Hey, I was just sitting here, minding my own business, happily playing on Facebook, with Fox Business News on in the background, when WHAM! Suddenly I was subjected to a very disturbing interview. Some woman from the ASPCA was lecturing Lou Dobbs about pet store puppies.
You know, they are all from "puppy mills", they are selling sick dogs; rescued dogs are the way to go; 7 million dogs enter shelters each year and half are killed; and in surveys, 9 out of 10 dog owners prefers their "rescued" pet to a pet store pet. (A little bit of journalistic sarcasm there with the 9 out of 10 thing, but she did essentially state this, claiming this to be the result of some satisfaction survey)
Mind you, this is the ASPCA talking here. They just recently paid out a whopping $9.3 million settlement to Feld Entertainment (Ringling Bros Circus) when charged under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Seems they were involved in manufacturing evidence of animal abuse. Is it any surprise that their representative would LIE on national television?
So naturally, I had to pipe up and write to Lou Dobbs. Do you know that the ASPCA is not trustworty? Using pejorative slurs when referring to breeders is offensive and just plain wrong. Do you know that "rescues" are importing hundred of thousands of dogs annually? Do you know that consumer protection "puppy lemon laws" do not apply to shelter and rescue pets? And, let me fill you in on something; there were 2.3 million animals killed in shelters..that's dogs and cats combined, roughly about a 50-50 mix. NOT half of 7 million, or 3.5 million DOGS ALONE, which she impled was the case. Perhaps a million adoptable dogs killed because shelters don't make the earnest effort to find them homes...of which there are over 20 million opening up for pets each and every year.
There is also evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinarian care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."
After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.
In other words....pet store puppies are healthier than puppies from other sources.
I'll let you know if I get any feedback (not likely). Methinks Lou Dobbs has been hoodwinked. He took the lazy way out and let his "expert" do his research for him. Big mistake, but par for the course on television news lately.
Whatever happened to REAL investigative journalism, anyway?
Wys tans plasings met die etiket shelter statistics. Wys alle plasings
Wys tans plasings met die etiket shelter statistics. Wys alle plasings
Sondag 24 Maart 2013
Woensdag 30 Januarie 2013
Oregon Has to Stem the Tide of Yellow Journalism
Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.
Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.
While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.
Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.
But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.
Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.
And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.
The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.
That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.
Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.
Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.
That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.
The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.
WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?
Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.
Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.
But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)
Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?
According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)
The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"
Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.
But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html
 |
| Unsourced photo attached to referenced article. We don't know exactly what is going on here, or where the picture is from. But hey, it LOOKS dramatic, and the emotional impact is more important than any actual FACTS. |
Just read a ridiculous article today (see link below), claiming that because "rescues" are bringing dogs from California to Oregon, California must surely have a surplus of pets. "California Has to Stem the Tide of Dogs" the headline blares. These relocated pets, according to this article, are riddled with disease, suffer from severe emotional distress and are kept in horrific conditions.
Well, claim #3 may not be far from the truth. Lord knows that some of these "rescues" lately have been busted for keeping their charges in abusive and negectful conditions.
While I agree that dogs should not be transported across state lines for purpose of “rescue”, most of this article is emotional histrionics with no basis in facts. Firstly, the misconception that the state of California is lax on sterilization and that is the reason that dogs are being transferred to other states is DEAD WRONG.
Under the Vincent Law, passed way back in 1998, California state shelters are mandated to sterilize all dogs and cats prior to release. Of course, this law was also based on the false premise that shelter problems are caused by failure to spay/neuter. It failed to take into account that, in 1998, shelter numbers had dramatically declined from the 1970s and 1980s...WITHOUT any mass spay-neuter, or forcing people to sterilize their adopted dog or cat.
But even as shelter numbers continued to decline, we couldn't leave well enough alone. Several local areas decided to pass laws requiring all pets to be sterilized. The most densely-populated areas of the state like Los Angeles County have had mandatory spay and neuter laws for several years now. And them, guess what happened? You got it, after those laws were passed, shelter intakes and deaths increased. That is the norm; such foolish, punitive and coercive laws always cause higher shelter intakes everywhere they have been tried. And, some people out there don't necessarily WANT their pets spayed/neutered as they are aware of the negative health consequences that often accompany such drastic measures.
Next, IF these shelter animals are in such horrific condition, how about holding the government shelters responsible for that, rather than spouting a stock meanigless reply about "overpopulation"? Aren't shelters the ones releasing these animals? At least, that is what is being reported here. IF the reporting is in any way reliable.
Shelters sending out dogs laden with parasites and rife with various diseases? Somehow I doubt that. But, even if true, abuse is abuse, whether the animals are being cared for by a private party, a state-run shelter, or a largely unregulated "rescue" operation.
And just because it's called a "shelter" or a "rescue" doesn't necessarily mean there's anything humane going on.
The fact is that there are so few pets available in some areas of the state, that shelters and rescues in California are IMPORTING DOGS from other states and even other countries.
That's right. “Dogs Without Borders” in Los Angeles will order you a dog from as far away as Taiwan. The Helen Woodward Humane Society in San Diego County has shipped in dogs from the south for years, and imports dogs from Europe...specifically from Romania....every month. Compassion Without Borders" has long brought homeless stray dogs into California for the rescue trade. Golden Retriever Rescue LA imports dogs from Taiwan. Beagle rescue flew 40 dogs from Spain into Los Angeles. Then we have Save a Mexican Mutt, who obviously bring up mutts from Mexico.
Gotta restock the store shelves, you know.
Now here's another interesting factoid that those in Oregon probably haven't considered. The US Border patrol did a survey recently and discovered that over 10,000 dogs and puppies are smuggled into San Diego County from Mexico, each and every year.
That's because the shelters in San Diego County rarely have any adoptable dogs.
The group “Wings of Rescue” admits that, over the past few years, it has cherry-picked about 2,000 of the most desirable young and small breed dogs from California's shelters to re-sell in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia.
WHY is this happening? Why are animals being relocated from one area to another?
Because there is a shortage of pets in some areas.
Having a pet SHORTAGE is not desirable either. A shortage drives up prices, and promotes the black market sales of animals and indiscriminate breeding for quantity, not quality.
But the misguided well-meaning "rescuers" and the less-altruistic animal rights kooks won't rest until all pets in this country are sterilized. They dream of the day when there is a shortage of pets across the nation, just as there already exists a shortage in selected areas such as the New England states and the Pacific Northwest region. They'll be glad to fill the void with pets from Mexico, the Caribbean, Taiwan and other distant locales. (Shhh!! Some of them actually make money doing this!)
Now, let's conduct a little exercise in shelter math, shall we?
According to California's 2011 state shelter statistics (the latest year for which statistics are available) there were 176,907 dogs euthanized for the entire year in California's shelters. We don't know how many of these were adoptable dogs, but most shelter experts estimate that roughly half of all dogs killed are adoptable (ie not sick, injured or aggressive)
The population of California stands at just over 38 million. Using all lthis data, we can calculate that there was less than one adoptable dog killed in an animal shelter for every 400 citizens in 2011. That's hardly what anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be stupid enough to call "overpopulation"
Out of 400 people, perhaps just ONE might be looking for a nice dog? Do you think that shelters might possibly be able to find homes for all or even MOST of the adoptable dogs? There is absolutely no reason why not, IF they are doing their job in a proactive manner.
But don't let facts interfere with the spay-neuter propaganda agenda.
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2013/01/17/7738/
http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2012/12/oregon_welcomes_some_250_dogs.html
Woensdag 27 Junie 2012
Canine racism
In the early 20th century German Shepherds were reviled. They were regarded as aggressive, mean and untrustworthy. The mental association of the breed with German Nazis didn’t help its image either. What turned the tide in the negative public perception of this breed was the advent of a nationwide television hero named “Rin Tin Tin.” Suddenly, a breed that was shunned, feared and hated became adored as a family pet and admired for its courage and loyalty.
Every era needs its scapegoat, and so it goes today, with the popular media and even some so-called “dog bloggers” (who really should know better) railing against “pit bulls.”
For decades, one of the most popular types of dog in this country has been the “bully”-type breeds. This type of dog has served as the mascot for the “Little Rascals”, the logo dog for “Target” stores, the dog listening with rapt attention to the RCA Victrola, and the “Spuds Mackenzie” dog in beer commercials. Helen Keller owned a beloved bull terrier. Millions choose dogs of this type when selecting a family dog, and why not? According to aficionados, the Bull Terrier was known in Victorian times in England as the “nanny dog” because it was so reliable with children. Whether the legend about this nickname was true or not, it certainly COULD have been true. Bully breed dogs are smart and loyal and brave, known on many occasions to save the lives of their owners. Just like all dogs of all breeds.
Breeds that are popular tend to be over-represented in shelter statistics and bite statistics. This only means that there are more of them around, not that they are a problem based solely on their type of breed. There are a lot of Chihuahuas in shelters too, and they figure way up at the top of the list for dog bites as well. The most pressing concern about dog bites is the risk of rabies, and that risk is the same regardless of whether the bite came from a bulldog or a Chihuahua.
It's amazing that people who would be immediately offended if a human racial slur was slung are so willing to fall into that sort of insulting and ignorant activity when it comes to dog breeds.
Now we are seeing unsubstantiated claims thrown about that “pit bulls” are a large percentage of shelter intakes and deaths. To illustrate the fallacy of this idea, here is a message I just received from a friend of mine in response to an article I posted about shelter stats on our breed club list:
“I am not sure where they get the information on "Pit Bulls" - it seems to me that pretty much anything large can get that designation. A neighbor's AKC Labrador escaped and was impounded. They swore they had not had any Labs brought in, yet there he was. But he was a Pit Bull. Good job she went and checked personally instead of just taking their word for it.”
This is a typical scenario. Shelter workers are conditioned to be disgusted at the sight of “pitbulls” and to watch warily for them at every turn. And all those misidentified dogs are lumped into the statistics claiming that “pit bulls” are rampant in shelters.
The California Federation of Dog Clubs has produced a Breed ID workshop for shelter workers. There is a quiz included with pictures of dogs of many breeds, and quite a few of them look similar to so-called “pit bulls”. In fact, according to the CFoDC, there are 25 purebred breeds that are commonly mistaken for “pit bulls” including Boxers, Rottweilers and (yep) even Labrador retrievers.
Try for yourself and see how easy it is to identify a dog breed just based on appearance alone:
www.stopbsl.org/bsloverview/impossibleid/
www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
At the risk of sounding trite, how we can treat man's best friend this way? He gives his all for us, and we villainize him, outlaw him, and kill him.
Donderdag 19 April 2012
Idiocracy
 |
| Coming soon to a pet store in YOUR neighborhood! |
The LA City council is entertaining a ban on sales of pets in pet stores. The proposal was presented by a committee headed by City Councilmember and animal rights activist Paul Koretz. This follows on the heels of similar bans or proposed bans in other California cities, including Glendale, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Chula Vista, Laguna Beach, and West Hollywood.
Never mind that the number of pet-selling stores in all these cities combined could be counted on one hand.
No pet sales in pet stores, unless, of course, "rescue" groups are the ones selling them. And just who is initiating such proposals? Why, of course, it's these very same "rescue" groups. Best Friends Animal Society is leading the charge.
How gullible can we be? Apparently, very.
We seem blind to the fact that "rescue" groups import dogs into LA for the pet market….from commercial breeding establishments in other states, and from the streets overseas, and from foreign "puppy mills".
Yet these groups, "Best Friends" and others, have the nerve to criticize retail pet stores? Best Friends Animal Society's "Pup My Ride" program plucks animals free of charge from commercial breeders in the Midwest and then trucks them into other states (including California), to sell at "adoption" events; and now, to sell in pet stores.
Nothing quite as sweet as eliminating the competition, is there? Make no mistake about it, these groups are just as mercenary a group of pet purveyors as the Hunte Corporation or any so-called "puppy mill" out there.
Pets purchased from regulated sources like pet stores come with legal protections for the buyer. These protections, provided under California's Lockyer-Polanco act, include monetary compensation when facing veterinary bills due to a pet's illness or infirmity. What sort of rules and regulations do "rescue" groups have regarding their sales? Slim to none. Just pay your money.
What recourse will consumers have when they purchase a rescued pet with poor health or when their rescued animal bites their child? They will have NO recourse. The provisions of the Lockyer-Polanco act DO NOT apply to animals obtained from shelters or rescue.
In 2004, the first case of canine rabies in over 30 years in Los Angeles happened when an infected dog was imported from Mexico. But hey, that's so much better than having dogs raised in the US under regulated conditions.
Consumers should not be robbed of their right to choice in the marketplace. The foundation of our country is the free marketplace where competition is the most effective motivator for quality.
The Los Angeles proposal does not limit the sales ban to puppies, but also includes a ban on the sales of cats and even rabbits.
Yeah, I've heard about those horrible rabbit mills. A big problem. What's next, hamsters, turtles, or maybe even goldfish? Oops, sorry, San Francisco is already way ahead of us there.
But wait; there's more.
The proposal that Koretz presented to the city proposes to study the shelter stats for the next few years after the ban, to evaluate the effect of the ban. So, now the city is going to presume that there is a relationship between pet shop sales and shelter numbers? What sort of faulty logic is this? Wouldn't they first need to do a study regarding where the pets entering shelters and rescues originate? Because, there was a study done by a shelter in Nevada called "Heaven Can Wait." They discovered that fewer than 5% of shelter animals originated from pet stores, and only about 1-2% came from "professional breeders". So where is that presumed link between pet stores and shelter numbers? It's imaginary. Another one of those facts that "everybody knows" to be true.
The committee also proposes to crack down on "illegal breeding operators." And what do "illegal breeding operators" have to do with pet store sales? Illegal breeders don't sell to pet shops. Does this crackdown relate to shelter numbers in any way? And how do we determine how (or even IF) pet stores, illegal breeders and shelters are interrelated?
Of course, all these new rules and regulations will require enforcement from the police state. That is costly. No problem, Koretz and his committee state that the increased regulations will result in...ready for this one?....more license revenues!
And how the devil do they think that they will increase revenues from dog licensing when they are prohibiting sales? So they plan to enforce their new rules with money that they won't be getting. Makes perfect sense to me.
Well, politicians are rarely known for their skills of logic; or, for that matter, for their intelligence.
Betcha the portly Koretz's next proposal will be to force us all to make our pets drink Brawndo instead of water.
 |
| President Koretz |
Donderdag 08 Maart 2012
PETA's Big Bash
 |
| The pet killers and mysogynists join forces in Los Angeles |
In other words, their propaganda and lies headquarters.
$2.5 million, eh? I wonder how many animals they could have spared at their shelter (which kills almost every animal that has the great misfortune to enter their doors) with that money?
Fun With Statistics:
The City of Los Angeles killed 38,000 animals last year.
PETA's new building cost approximately $2.5 million.
PETA's new building cost approximately $2.5 million.
At an average actual cost of about a dollar a day, that would feed all of those 38,000 animals for 65 days, which ought to be enough time to get them all adopted (assuming they're 100% adoptable).
PETA has killed over 28,000 pets at their Virginia headquarters. Using that $2.5 million, they could have fed all of those animals for 90 days.
Or, it could feed 6849 animals for a whole year.
Or, it could feed 6849 animals for a whole year.
But that is working off the assumption that Bob Barker and PETA are actually "ethical". HAH!
Los Angeles County announced just yesterday that they will be going door-to-door to enforce their mandatory spay/neuter /microchip law.
So much for the lies about these laws being "complaint-driven" and not targeting ordinary citizens who are not creating any problems.
Will Bob Barker show up at YOUR front door sometime soon to examine your dog's testicles?
Los Angeles County announced just yesterday that they will be going door-to-door to enforce their mandatory spay/neuter /microchip law.
So much for the lies about these laws being "complaint-driven" and not targeting ordinary citizens who are not creating any problems.
Will Bob Barker show up at YOUR front door sometime soon to examine your dog's testicles?
Woensdag 29 Februarie 2012
Shelter Solutions
California’s “Hayden Law”, enacted in 1998, extended the mandatory holding period for shelter animals from 72 hours to four to six business days. It encouraged shelters to work proactively to place animals and reduce euthanasia rates. The provisions of the Hayden law have been loosely adhered to over the past decade and a half, and this has resulted in great improvements in shelter practices in the State of California. Because this extended hold is a statewide mandate, the state must reimburse local shelters for their costs.
California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals reclaimed by their owners, sent to rescues or placed for adoption must have their impound expenses paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed. Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption.
Most shelters currently hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days anyhow, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and numbers of pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.
Los Angeles County holds animals for an average of eleven days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions with a repeal of the reimbursement mandate. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.
Besides, there are plenty of other action, progressive actions, that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters.
Here are just a few that could help:
• Raise the limit on the number of dogs someone can own. Why is "3" a magic number – especially if they’re small?
• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!
• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.
• How about lowering the price of shelter dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.
• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.
• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.
• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.
• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.
• Picked up a stray with a license or a valid microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.
• Stop the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.
• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count those who are Dead On Arrival, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives for a merciful death.
• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.
• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.
• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their work force or anything that might affect their job security.
• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.
• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.
Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population.
(Thank you Carol Hamilton for all these great suggestions!)
California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals reclaimed by their owners, sent to rescues or placed for adoption must have their impound expenses paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed. Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption.
Most shelters currently hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days anyhow, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and numbers of pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.
Los Angeles County holds animals for an average of eleven days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions with a repeal of the reimbursement mandate. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.
Besides, there are plenty of other action, progressive actions, that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters.
Here are just a few that could help:
• Raise the limit on the number of dogs someone can own. Why is "3" a magic number – especially if they’re small?
• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!
• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.
• How about lowering the price of shelter dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.
• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.
• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.
• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.
• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.
• Picked up a stray with a license or a valid microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.
• Stop the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.
• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count those who are Dead On Arrival, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives for a merciful death.
• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.
• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.
• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their work force or anything that might affect their job security.
• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.
• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.
Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population.
(Thank you Carol Hamilton for all these great suggestions!)
Maandag 27 Februarie 2012
Every Owner is a Responsible Owner
We've heard the claptrap from the animal rights groups about how "every responsible breeder is a puppy miller, every family farmer is factory farmer, and every responsible hunter is a poacher."
But I'd like to step up right here and now and announce that:
EVERY ANIMAL OWNER IS A RESPONSIBLE OWNER
That's right! You are responsible for your animal. You are responsible to care for him, to protect him from suffering, and to nurture him.
The law also regards you as responsible for the actions of your animal. If your animal is roaming at large and causing problems, again, you are going to be the one who must make restitution, and pay any fees or fines.
When it comes to pets, we are a nation of responsible owners. According to the latest pet population survey for 2011-2012, There are 164.6 million owned dogs and cats in the US.
And further, 39% of all households own at least one dog, and 33% of all households own at least one cat.
That's a lot of responsible owners!
But wait! You say. Not everyone is responsible. Some people discard their pets. Some people neglect or abuse them. What about THOSE people? I am responsible, but others may not be as ethical or conscientious an owner as I am, right?
Sure, there are always a few bad apples in the barrel....people who intentionally abuse or neglect their animals. I believe those folks to be a distinct minority. And, as it turns out, judging by animal shelter statistics, they are only about 2% of all pet owners in the US.
About 6-8 million animals sift through shelters every year; many are unowned feral cats, and about 20% are repeat customers (offenders?). About 10% are dead when picked up (going by California statistics). Considerably less than half are from a bad ownership situation. But calculated out, and figuring on the high end of 4 million per year, this means that only about 2% of all animals that are owned, will end up in a shelter in a given year. And some of those are taken there specifically for humane, end-of-life euthanasia.
Consider further that many animals enter shelters not due to "irresponsibilty" but due to social problems like loss of a job or home foreclosure, or incapacity/death of the owner. So no sense trying to point the finger of blame at those situations. Life happens. We pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and learn from our experiences. That is, after all, the responsible course of action, and it is the natural self-evolution we all undergo as we progress through this life.
We as humans love our animals. We as Americans are responsible animal owners. It's as simple as that.
Sondag 26 Februarie 2012
PETA - THE BUTCHER OF NORFOLK
The Boston Globe - Editorial
"Dog show: Canine 1 percenters only"
February 15, 2012
For those who know the world of dog competitions mainly through the 2000 comedy film “Best in Show,’’ it’s all too easy to dismiss the humans in this world as obsessive fussbudgets who’ve lost track of the bigger picture. The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show surely hasn’t dispelled that image with its decision to part ways with its former sponsor, Pedigree, over the pet food brand’s ads urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs.
Those Pedigree ads were powerful, featuring noble-looking canines and a somber voice-over urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs, not pity them. This was too much of a downer for the kennel club. “Show me an ad with a dog with a smile,’’ a kennel club spokesman told the Associated Press. “Don’t try to shame me.’’ Sure enough, the ads on this week’s broadcast, from competitor Purina, have been far more upbeat.
The kennel club is free to accept whichever sponsors it chooses. But a dog show - one billed, no less, as a celebration of dogs - is the best possible forum to urge the adoption of shelter animals. Instead, the kennel club’s stance only highlights the disconnect between the plight of millions of mutts and the bizarrely cosseted existence of canine 1 percenters.
Response -
PEDIGREE AND WESTMINSTER
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
letters - dog show hounded by controversy
February 23, 2012
RE “DOG show: Canine 1 percenters only’’ (Editorial, Feb. 15): The Globe mocks those who enjoy showing their dogs as a hobby, yet remains stone silent on the hypocrisy of the animal rights groups, whose shelter ads only serve to inflame public ill will toward dog show participants.
That “somber voice-over’’ in the Pedigree commercial belongs to David Duchovny, an animal rights extremist and supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA attempted to interrupt this year’s Westminster dog show with with a stage-grabbing protest, like a similar protest two years ago. Thankfully, they were held back this time by security. The American Humane Association, a co-sponsor of the Pedigree adoption drive, is also a fanatical anti-breeding animal rights organization.
We are fed up with so-called animal rights groups. PETA euthanizes dogs by the thousands at their Virginia “shelter”, as do other animal rights groups through their promotion of anti-animal ownership legislation.
Breeders, on the other hand, do not suffer from any “disconnect’’ from shelter animals. We rescue and re-home thousands of dogs every year through breed rescue efforts. We support the Canine Health Foundation, which helps improve the lives of all dogs, whether purebred or mixed breed. Who are the animal rights groups to dare lecture the rest of us on how “unlucky’’ shelter dogs are, compared to the dogs who have the spotlight?
Animal rights groups should not be allowed advertising spots to heap scorn and derision on dog hobbyists.
Geneva Coats
PETA – “BREEDERS KILL DOGS”
February 26, 2012
IT’S DISINGENUOUS for letter writer Geneva Coats to criticize those who must perform the thankless, heartbreaking task of euthanizing homeless and suffering animals when the purebred dog-breeding industry she supports directly contributes to the need to do so ( “Breeders aren’t the problem; PETA is the problem,’’ Letters, Feb. 23).
The Westminster dog show is well aware of its role in the animal
homelessness crisis, which is undoubtedly why it blocked commercials
urging viewers to adopt homeless dogs for being too sad. Sad indeed:
thousands of healthy dogs are waiting behind bars in shelters at this
very minute. Their lives depend on being adopted, yet breeders continue to churn out litters of puppies, in hopes of making profits or winning ribbons. Every time someone buys an animal from a breeder, a dog or cat in a shelter loses her chance at a home and will pay with her life.
Breeding may be a hobby for people like Coats, but for dogs waiting in
shelters, it is a death sentence. If breeders really cared about
animals, they would stop bringing more of them into a world that is
tragically short of good homes and work to promote spaying, neutering, and adoption instead.
Daphna Nachminovitch
Vice president,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, Va.
There's a reason that PETA’s president is dubbed “THE BUTCHER OF NORFOLK”
Feb 26, 2010
The hypocrites at PETA kills adoptable animals by the thousands at their Virginia "shelter". They have a horrific 97% kill rate. This is a matter of public record. Meanwhile, other shelters in the US, who actually do care about animals, have made great strides in reducing their intake and euthanasia rates. According to Maddie's Fund, we are on target to reach a nationwide "no kill" level by 2015.
Pet overpopulation is a myth. The overwhelming majority of our nation's pets are sterilized, and we now face an acute shortage of pets in many areas. Many shelters, particularly in the New England states, import dogs from other areas and even from other countries. Hundreds of thousands of dogs are brought in from Taiwan, Romania, Mexico and the Caribbean. In November, 41 "rescued" dogs were shipped into Los Angeles from Spain.
Massachusetts shelters have imported street dogs from Puerto Rico for many years now. In July of 2004, six people had to receive rabies treatments after a Massachusetts shelter imported a rabies-infected Puerto Rican street dog.
Nationwide statistics show that there are almost six homes available for every animal that is killed in a shelter. Shelters who kill adoptable animals do so by choice.
Don't be fooled by PETA propaganda. PETA kills animals. Their sadistic, misanthropist philosophy is the antithesis of "ethical".
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Shelters and rescues importing dogs by the hundreds of thousands:
http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-raining-dogsfrom-other-countries.html
Debunking pet overpopulation:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390
No Kill – We’re Almost There Already!
http://www.maddiesfund.org/no_kill_progress.html
"Dog show: Canine 1 percenters only"
February 15, 2012
For those who know the world of dog competitions mainly through the 2000 comedy film “Best in Show,’’ it’s all too easy to dismiss the humans in this world as obsessive fussbudgets who’ve lost track of the bigger picture. The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show surely hasn’t dispelled that image with its decision to part ways with its former sponsor, Pedigree, over the pet food brand’s ads urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs.
Those Pedigree ads were powerful, featuring noble-looking canines and a somber voice-over urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs, not pity them. This was too much of a downer for the kennel club. “Show me an ad with a dog with a smile,’’ a kennel club spokesman told the Associated Press. “Don’t try to shame me.’’ Sure enough, the ads on this week’s broadcast, from competitor Purina, have been far more upbeat.
The kennel club is free to accept whichever sponsors it chooses. But a dog show - one billed, no less, as a celebration of dogs - is the best possible forum to urge the adoption of shelter animals. Instead, the kennel club’s stance only highlights the disconnect between the plight of millions of mutts and the bizarrely cosseted existence of canine 1 percenters.
Response -
PEDIGREE AND WESTMINSTER
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
letters - dog show hounded by controversy
February 23, 2012
RE “DOG show: Canine 1 percenters only’’ (Editorial, Feb. 15): The Globe mocks those who enjoy showing their dogs as a hobby, yet remains stone silent on the hypocrisy of the animal rights groups, whose shelter ads only serve to inflame public ill will toward dog show participants.
That “somber voice-over’’ in the Pedigree commercial belongs to David Duchovny, an animal rights extremist and supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA attempted to interrupt this year’s Westminster dog show with with a stage-grabbing protest, like a similar protest two years ago. Thankfully, they were held back this time by security. The American Humane Association, a co-sponsor of the Pedigree adoption drive, is also a fanatical anti-breeding animal rights organization.
We are fed up with so-called animal rights groups. PETA euthanizes dogs by the thousands at their Virginia “shelter”, as do other animal rights groups through their promotion of anti-animal ownership legislation.
Breeders, on the other hand, do not suffer from any “disconnect’’ from shelter animals. We rescue and re-home thousands of dogs every year through breed rescue efforts. We support the Canine Health Foundation, which helps improve the lives of all dogs, whether purebred or mixed breed. Who are the animal rights groups to dare lecture the rest of us on how “unlucky’’ shelter dogs are, compared to the dogs who have the spotlight?
Animal rights groups should not be allowed advertising spots to heap scorn and derision on dog hobbyists.
Geneva Coats
PETA – “BREEDERS KILL DOGS”
February 26, 2012
IT’S DISINGENUOUS for letter writer Geneva Coats to criticize those who must perform the thankless, heartbreaking task of euthanizing homeless and suffering animals when the purebred dog-breeding industry she supports directly contributes to the need to do so ( “Breeders aren’t the problem; PETA is the problem,’’ Letters, Feb. 23).
The Westminster dog show is well aware of its role in the animal
homelessness crisis, which is undoubtedly why it blocked commercials
urging viewers to adopt homeless dogs for being too sad. Sad indeed:
thousands of healthy dogs are waiting behind bars in shelters at this
very minute. Their lives depend on being adopted, yet breeders continue to churn out litters of puppies, in hopes of making profits or winning ribbons. Every time someone buys an animal from a breeder, a dog or cat in a shelter loses her chance at a home and will pay with her life.
Breeding may be a hobby for people like Coats, but for dogs waiting in
shelters, it is a death sentence. If breeders really cared about
animals, they would stop bringing more of them into a world that is
tragically short of good homes and work to promote spaying, neutering, and adoption instead.
Daphna Nachminovitch
Vice president,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, Va.
There's a reason that PETA’s president is dubbed “THE BUTCHER OF NORFOLK”
Feb 26, 2010
The hypocrites at PETA kills adoptable animals by the thousands at their Virginia "shelter". They have a horrific 97% kill rate. This is a matter of public record. Meanwhile, other shelters in the US, who actually do care about animals, have made great strides in reducing their intake and euthanasia rates. According to Maddie's Fund, we are on target to reach a nationwide "no kill" level by 2015.
Pet overpopulation is a myth. The overwhelming majority of our nation's pets are sterilized, and we now face an acute shortage of pets in many areas. Many shelters, particularly in the New England states, import dogs from other areas and even from other countries. Hundreds of thousands of dogs are brought in from Taiwan, Romania, Mexico and the Caribbean. In November, 41 "rescued" dogs were shipped into Los Angeles from Spain.
Massachusetts shelters have imported street dogs from Puerto Rico for many years now. In July of 2004, six people had to receive rabies treatments after a Massachusetts shelter imported a rabies-infected Puerto Rican street dog.
Nationwide statistics show that there are almost six homes available for every animal that is killed in a shelter. Shelters who kill adoptable animals do so by choice.
Don't be fooled by PETA propaganda. PETA kills animals. Their sadistic, misanthropist philosophy is the antithesis of "ethical".
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Shelters and rescues importing dogs by the hundreds of thousands:
http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-raining-dogsfrom-other-countries.html
Debunking pet overpopulation:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1390
No Kill – We’re Almost There Already!
http://www.maddiesfund.org/no_kill_progress.html
Donderdag 19 Januarie 2012
Your Right to Own a Pet
There exist umpteen internet websites expounding on the responsibilites of pet ownership. And many of them loudly proclaim that "pet ownership is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT."
Standing at the helm of this "Pets are a Privilege" movement, we find the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Executive Board recently approved new guidelines for responsible pet ownership. The guidelines are prefaced with this statement:
"Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship." (1)
The devil, you say. Really? A privilege?
A "privilege" is defined as a "right or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most; the condition of enjoying special rights." A privilege is a special right granted by those in authority; something for which you must obtain permission. A right is something for which you do not need permission.
Pets are property, in both a technical and a legal sense. (More about that in a future post). Our right to own a pet is the same as the right to own any other property and must not be considered a privilege; something by definition "beyond the advantage of most."
The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states:
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Owning an animal is a right, as is ownership of any other property. It's not a privilege.
To further bolster the case for the pet ownership, consider the vital role pets play in out lives. Let's look to current research studies. Pet ownership provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and reducing allergies. Pets provide companionship, promote exercise and improve our social skills by helping to reduce shyness and isolation. (3)
We have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so said the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence. Pet ownership definitely falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. Not to mention, it's good for our health.
Considering the postive health benefits of pet ownership, that right should not be abridged. If pet ownership becomes a "privilege" there would then exist an unreasonable usurpation of our rights. We have a right to pursue our dreams, and a right to pet ownership.
We have the right to purchase and own property. But just because we own something does not mean that we can do with it as we please. Sometimes there are restrictions placed upon the use of certain types of property, like a car, a gun, or an animal. You need to obtain a driver's license to use your car. You can own a gun, but cannot use it for illegal purposes. You can own an animal, but you must comply with animal welfare regulations.
Property ownership is a right, which may not be abridged unless we abuse that right. If ownership of pets is to be considered a privilege, then we must meet special conditions and requirements and may even be denied permission to make our purchase. However, constitutionally and legally, we do not need permission to purchase property.
Some breeders and pet rescuers firmly believe that the best interest of the pet supercedes the considerations of the owner.
"After working in rescue for many years" a friend recently confided "I sincerely believe that not everyone should own a dog."
And after working in a shelter for battered women, I suppose one might form the opinion that not everyone should get married. Not much of a revelation there. After working for child protective services, one might form the opinion that not everyone should have children. No epiphany there, either. After working in a hospital for many years, one might conclude that life is filled with doom, gloom and misery. But of course, such biased viewpoints are never accurate or balanced.
We cannot deny basic human rights based on the actions of those who abuse such rights.
True, some people don't give the proper consideration to dog ownership prior to making their decision. But probably, the majority of owners DO. And should the basic rights to ownership of animals for everyone be denied due to a few bad apples?
Owning an pet involves a good deal of responsibility. When you own an animal, you have a moral obligation to provide food shelter, care and kindness. We even have laws in all 50 states requiring humane treatment of animals; laws that forbid neglect and abuse.
The AVMA further delineates their proposed markers for "Responsible Pet Ownership" which includes such recommendations as keeping your pet for its entire lifetime, limiting breeding to help ease "overpopulation", and other debatable concepts. Of course, the AVMA recommends:
"Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian."
Humans have the right to refuse to seek medical care if they so choose. I suppose if we exercise that option for our animals, then we are not "responsible". In the eyes of the AVMA, in this case, we don't deserve to have a pet!
Never mind the blatant conflict of interest in the recommendations by so many veterinarians for yearly vaccinations and monthly parasite managment treatments.
Another factor to consider when positing "responsible pet ownership guidelines" is that we may be projecting our own values about pet ownership onto others. We may forget that not all dogs are destined to function as pampered companions. Is it unreasonable to expect dogs to work as service animals for the disabled? What about keeping packs of dogs for hunting, or using dogs for herding, or having an outdoor guard dog?
Then there is the admonition for "socialization and appropriate training for pets." But what if the dog's purpose is to protect the owner? Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT their pet to be social and friendly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many breed standards call for an "aloof" quality. Again, the purpose for which some "pets" are kept can vary. That does not make the owner "irresponsible."
But put aside the AVMA's responsible pet owner commandments for a moment. Let's examine how responsible we as a nation have been in regard to pet ownership.
There are over 78 million owned dogs in the US, and over 86 million owned cats. There is also an unknown number of feral cats, and a minute number of unowned, stray dogs. Of the 156 million pets in the US, and the many millions more feral cats that exist, a small fraction of animals, estimated at 6-8 million, transit through shelters each year. Less than 4%. considering a significant number are feral ownerless cats, WAY below 4% of the owned animals in this country.
That means that over 96% of animals in this country are owned in a responsible manner.
Each year in the US, there are 17 million people who will adopt a new pet and haven't decided exactly where to get this new pet from. And there exists an estimated 2-3 million adoptable pets in shelters who are killed. There are 17 million households available to absorb 2-3 million shelter pets. To prevent their deaths, all that would be needed is to effectively use some creative marketing skills. Yet even if every adoptable animal was adopted, we would still need 14 million more pets each year.
Yes, Virginia, we CAN adopt our way out this problem. It has happened in many communities already; communities where the shelters are empty and need to import dogs from other area and even other countries. I'd say as a nation, we have proven our responsibility. We've heeded the call to adoption and emptied many shelters in the process. We are responsible enough to deserve to count pet ownership among our basic rights.
Yet our cultural zeitgeist remains one of sanctimony toward pet owners. We are regularly subjected to lectures about our "obligation" toward our pets as though we were a nation of reckless kindergartners.
Those 14 million households deserve their pets. Pet ownership - it's a right, not a privilege!
 |
Sondag 25 September 2011
Huffington Post - Puppet for the Animal Rights Extremist Agenda
Popular News Agency Reports Unsubstantiated Assertions Designed to Restrict Pet Ownership
Geneva Coats, R.N.
Secretary, California Federation of Dog Clubs
Legislative Liaison, American Pomeranian Club
Carole Raschella, Director
California Federation of Dog Clubs
The Huffington Post recently ran an article by Joanna Zelman entitled: "PETA And Bob Barker Call For Spay/Neuter Law To Fight Animal Overpopulation".
Carole Raschella, Director
California Federation of Dog Clubs
The Huffington Post recently ran an article by Joanna Zelman entitled: "PETA And Bob Barker Call For Spay/Neuter Law To Fight Animal Overpopulation".
This article is filled with many errors and misperceptions from celebrities who really do not have facts or logic on their side. Let's correct some of these urban legends right here and now.
SPAY-NEUTER AND SHELTER INTAKES
There is an assumption by the article author that mandatory spay and neuter laws work to decrease the number of shelter intakes, and thus reduce killings. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay and neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings. Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.
Memphis passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.
Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral. (1)
No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The AVMA opposes it. So does the ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Shelter, American Humane Association, Ally Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center. They know what the Huffington Post should have also discovered, had they done their due diligence - that punitive legislation increases shelter admissions and deaths.
The American College of Theriogenologists is composed of veterinarians who specialize in reproductive medicine. They also have studied the issues and oppose mandatory spay and neuter. The ACT notes:
"....the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet's age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of the ovaries or testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of the pets or their owners."
"In fact, in some European Union countries where gonadectomy is illegal unless deemed medically necessary (such as Norway) there are no significant problems with pet overpopulation, indicating that the pet overpopulation problem that exists in the United States is due to cultural differences on the importance of pets, the responsibility of pet owners, and the ability of the government and national agencies to properly educate the public. "
All the experts who have examined the issue (not actors who don't have a clue about the truth) are opposed to mandatory spay and neuter because it increases shelter intakes and death. But, why wouldn't spay and neuter be in the best interest of the health an well-being of the pet, as stated by ACT?
SPAY-NEUTER AND HEALTH
In fact, there are few benefits, and many health risks associated with surgical removal of the sex organs. The American Veterinary Medical Association admits to some seldom-mentioned problems with sterilization in this journal article:
"....potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism." (2)
In 2007, in an attempt to verify previous scientific testing regarding negative health effects resulting from spay-neuter, yet another study was done on the effects of neutering on the male urogenital tract. The results were shocking.
Neutered dogs were four times more likely to suffer from malignant bladder cancer than intact dogs. Neutered dogs were eight times more likely to suffer from prostate transitional cell carcinoma than intact dogs. They were twice as likely to suffer from prostate adenocarcinoma, and four times as likely to suffer from prostate carcinoma. On average, castrated dogs are three times more likely than their intact counterparts to develop some type of prostate cancer. (3)
Neutered dogs were four times more likely to suffer from malignant bladder cancer than intact dogs. Neutered dogs were eight times more likely to suffer from prostate transitional cell carcinoma than intact dogs. They were twice as likely to suffer from prostate adenocarcinoma, and four times as likely to suffer from prostate carcinoma. On average, castrated dogs are three times more likely than their intact counterparts to develop some type of prostate cancer. (3)
But specific health problems are not the most serious concern when it comes to sterilization surgery. In a recent study reported in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, female Rottweilers spayed after the age of six years old (or never spayed) lived on average 30% longer than spayed dogs. (4)
In a nutshell, you could have many more years with your dog simply by avoiding unnecessary spay surgery. The only medical indications for spay surgery are treatment of pyometra when it occurs, and prevention of breast cancer in breeds that are genetically predisposed. These problems affect a relatively small number of dogs. Bottom line, spaying is a decision best left to the owner after weighing the risks vs benefits of the procedure.
The government has no moral, ethical or medical justification to mandate spay/neuter surgeries. Sterilization can jeopardize good health and can shorten the dog's lifespan. Such nanny laws violate our rights to make our own decisions regarding our animals. Who likes being forced by our lawmakers to spend hundreds of dollars on surgery that is unnecessary, and that can be harmful to our animal's health? No one.
SPAY-NEUTER IS PART OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA OF PET ELIMINATION
PETA's employees were convicted of picking up dogs and cats from local veterinarian's offices and shelters, promising to find them homes, but instead killing them in the van within a few minutes, and then dumping the bodies in various regional dumpsters. These poor animals never even made it out of PETA's pickup van alive! (6)
Elimination of pet breeding a stated goal of Animal Rights groups, as per their twelve-step convention platform. This platform was printed in "Animals' Agenda" magazine in November, 1987 in an article entitled "Politics of Animal Liberation" by Kim Bartlett. Item #10 states:
We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished.
Are things becoming a bit clearer now? The animal rights groups have admitted upfront their agenda to end the pet trade. And the aggressive push for spay/neuter, sales bans and over-regulation of breeding is all part of that agenda to end pet ownership. It's a goal they have been progressing for the past 30 years. And claims of "abuse" and "overpopulation" are tools used to achieve that end.
We need to preserve the gene pools of our breeds of dogs and cats if we expect to have pets in the future. We all want to have pets a few years down the road, don't we?
Well, most of us do, but not PETA and other radical animal rights groups. PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has stated:
"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."
and
"If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."
So PETA would be happy if pets went extinct, but I doubt that it would be OK with the 2/3 of the households in the US who enjoy having pets to enrich our lives.
Pet Population Problems are Grossly Exaggerated
The number of animals killed in shelters needs to be viewed in perspective. Let's look at some REAL facts and figures.
According to the 2011-2012 nationwide survey conducted by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, there are 165 million owned animals in the US. The numbers killed in shelters, an estimated 3-4 million, is less than 2% of the total number of all owned animals in the US.
And those killed are not all OWNED animals. There is a large population of unowned feral cats in the US. Nationwide, over half the shelter intakes are feral cats and their kittens. These should be trapped, neutered and released, not killed.
Considering that there are probably countless millions of feral cats out there to add to the total numbers of owned dogs and cats in the US, the percentage of those killed in shelters is minuscule. By the way, feral cats are not going to line up to comply with the law and be sterilized. Spay-neuter laws won't affect their numbers one whit.
Next, a goodly percentage of those animals who are killed are aged, ill, injured, aggressive, or brought in for owner-requested euthanasia. Another fun fact: In California in 2010, a full 11% of animals listed as shelter intakes were DOA. Yet these already-dead animals count as shelter intakes.
The APPMA survey further informs us that a full 78% of owned dogs are ALREADY spayed or neutered, and a whopping 88% of all owned cats are also spayed or neutered. So where are all these dogs and cats that need to be forcibly neutered?
They exist solely in the overactive imagination.
ANIMAL ABUSE IN OTHER COUNTRIES - PET IMPORTATION INTO THE USA
David Duchovny is quoted as saying that other countries "control stray dog populations by poisoning, hanging, throat slitting, beating to death, electrocution, and shooting."
What do Mr. Duchovny's statements about the inhumane treatment of dogs in other countries have to do with the conditions of dogs living right here? Absolutely nothing.
Abuse of animals is a separate issue from pet population control issues. Correlating animal abuse with population issues is a common logical fallacy. If there is any relationship, it is one of the US supporting abuse in other countries. US rescue groups import animals from these other, less humane, countries on a regular basis.
Why? Because we have a SHORTAGE of adoptable animals here in the continental US. Check out the websites of such groups as "Compassion Without Borders", "Save a Sato", "Dogs Without Borders", "Animal Rescue Team Taiwan","Pets From Paradise" and many others. By importing from areas with purported abuse, we only perpetuate the cycle of animals raised under poor conditions.
According to the illogic presented in the Huffington Post article, it's not OK to breed our animals here in the US under regulated and humane conditions, but it is fine to import them from other countries, when they are bred under unknown, possibly abusive conditions? There have been so many instances of dogs imported by "rescues" exposing US citizens and animals to rabies and other problems that the USDA is currently writing regulations on the importation of puppies.
All in all, over 300,000 dogs are estimated to be imported each year (7), and even more are smuggled into the country illegally. (8)
Shelters in the New England states have to import dogs because they don't have enough to fill the demand. "North Shore Animal League" has made this into a full-time business. There are tens of thousands of dogs being imported to fill New England shelters that would otherwise be empty. And now, the New England Federation of Humane Societies recently held a conference in Maine.
One of the topics for discussion was:
"New England is Running Out of Kittens! Discussion of kitten importation and how we can get ahead of the issue." Facilitated by Bert Troughton, ASPCA (9)
I guess that pretty well blows the assertion out of the water about one cat producing 420,000 kittens. All New England would need would be one lone cat to supply them with all the kittens they would ever need.
THE TRUTH ABOUT PET "OVERPOPULATION"
Why the need to relocate and import dogs and cats? After all we have "overpopulation", right?
WRONG. The facts and figures paint a different picture.
Acording to shelter statistics recently assembled, there are approximately 3 million dogs and cats killed each year. Acording to shelter expert Nathan Winograd:
"How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR'd." (trapped, neutered and released)
Winograd recounts that there are 23 million homes opening up each year for dogs and cats. Four million homes will adopt a shelter pet. Another 17 million have not decided where they will obtain their new pet, and could be influenced to adopt from a shelter.
"So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats. Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates. How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making." (10)
So yes, Ms. Gauld, we CAN adopt our way out of this. We already have. We have a shortage of pets. Maybe someone needs to speak up and say, enough with the sales bans and the spay-neuter rhetoric. It's time to start breeding some nice animals before all we have left is street strays from distant lands where abuse is rampant. Do we really want to support the system of abuse in other countries as detailed by Mr. Duchovny?
The statement that breeding causes shelter animals to be killed is absurd. It makes about as much sense as saying that no one should have a baby as long as there are homeless people on the streets, or kids in orphanages. The logic is the same as that which our mothers used when they implored us to eat our peas, because there are starving children in other countries. Such statements are light on logic and heavy on guilt.
Again, why is anyone listening to the hypocrites over at PETA? Mandatory spay and neuter does not save lives; in fact, such mandates shorten the lives of our animals and cause increases in shelter intakes and deaths. (11) Perhaps a new law requiring celebrities to be muzzled in public would be more beneficial to society.
Our animals pay with their lives for these anti-animal spay-neuter laws.
The Price is WRONG, Bob.
Teken in op:
Plasings (Atom)