SB 250-FOLLOW THE MONEY!

One more shot from Judie Mancuso, sponsor of SB 250. The bill is toxic; and for those politicians able to put the pieces together, a relationship with Mancuso is toxic. Here's what I suggest. Send your version of the included letter to the following:

1. your local media -- use the NRA-ILA tool at the following site:

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/

2. the California Veterinary Medical Association -- Animal Rights means no animals left means no money for vets:

CVMA
1400 River Park Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95815
(916) 649-0599 -- TEL
(916) 646-9156 -- FAX
staff@cvma.net

3. your Assembly Members and Senators -- (SEE PRIOR POST)

Here's the letter:
--------------------
August 23, 2010
[ADDRESS]

Re: Animal Rights infestation in Sacramento.

Dear [ ]:

As if the specter of bedbugs spreading throughout America weren’t enough, it appears that Sacramento has been infested with Animal Rights extremists. Or at least with one Animal Rights extremist in particular, Judie Mancuso. Mancuso, you may remember, is the founder and president of Social Compassion, the Animal Rights advocacy organization which has sponsored mandatory spay/neuter legislation in this state for the last few sessions. (You may also remember that Social Compassion was co-founded by Jane Garrison, often described as a PETA activist or HSUS employee – tomāto, tomäto.)

What’s Mancuso been up to? Well let’s see, Mancuso recently finagled an appointment from John Perez, Speaker of the California Assembly, to the California Veterinary Medical Board. It’s not clear what Mancuso, part of the “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” *crowd, is doing on VMB, the state agency primarily responsible for licensing and regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in California. You might consider contacting the Speaker, himself, and asking him in your best imitation of Dr. Phil, “What were you thinking?” Perez can be reached as follows:

John Perez
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
P. O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
(916) 319-2046 – TEL
(916) 319-2146 – FAX

Interestingly, the VMB has a link on its Web site pointing to The CA Spay and Neuter License Plate site. For a fee, Californians can buy a special spay and neuter license plate. The money generated by the sale of these plates is to be administered by the California Spay and Neuter License Plate Fund, Inc. Who’s the president of this organization? You guessed it, it’s “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”* Mancuso. So let’s get this right, we have the Speaker of the Assembly appointing an Animal Rights extremist to a state agency, we have that state agency promoting a pet project of the Animal Rights extremist, we have the Animal Rights extremist in charge of the money raised by this project. Seems like a call to the VMB might be in order:

California Veterinary Medical Board
2005 Evergreen Street
Suite 2250
Sacramento, CA 95815-3831
(916) 263-2610 – TEL
(916) 263-2621 – FAX
vmb@dca.ca.gov

Finally, we hear that Mancuso has hired the high-priced lobbyist firm, Platinum Advisors, to be her front men in the final hours of this legislative session. (These guys are the ultimate “hos” – they also represent Allergan, Pfizer and Estee Lauder, companies that just might not see eye-to-eye with Animal Rights extremists about animal testing.) Platinum doesn’t put out cheaply; so where’s Mancuso’s money coming from? SCIL, SC, PETA, HSUS, ALDF, LCA or some other organization in the Animal Rights extremist alphabet soup? (Some of the named organizations are tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations and not supposed to be engaged in substantial lobbying activities.)

As “Deep Throat” suggested, follow the money.


Sincerely,

[NAME]

* “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” is a well known quote attributed to Ingrid Newkirk, head of PETA . It refers to the fact that animal rights cultists see no difference between a rat and your human child. It is also the title of an excellent new book by Wesley Smith on the animal rights extreme cults like Social Compassion in Legislation, PETA, the HSUS, In Defense of Animals and the well known terrorist group ALF .

SB 250.....Return of the Undead

SB 250 has been taken out of the inactive file and may go before the full assembly for a vote. The bill has minor amendments as of today, August 18th, that do not address the basic flaws of the bill. If the bill does pass the assembly, it must still be approved by the Senate once more due to being amended.

There is no need to reinvent a broken wheel. Mandatory spay and neuter laws do not work. Please contact your assembly member today and request a NO vote on SB 250. Some reasons for opposition are listed below.

Senate Bill 250 is a draconian measure that will mandate sterilization of nearly all dogs and cats statewide. All dogs and cats must be neutered or spayed unless the owner holds a special license. Under the language as introduced, any leash law, licensing, tethering or other animal law violation is sufficient to deny or revoke that license. There are no provisions for performance or competition animals. There are no provisions for travelers, tourists, visitors or other such temporary presence in the state. A new class of dog-owning criminals will be created. Leaving your dog in your car or motor home (however briefly) will make you a criminal. Taking off a collar or leash would automatically make you a criminal.


This law creates new crimes and imposes new state-mandated duties on local animal control agencies. Experience has shown that punitive animal control legislation is costly and ineffective. Additionally, such legislation is unnecessary since surveys show that most owned dogs and cats are ALREADY sterilized.

The California Department of Finance opposes SB 250 because it would increase costs to state and local areas. Animal control costs are likely to rise, euthanasia rates increase, and pet licensing drop off. Money will have to be taken from other vital local services. Experience has shown that local jurisdictions cannot recoup the costs to administer and enforce mandated sterilization laws from penalties and fees alone. To pay for the new bureaucracy, funds are taken from other city and county services, including law enforcement and public safety.


The ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association are OPPOSED to mandatory sterilization laws because they don't work. Also, “Maddie’s funds” are not available to communities with sterilization mandates.


Veterinarians agree that surgery should be a decision made by pet owners and their veterinarians – not mandated by state government.

Dog impounds have fallen 86% over last 30 years. Dogs impounds in California have been falling steadily for decades because local shelters use programs that work: Pet owner education, rescue, foster programs, and subsidized low-cost spay/neuter services. NONE of these programs receive state funding under SB 250.

SB 250 does not help to reduce the numbers of feral cats, who comprise the majority of shelter intakes.

SB 250 is poorly drafted, cannot be enforced, and will be extremely costly to administer.

Animal control issues must be resolved at the local – not state – level. SB 250 will blanket all 58 counties in California with a mandate to enact, staff and administer a costly law that many local and community shelters don’t want or need. Currently, 12 California counties do not have an animal control department.

SB 250 will negatively impact the availability of pets, service dogs for the blind, deaf and disabled, police K9s, and working dogs. It will harm animals, punish millions of responsible pet owners, cost taxpayers billions, and increase both the abandoned pet population and euthanasia rates.

This bill imposes punishment for impounds of cats or dogs by mandating sterilization of pets before release. Add this to the other expenses involved in reclaiming a lost pet will result in dogs left behind instead of going home.

There are many reasons why a pet could be impounded by animal services such as fire, earthquake or other disasters. Such situations do not warrant a fine or punishment to the owner.

This bill allows the state to capriciously deprive owners of the reproductive values of show/breeding dogs or cats.

Complaints from disgruntled neighbors, or any person who wants to harass someone with an intact dog would be encouraged by this bill.

This is a bad bill, cobbled together without regard for existing laws or of the practical consequences. For example, it requires anyone who sells an intact animal to post the animal’s license number. But most local jurisdictions do not license cats. Further, most local jurisdictions do not provide for licensing an animal under the age of four months; but most puppies and kittens are sold before they reach that age.

Use of the term "custodian" in the bill, rather than being limited to pet owners, suggests this law would be used to unfairly target feral cat caretakers and other individuals feeding or caring for free-roaming cats. It punishes the people trying to help these unfortunate animals. Kindness becomes a crime. A person caring for a few free roaming/feral cats could be cited and subject to a civil penalty if over a local limit law, when ownership of these cats is not clearly defined.

Find your assemblymember contact information here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY ROSTER


Assembly Member-Party-District-Phone-Fax-Email

Adams, Anthony R 59 (916) 319-2059 (916) 319-2159 Assemblymember.Adams@assembly.ca.gov

Ammiano, Tom D 13 (916) 319-2013 (916) 319-2113 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Anderson, Joel R 77 (916) 319-2077 (916) 319-2177 Assemblymember.Anderson@assembly.ca.gov

Arambula, Juan D 31 (916) 319-2031 (916) 319-2131 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov

Bass, Karen D 47 (916) 319-2047 (916) 319-2147 Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov

Beall, Jim Jr. D 24 (916) 319-2024 (916) 319-2124 Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov

Berryhill, Bill R 26 (916) 319-2026 (916) 319-2126 Assemblymember.Bill.Berryhill@assembly.ca.gov

Berryhill, Tom R 25 (916) 319-2025 (916) 319-2125 Assemblymember.Tom.Berryhill@assembly.ca.gov

Blakeslee, Sam R 33 (916) 319-2033 (916) 319-2133 Assemblymember.Blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov

Block, Marty D 78 (916) 319-2078 (916) 319-2178 Assemblymember.Block@assembly.ca.gov

Blumenfield, Bob D 40 (916) 319-2040 (916) 319-2140 Assemblymember.Blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov

Bradford, Steven D 51 (916) 319-2051 (916) 319-2151 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov

Brownley, Julia D 41 (916) 319-2041 (916) 319-2141 Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov

Buchanan, Joan D 15 (916) 319-2015 (916) 319-2115 Assemblymember.Buchanan@assembly.ca.gov

Caballero, Anna M. D 28 (916) 319-2028 (916) 319-2128 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov

Calderon, Charles M. D 58 (916) 319-2058 (916) 319-2158 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Carter, Wilmer Amina D 62 (916) 319-2062 (916) 319-2162 Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov

Chesbro, Wesley D 1 (916) 319-2001 (916) 319-2101 Assemblymember.Chesbro@assembly.ca.gov

Conway, Connie R 34 (916) 319-2034 (916) 319-2134 Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov

Cook, Paul R 65 (916) 319-2065 (916) 319-2165 Assemblymember.Cook@assembly.ca.gov

Coto, Joe D 23 (916) 319-2023 (916) 319-2123 Assemblymember.Coto@assembly.ca.gov

Davis, Mike D 48 (916) 319-2048 (916) 319-2148 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov

De La Torre, Hector D 50 (916) 319-2050 (916) 319-2150 Assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov

de Leon, Kevin D 45 (916) 319-2045 (916) 319-2145 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov

DeVore, Chuck R 70 (916) 319-2070 (916) 319-2170 Assemblymember.DeVore@assembly.ca.gov

Eng, Mike D 49 (916) 319-2049 (916) 319-2149 Assemblymember.Eng@assembly.ca.gov

Evans, Noreen D 7 (916) 319-2007 (916) 319-2107 Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov

Feuer, Mike D 42 (916) 319-2042 (916) 319-2142 Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov

Fletcher, Nathan R 75 (916) 319-2075 (916) 319-2175 Assemblymember.Fletcher@assembly.ca.gov

Fong, Paul D 22 (916) 319-2022 (916) 319-2122 Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov

Fuentes, Felipe D 39 (916) 319-2039 (916) 319-2139 Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov

Fuller, Jean R 32 (916) 319-2032 (916) 319-2132 Assemblymember.Fuller@assembly.ca.gov

Furutani, Warren T. D 55 (916) 319-2055 (916) 319-2155 Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Gaines, Ted R 4 (916) 319-2004 (916) 319-2104 Assemblymember.Gaines@assembly.ca.gov

Galgiani, Cathleen D 17 (916) 319-2017 (916) 319-2117 Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov

Garrick, Martin R 74 (916) 319-2074 (916) 319-2174 Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov

Gatto, Mike D 43 (916) 319-2043 (916) 319-2143 Assemblymember.Gatto@assembly.ca.gov

Gilmore, Danny D. R 30 (916) 319-2030 (916) 319-2130 Assemblymember.Gilmore@assembly.ca.gov

Hagman, Curt R 60 (916) 319-2060 (916) 319-2160 Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov

Hall, Isadore III D 52 (916) 319-2052 (916) 319-2152 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov

Harkey, Diane L. R 73 (916) 319-2073 (916) 319-2173 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov

Hayashi, Mary D 18 (916) 319-2018 (916) 319-2118 Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov

Hernandez, Edward P. D 57 (916) 319-2057 (916) 319-2157 Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov

Hill, Jerry D 19 (916) 319-2019 (916) 319-2119 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov

Huber, Alyson D 10 (916) 319-2010 (916) 319-2110 Assemblymember.Huber@assembly.ca.gov

Huffman, Jared D 6 (916) 319-2006 (916) 319-2106 Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov

Jeffries, Kevin R 66 (916) 319-2066 (916) 319-2166 Assemblymember.Jeffries@assembly.ca.gov

Jones, Dave D 9 (916) 319-2009 (916) 319-2109 Assemblymember.Jones@assembly.ca.gov

Knight, Steve R 36 (916) 319-2036 (916) 319-2136 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov

Lieu, Ted W. D 53 (916) 319-2053 (916) 319-2153 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov

Logue, Dan R 3 (916) 319-2003 (916) 319-2103 Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov

Lowenthal, Bonnie D 54 (916) 319-2054 (916) 319-2154 Assemblymember.Lowenthal@assembly.ca.gov

Ma, Fiona D 12 (916) 319-2012 (916) 319-2112 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov

Mendoza, Tony D 56 (916) 319-2056 (916) 319-2156 Assemblymember.Mendoza@assembly.ca.gov

Miller, Jeff R 71 (916) 319-2071 (916) 319-2171 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov

Monning, William W. D 27 (916) 319-2027 (916) 319-2127 Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov

Nava, Pedro D 35 (916) 319-2035 (916) 319-2135 Assemblymember.Nava@assembly.ca.gov

Nestande, Brian R 64 (916) 319-2064 (916) 319-2164 Assemblymember.Nestande@assembly.ca.gov

Niello, Roger R 5 (916) 319-2005 (916) 319-2105 Assemblymember.Niello@assembly.ca.gov

Nielsen, Jim R 2 (916) 319-2002 (916) 319-2102 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Norby, Chris R 72 (916) 319-2072 (916) 319-2172 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Pérez, John A. D 46 (916) 319-2046 (916) 319-2146 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Pérez, V. Manuel D 80 (916) 319-2080 (916) 319-2180 Assemblymember.Manuel.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Portantino, Anthony J. D 44 (916) 319-2044 (916) 319-2144 Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov

Ruskin, Ira D 21 (916) 319-2021 (916) 319-2121 Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov

Salas, Mary D 79 (916) 319-2079 (916) 319-2179 Assemblymember.Salas@assembly.ca.gov

Saldaña, Lori D 76 (916) 319-2076 (916) 319-2176 Assemblymember.Saldana@assembly.ca.gov

Silva, Jim R 67 (916) 319-2067 (916) 319-2167 Assemblymember.Silva@assembly.ca.gov

Skinner, Nancy D 14 (916) 319-2014 (916) 319-2114 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Smyth, Cameron R 38 (916) 319-2038 (916) 319-2138 Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov

Solorio, Jose D 69 (916) 319-2069 (916) 319-2169 Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Strickland, Audra R 37 (916) 319-2037 (916) 319-2137 Assemblymember.Strickland@assembly.ca.gov

Swanson, Sandre R. D 16 (916) 319-2016 (916) 319-2116 Assemblymember.Swanson@assembly.ca.gov

Torlakson, Tom D 11 (916) 319-2011 (916) 319-2111 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

Torres, Norma J. D 61 (916) 319-2061 (916) 319-2161 Assemblymember.Torres@assembly.ca.gov

Torrico, Alberto D 20 (916) 319-2020 (916) 319-2120 Assemblymember.Torrico@assembly.ca.gov

Tran, Van R 68 (916) 319-2068 (916) 319-2168 Assemblymember.Tran@assembly.ca.gov

Villines, Michael N. R 29 (916) 319-2029 (916) 319-2129 Assemblymember.Villines@assembly.ca.gov

Yamada, Mariko D 8 (916) 319-2008 (916) 319-2108 Assemblymember.Yamada@assembly.ca.gov

Vacant 63 (916) 319-2063 (916) 319-2163

Salmonella in DRY pet foods

Extruded under tremendous heat and pressure, dry dog food lacks the beneficial probiotic organisms that exist in fresh foods. Kibble are sort of a smorgasbord or petri dish; a rich, sterile field on which the first organism that happens to contact it after it is produced can flourish where there are no competing "good" organisms.

Now, we have a report of Salmonella outbreaks in humans linked to dry pet foods. Delta, how do you like them apples? Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100809/sc_livescience/drypetfoodlinkedtohumansalmonellaoutbreak

The moral of the story? Just say NO to kibble. Fresh is best. Sorry to burst your bubble, Purina and Delta!

"Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?"

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?

(Dog Trainer Version)

Pavlov: We fed the chicken on the opposite side of the road each day
at 4 p.m. until the chicken's autonomic system actually began causing
the chicken to cross the road at 4 p.m. without even questioning the why.

B.F. Skinner: On prior occasions when the chicken voluntarily crossed
the road, this behavior was followed immediately by a reinforcing consequence.

Cesar Milan: I bullied, chased, poked, and intimidated the chicken until
it raced across the road because I am a strong leader, damn it!

Barbara Woodhouse: You just say, "Walkies!" with the right accent
and place a crumpet on the other side of the road.

Karen Pryor: by associating R+ with road crossing and P+ with
standing still, with a VR schedule, and offering a reward in keeping
with the Premack principle, we increased the intensity and frequency
of the road crossing behavior.


Bill Koehler: a few well-timed pops on the choke chain and the chicken
was happy to cross the road and get away from me.

Nicholas Dodman: I gave the chicken fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine,

carbamazepine, and azapirone and then it just floated across the road.

Patti Ruzzo: I crossed the road, pausing every step to spit a treat out of

my mouth like a human pez dispenser and the chicken followed along

catching the treats, soon becoming morbidly obese.

Electric Collar Advocate: Whenever the chicken does not cross the road I

give it an electric shock. But do not worry, the shock is no more than you

would feel if you walked on a carpet
wearing socks and it does not bother

the chicken at all. The feathers standing
up and the smell of burning flesh mean nothing. In fact, they are happier having
nice clear communication than they would
be otherwise.

Yuppie: Chickens are just like little people in feather jackets, and if
you love them and give them diamonds and feel sorry for them all
the time, they will be happy to cross the road for you.

Paris Hilton: Because I put it in a Gucci bag and carried it.

Shelter director: Any chickens that do not cross the road will be
euthanized for their own good, and the others will be adopted out
tomorrow for 50 cents to anyone with a pulse, no questions asked.
Please send us money so we can keep doing more of this important work!


HSUS member: We passed a law mandating that chickens be kept
without cages because animals belong only in the wild and cannot be
happy coexisting with man, so now they are walking wherever they want.


PETA member: I do not know anything about animals, I have never been around animals, but chickens have the right to live in world without roads.
Any chicken that lives within a hundred miles of a road is suffering an inhumane existence and might eventually be hit by a car so we should
kill it today to ensure that it does not die tomorrow.

Do Vaccines Weaken the Health of a Breed?

Do vaccines affect the genetic diversity or strength of a breed?? Does vacccination and the protection provided by herd immunity produce a weaker population? Would it be better to allow "survival of the fittest"; avoiding vaccination completely and breeding only those who can survive infectious disease, with their presumed superior immune systems? Some proponents of natural rearing believe so. Here is another point of view from a canine genetics email list, reposted here by permission of the author. SB 


Is dying from a disease organism, adapted by its nature to try to overcome an animal’s immune system, a sign of “weakness” or “inferiority” of an organism? Is an animal immune-compromised if it dies of rabies? Since rabies is virtually 100% lethal in all mammals except bats (where it also apparently causes mortality, but not 100%), are we to assume that all mammals except bats have weak immune systems?


What about distemper or parvovirus? If dogs have become “weak” because vaccination has allowed the weaker individuals to live, then you might expect wild carnivores to be more resistant to these diseases. In reality, both distemper and parvo often cause high mortality among wild canids. Distemper affects many carnivore species other than canids and has been catastrophic for some of them. (I didn’t have much luck in a quick search for scientific articles accessible to the public without a university connection, but the Wikipedia article on distemper in dogs gives a few examples of wild species severely affected by dog distemper or strains of distemper that apparently evolved from dog distemper. I also found this interesting article in ScienceDaily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025094914.htm )

Distemper seems to be a recently evolved disease, maybe a few hundred years old. Parvovirus may be very recent, only a few decades old. Like many infectious diseases, I think these are both diseases that were aided in their evolution by the increasing population density of the affected organism (dogs, in this case, but also people because the distemper virus apparently mutated from the human measles virus). As population density increases, a disease organism has an easier time finding new individuals to infect. It has more individuals to provide a home to incubate in and undergo mutations that might help it be more successful, which to a disease organism means being better able to spread and overcome the victim’s defenses.

It was no accident that Europeans were the victims of so many more diseases than Native Americans prior to Columbus. Europeans had higher population densities that allowed the successive evolution of all sorts of infectious diseases (smallpox, measles, etc.) The Europeans didn’t have to face all these diseases all at once. They developed their resistance over many centuries of separate epidemics. The Native Americans got hit all at once with all these diseases that had forced Europeans to adapt (via massive high-mortality epidemics). By some estimates, 90% of Native Americans were wiped out by infectious diseases carried by Europeans in the decades following Columbus’s trips. Would you consider the pre-Columbus Native Americans genetically inferior or “weak” because they had been isolated from those diseases prior to Columbus? Would you consider Black-footed Ferrets (a species where dog distemper causes huge mortality) to be genetically “weak” compared to dogs that have had hundreds of years of exposure to distemper?

The point is, there will always be new, evolving diseases. All organisms are in an arms race with pathogens. Pathogens are constantly evolving new ways to overcome the immune defenses of organisms, which forces organisms to come up with new defenses against the pathogen. In some cases, the species cannot adapt fast enough and goes extinct.

All organisms face multiple challenges on all fronts: competition with other species, the need to survive the abiotic environment (heat, cold, storms, etc.), the need to find enough food, the need to find sufficient nutrients that may be difficult to get through their diet, and the need to defend against predators, parasites, and pathogens. What is most adaptive depends on the relative selective intensity of all these challenges. An arctic animal may face few challenges from infectious diseases but faces brutal environmental challenges, hence an arctic species may be more vulnerable to certain diseases it is rarely exposed to. A similar species adapted to a milder climate is probably better at disease resistance but could not survive the rigors of the arctic winter. So, a species ability to respond to challenges depends on how important those challenges are to them. No species can be good at all things. There is always some cost to an adaptation, even if it is only the cost in lost diversity of the animals that could not adapt.

So, the question for dog breeders is, how much value do you want to place on the ability of dogs to survive parvo or distemper without vaccination? Do you want to make that the first cut (very literally!) in your breeding selection by letting the puppies be exposed to see who lives or dies? If so, do you want to make sure they get exposed at their most vulnerable age to make it the best test possible? What about rabies? Surely, among the millions of living dogs, there must be a few that could survive rabies. After all, bats somehow evolved the ability to survive the disease. Shall we expose all unvaccinated dogs to rabies and breed from the 5 or 6 or so that survive? If none survive, well, then the weak dog species deserved to go extinct, right?

Also, a question for those that don’t vaccinate for parvo or distemper, but treat aggressively at the first sign of illness. If you want to select for stronger dogs, why do you treat at all?

Personally, I choose vaccination. To me, a weak immune system is NOT one that cannot fight every single new disease that evolves. It is one that cannot defend against non-pathogenic organisms that are always present or that is incapable of mounting a defense against most of the “normal” pathogens.

If you were to only select dogs resistant to distemper and parvo, then you would most likely be reducing diversity of the population, which would make it MORE vulnerable to the next completely new disease. The ability of a species (not an individual) to defend against a novel threat (one a species has never faced before) depends on the population having enough diversity that it increases the chances of some individuals having the adaptations they need to survive.

Kelly Cassidy, PhD
Curator, Vertebrate Museum
Washington State University

PUPS: Not as warm and fuzzy as it sounds

If we don't beat this one, it's pretty much all over, folks...

For years, HSUS has been working tirelessly to introduce federal legislation which, by amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), would restrict the breeding of dogs and cats. Enforcement of current laws has been inefficient and ineffective, but rather than correct that situation, HSUS has used it as reason to expand upon present legislation in ways that would set a dangerous precedent by giving the federal government control over the breeding of domestic animals. No other species has such pre-breeding regulations in place, but bill proponents insist their legislation will "close a loophole" in federal law, even though the AWA was never intended to apply to in home breeders.

PUPS 2010 introduces new problematic definitions to the existing AWA, classifications which are open to reinterpretation and readjustment at any point.

Under the new definitions, a breeding female dog means in an intact female aged four months or older. Not only is a four month old dog virtually incapable of breeding, but current research finds that early spay/neuter is deleterious to the animal's health.

PUPS also creates the new definition "high volume breeder." Any breeder with "interest or custody" of one breeding female dog falls under the first test of this criteria. The second criteria includes anyone who “sells or offers for sale, via any means of conveyance (including the internet, telephone, or newspaper), more than 50 of the offspring of such breeding female dogs for use as pets in any 1-year period."

The “50 offspring” are not defined by age or as being from litters owned by the breeder or as being personally owned by the breeder. This definition will include puppies, young adults, spayed dogs, older dogs being retired from the breeding program; previously sold dogs returned and resold, dogs placed through rescue organizations, public animal control facilities, veterinarian clinics, or the internet. Furthermore, based on these new clarifications, home breeders and rescuers will be subjected to USDA licensure and its 60 plus pages of regulations.

Expanding federal regulation to this level of detail is not only unrealistic, unnecessary, excessive, and unenforceable, but will eventually lead to the "elimination of domestic species," the publicly stated goal of Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS..

For all of these reasons and more, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) should be opposed in its entirety, and all of us, whether individuals or groups, who wish to preserve and protect our future with pets need to make it clearly known to our government and its representatives that PUPS is completely unacceptable.

Call or write your representatives NOW, before it's too late. Your dogs and cats are depending on you.

Banning sales of pets at pet stores

I guess I'll just never quit asking - even if pets bought at a pet store are
more likely to be impulse buys and end up at a shelter, what gives
government the right to control what we do with our pets after we buy them,
and what gives them the right to dictate what a pet store is allowed to
sell. No, they can't sell drugs, because drugs are illegal, but pets are
not (so far anyway).

And talk about impulse buys - ever been to one of those big rescue events,
that's what they're all ABOUT! Gee, you didn't get that cute fluffy one,
never mind we have plenty more to pick from. It's all about the numbers -
they don't care where the pets go as long as they GO.

And those pets are sold too. If pets stores can't sell, why should a rescue
event be allowed to? Or a breeder, for that matter, but there's that
slippery slope, because we know that's where they're heading. If these
government idiots would just get a clue and realize it's not about animal
welfare OR animals rights, it's about animals GONE.

Who cares what the difference is between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights? That's not the point. I'd say the majority of the so-called Animal Rights' supporters would never want to get rid of animals and and have just been brainwashed into believing the Animal Rights bullshit. After all, it does all sound fine and lovely on the surface and few people ever look underneath. So don't even go there, don't bother to give them a label, just say that those who propose these types of laws are all about animals gone, no animals left. Period.

Because that's the bottom line.