The Writing on the Wall

Elizabeth, the Lhasa Apso deserves hearty congratulations for her Best in Show win at Crufts 2012.

The Lhasa Apso is closely related to the Pekingese, the Shih Tzu and the Tibetan Spaniel, and a bit further removed is the Tibetan Terrier, the Pug and the Japanese Chin. In fact, sometimes different-coated dogs known popularly as "Prapsos" (perhaps Apsos) are born in Shih Tzu and Lhasa Apso litters. These dogs have different coats, shorter and straighter, and they look nearly identical to a Tibetan Spaniel. 

This is a clue to the close genetic relationship these breeds share. Historically, it is believed by some that the Chinese used the most extreme short-faced Tibetan dogs to develop the Pekingese. Some people believe it happened the other way around; that the Pekingese gave rise to those other breeds, but either way it is obvious that the Peke has been interbred with and is closely related to the various Tibetan breeds.

Elizabeth, and indeed her breed in general, escaped the intense scrutiny of being on the "High Profile Breed" hit list. At least for this year.

This despite the close relationship to other breeds under fire, and sharing some of the much-criticised "extreme" features. The Lhasa Apso has a coat that dusts the floor. And hair that cascades over the eyes. And an undershot lower jaw. And is brachycephalic.

The AKC breed standard states:

The preferred bite is either level or slightly undershot....Heavy head furnishings with good fall over eyes, good whiskers and beard.

The KC standard specifies:

 Head furnishings with fall over eyes, but not affecting the dog's ability to see....Muzzle.....length from tip of nose roughly one third total length from nose to back of skull...reverse scissor bite.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't find fault with the standards. I'm simply anticipating future criticism by the nannying animal welfarists. A short muzzle, with an undershot bite? Dentition is probably suboptimal. Isn't all that hair a bit too "extreme"? That has been an oft-repeated criticism of the Pekingese....too much coat. Will the Lhasa be next to be criticised for their coat? At least the coat of the Pekingese doesn't fall over the eyes!

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
  Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
  Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

But helpless pieces in the game He plays,
  Upon this checker-board of Nights and Days,
He hither and thither moves, and checks ... and slays,
  Then one by one, back in the Closet lays.

Lhasa apso littermates, "Prapso" on the right

The Sale of Puppies Online

This article originally appeared in The Fancy Speaks column in the February 10, 2012 issue of Dog News. It is reprinted here by permission of the author.

The Sale of Puppies Online

Carlotta Cooper

I read the January 20, 2012 DOG NEWS editorial “Regulating The Sale Of Puppies Online” with concern. Although it’s clear that the editorial is well-intentioned, it comes dangerously close to embracing the PUPS bill which is now in Congress. And PUPS, H.R. 835/S. 707, would be very harmful for hobby dog breeders.

The editorial argues that the Internet is used for the sale of dogs, which is true, and that some of these dogs come from places which have no policy or guidelines for their sale. Some even come from “the unregulated commercial breeder.” This is also probably true. The editorial goes on to ask, “Who is there to determine whether or not the seller is responsible? Who establishes the policy to protect the dog in these situations whether or not it is a commercial or homebred sale?”

I would like to point out that people have been selling dogs by means of newspaper classified ads, magazine ads, billboard notices, and other forms of commerce and advertising for generations. No one has been regulating these retail sales directly to the public. The thinking has always been that the buyer needs to be careful when buying anything, from anyone. Caveat emptor has a very real meaning when it comes to buying a pet. The buyer should exercise due caution when buying a puppy or dog, whether they are buying from a magazine, newspaper, or over the Internet. It is not the responsibility of the government to regulate the sale of puppies for the buyer. It is up to the buyer to use some good judgment when making a purchase. This hasn’t changed since people were buying puppies from ads in dog magazines in the 1980s, or buying dogs at any other time in history.

Large commercial breeders who are inspected by the USDA are already regulated and they do report their wholesale sales. However, the retail sale of puppies and dogs directly to individual buyers has never been regulated at the federal level. In many states this kind of sale is now regulated at the state level, if you sell more than x number of puppies per year. In some states it is covered under a sales and use tax, the same kind of tax that covers the sale of Girl Scout Cookies or having a yard sale. If you sell more than a certain number of puppies per year in some states you would be required to get a business and/or kennel license so you could regularly report your tax income from sales.

HSUS calls the fact that retail sales to individuals are not regulated at the federal level a “loophole” and, in PUPS, they are trying to change this situation. But this exemption of retail sales for small breeders is not a loophole. It is the way the law was intended to work. In DDAL vs. Veneman (2003), the case in which the Doris Day Animal League sued the USDA to try to make them inspect retail breeders (home, hobby, show breeders), the judge gave a clear ruling that small breeders were not the same as pet stores and did not have to be regulated or inspected as such. HSUS has been trying to change the law through PAWS and PUPS ever since that time.

These small hobby breeders and others who sell puppies and dogs by retail means were not meant to be regulated in the same manner as large commercial breeders. But that’s what PUPS would do.

It is up to the buyer, not to the government, to check out the person who sells a puppy. Otherwise, all of us who breed dogs are going to have the USDA visiting our homes to see how we keep and raise our puppies.

Now, it’s true, as the editorial mentions, that many people don’t like the idea of “regulation,” but in this case regulation cuts right to the core of everyone who breeds and shows dogs. If PUPS becomes law it would cripple breeders who show, breed dogs for performance, and who breed quality companion dogs. We would be required to meet the same USDA standards that are in place for large commercial breeders, even though we raise puppies in our homes. Most of us could not do this and the result would be the end of countless serious breeding programs in the show world, along with the end of precious bloodlines and, in some cases, the end of breeds.

The AKC sees this, too. On January 26, 2012 they sent a letter to members of Congress from Dennis Sprung with their concerns about PUPS. Among other things it says:

“The AKC does not oppose the concept of regulating high volume breeder retailers but we believe that the definitions proposed in this bill are misleading, overly broad, and potentially damaging to responsible breeders who individually maintain and breed only a few dogs in their homes.

“Although PUPS was designed to regulate internet sales of puppies, it would require anyone who owns or co-owns even a few female dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a year to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections. They are not appropriate for small breeders who may keep only a few dogs in their homes.”

In short, AKC opposes PUPS as it is written and asked members of Congress to withhold their support.

As it is written, PUPS would also regulate anyone who sells these puppies by any means, not just over the Internet. It specifically includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the Internet, telephone, or newspaper),” so it does not just intend to regulate people who sell over the Internet.

I doubt I have to mention how many show breeders have web sites or sell puppies online. You would also fall under this bill for Internet regulation of puppy sales.

PUPS is a very dangerous bill that will harm all of us who breed and show dogs. If you haven’t contacted your legislators to ask them to withhold support for PUPS, you can contact them by visiting this site: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Here is some more information about PUPS:

WHAT PUPS DOES:

• Abandons traditional determination between wholesale and retail---so that

USDA can regulate home/hobby breeders who don't sell to pet stores.

• Begins USDA regulation of anyone (with 1 intact female dog over 4 months of

age) who sells, places, or adopts out more than 50 dogs in a year ... to start.

Could easily be amended down to 10 ... to 2.

• Takes away your right to privacy in your own home. USDA or their contractors

can without notice enter your home and inspect it if they SUSPECT you might

meet criteria for regulation.

• Over-regulates responsible home breeders out of existence. Mandates non-

porous floors, kennel sizes, floor drains, and pages of requirements impossible

for most home breeders to follow.

• Forces shelters, and home/hobby breeders to redesign their current facilities in

order to meet federal standards.

• Establishes government controlled exercise standards that are not scientifically

proven.

• Sets precedent with exercise standards for future rigid socialization and

breeding standards that would remove owner’s flexibility to use professional

judgment based on breed and purpose.

• Reduces the ability of the American public to obtain healthy privately bred or

rescue dogs of their choosing.

• Places an unfunded mandate on Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and overextends their enforcement ability.

• Fails to exempt sportsmen, sporting dog trainers, and hunting clubs from being

regulated alongside in-home sellers.

• Adds more federal oversight and regulation into Americans’ daily lives.

Dogs Rule at Westminster

"Maverick" a rescued Weimaraner, to participate in this year's Westminster Kennel Club show!

The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show spotlights the creme de la creme of the dog world. And in a curious twist of fate, the world of canine rescue is also a hot topic of discussion at this year's show.


In one of the most heartwarming stories ever, we learn of a Weimaraner named Maverick. Maverick's owner purchased him from Craigslist a couple of years ago. Seems Maverick was in very poor condition, underweight, neglected and unhealthy. But within a few months, under the tender loving care of his new owner, Maverick began to go to dog shows....and win...and win big....and as a Grand Champion, he will now be a participant in Westminster, the most prestigious show of the year.

Maverick's owner feels that his dog was a “rescue”. Indeed, Maverick could well have ended up in a shelter or rescue had he not been sold on Craigslist. Had that happened, Maverick would almost certainly have been neutered. What a pity that would have been for the Weimaraner world.

I've often thought that the requirement to spay/neuter every rescued dog was not only unnecessary, and potentially detrimental to health, but also contributes to narrowing of breed gene pools. Canine geneticists advise us to keep as many individuals as possible in a breed's gene pool. Genetic diversity is necessary to maintain overall health, vigor, longevity, fertility and optimal immune system function. In the case of purebreds, spay/neuter of all rescues is a very unwise move that reduces genetic diversity. While of course we must be discriminating in selecting individuals for breeding, considering health and good temperament, it's also a beneficial goal to include as many individuals in breeding programs as possible to help promote diversity and avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding. Another benefit of genetic diversity is lower incidence of breed-specific genetic health problems.

Wholescale spay/neuter, along with over-use for breeding of just a few dogs deemed exceptional, dangerously narrows the gene pools of our breeds. Maverick’s story is a success story not only for him and for his owner, but for his future generations. They would never be born if the typical “rescue” ending of a routinely performed neuter had spelled the end of Maverick’s tale. Thankfully, Maverick’s genes were ultimately preserved.

Animal rights groups have convinced us that it is merciful to spay and neuter all the animals that pass through a shelter or rescue situation. They imply that breeding is a cruel fate for animals. I think they are wrong. Dogs enjoy the activity of raising their young, just as we do.


And speaking of animal rights groups and Westminster, we also learned this past week of the termination of the Pedigree “Dogs Rule” advertising/adoption campaign that has been held during the Westminster KC show for the past several years. In my case, there was an immediate visceral objection to seeing presented abused and neglected rescued dogs (very few of which were intentionally-bred purebreds) at an event of this nature. Animal rights groups do believe that purebred dog breeding is to blame for shelter intakes and they make no bones about voicing that opinion. Even the narrator of the Pedigree commercials, David Duchovny, is an “animal rights” proponent and a PETA supporter.


So, way back in 2007, I was curious about the Pedigree campaign which was jointly conducted with the American Humane Association.


I checked out the American Humane Association website, to see where they stood on issues. The page I referenced has since disappeared and the website has been streamlined, but I looked at their website and discovered that:

• They support AR agenda legislation in various states.
• They advocate for mandatory, pre-pubescent spay-neuter.
• They oppose medical research using animals.
• They promote various “freedoms” for farm animals.
• They oppose commercial, for-profit breeding, slurring this as “puppy mills”, and state that this is inherently cruel.
• They support “guardianship” as opposed to “ownership”.
• They oppose any and all tail docking, ear cropping, debarking or declawing.
• They oppose racing and coursing.
• They support mandatory microchipping.

The AHA was surely laughing at us, because they were successful in perpetuating the image of show dogs as the source of shelter intakes. And they did it at the biggest kennel club event of the year! And the dog breeders actually CHEERED for them!


I found it curious that during the Pedigree drive and fundraiser conducted during the Westminster KC show in 2007, there was never any mention of the many breed rescue groups, run primarily by breeders and breed club volunteers. I did not pay much attention to the commercials in subsequent years, so I don’t know if breed rescue ever was mentioned.


The Pedigree commercials referred to AKC show dogs as “lucky”….saying shelter dogs are “not as lucky as the show dogs you see here”. The implication was that these show dogs are the few, the minority, that most dogs end up at shelters. Not true. A very small percentage of dogs end up at animal shelters each year….check the nationwide numbers, it is around 3-4% of owned dogs. The vast majority of dogs in the US are cared for in a responsible and humane manner, and do not end up abandoned. Sometimes, I think it is too easy to forget that, especially for those who work day-to-day in a stressful shelter or rescue setting.


It’s not a result of “luck” that the vast majority of dogs lead a good life. It is the result of plenty of hard work, effort and dedication on the part of their owners. But mostly, it's the result of our love affair with our dogs. Westminster is a quintessential display of that affection we hold for "man's best friend".


Responsible ownership and breeding is constantly under attack from AR groups. Good riddance to the Pedigree commercials at Westminster.

Remember, it was just a couple of years ago that PETA interrupted the Westminster show with their cheap shot-style protests. Maybe that is when the club decided enough was enough and to sever ties with animal rights groups:

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/02/parade-of-mutants-seen-in-westminster.html


"Rescued Weimaraner to show at Westminster":

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/02/rescued-weimaraner-to-show-at-westminster-2012/


"Pedigree replaced as Westminster sponsor":
http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/pedigree-replaced-as-westminster-sponsor-after-24-years/

Sleeping with the Enemy

HSUS revealed in a press release yesterday that they have partnered up with some naive AKC breeders to form a Dog Breeder's Advisory and Resource Council. Hmm....the D-BARC. Rest assured, that name and its acronym are no coincidence! This is a blatant attempt to silence the voice of those who are independent thinkers. It's a typical divide-and-conquer ploy by experts in that tactic.

"The new partnership will help consumers shop wisely for a puppy by recognizing the difference between responsible breeders and puppy mills." the announcement states. "...composed of responsible dog breeders from across the country. Council members will advise HSUS on dog health and welfare issues, and talk to the general public about what constitutes proper breeding practices, promoting the health of the parents and the puppies."

Proper breeding practices according to WHO? While certain "hobby breeders" may believe that championships and adherence to a breed standard are the most important criteria for success and prerequisites for breeding, others may have different priorities. They may wish to produce nice companions, good workers, or perhaps just would like to experience the joy of raising a litter of puppies. Nothing wrong with that! 
 

Next we hear from one of the actual participants in the program:

"We want to protect our right to be responsible breeders and to enjoy and bond with our dogs in show and performance events, but if we think for one minute that ignoring the problem of cruelty to animals makes us responsible breeders and protects our rights, I believe we're wrong," says Council member and AKC Breeder of Merit, Kathryn McGriff. "We can no longer sweep puppy mills under the rug."

Apparently, this gal believes that breeding dogs=cruelty="puppy mill". Unless done her way. After all, she is lauded as an AKC "Breeder of Merit". A title signifying that the breeder registers all their dogs with AKC, and does some breed-specific health testing. This group of meritorious breeders is certainly not inherently more worthy than any other group of breeders.  
  

McGriff breeds Clumber Spaniels, a breed so rare that it is threatened with extinction. But soon, if HSUS and these "responsible" breeders have their way, laws will be crafted to demand that all breeders fit a certain, limited mold. It will be their way, or the highway. HSUS will use this D-BARC panel to try to eliminate any breeders who are independent thinkers, or who dare to wish to make a profit.


And where does McGriff come up with the ridiculous notion that anyone is sweeping the issue of substandard breeders under the rug? Has she read the APHIS rules? The many "puppy mill" campaigns in the popular press?

There are umpteen rules and regulations, both federal and local, that delineate humane care and treatment of dogs. If people are not complying with rules for care of their dogs then they can be fined, or, in some extreme cases, even have their dogs "rescued" from the situation.


PLENTY of laws exist already on the books. Substandard breeders are exposed every day, and they either reform their practices or they are put out of business. The current system is working quite handily, and it is the finest system in existence. We certainly do not lack sufficient guidelines or laws when it comes to taking care of our animals. Heck, we have plenty of nosy bureaucrats interested in controlling our every step! And now, these few foolish Breeders of Merit are inviting yet more regulatory shackles upon all of us through participation in a program that seeks to "advise" the public on a narrow view of breeding practices. How dare they place all breeders in jeopardy!  

"The primary aim of The HSUS is to promote pet adoption from shelters and rescue groups, and encourage consumers who choose to purchase a puppy to buy from a responsible breeder instead of inhumane, commercial breeding facilities known as puppy mills." the press release continues.

According to HSUS president, Wayne Pacelle, "We commend the responsible breeders who are showing leadership in their community and speaking out against the abusive operations that treat dogs not like loving family members, but like a cash crop."

Reality check for everyone.

DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. They are not equivalent to a family member, unless the owner CHOOSES to treat them as such. Many dogs are bred for work, for hunting, for protection, for guides to the blind and other service. While many dogs are also bred as companions, every one of the aforementioned purposes is just fine too.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with breeding dogs as a business. Gosh, how I wish I could make a living doing what I love, being around my dogs 24/7. But alas, that is not possible for those who breed only on a small scale. And now those who breed as a business are under direct attack from all fronts.

The HSUS puts the emphasis on "adoption" from shelters and "rescue" groups. Never mind the fact that shelters and rescues often import dogs from other areas and even other countries because they don't have enough dogs available for sale.

Today I also received word about another show breeder who has fallen under the spell of the HSUS. Just read her note from a message board on the HSUS's website!

Aloha, my name is Theresa Donnelly, and I am the secretary of Boxer Club of Hawaii. Thank you so much for taking this on and questioning the AKC. I am involved with helping pass some animal protection bills here in Hawaii, and I have really enjoyed working with HSUS. I have been hoping that the AKC could partner with HSUS for some time. The fact that health is not a standard that is judged against in confirmation shows is wrong. As a hobby breeder, I feel health and temperament should come before appearance. I can only hope that the AKC will stop opposing bills like our commercial breed bill here. It is too bad too, because AKC has a lot of great programs and it hurts both sides when we don't work together. I thank you for standing up for what is right and confronting them for their breeding standards. We can only hope that as time goes by, more ethical breeders will join the fight. Theresa

What can we reasonably expect from a ditzy chick who can't even spell "conformation"? And who thinks you can judge health in a show ring? Absolutely moronic. Where has she been all these many months that breeders have been under attack? She must be quite insulated from reality there in the Hawaiian islands. If there are more like her, no wonder we read this week that the State of Hawaii is now proposing a law requiring every dog sold be sterilized.* That has HSUS written all over it. Pet extinction in paradise.

Are these few sanctimonious and pious show breeders partnering up with HSUS in a pathetic attempt to eliminate the competition? Or are they really that clueless about the HSUS?

Sadly, some AKC "Breeders of Merit" have joined the circular firing squad. There is nothing meritorious about attempting to eliminate the rights of others to participate in breeding programs that comply with government regulations for humane care and treatment.

More info on Hawaii's SB2504:
*http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2012/bills/SB2504_.HTM

 


Theresa Donnelly, Boxer Club secretary, at a pet store protest in Hawaii on Jan 28, 2012. Wake up and smell the coffee, Toots!



"Eternal Home Again" Microchips



"Professional" microchip insertion at a clinic

 Microchip ID has been widely touted for use in recovery of lost pets and facilitating returns to owner. Since our pets can’t give a phone number or address when they are lost, no doubt microchips can be very advantageous. I choose to have my dogs microchipped.



However, the State of California wishes to remove that choice from us. Los Angeles already has a mandatory microchip law on the books, enacted based on promises from the “Found Animals Foundation” to provide the city with millions of dollars worth of microchips. Shelters in many areas routinely microchip animals prior to adoption. And now the legislature is advancing a bill (SB 702) which mandates microchipping of all animals released from shelters. The owner or prospective owner would have no choice in the matter.

Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will probably result in higher adoption/impound fees. For at least some pets, this will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.


A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and suffered from infecton at the insertion site. Some have had the chip inserted improperly into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are even instances of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. (See articles linked below). Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer and there is no universal scanner at this time.


Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an option worth considering.


Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. If there is increased reliance on microchip without another form of ID, the result may be the death of a beloved pet who could have survived with the use of a more visible form of ID.

Animals who are stolen will most likely never be scanned, rendering a microchip uselss in such situations. The thief can even have the microchip surgically removed. This is another instance where a more visible form of ID like a tattoo might be more useful than a microchip.


In regard to microchipping, the American Veterinary Medical association states on their website:

"As with almost anything, it's not a foolproof system. Although it's very rare, microchips can fail and become unable to be detected by a scanner. Problems with the scanners are also not common, but can occur. Human error, such as improper scanning technique or incomplete scanning of an animal, can also lead to failure to detect a microchip. Some of the animal-related factors that can make it difficult to detect a microchip include the following: animals that won't stay still or struggle too much while being scanned; the presence of long, matted hair at or near the microchip implantation site; and a metal collar (or a collar with a lot of metal on it). All of these can interfere with the scanning and detection of the microchip."


The AVMA further states on this same page:


"It looks like a simple-enough procedure to implant a microchip – after all, it's just like giving an injection, right? Well, yes and no. Although it looks like a simple injection, it is very important that the microchip is implanted properly. Using too much force, placing the needle too deeply, or placing it in the wrong location can not only make it difficult to detect or read the microchip in the future, but it can also cause life-threatening problems. Microchips should really be implanted under supervision by a veterinarian, because veterinarians know where the microchips should be placed, know how to place them, and know how to recognize the signs of a problem and treat one if it occurs."


Yet, in Rebecca May’s bill analysis for SB 702 from July 8, there are reassuring statements made regarding microchip safety. Ms. May asserts "The material is inert and biocompatible, thereby there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip. Also, implanting the device is similar to that of a vaccination, resulting in minimal pain for the animal - and can be implanted by veterinary techs and other personnel."



The statement that "there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip" is patently false. And the AVMA seems to feel that veterinarians should be there to at least supervise the insertion, in light of the complications that may occur.


Here are two documented cases of the microchip being implanted in the spinal canal. One is dated 2009 and the other case is dated 2010.


Who is responsible if the microchip is placed in the spinal canal? Will it now be the State?

Case 1:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151873

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2009;22(1):63-5.

Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy's spinal canal.


"A 1.6 kg, six-week-old Tibetan Terrier was admitted with a 12-hours
history of acute onset of progressive tetraparesis following insertion of
a microchip to the dorsal cervical region. Neurological examination
indicated a lesion to the Ce(1) to Ce(5) spinal cord segments.
Radiographic examination confirmed the intra-spinal location of a
microchip foreign body at the level of the second cervical vertebra.
Microchip removal was achieved following dorsal hemi-laminectomy;
significant intra-operative haemorrhage was encountered. The puppy was
ambulatory at day seven. Follow-up telephone interview 18 months
postoperatively confirmed that the patient had made a good recovery
although it had a mild residual right- sided torticollis."



Case 2:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422127

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2010;23(3):213-7. Epub 2010 Apr 26.


Delayed spinal cord injury following microchip placement in a dog.

"A three-year-old female, entire Yorkshire Terrier dog was examined because 
it had progressive non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and
tetraparesis of two weeks duration. Clinical signs were first observed
following mating. Examination confirmed non-weight-bearing left forelimb
lameness and tetraparesis. Left forelimb muscle atrophy was also noticed.
Survey radiography revealed a metallic foreign body consistent with a
microchip in close proximity to the left articular facets between the
fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae. Computed tomography identified the
exact location of the foreign body encroaching on the left dorsolateral
vertebral canal, and osteolysis of the lamina of the sixth cervical
vertebra. Surgical removal of the foreign body was performed via a dorsal
approach to the caudal cervical vertebral column. Two weeks following
surgery the dog showed return of left forelimb function and resolving
tetraparesis. Microchip implantation had been performed three years
previously."

Risks from microchips are rare, but problems do occur. Microchip insertion should be a personal choice and an individual decision, based upon weighing the risk vs benefit. Such a procedure should not be mandated by the state.

For further information: 

"Implants Linked to Animal Tumors"
Todd Lewan, A.P.
September 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html


"Chipped Pets Develop Fast-Growing, Lethal Tumors
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/chipped-pets.html


The Scientific Evidence
http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm


Case Histories
http://www.chipmenot.org/casehistories.htm


CASPIAN Releases Microchip Cancer Report
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/05/18/caspian-releases-microchip-cancer-report/

The Russian Roulette Diet

Having done extensive research on canine nutrition, I noted with interest Caroline Coile's article "How Would You Like That Cooked?" in the August issue of the AKC Gazette. However, eager anticipation soon gave way to disappointment as I realized that the article included flawed studies and reasoning commonly spouted by the staunchest critics of raw diets. There was some valid information, but the poor data predominated.


A study was cited that found that cats fed frozen raw rabbit developed taurine deficiency, while those fed a commercial kibble did not. There are several problems with this study. First, it only included cats with malabsorption issues. It is well known from human studies that highly refined and processed foods are more easily digested by those with malabsorptive digestive disorders. It is possible that the underlying health condition caused the difficulty with taurine absorption, and not the food itself. A commercial food is, in effect, "predigested" by being highly processed, a situation that may be beneficial for animals with malabsorption problems.


A diet consisting exclusively of rabbit is not advisable because taurine levels in rabbit are much lower than other meats. A 2003 UC Davis lab study tabulated taurine content in various meats fed to pets:


Whole rabbit carcass ....... 373 (+/- 399) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Chicken dark meat.......... 1690 (+/- 370) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Turkey dark meat .......... 3960 (+/- 690) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
clams fresh ................. 2400mg taurine per kilogram wet weight

So if the kibble-fed cats had a diet that included other meats that just rabbit, and was supplemented with powdered taurine as well, they of course were not as prone to develop taurine deficiency as those fed rabbit exclusively. The act of freezing may be a consideration too. It is possible that freezing may destroy taurine, just as high heat cooking does. Grinding also destroys taurine.

And, we might need to remind ourselves, cats are not dogs. Dogs can produce at least some taurine from other amino acids, while cats cannot.

The take home message from this study is that frozen, ground raw rabbit should not comprise the sole diet for months on end of cats with malabsorption problems. That's it! This is even more evidence of the need for variety in the diet.

Then, a large portion of the artice was devoted to bacterial contamination of food. That section highlighted concerns about salmonella. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. The AVMA admits that, based on studies done on kibble-fed dogs, a full 36% carry salmonella in their GI tracts. Salmonella can be transmitted to dogs from humans, and salmonella is also, incidentally, transmitted to humans from other humans, not just by food or kisses from a pet. Salmonella is in the environment, and is a natural part of life for our pets, and for us too. Naturally, it can be a concern for the immunocompromised.


However, commercial dried foods have been recalled for salmonella contamination frequently; more often than raw diets. Once a food is processed at high heat, all microbes, both good and bad, are killed. This leaves the resultant meal in effect a petri dish, ready to be overrun by the first disease-causing micro-organism the food comes in contact with after processing. There no longer are beneficial bacteria in the food to help keep disease-causing organisms in check.


I would be interested to see the 2009 study the article refers to, that claims NO pathogens in the stools of kibble-fed dogs. I would be very skeptical of such results. I have seen multiple other studies out of University of Guelph, cited as part of an agenda to ban therapy dogs from partaking of a raw diet. However, studies used as "evidence" have been either statistically insignificant due to small numbers, or did not include a group of dogs fed kibble. In the studies with large numbers of participating dogs, most all of them have done a great job of highlighting the bacteria in the stool of raw fed dogs while ignoring the significant amount of pathogens in the stool of kibble-fed dogs. In most studies, the amount of pathogens is comparable and for some pathogens (such as C. difficile and MRSA) the rates are significantly HIGHER in kibble-fed dogs.

The article seems to attempt to justify use of highly processed "sterilized" commercial pet food by highlighting overblown salmonella risks. If the risk of transmission of salmonella varied with diet, then health care personnel would be ordered to not to eat peanut butter, almonds, eggs, mayonnaise, a rare-cooked burger, strawberries, or any of the other foods that have been found to carry salmonella. 

An example of a raw diet included in Ms. Coile's article involved the practice of feeding racing greyhounds inferior foods. It should go without saying that when feeding a home-made diet, the ingredients should be fresh; not stale, rotting or rancid.  Concerns about parasites are certainly valid, and the reason that even most raw feeding advocates do not recommend feeding of raw fish or raw game animals. Deep freezing can also help reduce the risk of parasites.

Ms. Coile's article pointed to studies that analyzed home-prepared recipes, claiming they were "unbalanced". This thought process is also flawed, as home-prepared diets are based on the concept of variety rather than eating the same, homogenized recipe each and every day. You do not need "balance" in each bite. What is needed is balance over time. This wrong-headed thinking about balance needed in each bite comes from the habit of opening a bag and pouring out the same dry formula every day, day after day.

A diet made of shredded shoe leather, motor oil and ground coal could also pass AAFCO certification as "complete and balanced". Still, it's certainly not something I'd like to feed my pet.


In this article, much ado was made of nutrient deficiency or excess in home prepared diets, but nothing is mentioned about the multitude of deaths and recalls related to the use of "balanced" commercial foods. These foods can be dangerously "imbalanced" and it is a most serious situation when the naive consumer buys and feeds one food exclusively, trusting it to be "complete and balanced".

Vitamins and minerals have to be supplemented in commercial diets due to the poor quality and overprocessing of the ingredients used. When measurements are off, the results can be deadly. Many deaths and recalls have resulted due to thiamine deficiency, the most recent in 2011 by Wellness brand. In 2006, Mars' Royal Canin brand was recalled due to massive overdosing of Vitamin D. Other vitamins and minerals have been problematic over the years in commercial "balanced" diets, including zinc, calcium, and Vitamin A. Then there are the hazards of incidental ingredients such as fluoride in rock phospate, an ingredient included in almost all pet foods to provide minerals. We also find potential carcinogenic preservatives and even drugs like pentobarbital and tylenol in some commercial pet foods.

You can be certain of three things: death, taxes and future recalls for mycotoxins in pet foods. Recalls for deadly aflatoxicosis and vomitoxicosis are common; the risk for those is unavoidable in commercial foods where dry ingredients sit in warehouses prior to production, and then once manufactured, the food sits on a shelf for months prior to purchase. High levels of aflatoxins kill outright, but chronic, longterm consumption of low levels of aflatoxins (present in virtually ALL kibbles) eventually produces liver cancer.

Let's not forget the frequent recalls for metal shavings and pieces; as well as the horrific 2007 near-universal contamination with melamine and cyanuric acid which were INTENTIONALLY added to foods to make protein content look higher. I daresay such "ingredients" are just as risky (if not more risky) to dogs as any bone fragment in a raw diet ever was. Bones don't kill thousands of dogs in one fell swoop.

Commercial diets have killed countless dogs, yet we are left with the impression in the closing statement that "dogs are living longer than ever now on diets formulated for health."

Is there actual evidence that dogs really are living longer today, on average, than those who lived decades ago? And if so, is that attributable to diet or to other factors? Yes, many owners ARE feeding their pets higher quality foods today; and not necessarily just commercial, over-processed foods. But aside from that, fewer dogs are allowed to roam these days, reducing the possibility of accidental death which was the major cause of death "back in the day". There have been great advances in veterinary care, and more and more pet owners these days take their pets in for routine care and dental cleanings, thereby promoting a longer life. On the other side of the coin, some breeds suffer from genetic health problems that shorten lifespans, and these factors are unrelated to diet or quality of veterinary care. So please let's not jump to conclusions about lifespans based on nonexistent, faulty or incomplete evidence.

We need to quit relying on meals poured from a bag, and begin to use our common sense when feeding our animals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a balanced diet for dogs; just a bit of information. Look for some of the many excellent canine diet resources available now. Lew Olson, a canine nutritionist, has a book out on raw and natural nutrition for dogs and has great articles on her website; http://www.b-naturals.com/

A good eye-opener to the perils of commercial canine cuisine is Ann Martin's book "Food Pets Die For". Another interesting book with good research is "See Spot Live Longer" by Steve Brown and Beth Taylor.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AVMA, BVMA, and the CVMA may have opposition to a raw diet (as stated by Ms. Coile) not because of health concerns, but rather due to a conflict of interest brought about by the financial support these groups garner from the pet food industry. Perhaps the AKC and the "Gazette" have a similar conflict, considering the heavy advertising and financial support they accept from Purina and Eukanuba. I can think of no other reason for AKC to print such a biased and flawed article on diet for dogs in the "Gazette".

Feeding commercial kibble? You may well be playing "Russian Roulette" with your dog's life.

"How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways! - Top three Ways to Love Your Pet"

A MESSAGE FROM THE DESK OF BRENDA BARNETTE, LAAS GENERAL MANAGER WHO OVERSEES THE PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF OUR CITY'S ANIMALS  

City of Los Angeles  Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90012 / http://www.laanimalservices.com/

 For Immediate Release                                        

April 28, 2011                                                                

Contact: Brenda F. Barnette, General Manager

Email: Brenda.barnette@lacity.org                                                                                    Phone: (213) 482-9558

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways!

Top Three Ways to Love Your Pet

 Number 3:  Spaying/Neutering -- A Change for the Better

You get a healthier pet.  Spayed/neutered pets are less likely to get injured in fights or get lost.  They live twice as long and are less likely to develop certain cancers.  This means lower medical bills.

You get a happier family member.  Spay/neutered pets are calmer because they are more focused on being a loving member of the family; and with adequate daily exercise and a reasonable diet, they don't get fat.

Your pet and your house will be cleaner.  Spayed females will not have heat cycles that soil your rugs and furniture.  Neutered males are less likely to mark furniture and rugs with urine.  This means less special cleaning bills.

Spaying or neutering your pet is a good investment.  Once you multiply the increased food, basic supplies, veterinarian and advertising costs to find homes for the animals, you will see that the cost of altering your pet is very smart investment.

Number 2:  Microchip your pets.

A microchip is a tiny electronic transponder about the size of a grain of rice.  The chip is embedded under the pet's skin using a simple, relatively painless procedure similar to a routine vaccination.  Each chip bears a 10-digit number that can be traced to the pet's guardian.  When your lost pet is found, anyone with a scanner – animal care and control agencies, adoption centers, veterinary clinics – can quickly reunite the family.

Microchips are available from veterinarians, some vaccination clinics, and public shelters at an average cost of $15 to $75, sometimes with additional registration fees.  Los Angeles City Shelters include a microchip for all dogs adopted from City Shelters.  We also microchip non-shelter animals for $25.

And the Number 1 Way To Love Your Pet:

Get Your Dog Licensed NOW!

Make sure your dog's license is current because it protects your dog if he/she accidentally gets out and gets lost.  License tags give you the peace of mind to know that Los Angeles Animal Services will be able to reunite you with your pet if she/he is turned in by a Good Samaritan or is picked up by one of our officers.  It is not only a great safety net for your dog, it is the law.

Do not delay; get your dog a license TODAY!

·         Fees: Spayed or Neutered: $20.00 with proof of rabies vaccination and proof of spay/neuter.

·         Not Spayed or Neutered (if qualified): $100 license plus $235 breeder's permit fee.

Call the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services at 888-452-7381 (TTY Hearing impaired: 877-875-8205) or visit our website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ to find out how you can get your dog license today.

Golly, only $335 per dog, per year, for a license! Wow, let me call right away! What a bargain. If I have three dogs, that's only a THOUSAND dollars per year. For dog licenses.  No problem, I'll just cut back on food for my children. And what's that you say? I need to beg for government permission each year, or else my dog will be forced to have unnecessary surgery? Where is the hoop? I am ready to jump! How high?

Dear, dear. Seems Ms. Barnette has been swilling some serious AR Kool Aid. Well, after all, she USED to be a breeder, just like she USED to eat meat, but not any more. Maybe her brain is fogged from lack of Vitamin B-12? Just like the rest of her vegan friends. And maybe....just MAYBE....that KoolAid is laced with some serious psychedelic stuff!

Well, first, before I can address the string of lies in this propaganda, let me pick my jaw up off the floor. Gee, a government official who lies to us? Who would have thought?....I am absolutely SHOCKED!

Ready? Here we go:

Neutered pets live twice as long and are healthier? Where is the proof of this? The scientific evidence proves the exact opposite. Many studies that show that keeping all the original parts is the appropriate course of action if you want to promote health and long life. Ovaries promote longevity. Testicles and their precious hormones protect against prostate and bladder cancer. Intact animals have significantly lower rates of hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism, diabetes, pancreatitis, and senile dementia.

Happier family members who won't get fat? Baloney! Many studies show a link between speuter and obesity. When you lose essential hormones and your metabolism slows down, you easily get fat. And really, the dog is happier? You know this how? Behavioral studies show that sterilization increases fearfulness, shyness, and studies show that dog-to-human aggression actually increases! Oops!

Your house will be cleaner? I guess Ms. Barnette forgot that 20-30% of spayed females develop urinary incontinence. They even have a special name for this problem; it's called SPAY INCONTINENCE. Your house won't smell real great with pee all over the place; but seriously, for any dog with a housebreaking problem, or the minor problem of discharge during a season, whether that pet is intact or neutered, it is a simple matter to buy bitch britches or belly bands. Get over it already.

Guess what, neutered dogs get into the mud and get skunked just the same as those who are intact. Duh!

Spaying and neutering a "good investment"? After paying hundreds for unnecessary surgery, you then get the added bonus of extra vet bills for other health problems that come along with sterilization.

 But hey, since your pet likely won't live as long as it would if it kept all its vital organs, then I guess you will save a lot of money. Dead animals don't eat or have medical bills.


Typical AR swill. Do any of them have any kids? Two-legged ones, I mean. Do they turn up their noses in disgust changing a diaper, or at the messes kids make? Would they slice out their child's organs and then lie about their reasons for doing so? Yet they think nothing about doing exactly that to these victims "family members".

Guess when Animal Rights nuts make those claims of how "pets are part of the family", it's just lip service. Who would treat a family member like that?

      Someone with a VERY dysfunctional family.

  

Crocodile Tears

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

Hello;

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

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



That quote should answer your question.

Harrison claims her blog is about:

"the latest news and views regarding inherited disorders and conformation issues in purebred dogs."

Conformation:

"The structure or outline of an item or entity, determined by the arrangement of its parts."

and I am sure we can agree that hair placement is not an "in'hair'ed ( sorry could not resist) disorder.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


It seems a shame that these words by one of the most revered of British statesmen have been so soon forgotten:
"

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety."
"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."
Winston Churchill

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


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


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