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.

GMO - Hazard or Hype?

GMO foods – should we be worried? What about all that GMO corn in the kibble we feed our dogs?


There has been a modern movement in opposition to foods that are genetically modified. Here in California, there was recently a proposition presented to the voters that would have required labeling of foods that contained materials derived as a result of genetic engineering. I am genuinely surprised that prop 37 didn't pass, because usually the electorate votes based on emotion, not logic. Additionally, European countries have "banned" (if it were possible to physically do so) GMO foods to appease the fears of their populace. However, a bit of research on genetic engineering might surprise you regarding the benefits of such methods.

What is “genetic modification” of foods? The process involves the science of splicing genes into the DNA of the original organism. Sounds ominous, right? Some of these genes are from related organisms, like other plants. Some of the genes are from completely unrelated organisms, like bacteria. Now before you get too upset at the prospect of genes being added where they seemingly don't belong, consider this. All plants and animals derive a large proportion of their existing DNA from viruses that infected their ancestors. (1)

Genetic modification of foods can confer on them a desired quality without waiting for random chance/mutation from nature to help out (which may never occur).

The best example is the papaya crop. The Hawaiian papaya crop was nearly wiped out in the 1990s by the ringspot virus. There does not exist a cure or a preventive treatment for this virus. Genetic modification produced a papaya resistant to the virus, and today, >80% of the Hawaiian papaya crop is the GMO variety. With absolutely NO evidence that there is any harm to anyone from eating a papaya, or consuming foods made with the enzyme papain which is derived from papayas, why should every papaya and every prepared food containing papain (meat tenderizers etc) be labelled for consumers to reject out of unfounded fears?

Crops have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Some are bred for drought tolerance, increased crop amount or size of grain/fruit, and improved shelf life. There is even a variety of rice that has been genetically modified to be yellow, and loaded with healthy beta-carotene. Nice!

Admittedly, herbicide resistant crops are problematic because then farmers tend to spray more weed-killers, which are not desirable to have in our foods, but one can always look for labelled "organic" produce to avoid that. But it is not the modified food itself that may be bad for us, it's the herbicides that are thrown on top on the crops.

There has been a much-touted study done on the effect of GMO corn on rats; this study has even been cited by health groups like Kaiser healthcare in their health newsletter. However, researcher bias was evident and the study was profoundly flawed. The study used very small sample sizes of only ten animals per group, including the control group. WAY too small to produce any reliable results. They also used a strain of rats prone to develop cancer. Oddly enough, the study found that rats who consumed the largest amount of GMO foods lived the longest, and it also showed that rats who consumed the most Roundup (herbicide) lived the longest! The control group also developed cancer, but the moderate GMO consumption group developed a higher percentage of cancer than the control group. This study is, in effect, BUNK. (2)

On the other hand, there are multiple independent studies done on GMO foods that verify their safety. Many of these studies have been conducted independently of the biotech and food industries. (3)

Another example of unfounded fears is the modification of crops for worm-resistance. Many crops have been modified with genes from Bt. Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a bacteria that has been applied to crops for decades as a natural pest control. It selectively kills worms and guess what, it is completely nontoxic to humans and other animals. Actually, the use of Bt is considered compatible with organic gardening! Bt is applied to crops right up to the day of harvest. You have eaten Bt for years!!! I myself use Bt on my tomatoes to kill the darn nasty green hornworms.

There is a particular chemical in the Bt bacteria that causes worms's digestive systems to fail and subsequently kills them. Scientists have been able to isolate that particular protein, insert the gene that produces it into the plant so that it will produce it without having us spray the crops with Bt (a hit-or-miss process, and economically impractical for anyone with a large-scale agricultural operation). et Voila Natural crop resistance to worms!

Most genetically modified crops are sold as commodities, which are further processed into foodstuffs. Large amounts of soy are produced for use as livestock feed. If there were something harmful in those foods, our animals used for meat would be dropping in droves, as would we for eating them.

Vegetable oil used for frying, cooking, shortening, margarine, sauces, soups, mayonnaise etc is produced almost exclusively from GMO-derived crops. These ingredients go into almost all of our foods!! However, the refining process removes proteins produced by the genes that have been inserted, and leaves just oil.

To give you an example of how widespread GMO foods are, at last tally, 95% of the US soybean crop is genetically modified. 93% of the US canola crop is genetically modified. 86% of the US corn crop is genetically modified, while 95% of sugar beets are genetically modified. 93% of the cotton crop (cottonseed oil) is GM cotton. In addition, pollen from the genetically modified types crosses with neighboring non-GMO crops, making it practically impossible to definitely pronounce that any certain crop is absent GM genes. The vast majority of our foods would have to be labelled that they are derived from genetic engineering.

The FDA does need to promote standardized testing for such crops, in order to make sure that along with the desired trait there are not other problems included, such as increased allergens for those who are sensitive.

Remember, those people who produce the crops eat food too. They would be foolish to introduce something risky into the food chain that their own families will be eating.

Proposition 37 would have required labelling and the ability to bring suit without any proof of damages if they allege a food is improperly labelled. This seemed to me to be nothing more than a shakedown effort by trial lawyers for easy money. And it would have promoted unfounded fears about foods.

(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120423153138.htm
(2) http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
(3) http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

Animal welfare is animal rights.

Don't believe me? I'll prove it to you. Better yet, I'll let you prove it to me.

But I don't believe in animal rights.

Okay, fine. But do you believe standards of animal care should be regulated or legislated?

Well, every animal has a right to--

Wait a minute. You said you don't believe in animal rights.

I don't.

So then, back to legislating or regulating standards of care. Why do so?

Because animals have a right to--

There's that word "rights" again.

It's just a word. I meant--

Laws are just words. Regulations are just words. Words define how we live, how we behave, how we think, what we believe. Dictating standards of animal welfare -- that's giving rights to animals. A right to food, a right to shelter, a right to medical care, and if you don't provide your animals with those rights, those words will put you in jail.

But shouldn't everyone have to take care of their animals?

Sure -- of their own will. Because it's the ethical thing to do. 

Not because the animal has rights provided by law.

Not unless you actually believe in animal rights.

Sounds of Silence

Sounds of Silence

The Future of Pets in America
Carole Raschella
Director, California Federation of Dog Clubs

For the past three decades or so, unlike any other country in the civilized world, the United States has been brainwashed into believing that the only good pet is a sterilized pet. No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of biology has ever thought to question the outcome of this bizarre idea, and we are now beginning to suffer the consequences.  There is now a shortage of pets in many parts of the country, although so far, this truth is obscured by several factors. Shelters with an overflow are transporting animals to fill the demand, as are rescue groups, many of which are also bringing in strays from other countries. In addition, hundreds of thousands of dogs are imported every year from third world countries, and thousands more are smuggled in across the border.

The source of this ideology is the Humane Society of the United States, the best known of several extremist animal rights groups, all of which have the same agenda, to eradicate animals from our lives. Their strategy is to work within the political system to lobby for seemingly innocuous, seemingly beneficial, laws, which are designed to make pet ownership more difficult, more expensive and ultimately out of reach. The irony is that, under the guise of helping animals, these groups are funded by those with the most to lose. America’s misguided pet owners.

The most obvious of these laws is the popularity of mandatory spay/neuter legislation. In a country which is already conditioned to spay or neuter its pets, encouraging laws to make sterilization a requirement and not a choice has generally been well-received. Owners who pay a discriminatory high fee to keep their dogs intact find they no longer have a choice. If these owners also breed their dogs, permission to do so now requires an expensive permit, as well as stringent kennel requirements, which, if the current APHIS proposal to the USDA is enacted, will be impossible to meet, and will end most home breeding of healthy American dogs.

Many other regulations are becoming common due to HSUS pressure. Certain breeds, usually pit bulls or any dog that resembles one, are now banned in many areas as dangerous, and other breeds are gradually being added to that list. In addition, an increasing number of apartment owners and housing associations refuse to allow pets, and recreational areas that once welcomed them are no longer doing so.

The latest, and possibly most oppressive, attacks are on the sale and transfer of pets. Most pet shops are no longer allowed to sell live animals at all, which removes an option for pet buyers, and the most recent attempt is to forbid sales of pets sight unseen, supposedly intended to prevent internet sales by suspected “puppy mills,” but also affecting breeders who sell their puppies to buyers in other states.

Last year in the California legislature, Senator Ted Lieu introduced AB1122, a bill which would prevent the sale or transfer of animals in public places, a law which would, among many other things, create difficulties for those who prefer not to allow strangers into their private homes. Fortunately, although the proposal passed through the various committees and was approved by both houses, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign it, saying that he was “concerned with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of animals.”

Undeterred by our former Governor's comments, Senator Lieu revived his proposal the following year as SB917, and this time got it pushed through successfully. In the meantime, Los Angeles Animal Services has devised its own way of creating obstacles to the process by imposing a newly created “Transfer Permit” of 120.00 on anyone who sells, transfers or gives away an animal. So, if  Susie wants to give a kitten to her dear aunt in San Diego and arranges to meet her halfway at a restaurant, it will cost her 120.00 for the privilege of doing so. Her other option, I suppose, would be to leave the cat at her local shelter, which would cost her nothing. They’ll even kill it for free. Unintended consequences.

Where will it end? Will we continue to fumble along, ignoring what is going on around us, perhaps expecting someone else to take care of it, until the day comes when we are ready for that next obedience prospect, that conformation hopeful, or just a new pet for the family…and instead of the charming squeals of a puppy, all we get is a resounding silence?

Lieu the Panderer

Letter sent to California Senator Ted Lieu today.

How hypocritical that Senator Lieu would oppose hunting with hounds due to his misguided and mistaken opinion that it's cruel to the dogs and/or the bears, yet defend shark finning because of supposed racial connections. I don't care what kind of soup people wish to consume. What is horrific is the way shark fins are obtained. I assumed Senator Lieu isn't concerned about living sharks having their fins amputated, after which their finless bodies are thrown back into the water to drown.


As for SB 1221, it seems to me to be an abuse of power for our legislators to step in regarding policies which come under the purview of California Fish and Game Commission, policies which are determined by science and logic, and by experts on the subject. It is not appropriate for senators and other public officials to make decisions based on input from avowed anti-hunting extremist groups such as the HSUS, decisions that will likely result in harm t o the animals involved. The use of dogs to tree animals that pose a danger to humans is an efficient and humane method of wildlife management, and the California Fish and Game Commission is the appropriate agency to make determinations regarding such methods.

As for the abhorrent cruelty to sharks involved in the finning process, using racial preferences as an excuse for such behavior is spurious and deceptive. I have no objection to shark FISHING, only to the mutilation of live animals in shark FINNING.

By the way, I doubt if the Chinese emperors who so valued shark fin soup were aware that it has a high concentration of a BMAA neurotoxin, which can cause neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and ALS, in humans. If Senator Lieu really cares about the races he purports to be defending, perhaps he should pass that message along to them.

Carole Raschella

Anti-hunting bill passed by California legislature

SB 1221 is on to the governor. Voting went mostly right down party lines; Democrats AYE Republicans NO. (Except turncoat Strickland, wonder how much $$$ the HSUS greased his palm with?)

Tell me again about how both parties are the same?

We need to BOOT these legislators OUT of office and for those who remain in power, they need to be cut back to part-time status.

UNOFFICIAL BALLOT
MEASURE: SB 1221
AUTHOR: Lieu
TOPIC: Mammals: use of dogs to pursue bears and bobc
DATE: 08/27/2012
LOCATION: SEN. FLOOR
MOTION: Unfinished Business SB1221 Lieu Concurrence
(AYES  22. NOES  13.)  (PASS)


AYES
****

Alquist Calderon Corbett De León
DeSaulnier Evans Hancock Hernandez
Kehoe Leno Lieu Liu
Lowenthal Negrete McLeod Padilla Pavley
Price Simitian Steinberg Strickland
Vargas Yee


NOES
****

Anderson Berryhill Blakeslee Cannella
Dutton Fuller Gaines Harman
Huff La Malfa Walters Wolk
Wright


NO VOTE RECORDED
****************

Correa Emmerson Rubio Runner
Wyland