Veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker formerly worked as a euthanasia technician in an animal shelter before she began her private practice. Dr. Becker was adamant about spaying and neutering all pets, preferably before their first heat cycle. Until she saw first-hand the damage that was causing to the health and welfare of her patients.
This is a video that you MUST watch. Grab a cuppa, silence your phone and settle in for a presentation filled with compelling facts and figures.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Puff the Magic Hund Dog
Puff the Magic Hund Dog, lived by the sea
And frolicked in an autumn mist, in a land called Vaeroy!
Once upon a time, in land far away, lived a magical dog named "Puff." He was born with six toes on each foot. Real, functional toes, not like the vestigial toes known as "dewclaws."
As he grew, his owner noticed that he was also quite magically double-jointed!
Due to his unusual anatomy, Puff was able to climb steep cliffs and navigate rocky crags.
He could flatten his ears completely, either backward and forward, which helped to keep out water or dirt.
His special talents came in handy for his job.....flushing puffin birds out from between the rocks, as well as retrieving puffin eggs from the nests. His flexible body and small size was perfect for maneuvering through caves, while his extra toes helped him to maintain a sure footing for climbing on rocks and scrambling along steep cliffs.
Puff and his relatives, who were all magically unique, flourished in Norway for hundreds of years. But, unfortunately for our Puffin Dog, known in Norway as the "Lunde Hund", it eventually became illegal to hunt puffins in Norway. He and his other family members no longer had a job, and soon, there were not many of them left. Then, distemper came along and wiped out almost all of the remaining dogs. There were less than a handful of Lundehunds left, and they were all closely related to each other.
Also unfortunate for the Lundehund is that, due to their lack of genetic variability, they are prone to a condition known as "Lundehund Syndrome." This syndrome is characterized by difficulty in digesting and absorbing protein. All Lundehunds suffer from this problem in varying degrees of severity. It can progress to cancer of the intestines or stomach or lymphoma.
http://lundehunds.com/lundehundsyndromeinfo.html
Is this genetic predisposition related to their strangely agile anatomy? We know in humans that being double-jointed is often a result of a genetic defect of collagen formation. I actually know someone with a protein malabsorption problem known as celiac disease, who cannot tolerate gluten in her diet, and she is also double-jointed. Some cases of celiac sprue are associated with abnormal collagen deposits in the intestines. It's interesting to speculate about the possible connection.
The Lundehund is closely related to the Icelandic Sheepdog and the Norwegian Buhund. "Lundies" are an attractive, moderate natural and somewhat primitive type of spitz dog, with the appearance of a cross between a wolf and a coyote.
I was lucky enough to see some of these unusual dogs up close and personal at the Eukanuba dog show a few years ago.
At one time, I toyed with the idea of obtaining a "Lundie". I thought it might be a good project to try to crossbreed with Buhunds in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the incidence of Lundehund syndrome. It's a serious problem that can result in significant pain and suffering, as well as a shortened lifespan. Whether caused by specific genes, or the result of lack of variability in the MHC (the genes that provide us with a healthy immune system), crossbreeding is the best way to introduce new genes that would help improve the overall health and vigor of the breed.
But now that AKC has "recognized" the Lundehund as a separate breed, it would be nearly impossible to undertake a crossbreeding program under the current closed registry system. "Purebred" being such an important attribute and all. Heaven forbid that we should MIX breeds, even though all through history people have done exactly that in order to produce healthy and functional dogs.
Incredibly, the genetic testing recommended for the Norwegian Lundehund in AKC's CHIC program includes only OFA patella and CERF eye certification.
Rather than admit there's a serious problem and look to fixing that problem, the Lundehund breeders justify their "pure" breeding by claiming that all breeds of dogs have different health problems. This is just their probem, they say, and that's just the way it is! No mention of crossing to similar breeds in an effort to produce healthier dogs.
I hope in the future that an adventurous breeder out there somewhere will undertake the important task of crossbreeding to truly IMPROVE the Norwegian Lundehund breed. The dogs of the future would thank us for that favor, and indeed, crossbreeding may be the only hope of for a bright future for these wonderful Lundies!
And frolicked in an autumn mist, in a land called Vaeroy!
Once upon a time, in land far away, lived a magical dog named "Puff." He was born with six toes on each foot. Real, functional toes, not like the vestigial toes known as "dewclaws."
He had extra vertebrae in his neck.
Due to his unusual anatomy, Puff was able to climb steep cliffs and navigate rocky crags.
He could flatten his ears completely, either backward and forward, which helped to keep out water or dirt.
His special talents came in handy for his job.....flushing puffin birds out from between the rocks, as well as retrieving puffin eggs from the nests. His flexible body and small size was perfect for maneuvering through caves, while his extra toes helped him to maintain a sure footing for climbing on rocks and scrambling along steep cliffs.
Puff and his relatives, who were all magically unique, flourished in Norway for hundreds of years. But, unfortunately for our Puffin Dog, known in Norway as the "Lunde Hund", it eventually became illegal to hunt puffins in Norway. He and his other family members no longer had a job, and soon, there were not many of them left. Then, distemper came along and wiped out almost all of the remaining dogs. There were less than a handful of Lundehunds left, and they were all closely related to each other.
Also unfortunate for the Lundehund is that, due to their lack of genetic variability, they are prone to a condition known as "Lundehund Syndrome." This syndrome is characterized by difficulty in digesting and absorbing protein. All Lundehunds suffer from this problem in varying degrees of severity. It can progress to cancer of the intestines or stomach or lymphoma.
http://lundehunds.com/lundehundsyndromeinfo.html
Is this genetic predisposition related to their strangely agile anatomy? We know in humans that being double-jointed is often a result of a genetic defect of collagen formation. I actually know someone with a protein malabsorption problem known as celiac disease, who cannot tolerate gluten in her diet, and she is also double-jointed. Some cases of celiac sprue are associated with abnormal collagen deposits in the intestines. It's interesting to speculate about the possible connection.
The Lundehund is closely related to the Icelandic Sheepdog and the Norwegian Buhund. "Lundies" are an attractive, moderate natural and somewhat primitive type of spitz dog, with the appearance of a cross between a wolf and a coyote.
I was lucky enough to see some of these unusual dogs up close and personal at the Eukanuba dog show a few years ago.
At one time, I toyed with the idea of obtaining a "Lundie". I thought it might be a good project to try to crossbreed with Buhunds in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the incidence of Lundehund syndrome. It's a serious problem that can result in significant pain and suffering, as well as a shortened lifespan. Whether caused by specific genes, or the result of lack of variability in the MHC (the genes that provide us with a healthy immune system), crossbreeding is the best way to introduce new genes that would help improve the overall health and vigor of the breed.
But now that AKC has "recognized" the Lundehund as a separate breed, it would be nearly impossible to undertake a crossbreeding program under the current closed registry system. "Purebred" being such an important attribute and all. Heaven forbid that we should MIX breeds, even though all through history people have done exactly that in order to produce healthy and functional dogs.
Incredibly, the genetic testing recommended for the Norwegian Lundehund in AKC's CHIC program includes only OFA patella and CERF eye certification.
Rather than admit there's a serious problem and look to fixing that problem, the Lundehund breeders justify their "pure" breeding by claiming that all breeds of dogs have different health problems. This is just their probem, they say, and that's just the way it is! No mention of crossing to similar breeds in an effort to produce healthier dogs.
I hope in the future that an adventurous breeder out there somewhere will undertake the important task of crossbreeding to truly IMPROVE the Norwegian Lundehund breed. The dogs of the future would thank us for that favor, and indeed, crossbreeding may be the only hope of for a bright future for these wonderful Lundies!
Friday, January 31, 2014
Rescue and Shelter Abuse
What is "rescue", exactly? My online dictionary tells me it is defined as:
: to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver: as
a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
b : to recover (as a prize) by force
c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force
I'd have to agree that most pet "rescues" involve taking forcibly or recovering a prize through use of force. And if the "prize" happens to be a desirable small breed dog, so much the better for the rescue raiders! Their prisoner is then offered up for sale in a rescue retail store.
However, I'm betting most pet "rescues" view themselves as freedom fighters; nabbing animals from their horrible confinement. By Jove! They derive a great sense of satisfaction and self-worth from this altruistic activity.
Sometimes this feel-good feeling is justified. When we rescue a pet from a shelter, we are saving it from certain death. But what about other situations?
What about "Rescuing" animals from their owners? Who decides what constitutes a dangerous situation for the animals? Could it be possible that this is not always the humane course of action? And if there is abuse and/or neglect involved, why isn't the first thought to provide assistance to the person involved? Many times animals are rescued from genuinely bad conditions, while the humans (usually elderly or poor, or both) are left behind, broken and forgotten. How "humane" is that, really?
There are actually many "rescue" situations which fall under definitions "a" and "b". The elderly are often preyed upon by rescuers. The elderly don't often have the resources or the energy to fight for their ownership rights.
Take, for example, a situation in this week's news. A "rescue" deceptively confiscated an elderly couple's pet Chihuahua. The couple believed they were sending their pet off to training school. Instead, their dog was taken from them to be offered as product on the shelf of the rescue retail store.
This news team gets it, and the newscaster tells it like it is. "They intend to sell him for profit" she stated in the news report.
Here's the link to the news program. Check the lovely house the director of the "rescue charity" lives in. It pays to rescue! And they are not above taking advantage of the elderly in order to profit.
http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/animal-charity-accused-taking-dog-19150.shtml?wap=0
And sometimes, the very groups that supposedly "shelter" and "rescue" are the very places that animals need to be rescued FROM.
Even as dogs in some areas are being taken from their rightful owners by animal rescuers who believe that double-coated dogs can't be kept safely outdoors in the winter weather, a shelter in Oklahoma left their door wide open and allowed their charges to freeze to death in the concrete-floored cages.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Healdton-animal-shelter-closed-242584451.html?llsms=675591&c=y
Where is the public outrage? If this were a private party they would have already gathered up the pitchforks and torches for a fine lynching. But because it's an altruistic "shelter' there's barely a ripple in the news about it.
Shelters and rescues need to be held to the same standards as any other pet store, seller, breeder or broker. Heck, they need to be held to the same COMMANDMENTS as the rest of us.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!
Instead, the current trend is to give these unregulated rescues and shelters preference in the marketplace.
While breeders and pet stores typically must be transparent in their dealings and provide health guarantees on the animals they sell, shelters and rescues can literally lie, cheat, steal and abuse with impunity. They have no ethical standards. They have no regulation. They provide no health guarantees and rarely any history on the animals they sell.
And for all these abuses, what is the penalty? Why, no penalty at all! They are even being rewarded with a market monopoly in some areas.
: to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver: as
a : to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody
b : to recover (as a prize) by force
c : to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force
I'd have to agree that most pet "rescues" involve taking forcibly or recovering a prize through use of force. And if the "prize" happens to be a desirable small breed dog, so much the better for the rescue raiders! Their prisoner is then offered up for sale in a rescue retail store.
However, I'm betting most pet "rescues" view themselves as freedom fighters; nabbing animals from their horrible confinement. By Jove! They derive a great sense of satisfaction and self-worth from this altruistic activity.
Sometimes this feel-good feeling is justified. When we rescue a pet from a shelter, we are saving it from certain death. But what about other situations?
What about "Rescuing" animals from their owners? Who decides what constitutes a dangerous situation for the animals? Could it be possible that this is not always the humane course of action? And if there is abuse and/or neglect involved, why isn't the first thought to provide assistance to the person involved? Many times animals are rescued from genuinely bad conditions, while the humans (usually elderly or poor, or both) are left behind, broken and forgotten. How "humane" is that, really?
There are actually many "rescue" situations which fall under definitions "a" and "b". The elderly are often preyed upon by rescuers. The elderly don't often have the resources or the energy to fight for their ownership rights.
Take, for example, a situation in this week's news. A "rescue" deceptively confiscated an elderly couple's pet Chihuahua. The couple believed they were sending their pet off to training school. Instead, their dog was taken from them to be offered as product on the shelf of the rescue retail store.
This news team gets it, and the newscaster tells it like it is. "They intend to sell him for profit" she stated in the news report.
Here's the link to the news program. Check the lovely house the director of the "rescue charity" lives in. It pays to rescue! And they are not above taking advantage of the elderly in order to profit.
http://fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/animal-charity-accused-taking-dog-19150.shtml?wap=0
And sometimes, the very groups that supposedly "shelter" and "rescue" are the very places that animals need to be rescued FROM.
Even as dogs in some areas are being taken from their rightful owners by animal rescuers who believe that double-coated dogs can't be kept safely outdoors in the winter weather, a shelter in Oklahoma left their door wide open and allowed their charges to freeze to death in the concrete-floored cages.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Healdton-animal-shelter-closed-242584451.html?llsms=675591&c=y
Where is the public outrage? If this were a private party they would have already gathered up the pitchforks and torches for a fine lynching. But because it's an altruistic "shelter' there's barely a ripple in the news about it.
Shelters and rescues need to be held to the same standards as any other pet store, seller, breeder or broker. Heck, they need to be held to the same COMMANDMENTS as the rest of us.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL!
Instead, the current trend is to give these unregulated rescues and shelters preference in the marketplace.
While breeders and pet stores typically must be transparent in their dealings and provide health guarantees on the animals they sell, shelters and rescues can literally lie, cheat, steal and abuse with impunity. They have no ethical standards. They have no regulation. They provide no health guarantees and rarely any history on the animals they sell.
And for all these abuses, what is the penalty? Why, no penalty at all! They are even being rewarded with a market monopoly in some areas.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Puppies Are Products
Puppies are products. They are a commodity that the animal shelter pet stores should relocate according to supply and demand. At least, that's the opinion of an ASPCA senior director, who was quoted in a news article yesterday about the reasons that dogs and puppies are shuffled from shelter to shelter. She said:
"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"
So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.
However, we should all be outraged.
This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.
Yes, Puppies ARE Products.....
There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.
The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!
But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.
So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders." You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!
Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.
Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.
You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.
It doesn't get any sweeter than that.
"It is a supply and demand issue. If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"
So, puppies are widgets, and shelters are pet stores. Glad to see them finally admit it.
However, we should all be outraged.
This is hypocrisy of the highest order, because shelters and rescues often claim that their motives are altruistic and not based on money. They urge us to "adopt, not shop". Yet, now they themselves are admitting that there is no difference in "adopting" vs "shopping" and purchasing from any other source, be it a breeder or a pet shop. A sale is a sale, and even shelters and rescues are in business to sell their product.
Yes, Puppies ARE Products.....
There has been a dramatic decline in shelter admissions across the nation. In certain areas, shelters don't have ANY adoptable dogs to offer the public for "adoption" (SALE). Puppies are imported from other states and even other countries in order to stock the shelves.
The decline in shelter admission is a huge success story. Education has worked! Shelter killing is at an all-time low. Hooray!
But, if you were a business, say the sheltering industry, and you saw your market declining, what would be your response? You'd work your butt off trying to extend the life of your current product and expand your offering. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to eliminate the competition.
So, you perpetuate the myth of overpopulation. You tacitly encourage the importation of dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico and Taiwan to ensure a continuing revenue stream. You claim that there is a big problem with greedy, evil breeders. You sensationalize shelter killings. You sling arrows at "hoarders" and "backyard breeders." You denigrate dog owners as "irresponsible." You try to convince people that only "rescued" animals should be available for the pet market. You popularize slogans like "Don't breed or buy while others die"!
Also, if you're a business in trouble, what else do you do? You reach out to the government for help. Monopolies, exemptions, subsidies, new laws to enforce against your competitors.
Unfortunately, the sheltering industry model has one additional facet - the compulsion of law. Other businesses ultimately survive because people choose to do business with them as suppliers or customers. The sheltering industry has the ability to compel a portion of the community to involuntarily provide product and then make themselves the only store in town.
You shut down the competition, seize their animals, call it a "rescue" and voila! Free widgets for the store.
It doesn't get any sweeter than that.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
ASPCA: Puppies Are Widgets in our Stores
The rescue relocation shuffle among animal shelters, the new pet stores, is being justified by this statement from an ASPCA senior director:
"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"
Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.
www.adn.com/2014/01/22/
"It is a supply and demand issue," Monterose said. "If you had a store and you had extra widgets at one store, and people were buying up widgets at another store, wouldn't you move your widgets?"
Ah, NOW I understand. When the humaniac rescuers at the ASPCA and elsewhere claim that "Puppies AREN'T Products" what they really mean to say is, "Puppies ARE Widgets". Glad they cleared that up for us.
www.adn.com/2014/01/22/
DON'T Spay or Neuter Your Pets!
We shouldn't be listening to the Bob Barkers of the world.
Two significant new studies were released in 2013 on the adverse health effects of spay-neuter. This adds to a large body of previous information.
A study on Golden Retrievers done by UC Davis revealed some SHOCKING facts about what we are doing to our canine companions when we neuter them.
"The study examined hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumor...... The disease rates for ALL FIVE diseases were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females."
"In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with that of earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The UC-Davis study, however, is the first to specifically report an increased risk of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma with late neutering."
"Furthermore, the new study showed a 100 percent increase in the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males."
Read all about it in the AVMA Journal:
https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx
The study report:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937
Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breeds in the US, and the vast majority are going to end up as sterilized pets.
Why are we as a society setting up our dogs for pain and early death? Are YOU inflicting pain and suffering on your dog by spaying or neutering, just so you can feel morally superior and politically correct?
Now here's the other major study, just released. It's a retrospective done on literally THOUSANDS of Vizslas.
The study showed that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."
Female Vizslas spayed (regardless of age) had "significantly increased odds of developing hemangiosarcoma, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs" as did males spayed AFTER the age of 1 year.
The study concluded that spay/neuter when done prior to six months old "significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder."
"The younger the age at gonadectomy, the earlier the mean age at diagnosis of mast cell cancer, cancers other than mast cell, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, all cancers combined, a behavioral disorder, or fear of storms."
Translation: The sooner the neuter is done, the sooner your dog will likely develop a health or behavioral problem.
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309
Of course, for followers of this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. We've posted many previous studies that come to the same conclusion. For more information , do a search on the blog for the label "spay/neuter" or "rethinking spay and neuter".
Don't pretend you're spaying and neutering to keep your dog healthy....because, in most situations, you're NOT.
Two significant new studies were released in 2013 on the adverse health effects of spay-neuter. This adds to a large body of previous information.
A study on Golden Retrievers done by UC Davis revealed some SHOCKING facts about what we are doing to our canine companions when we neuter them.
"The study examined hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and mast cell tumor...... The disease rates for ALL FIVE diseases were significantly HIGHER in both males and females that were neutered either early or late, compared with that of sexually intact dogs. Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, and lymphosarcoma in males and in the occurrence of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females."
"In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with that of earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The UC-Davis study, however, is the first to specifically report an increased risk of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma with late neutering."
"Furthermore, the new study showed a 100 percent increase in the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males."
Read all about it in the AVMA Journal:
https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/130401s.aspx
The study report:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937
Golden Retrievers are one of the most popular breeds in the US, and the vast majority are going to end up as sterilized pets.
Why are we as a society setting up our dogs for pain and early death? Are YOU inflicting pain and suffering on your dog by spaying or neutering, just so you can feel morally superior and politically correct?
Now here's the other major study, just released. It's a retrospective done on literally THOUSANDS of Vizslas.
The study showed that, regardless of the age at the time of neutering, altered dogs had "significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs."
Female Vizslas spayed (regardless of age) had "significantly increased odds of developing hemangiosarcoma, compared with the odds for sexually intact dogs" as did males spayed AFTER the age of 1 year.
The study concluded that spay/neuter when done prior to six months old "significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder."
"The younger the age at gonadectomy, the earlier the mean age at diagnosis of mast cell cancer, cancers other than mast cell, hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, all cancers combined, a behavioral disorder, or fear of storms."
Translation: The sooner the neuter is done, the sooner your dog will likely develop a health or behavioral problem.
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.244.3.309
Of course, for followers of this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. We've posted many previous studies that come to the same conclusion. For more information , do a search on the blog for the label "spay/neuter" or "rethinking spay and neuter".
Don't pretend you're spaying and neutering to keep your dog healthy....because, in most situations, you're NOT.
 |
| Vizslas Roscoe and Daisy, from Wikimedia commons. Poor Roscoe is only nine months old and missing a very important part of his anatomy, wouldn't you say? |
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
That'll Never Happen!
What do veganism, the movie "Blackfish" and the proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses all have in common?
They are all results of the extremist animal rights agenda to eliminate animals from our lives.
The official “Animal Rights Agenda” was drafted in 1987 and included in the Green Party platform, and was also published in ‘Animals Agenda’ magazine. The “Agenda” includes these statements of policy:
- We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats.
- We encourage vegetarianism for ethical, ecological, and health reasons.
- We call for the eventual elimination of animal agriculture.
- We believe that animals should be left in their appropriate environments in the wild, not showcased for entertainment purposes.
- Hunting, trapping, and fishing for sport should be prohibited.
People scoffed at groups like PETA. "Those crazy ideas will NEVER take hold!" they said.
But here we are, nearly 30 years later. And we can see that the campaign for animal rights has had a definite influence on society. Inch by inch, bit by bit, these animal rights concepts are taking root in the public psyche.
Veganism is promoted in our schools and in many commercial food enterprises.
Laws restricting breeding of pets are being seen in many areas.
Pet stores are being attacked for selling pets, and laws are being passed to prohibit them from doing so.
Humaniacs are infiltrating agriculture with moles and fabricating videos that supposedly demonstrate "abuse".
In California, the name of the Department of Fish and Game was recently changed to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. A subtle but disturbing shift. The term "wildlife" is not necessarily synonymous with "game".
Animals have lived outdoors in a wide range of temperatures since time immemorial, but suddenly the government is confiscating dogs that are kept outdoors. "Too cold", they claim.
Demonstrators attacked the Sea World float at this year's Rose Parade in Pasadena, and masses of ordinary people who saw the movie "Blackfish" are now proclaiming "I'll never go to Sea World again!"
The film "Blackfish", filled with misrepresentations and lies, was produced by anti-captivity animal rights activists with an agenda. The lies are being slowly revealed, but the damage to the reputation of marine parks has already been done. It's a little too late to put the toothpaste back into the tube now. Animal activists know that getting in the first strike is imperative to shock and sway the attitude of the public.
Horses have been bred for centuries to pull carriages, but according to animal rights extremists, this is now an abusive form of "slavery".
The comparison of animals to human "slaves" or animals to human victims of genocide should be deeply offensive to people everywhere.
New York City's new mayor DeBlasio has vowed to put an end to the horse carriage industry in that city. He is not only pandering to animal rights groups; he has an ulterior motive for banning horse-drawn carriages. The pricey real estate currently occupied by the stables has been promised to a campaign contributor.
The mayor has hidden his agenda to pad his own wallet behind wild-eyed humaniac crusaders who want to "free the horses". Freed, to join the masses of other horses who are slaughtered because of lack of resources to feed and house them. A horse without a paying job is a dead horse.
The campaign against animal agriculture could not be more clearly delineated. Miyun Park, HSUS Vice President from 2005-2009, said at an animal rights conference in 2006: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed [for food]…unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry. And so because of that….we work on promoting veganism.”
And thanks to this "work", humane and ethical measures designed to keep animals safe, such as cages for chickens or prods to keep cattle on their feet, are now viewed as "cruelty".
Our largely urban society does not have any realistic understanding of agricultural animal management. Few people nowadays live on farms, and those who never gave a second thought to where their dinner came from see a video with trumped-up incidents of farm animal cruelty, and suddenly they embrace veganism with a born-again religious fervor.
The end justifies the means, to radical activists. Lies about supposed animal cruelty and abuse justify the goal of getting people to reject the very basic and natural human-animal relationships. Once the humaniacs gain public acceptance of their claims of exploitation and abuse, it is easier to push through more and more laws that restrict animal ownership.
Step by step, eliminating the human-animal connection. That's the goal of groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA, and that goal is gradually becoming reality.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Government-forced neuter kills dog
Not that this is a unique situation; I've known of other small dogs who died from procedures like dental cleaning and yes, sterilization surgery. This came from the Encino-Chatsworth Patch comments section on an article on top ten popular dogs. Of course, we have to have an ignoramus come along and immdiately rub salt in the wound, wondering aloud how she can possibly believe his story.
05/20/2013 03:06pm
I
had four healthy, loveable, playful "chihuahuas. The most cruel thing
is when I complied with a law that the county of Los Angeles passed,
that said I had to have my little dog friends spaded and nuttered if I
wanted to have them or they would fine me and take them away from me. So
I complied wth the new law. Three days after I HAD THEM MUTILATED one
of them died (he was only three years old), another one became a
hatefull little recluse, if you tried to pet her, she would try to bite
you and run off and hide. All she wanted to do, is sleep and eat
everything she could get her mouth on. Other two two dogs became sickly,
they wouldn't play any more and came doun with a breathing problem. I
will take care of my little friends until they die and then no more dogs
for me. I am 90 years old and find it to up setting to loose a little
friend like this. I have had pets all my life and allways took care of
them. A lot of people say "so what" they are only a dog, just go get
another one at the dog pound. To me they are family.
To Ed Ferrett
05/20/2013 03:33pm
I
am terribly sorry that this happened to you. I am a strong spay/neuter
advocate; all the pets I have ever owned including the two my husband
and I have now have been spayed. I've never, ever had any who
experienced any terrible side effects such as you are describing. I'm
not saying it couldn't happen, I've just never heard of such a thing! It
makes me wonder about the vet/clinic who performed the surgeries, or if
your dogs suffered some other trauma besides the surgeries. At any
rate, as I said, it makes me very sad that you had to go through such an
awful thing. I know it's true that there are some people who may say
"it's just a dog" but I think I can safely say that anyone posting here
wouldn't feel that way at all. It brings me to tears even to THINK of
losing one of our girls! In my opinion, a person who cannot appreciate
the unconditional love that a pet offers and who looks on dogs - or any
animal - with callous disregard is seriously lacking something
personality-wise and isn't a person I would want to have anything to do
with. Again, my sincere sympathy - never mind what uncaring people might
say - there are plenty of us who completely understand what it means to
consider pets a part of the family.
Monday, December 30, 2013
KEEP OUR DOMESTIC ANIMALS
We've become accustomed to “White
Lies” from the popular media and from our government. Most of the
time we just laugh and dismiss them as irrelevant. But sometimes,
these lies take on a life of their own.
The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.
The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.
Ag Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401
Freedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs
We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?
Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.
Take, for example, the recent revision
of USDA-APHIS rules. The reasons cited for the revision include:
- Recommendation from an audit from the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (or “OIG”)
- Response to a petition to the White House from supporters of the Humane Society of the US (“HSUS”); and
- Many complaints received by the USDA from consumers who received sick pets after buying “sight-unseen” over the internet.
The response to these three reasons cited includes a revision of rules to require anyone who owns more than four breeding females of any species and who ships pets to even one buyer, must now fall under the licensing requirements of the USDA.
The problem with this is that hobby
breeders, who often own more than four breeding females (particularly with small breeds) and who frequently ship
pets, are generally unable to comply with USDA licensing requirements
meant for commercial breeders, dealers and exhibitors like circuses,
zoos and animal parks.
We don't keep dogs in cement kennels with
impermeable surfaces. Instead our dogs are housed in areas with
grass, carpeting and even upholstered furniture. We don't rely on our
dogs as a primary source of income, so we have a “real” job, and
are not home during business hours to submit to unannounced inspections. We
don't sell in order to make a net profit, and we sure don't have the
money to pay for additional structural modifications and licensing over and above our local
requirements.
A further claim by USDA is that FEW
breeders will be affected...about four thousand at most, they claim.
However, in their own OIG report, they claim that: “more than 80%
of breeders that OIG sampled were not licensed under the Animal
Welfare Act, because they sold pets over the internet and claimed
retail pet store status.”
Make up your mind, which is it? A few
thousand, or 80% of the hundreds of thousands of breeders in the US?
But let's back up a bit. How was this
impeccable USDA OIG research done?
By internet searches. Must have taken a
whole hour-and-a-half one afternoon. Your tax money at work, folks.
OIG report, page 37: “We used two
search engines to identify how many of these breeders were licensed
in two of our eight sampled states. We identified 138 breeders that
had more than 3 breeding females or handled more than 25 dogs a year.
We found 112 of the 138 (81 percent) were not licensed by APHIS. If
the breeders had sold their dogs wholesale (i.e. not retail through
the Internet), they would have needed a license.”
First off, how do you accept at face
value ANYTHING that's simply information gleaned from an
internet website? Someone could embellish their website to include dogs
they bred who are now owned by others. Or,
information could be out of date. People DIE and their websites still
live on.
Most people with common sense contact
sellers, ask for references from previous buyers or from their
veterinarian. They ask for recent photos to be sent to them or ask to
see the dog(s) on skype or Youtube. But not the USDA OIG. Nope, we get our
information the quick, lazy and unreliable way, via GOOGLE.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The plain fact is that it is not possible to know for sure how many dogs a person owns (intact or otherwise) or how many puppies they sell or if they actually do ship dogs, simply based on a website.
The USDA further admits in their own report that selling directly to the public via the internet is by definition RETAIL. Retail sellers have always been exempt from the AWA. This has been upheld in court! Look up DDAL v. Veneman.
Most all hobby breeders have a website
and sell remotely. That DOES NOT make them terrible, horrible, no good really bad animal exploiters who need
to be regulated by the USDA. In fact, it is a violation of our rights
to personal privacy to have government workers traipsing through our
homes unannounced simply because we have a hobby that involves
breeding our pets.
Then there's the question of sample
size. 138 websites in 8 states? Hardly a representative cross-section
of the nation's breeders.
And HOW do they know that those
breeders whose websites they perused sold even ONE animal
sight-unseen? THEY DON'T.
And even if the web seller in question
did sell pets remotely, SO WHAT??
Ah, but the USDA claims to have
received many complaints about people receiving sick animals when
purchasing and having the pet shipped to them.
See reason #3 above.
My first instinct in reaction to this is to say, BUYER
BEWARE. Do your homework, research the seller and his or her
reputation. Make your purchase thoughtfully. It is YOUR
responsibility to choose your next pet, after all. Not the
government's responsibility to protect you from your own
choices.
But upon reflection, my second instinct
is skepticism. Sick Dogs? WHERE ARE THEY?
PROVE IT!!!
A friend of mine was way ahead of me
there. She wrote to the USDA and demanded that they PROVE their assertion that people are receiving sick dogs when
buying sight-unseen via the Internet. Here is the response she received:
Dear Ms. XXXXX:
This is in response
to your July 16, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for
copies of
complaints
concerning the welfare of dogs and other pets received by APHIS
directly from
members of the
public as referenced in that statement. Your request was received in
this office on
October 13, 2011,
and assigned case number FOIA 12-03007-F.
Animal Care (AC)
employees conducted a thorough search of their files and did not
locate any information
responsive to your request.
AC has informed this
office that they have no records concerning the welfare of dogs
and other pets received by APHIS directly from members of the public
as referenced in the APHIS issued Regulatory Impact Analysis &
Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
Proposed Rule, APHIS-2011-0003 RIN 0579-AD57 because they do not
record complaints
regarding retail sales as it is not an Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
covered activity.
You may appeal our
no record determination. If you chose to appeal, your appeal must be
in writing
and must be received
within 45 days of the date of this letter to the following address:
Administrator
Animal and Plant
Health Inspection ServiceAg Box 3401
Washington, DC 20250-3401
Please refer to FOIA 12-03007-F in your
appeal letter and add the words “FOIA Appeal” to the front of the envelope. To assist the
Administrator in reviewing your appeal, provide specific reasons why
you believe modification of the
determination warranted.
If you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Kacie Edwards of my staff at (301) 851-4084.
Sincerely,
Tonya Woods
DirectorFreedom of Information & Privacy Act
Legislative and Public Affairs
BTW, an appeal was sent but was never
answered. Funny, eh?
So, there is absolutely NO
documentation to support the assertion that even ONE complaint about
internet sellers was ever received by the USDA!
We can see that the audit itself was a farce, and there is absolutely no validity to the claim of complaints about sellers shipping sick dogs. What about the petition?
A petition
by the radical animal rights group the Humane Society of the US was acted upon by the
current administration. Yet what was it that this petition requested? It
requested that “PUPPY MILLS” (a legally undefined entity) that
sell puppies via the internet be regulated under the AWA.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
A reasonable reaction to anyone using such an emotion-laden term as "puppy mill" would NOT include lending any sort of consideration to their nonsensical request.
And hey, if you ship a dog and own more than four intact females, now you are automatically a "puppy mill"? Good to know.
The current group of USDA-APHIS
licensed breeders are slurred as “puppy mills” by these same
animal rights activists, and laws are being passed in many locales to prevent the puppies from
licensed, inspected breeders to be sold! But these humaniacs want
even MORE breeders regulated under APHIS, so they can agitate to prevent
them from breeding and selling any puppies at all!! Pretty clever tactic,
I'll admit. And in today's current United States of Idiocracy, they
seem to be getting away with it so far.
Oddly enough, major dog organizations...the very
groups that should be on the front lines supporting our rights as
breeders.... have so far refused to challenge these new APHIS rules,
which clearly violate the intent of the Animal Welfare Act by regulating
non-commercial, hobby breeders. Instead, these groups are urging their supporters
to try to seek out loopholes for exemption. If we don't go along with
these new rules, they say, then Congress will pass PUPS and we'll be
in an even worse situation. In fact, these major groups have been cooperating with USDA-APHIS in formulating and implementing the new rules! A horrible betrayal of all of our rights, sadly enough.
Animal Rights "humaniacs" won't stop at redefining retail pet stores and new APHIS rules. They are going to push for an easy score like PUPS regardless of what happens with the new APHIS rules. When that happens, we will have to be on the front lines fighting that atrocity of PUPS as well.
A large group of independent dog breeders and
owners (over 21,000 to date) have decided to mount a legal challenge to these new rules.
You can read more about that process here:
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
www.keepourdomesticanimals.com
The new USDA-APHIS rules are based on a trifecta of lies....a report cobbled together by the USDA from internet searches, a petition to the White House from the ever-disingenuous HSUS, and the completely unsustantiated claim of "complaints" about sick puppies being shipped to buyers.
Please support “KODA” and the
effort to protect our domestic animals from excessive federal
government regulation.
 |
| Surely he needs to be regulated by the Federal government! |
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Spay-Neuter Laws Kill Dogs
From: Jan Dykema
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 11:38 pm
Subject: MSN
Dear Supervisor Foy:
I spent the entire evening watching the entire public hearing on Ventura passing a mandatory spay/neuter law. Much of it was painful as I listened to erudite speakers having to defend their right to breed a litter of puppies without the government looking over their shoulder (or rather "inspecting" their private homes) and extracting fees and other fines, and .. let's call it what it really is, a TAX.. on people who wish to breed their dog.
I watched as speaker after speaker presented concrete evidence; facts and statistics that without any doubt showed that MSN does not work, never has worked and never will work. I watched as people decried and denied these facts as somehow irrelevant to Ventura County; as if it was somehow special and that what happens in LA is not relevant. It IS relevant, and always will be.
Facts are facts. The housing "bubble" cannot be blamed for years of proven statistics that show MSN does not work.
I live in Napa County. We do not have MSN. Lake County is the next county over, and they do have MSN . Their shelter kills many more animals than we do.
As I looked at Ventura County stats I wondered, how much better can they get? Your shelter is doing a great job, numbers are dropping at a huge rate, so why the need for this (I hesitate to use the word as it was so overworked) "tool"? It appears that you will reach the 90% rate in very little time if all continues as it has been, without MSN. I was impressed with the amount of VOLUNTARY surgeries that were already done in your area and with the fact they were low cost or even free. Good for you! It is working and working well, if all of that is true.
I will be forthcoming. I am a licensed American Kennel Club judge and an occasional breeder of English Bull Terriers ( the Target dog, General Patton or Spuds Mackenzie depending on your shopping habits, age and propensity for libations). I sit on the Board of Directors of the California Federation of Dog Clubs and have spent much time in Sacramento lobbying for people rights to own and breed animals of all types and for them to be able to use the animals for the work they were bred for, so I am not entirely neutral on this issue; but I try to be open minded because I am also a trained Humane Officer.
I did see that much information was handed to you all during the hearing. I wondered why? None of you had any time to read the information before the vote was taken, although it did seem that you ( and you alone) had time to look at the charts that were presented and at least absorb the information.
Animals are a very emotional issue, but all facts must be considered including loss of income for the county, and less licensing for dogs and cats. A major problem that I did not hear addressed in a very significant way was the drop in rabies vaccinations that occurs when punitive laws are put into effect. Rabies is not a dog issue. It is a serious public health issue and when people do not comply due to fear or interference, the risk is escalated to a degree that cannot be calculated until a human being is infected and dies.
Finally, I heard the words "No Kill" over and over again. And yet, no one actually reported who is the "father" of the No Kill movement. That would be Nathan Winograd. Mr. Winograd invented the words "No Kill" and has a very specific plan on how shelters can become "No Kill". Nowhere anywhere in his statements and writings regarding No Kill does Mr Winograd EVER say MSN is a part of the No Kill program. If fact, he intentionally says MSN NEVER helps the No Kill program and that MSN should never be a part of any No Kill program.
I have taken the liberty to include a few of Mr. Winograds information by attachments here. (all safe to open) Here is an excerpt:
"Moreover, mandatory spay/neuter laws are not a new or untested idea in the U.S. They have been around for decades and historically have been the favored form of pseudo-advocacy by the voices of tradition within the animal sheltering industry. In fact, many U.S. communities already have such laws. Are those communities No Kill? No, far from it. While mandatory spay/neuter laws have long been the siren song of the animal protection movement, the evidence proves that when implemented in the U.S., such laws have been disastrous. Over and over, mandatory spay/neuter legislation is pushed as a quick solution to high rates of shelter killing."
“If only we had a spay/neuter law” the argument goes, “all the bad, irresponsible people would have to take care of their pets properly, and shelters wouldn’t have to kill so many animals.” If this were true, given the proliferation of such punitive mandates nationwide, these laws would have already created many No Kill communities. That there are none as a result of mandatory spay/neuter laws proves that such legislation does not work. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Communities that have passed such laws are not only far from No Kill; they are moving in the opposite direction, killing more, not fewer animals."
I hope Ventura County will be the exception to this rule but statistics and time do not bear this out.
Thank you for your support of less government interference in the lives of American citizens and for voting "no" on this ordinance. You would have my vote if I had one!
Jan
Jan Dykema
Certified Humane Officer
American Kennel Club Judge
BOD California Federation of Dog Clubs
attachments:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)