 dog per 5000 (out of a study done on 838,015 dogs).

We need to understand that diseases such as distemper, parvovirus and rabies often cause permanent disabilities and fatalities. The risk of the vaccine must be weighed against the very real risk of contracting the disease.

“Vaccines are not necessary”

In some ways, vaccines are victims of their own success. Many dog owners today have never seen a case of distemper or parvo. As a result, they may question the continued need for vaccines. However, the disease organisms remain in the environment and a danger to every unvaccinated dog. Herd immunity is also some protection for unvaccinated dogs, but it is by no means a guarantee that the dog will not succumb to an infectious disease.

Rabies is transmissible to humans and invariably fatal; consequently, rabies vaccination and re-vaccinations are legal requirements in all states. Rabies is a killed, adjuvant vaccine with higher risk of adverse reactions. There is an ongoing rabies challenge study at this time, to determine duration of immunity obtained from rabies vaccination. If results are as expected, this will hopefully provide a basis for lengthening the legally mandated rabies vaccine administration intervals.

Some people believe that by not vaccinating, they can develop, through “survival of the fittest”, a strain of dogs with “natural resistance” to infectious disease. To illustrate the fallacy of this sort of idea, let’s consider that most deadly of zoonotic contagious diseases, rabies. The existence of this disease has been documented since at least 2300 B.C., and has likely existed for many millennia prior to that. If it were possible to develop a natural resistance to rabies through non-vaccination and “survival of the fittest”, rabies would have ceased to be a threat centuries ago, as the less fit, less immune animals died from the disease. Yet we humans and our dogs remain 100% vulnerable to rabies, and only through recent advances involving immunoglobulin administration and vaccinations have diseases like rabies become a reduced threat.

While in the US we have reduced risk of many infectious canine diseases, canine rabies and adenovirus (infectious hepatitis) have recently been found in imported dogs, so the continued threat of disease remains very real.

“Puppies are too young to be vaccinated”

Because young puppies have had limited exposure to diseases in the environment, they have little developed immunity and are more vulnerable than adults to contract infectious diseases. They receive protection from their mother’s antibodies for several weeks, but once that protection wears off, it could be argued that vaccination is more important for young puppies than for mature dogs.

The age to begin core vaccination in puppies is a topic of much debate. AAHA 2006 guidelines suggest the earliest age in normal circumstances should be 6 weeks, but in the face of an outbreak or in a shelter/rescue situation, vaccination can begin at an even earlier age. Rabies is not recommended to be given until after age 12 weeks. Studies in humans have shown that children are fully capable of responding to vaccines in the first months of life. Studies in dogs have produced similar results.

“It is best not to give more than one vaccine at a time.”

Puppies are capable of responding to millions of different bacteria and viruses because they have billions of immunologic cells circulating in their bodies. Therefore the vaccines given in the first few month of life are literally a raindrop in the ocean of what the puppies’ immune systems successfully encounter in their environment every day.

Studies on human infants show that multiple combined vaccines are easily handled by the immune system.

A Banfield study on dogs indicates that the risk of overall reactions is slightly increased with multivalent vaccines (27 per 10,000) as opposed to single vaccines (7 per 10,000). However, most reactions were transitory and not clinically significant. Also, since the dogs received multiple different antigens simultaneously, a reciprocal increase in reaction rate could reasonably be expected. There was an overall reaction rate of 16 per 10,000 dogs in this study; with 2 per 10,000 dogs vaccinated suffering serious anaphylactic reactions.

“Vaccines cause dogs to develop autoimmune disease”

Results from studies on families and twins show an important role in both genetic and environmental factors in the eventual development of autoimmune disease.

The portion of the genome that codes the genes that help us recognize “self” is called the MHC-the Major Histocompatibility Complex. These genes are located very close to each other and it is rare for recombination to occur. This in effect means that the genes from each parent are inherited intact. (Remember, you inherit genes in pairs, one from each parent). If the parents are closely related, the possibility exists that they share the same genes at that site…they are “homozygous by descent”. If so, there is a high likelihood that their offspring will inherit identical genes in the MHC. It appears that susceptibility to an autoimmune disease is determined by the lack of variability in the MHC genes. Linebreeding and inbreeding may result in this lack of variability. Close breedings increase susceptibility in the offspring to develop an autoimmune disease when an environmental trigger is present.

Though the tendency to autoimmunity is genetic, most autoimmune diseases are triggered by some sort of toxic assault, or viral or bacterial exposure. Scientist believe that the body reacts to small protein-like fragments of the vaccine base that are similar in structure to the normal cellular components of the body. A recent study showed that vaccine contaminants may cause the dog to make antibodies against these contaminants. Not all the vaccinated dogs in this study developed this response….and those who did were in the same particular family group, further reinforcing the genetic basis of autoimmunity.

Dogs who are genetically susceptible to the autoimmune process are at greater risk for such problems as thyroiditis, hypertrophic ostedystrophy, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia. These conditions may be provoked by vaccination and/or infection. However, as noted by Dr. Schultz, vaccines may trigger autoimmune disease, but they do not cause it. And, if dogs do not receive their core vaccines, Dr. Schultz notes, “They won’t go on to develop thyroiditis. They’ll die from distemper or parvo.”

Naked DNA vaccines are under development. These vaccines would contain solely the desired antigen, with no bovine contaminants. This would mean that when this type of vaccine is given, antibodies specific for the disease would be produced, without the high risk of allergic reactions or antibody responses to bovine components.

“My dog is too small to be vaccinated”

Small breeds, and several specific breeds, are at higher risk of adverse vaccine reactions. A Purdue study involving more that a million dogs found that dogs 22 lbs or less had approximately twice the risk compared to dogs weighing over 22 lbs. The one milliliter dose volume listed on most vaccine labels is recommended only because that is the dose used for the licensing process. During testing, the issue of breed or size of dog has received no attention. Since we have research indicating a higher risk of reaction to vaccines by small dogs, hopefully some studies will be done to determine the lowest effective dose for toy breeds and breeds at higher risk of reaction such as Chihuahuas, miniature pinschers, Boston Terriers and dachshunds. According to Dr. Schultz, body size is less critical with biologics than pharmaceuticals, and a toy poodle is as likely to need a full dose of a vaccine as a Saint Bernard.

Vaccine Basics

The goal of a vaccination program is to develop immunity to serious diseases while minimizing risks of allergy and inappropriate immune response.

Natural infection and recovery from a disease confers long-lasting immunity. A vaccine can also have the same beneficial effect on immunity.

The oldest and most common vaccine is the MLV (or modified live virus) vaccine. The actual disease-causing viral organism (the “antigen”) is cultured, then altered so that it won’t cause disease symptoms. Another type of live vaccine, the vector vaccine (VV), is a genetically engineered vaccine which is also very reliable and safe. Both MLV and VV are infectious vaccines. They work by producing a mild disease response in the individual. When the VV or MLV vaccine is given, the body’s immune system responds by producing antibodies which kill the virus. Immunologic memory allows the immune system to remember the organism to which it has been previously been exposed. Duration of immunity is determined by the memory cells, but the only way these cells respond is if the individual becomes infected. Due to the live virus which is introduced to the memory cells through use of a live vaccine, the VV/MLV vaccines induce reliable and long-lasting immunity. A stressed, ill, or immunocompromised dog should not receive a live vaccine.

Another type of vaccine is the noninfectious vaccine, “killed” or “subunit” vaccine. The virus or bacteria is actually killed by use of radiation or a chemical, and cannot produce disease. This type of vaccine has less chance of producing disease symptoms, but may also be less effective in provoking immunity in the host. Rabies vaccine is killed, so that there is no chance of the dog developing a fatal case of rabies. Manufacturers may add “adjuvants” or immune-boosting substances, to the killed vaccines in an attempt to improve their effectiveness. These adjuvants often produce adverse side effect such as local inflammation, allergy, and (in the case of one in ten thousand cats) tumor formation at the vaccine site. Cats lack the tumor suppression gene that would act on an injection site that is inflamed by certain vaccine adjuvants, particularly from rabies and feline leukemia vaccine. This problem in cats has prompted researchers to attempt to develop safer, purer vaccines.

“Core” vaccines recommended for dogs are distemper, adenovirus (hepatitis), parvovirus and rabies. These are all viral vaccines which readily provoke cellular memory and induce long-term immunity. There should be a dose of core vaccine at 14-16 weeks as the final dose in the puppy series, then at age one year, then after that not more than every three years,with the exception of rabies. Rabies should be given once some time after age 12 week, and then not more often than required by local law. Minimum duration of immunity from the core vaccines is thought to be seven to ten years. Yearly vaccination is outmoded and unnecessary, and exposes the dog to an increased risk of an adverse reaction. Those reactions are rare, but unacceptable if your dog receives something he doesn’t need and consequently dies.

Blood levels of antibodies can be measured. This is known as a “titer test”. There is no standardization between different labs and their testing methods, and testing can be costly. The presence of antibodies may indicate a level of protection against a certain disease; however, titer levels needed to infer protection from disease are not known. Titers can be positive in puppies as a "gift" from the mother, and do not necessarily indicate active immunity in the puppy. Titers can be elevated in dogs incubating a disease, who are actively contagious! Therefore, it is not possible to know if a given titer in a specific animal indicates adequate immunity. In the future, measurements of titers may provide a method of determining intervals for re-vaccination.

Vaccine programs should be individualized depending on the age of the dog, the breed, and the diseases prevalent in the area. Consult the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Guidelines (2006) for the most recent recommendations:

http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/VaccineGuidelines06Revised.pdf



"Vaccination Dos and Don'ts"

11. Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly

Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.

12. Do Not Mix Vaccines in a Single Syringe

If the vaccines are not combined by the company as a multicomponent licensed product, do not combine them prior to administration. Follow the manufacturer’s administration recommendations.

13. Do Not Split Doses

For miniature/toy or any other breeds. If you are concerned about the volume, reconstitute vaccine with 1⁄4 or 1⁄2 the recommended diluent (e.g., sterile water).

14. Do Not Vaccinate Anesthetized Patients

Should an anesthetized animal develop a hypersensitivity reaction, they may vomit and are at increased risk of aspirating.

15. Do Not Vaccinate Pregnant Dogs

The dog may abort or fetuses may get infected.

16. Do Not Vaccinate Animals on Immunosuppressive Therapy

These animals may not develop an adequate immune response, but even worse, they could develop disease (e.g., postvaccinal distemper, clinical canine parvovirus).

17. Do Not Administer Multiple Dose Vaccines Any More Frequently Than Every 2 Weeks

18. Do Not Vaccinate Puppies <2 Weeks of Age

19. Do Make Sure the Last Dose of a Puppy Immunization Series is Administered ≥12 Weeks of Age

At ≥12 weeks of age, interference by maternal antibody is less of a concern and the puppy’s immune system is more mature; thus, there is a greater opportunity for a robust immune response to the vaccine.

10. Do Not Give an Inactivated Product Prior to a Modified Live Product

This will interfere with the ability of the modified live product to immunize (e.g., canine parvovirus-2).

11. Do Not Administer a Canine Distemper-Measles Vaccine Subcutaneously (SC)

It has been shown that poor immunity results when this product is administered SC.

12. Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient

Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.

13. Do Not Use Nosodes (Holistic Vaccines) to Vaccinate a Puppy

Nosodes do not provide immunity; thus, the puppy will remain susceptible to the disease the nosode was designed to prevent. Use a USDA-licensed vaccine to immunize puppies.

14. Do Not Revaccinate a Dog With Vaccines Previously Known to Induce Anaphylaxis in that Dog

Test the animal’s serum for antibody to determine if the animal is immune. The risk from vaccine-induced anaphylaxis may be much greater than the risk of infection

15. NEVER vaccinate an animal who is ill or debilitated.

References

Novak, Will, DVM, MBA; “Predicting the ‘Unpredictable’ Vaccine Reactions”; Proceeding of the NAVC Congress, 2007.

Schultz, Ron, PhD; “What Everyone Needs to Know About Canine Vaccines and Vaccination Programs”; AKC CHF Health conference, St. Louis, MO, Oct 2007.

Fortney, William, DVM “Newest Vaccination Strategies for Sporting Dogs”, North American Veterinary Conference, 2006.

Thorpe-Vargas, Susan, PhD. “Genetic and Breeding Strategies: Essays for the Dog Breeder”.

Offitt, Paul A., M.D.and Bell, Louis M, M.D., “Vaccines; What You Should Know”; 3rd edition, 2003..

Hogenesch, Harm, Azcona-Olivera, Juan, Scott-Moncrieff, Catharine, Snyder, Paul W.,and Glickman, Larry T., “Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity in the Dog”; Advances in Veterinary Medicine, Vol 41, pp 733-747.

Rynders, Patricia E., DVM, MS; “New Protocols for Canine Vaccination”; Canine Pediatric Care Symposium,WSAVA 2005.

Greene, Craig E., “Avoiding Vaccine Reactions in Dogs and Cats”; WSAVA 2003.

Roth, J. A., DVM, PhD; “Factors Influencing Vaccine Duration of Immunity”; The North American Veterinary Conference; Jan, 2007.

Maybury, Bonnie A. and Peters, Pamela M., PhD; “Vaccines—How and Why?”; http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vaccines_how_why.php


"The Science of Vaccine Damage" debunked here...

Pure BUNK and pure "JUNK SCIENCE" !!!

There has been a widely circulated article entitled “The Science of Vaccine Damage” which is filled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and scare tactics. Now I must confess, when I first read this article, I fell for it hook, line and sinker! Then, my skeptical nature took over. This article extensively references a limited Purdue study which involved a very small number of beagles. I accessed the study and read the entire report. This study concludes that certain dogs may develop antibodies to bovine contaminants in the vaccine serum. This is certainly no evidence for vaccines causing any long-term health effects in any dogs, let alone ALL dogs…yet that is just what this author states in her article!

I quote here from the Purdue report:

“This study did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs”

”There was a marked increase of autoantibodies to the skeletal muscle proteins, myoglobin and myosin, in BOTH groups of dogs”(vaccinated and non-vaccinated... this is surmised to be due to frequent blood sampling of the dogs for the study).

“There was no increase of anti-thyroglobulin antibodies in the vaccinated animals, or other evidence of thyroid dysfunction.”

"Vaccination did not cause immunosuppression or alter the response to an unrelated antigen (KLH)......we did not observe a transient lymphopenia in the dogs at any time"

Consider for a moment the process by which a "core" vaccine (such as parvo, distemper or rabies) is produced. The virus is cultured on tissue, in this case cow or "bovine" tissue. With current technology, vaccines invariably will contain traces of bovine serum proteins. When a dog is vaccinated, they will form antibodies not only against the virus, but sometimes against these bovine contaminant proteins also. Various autoantibodies to bovine contaminants were detected in some (not all) of the vaccinated dogs. These antibodies were not found to react with the dog’s own tissues. The long-term significance of these autoantibodies has not yet been determined.

“Since bovine serum components in the vaccine may be responsible for the majority of autoantibodies, elimination of these bovine components may avoid this problem...new generations of vaccines, especially naked DNA vaccines, are free of serum components, and these should not induce autoantibodies.”

BINGO!! Thank goodness for research and development. We are discovering how to make better, safer, more effective vaccines! Great news for our dogs! So the next time you see that article floating around the internet lists, just remember to read it with some skepticism.

I’d like to address a few more of her faulty accusations against vaccination in general. She states “The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites”… Per the CDC, SV40 has been found in cancers of people who either DID or DID NOT received the polio vaccine. SV40 has not been present in any vaccine since the early 1960’s. SV40 may be associated with some cancers, but the virus is transmitted to people by a mechanism other than vaccines. Lastly, SV40 has not been proven cause cancer, any more than any other virus which might lie dormant in the body.

She also states that “allergy…should be synonymous with the word ‘vaccination’”, and goes on to state that vaccines sensitize “render allergic”…this is such an inaccurate statement! Actual allergies are to vaccine components are rare, and the process of immune system activation, while perhaps sharing some similarities, is NOT the same as the allergic response process.

More false statements: She states “The Purdue study found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA”…Nowhere was this found in this study!

She states, “The study dogs were found good homes.” No, they were euthanized at 22 weeks so that their tissues could be examined....did this woman actually read the study? Or just doesn't understand it? Or doesn't choose to try to understand it?

There are many other misquotes in this article, and faulty conclusions as well, but the worst may well be her own conclusion, “Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all.”

Luckily for her dogs, herd immunity will likely afford them some protection…even if she refuses to contribute to the health of the community through vaccination.

Once you are terrorized against vaccinating your pets, you can go to the website where she will happily sell you untested, unproven remedies for health and wellness. For just $31 per year you can sign up for a newsletter!

The “Science of Vaccine Damage” article is not an unbiased viewpoint, and far from scientific. We would do better to look to the real scientists and the ongoing research when formulating our health care plans, and not quacks who don't have any understanding of basic biologic principles.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Adopt, don't shop!

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerman adopts Puppy from Oregon breeder
http://www.oregonlive.com/pets/index.ssf/2011/03/mark_zuckerbergs_newest_friend.html

(Click on blog article title above to read the original news article)

Language can be a powerful tool. The animal rights groups are fully aware of that concept, and have effectively used language as a weapon against animal owners. Consider the slurs "puppy mill", "backyard breeder" and other derogatory terms, coined by animal rights activists and effectively designed to alter public perception of the dog breeder. The word "adopt" also figures heavily into that anti-breeder strategy. We are told by those riding atop the high horse that we should "Adopt, not shop."

There really is no practical distinction between adopting versus shopping. In both types of transactions, money always changes hands. So does it matter how we might choose to refer to either situation? Perhaps. "Sell" implies a cold, strictly commercial transaction. "Adopt" is a warm and fuzzy term, invoking visions of nurturing, noble intent, and a sense of family. So why not use the term "adopt" when you bring a new pet into your home....from any source?

A friend of mine sent along these thoughts on the use of the term "adopt".

Adoption of a child involves:

1. a great deal of money
2. a burning desire on the part of the potential 'parents' to have one of their own "species' to raise and protect
3. the courts and at least a lawyer or two
4. an in depth study of the family including discussions with
neighbors, other family and friends
5. always a home check
6. an in depth criminal background check
7. can involve background check on religious views, social views and more.
8. considerattion of age, marital status , sexual preferences, and much more..
9. assessment by a third party of amount of time spent at home
10. assessment of other children in the home
11. evaluation of the housing situation.. number of bedrooms, living space.. etc..
12. There's always a case worker involved before you are allowed to
formally adopt.


Then there is this published statement regarding adoption:

"Frustrated adoptive parents have been heard to claim that they feel they should have a "right" to adopt, and they demand the cooperation of others in protecting those rights. Although it is true that everyone has a "right" to desire and to attempt an adoption, from a practical standpoint, no one has an absolute "right" to adopt."


How many times have you heard from AR's that "adopting or being the guardian" of a pet is a privilege.. not a right. This is not a simple.. "Oh I love my dog and he is like my child"..This is a term that can change the very process of acquiring a pet. Please give this some thought before you use the term "adopt" when referring to a pet.

The Price is Wrong, BITCH!



The upcoming Genesis awards are currently being promoted by HSUS, so perhaps its a good time to reflect on the irrational culture of celebrity worship here in the US.

Here's the text of the email I received today:

Join celebrities Betty White, Wendie Malick, James Cromwell, Kristin Davis, Emily Deschanel, Olivia Munn, Leona Lewis, Jane Leeves, Valerie Bertinelli, Ed Asner, and many more at The HSUS' 25th Anniversary Genesis Awards in Los Angeles.

This year’s gala will feature a fantastic silent auction including couture vegan handbags, a Moroccan get-away, a private group vegan dinner, tickets to "American Idol" and "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," wine packages, a New York escape with dinner at Candle 79, and more.

Oh boy! Vegan dinner and vegan handbags! Teen celebrities have popularized purse-sized dogs, and we sure wouldn't want to tote those pint-sized pooches in leather purses. We must feed them vegan dog food too; HSUS imports their own brand from South America. Naturally, we'd expect HSUS to deny the carnivorous nature of canines.

Then we've had the moronic Bob Barker nagging us for decades to spay and neuter our pets. Gosh, Bob, if all the pets are spayed and neutered, pets will go extinct before you do. The darling man even auctioned his microphone on Ebay when he retired from his game show, and donated the proceeds to the United Activists for Animal Rights.

Seriously, with all the media-hyped, celebrity-spouted speutermania lately, we need to sit down and take a good hard look at the implications of this irrational philosophy. What is the price to your dog's health when its reproductive organs are carved out?

How's this for a short list?

hip dysplasia
hypothyroidism
vaccine reactions
bone cancer
prostate cancer in males
bladder cancer
hemangiosarcoma
obesity
diabetes
dog-human aggression
ligament rupture
incontinence in females
vulvovaginitis in females
surgical complications, up to and including death

Maybe that's why in some countries it is frowned upon to hack out vital organs like ovaries and testes for no good reason. In Norway, it is illegal to spay or neuter unless it is a matter of medical necessity.

Guess all the moronic Hollywood AR pawns didn't do their homework! They are not very humane! Genesis awards notwithstanding.

And our dogs should pay the price for the idiocy of Hollywood celebrities?

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

For Whom the Bell Tolls


PUPS-the relentless attack against breeders continues.


"PUPS"...otherwise known as the Puppy Uniform Protection and
Safety Act, is NOT, as we have already noted here on this blog, as warm and fuzzy as it sounds. PUPS is a federal proposal that has reared its ugly head over the last several sessions. And now, we get the bad news that once again, PUPS is being dredged up for this Federal legislative session. And picking up more and more sponsors along the way.


We just can't seem to kill the PUPS bill, no matter how how vigorous the attempt. Much like a cockroach, you can stomp it down, yet it still manages to skuttle across the floor undaunted.


What's so bad, you ask, about protecting puppies? Well, not much if you consider preventing their birth as protection. This bill is about as hard-core in animal rights philosophy as they come. And animal rights is not conducive to pet culture. These folks want to protect animals from people...people who dare to breed them, to sell them, to own them, to enjoy their company.


But the drive to shut down most all breeding won't require federal intervention. Many states have already implemented so-called "puppy mill bills" in the relentless AR-driven crusade to stop the breeding of pets. These newly-implemented state and local regulations have been promoted under the banner of squashing the commercial breeding of dogs for pet stores. 


The commonly-accepted portrait of "puppy mill" has somehow morphed from being a place where dogs are kept in poor conditions, to being a reference to anyone who sells via third parties like pet stores. The public has been whipped into a frenzy of hatred toward pet stores and ALL commercial breeders. "They must be shut down!!" kind-hearted John Q Public wrings his hands. "IMMEDIATELY!"


But hold your horses, lynch mob!! Here's a news flash: PUPS does NOT apply to commercial breeders or pet stores. It would not serve to stop any abuse or neglect in the slightest. It would, however, serve us up some pretty nasty unintended consequences.


Just who would be affected by PUPS? The intent seems to be to include more and more breeders under the umbrella of "high-volume breeder". The bill defines "high volume breeder" as someone with "an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs."


A further stipulation of "high volume" status is that one sells....or even just OFFERS for sale....50 or more dogs in a year. You don't need to actually sell any dogs! Just advertising or offering dogs for sale is sufficient proof of "high volume".


You needn't even OWN a dog to become a "high-volume breeder"; just having custody (as handlers and boarding facilities do) qualifies you! Co- and joint ownerships are common among dog show participants, sporting dog trainers, hunting club members, and other hobbyists. Am I now required to comply with PUPS regulations if the bitch co-owner offers enough puppies for sale? 


And, HSUS has admitted in their public sessions that their intent is to rachet down these numbers in future sessions. Since a breeder with ONE intact female cannot possibly produce 50 puppies in a year, it seems logical that PUPS would be amended in the future to adjust downward the permissible number of dogs sold (or just OFFERED for sale) to match the amount that one bitch might reasonably produce in a year. Certainly, less than a dozen puppies.


Some states already require  ownership numbers of less than a dozen to escape commercial breeder status. Yet, as AKC noted in their latest PUPS legislative alert: "A reference to the number of dogs owned by a breeder is unnecessary and potentially misleading."

There is a whole segment of breeders who would never sell their dogs through pet stores, but would be considered "high-volume" under the provisions of this bill. They might be small private home breeders who offer their dogs for sale through newspaper ads or on the internet. They might show their dogs. They might own just a few dogs, or many dogs. They might co-own dogs with others. And the ranks of the hobby breeders could conceivably be joined by handlers, boarding facilities….yes, even rescues, shelters, and kennels that produce service dogs, police dogs, and hunting dogs. Are all these puppy purveyors greedy and evil because they sell dogs? According to the provisions of PUPS, YES, they are evil and they must be punished.

PUPS would require breeders who fall under the definition of "high volume breeder" to be subject to licensing and inspection under the Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and comply with reams of APHIS regulations. Such  regulations are neither desirable nor feasible for most breeders, particularly those who raise dogs in their home.


Surfacing of floors and walls must be "impervious to moisture", so no rugs allowed. Crates would not be large enough for the part-time duty that they typically serve most hobby breeders. PUPS also proposes vague and illogical exercise requirements that defy reason and have no purpose.

First, we had AWA to regulate "commercial" breeders....but, we couldn't stop there! Next a dozen states have already passed their own "Puppy Mill" bills, and now, PUPS will make sure to include nearly everyone else as a "high-volume" breeder in the quest to prevent breeding and selling dogs! Could your home pass inspection as a kennel? I know mine could not. But then, I guess that's the whole point of "PUPS"!


NO     MORE     PUPS!

 Never mind that poor kennel conditions are already illegal, and numbers limits have forced many out of business already. Never mind that every locale in the nation has existing animal cruelty laws. Let's conveniently ignore these facts and push for more regulations that are increasingly absurd, and now increasingly apply to people who just, well, enjoy and love their dogs!
Ask not for whom the bell tolls! It tolls for thee!

Click on article title above to read another blogpost regarding "PUPS"

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Crocodile Tears



published in Dog News Feb 11, 2011
(reprinted by permission of the author)

Hello;

In your latest editorial regarding the 'unfit 15' or, if you prefer, the 'high profile breeds' targeted for attack by the Kennel Club, you ask if the move is really due to the concern of the KC or 'pressure of the animals rightists'.

Straight from the 'blog' by animal rights supporter Jemima Harrison, producer of Pedigreed Dogs Exposed:
"The 15 breeds are: Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue de Bordeaux, French Bulldog, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Pug, Shar-Pei, the St Bernard and - da-daa - the Chinese Crested. I'll be demanding all the credit/blame for the inclusion of this last one as it was me who drew the KC's attention to the fact that breeders are resorting to ridiculous means to ensure their dogs are entirely free of hair in all the right places.



That quote should answer your question.

Harrison claims her blog is about:
"the latest news and views regarding inherited disorders and conformation issues in purebred dogs."

Conformation:
"The structure or outline of an item or entity, determined by the arrangement of its parts."
and I am sure we can agree that hair placement is not an "in'hair'ed ( sorry could not resist) disorder.


How does clipping or shaving a dog have anything to do with either of these issues? And yet the KC added the Crested to the 'unfit' list after the blog was published if the dog had a "skin rash" that might be caused by hair removal. A skin rash is something that a judge might be able to see or evaluate but is it a 'conformation or inherited disorder' issue? So you tell me , who is running the (dog) show?


Poodle breeders beware.. also anyone else who dares to trim, shave, or groom your dog for the show ring. Stripping? Well, sort of like shaving. Clipping? Also pretty close. Dare to bathe your dog? Better not. Might make his/her coat 'different'. Why single out just the Chinese Crested? What about the other hairless breeds? Why just the St. Bernard and not the Newfoundland? and so on and so on..


As for the 'vet checks' .. how silly is that? 'On the day' has very little to do with breeding healthy dogs. If a judge cannot see a limping dog and excuse it then they should not be judging but to expect a judge to ascertain that a dog can pass some sort of 'marathon' of 'moderate' exercise regardless of weather or age of the exhibit.. or to disqualify a dog who may have a slightly broken out coat due to external forces seems pretty extreme, if not downright arbitrary.


Which dog would you prefer,the one who has hives due to a bee sting or one who has kidney failure? Something that no judge.. or even veterinarian on the day can ascertain.


As a judge myself. I often say, the proof is in the breeding and type, temperament and soundness is on the day. Many good dogs have a bad day but not many bad dogs have constantly winning days. Judges are now to be 'second guessed' after years of experience in the ring and, for many, in the whelping box. Why bother? is what I will suppose many will say and rightfully so. I also think that many good dogs will stay at home rather than be put under some sort of false microscope of 'health checks' that are at best capricious and subjective. Or perhaps many breeds will start their own registries, keep their own stud books and hold their own shows with judges that pass muster for their chosen breeds. In other words, specialties with specialty judges only awarding only dogs that the breed clubs find worthy of the title of 'breed' champion. Or maybe they will just win the breed at a 'regular' show, go home after that and say 'stuff it'.


Animal righters want nothing to do with the show ring, except to criticize breeders and those who dare to show their dogs, so any barrier to our hobby works for them. What is insidious is their own slouching towards Bethlehem' approach. Regardless of what the headers or titles on their blogs say. Don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with dogs or their health and everything to do with control. So far it seems to be working in some venues.


Appeasement of these people ( the animal rightists) will not work. NOTHING will ever be 'good enough' and the more we 'come to the middle' the more the middle shifts in their direction.


It seems a shame that these words by one of the most revered of British statesmen have been so soon forgotten:
"
There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety."
"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill

So far the crocodile has been well fed with policies that are being sacrificed in the name of 'public opinion'. How much more feeding will he want? More than we should be willing to give.


Let's starve this crocodile. I, for one, won't shed any tears at his demise.


Jan Dykema
Bestuvall Bull Terriers
"Best Breed On A Lead"

Crufts Medical Center

Crufts dog show is upon us, and of interest this year is that the Kennel Club of the UK is implementing a new protocol, effective 2012. A news release from January reads:
The Kennel Club has announced that all dogs of the fifteen high profile
breeds which win Best of Breed at Crufts 2012 and at General and Group
Championship Shows after that, will need to be given a clean bill of health
by the show veterinary surgeon before their Best of Breed awards are
confirmed and before they are allowed to continue to compete at the show.
"... AND..."
In addition, before the Champion title of any dog or bitch within these
breeds can be confirmed, that dog will have to undergo a successful
veterinary examination at a Group or General Championship Show."

What exactly does this mean? You will have a complete history and physical done at a dog show? And get your lab results for thyroiditis back before the end of the day? Where do health exams have any place as a prerequisite to dog show competition? Obviously it is impossible to do a full health exam and proclaim a "clean bill of health" for a dog at a dog show.

If the Crufts Medical Center really wants to follow through with this idea, then why not insist that ALL dogs be screened for common health problems PRIOR to being shown? Why take awards away after the judge has made a carefully considered decision?

The fifteen "high profile breeds" selected were based on the presence of extremes of appearance.....short nose, excess skin, poor gait and the like. And all visual characteristics which, if so extreme as to threaten general welfare of the dog, should be apparent to a judge if doing the job properly. Lameness, tearing eyes from malpositioned eyelashed etc...all just as obvious to the judge as they would be to a vet. If judges cannot do this, then the "show" should fold up its tent and leave. It seems inappropriate to expect a vet to decide where breed standards are exceeded to an extreme....that is not a matter of better health per se. This is a matter of judge's education and should be handled by the individual breed clubs.

The critics of the KC and Crufts are intermingling the issues of breed standards, physical health screening and assessment of inbreeding, all of which are separate issues, and all of which should be addressed by the individual breed clubs in guidelines for ethical breeding.

Why not form a new organization to do health certifications, independent of The Kennel Club? It would be well-received by the public in this day and age. Look at the success of the OFA, CERF and the AKC's Canine Health Foundation. Breed-wide health surveys should be done to determine the prevalent problems that need to be screened for in each breed and then just do it! Breeders who participate could have some pride in that.

If a dog has a medical problem, should he be barred from exhibition when he might otherwise be a nice specimen of his breed? Part of the reason for dog shows is to allow the public to see typical specimens of various breeds. Should a participating dog be disallowed due to health matters that may not be obvious? Even more disturbing, should veterans be disbarred from exhibition if they have less than perfect physical condition at an advanced age? The law of unintended consequences....

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Medicine, Shotgun Blast Style

Karen, a dog friend of mine, had a recent bad experience. A small dog she sold as a puppy developed a seizure issue as an adult, so the new owner (a veterinary technician) contacted Karen. Karen suggested testing for liver shunt as a possible cause of the seizures. Yes, owner reports, the bile acid test is positive. Next thing Karen hears, the dog is DEAD. Put to sleep, supposedly for seizures? Karen writes:
 
"I am not denying the dog had a liver shunt, according to the bile acid test and the vet statement she did, however, my concern was how fast she went to having a few "Hypoglycemic" issues a couple times over the last year, to having muliple issues on a daily basis, following all those vaccinations.  According to the bills (she hasn't asked me to pay them), she paid for a CBC, metabolic profile and bile acid test, Heartworm, lyme, DHLPP, Bordetella and Rabies vaccine and it says a free frontline Dose?  This was all done on the 14th of Feb and the dog went downhill on the 18th."
 
Free Frontline? Hope they also threw in a free cremation.
 
All the vaccine literature instructs that vaccines should ONLY to be used in healthy animals, not when they are stressed or sick. And hypoglycemic seizures, with a possible liver issue should have been warning flags to "proceed with caution". And who puts down a dog for hypoglycemic seizures? Things are not adding up here.
 
Lepto, lyme, bordetella and rabies all at once? All four of these have a high incidence of adverse reactions as they are all adjuvanted. And those are not "core" vaccines and are therefore are not a standard part of veterinary practice to administer, they should only be given to "at-risk" dogs (with the exception of rabies). And then to throw in frontline and heartworm treatment on top of it all on the same visit.....I can hardly believe a vet would be that stupid. Oh wait, yes, I can believe it. Maybe she was already heartworm positive; bet they didn't check. Who knows.
 
Spot-on flea products come with their own set of concerns:
 
One year ago, the EPA issued an advisory about spot-on products similar to the new Bayer formulas. These products are for application to the neck or back of dogs and cats as a flea/tick preventive.
The advisory was issued in response to a significant increase in adverse reactions to spot-on products in 2008 over prior years.
Among the EPA's findings:
  • The majority of adverse reactions were seen with the first application in 10- to 20-pound dogs under 3 years old.
  • Especially at risk were the following breeds: Chihuahua, Shih Tzu, Miniature Poodle, Pomeranian, Dachshund, Maltese, Yorkshire Terrier, Bichon Frise.
  •  Nervous system symptoms included lethargy, nervousness, movement problems, tremors and seizure.
 
Another thing that bothers me about the spot-on flea products like Frontline is the fact that the prepackaged dose for small dogs is the same whether the dog is 22 lbs or 3 lbs. And the vets generally advise you to use the whole thing on your three pound dog! When in actuality you don't need to do that. A 22 lb dog is 7 times bigger than a 3 lb dog!
A 3 lb dog has an approximate body surface area of 0.21 sq meter, while a 22 lb dog has a body surface area of 0.79 sq meter. And it is the body surface area that matters with Frontline as it is meant to spread over the body surface and enter the hair follicles. So considering BSA, would a 3 lb dog need the same dose as a 22 lb dog.....one has nearly four times less BSA than the other! So there is a concern that a small dog could easilyi be overdosed on this stuff.
 
 
And how would pet owners know not to put a whole dose on their small dog?? We are trusting the company to give us the correct information and it seems to me that they don't.
 
Mostly I am sad that people who are supposed to use their brain as part of being in a "caring" profession, don't do it, resulting in a careless accident, and the victim....er, I mean the patient....pays the ultimate price.
 
 

Rescue me from Rescue! How Refreshing!


The HSUS was called upon to rescue about 200 neglected dogs from an Alabama rescue group named (aptly?) "Dirty Sally's Pet Pals". This group offered animals for "adoption".  According to the on-scene veterinarian, the poor conditions included "skin infections, untreated wounds and other serious ailments." 
 
Hmm, well wounds and sometimes even skin infections can happen to even the most well-cared-for pets. And Other Serious Ailments such as????  Naturally we get the spiel about the "feces-ridden outdoor pens" and "chained to trees throughout the property". I'm here to tell  you that where there are dogs, there will be feces. And would they rather the dogs be allowed to roam the neighborhood?
 
Now don't get me wrong, I abhor inhumane treatment of animals, and perhaps this raid was justified. If so I am relieved that the animals maybe are REALLY being rescued this time. But after hearing the same rhetoric in news releases, that could literally apply to most ANY dog owner, one begins to develop a good, healthy skepticism.
 
One begins to wonder why, if the dogs were seriously ill, don't they just come on out and report the actual problems that are proven? If indeed there is any proof that is not trumped-up. And no, cuts and scrapes don't actually fit into the category of serious ailments. Neither do feces. I think most members of the animal kingdom normally do produce feces, right? Urine, too. And these bodily elimination products tends to eject from dogs at record speed when strangers nab them in a "rescue" situation.
 
And, as further evidence of how absurd the world turns.....most oppressive legislative edicts fully exempt shelters and rescue groups like "Dirty Sally's" from complying with provisions of humane care and treatment of animals.
 
The "intentions" of Dirty Sally's Pet Pals may have been good, the new report mentions. Yes, the public actually believes that the stated intent to "rescue" is always more honorable and decent than the intent to breed wonderful, healthy animals. And in some instances, "rescue" is just a novel means of capitalizing on the "adoption" fad. $$$$ . Not a bit different from any other criticism of "exploitation" of animals.
And how was the whole "Rescue from Rescue" funded? The HSUS just recently topped the chart in the Pepsi "Refresh" contest....The public voted for deserving "Charities" to receive cash prizes from Pepsi. Lo and behold, despite being notified that the HSUS is NOT a charity (the bulk of their huge cash stash is earmarked for legislative lobbying efforts), despite knowing that HSUS is being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud and also has a RICO suit filed against them by Ringling Bros, Pepsi awarded HSUS the grand prize of $250,000!
 
As the spouse of a former PepsiCo executive, I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of feces in the Pepsi corporate cage. Not at all "refreshing". Wouldn't buy their products on a bet, but the outcome of this Refresh contest certainly reinforces that decision!