Nala the Boxer and Unspeakably Heartless Oafs

 

By guest writer Rita Rosenfeld, Ruminations

It's hard to believe that anyone in their right senses would deliberately create such a situation. The Outaouais SPCA workers discovered a dreadful occurrence when they found a boxer-mix female with her puppies in the back of a pickup truck behind their shelter early on Sunday. Someone had deposited the pregnant dog there, leaving her to deliver her pups and leaving her to die, in the miserably icy weather, unprotected and abandoned.

Nala, as the female dog was named by the SPCA workers, managed to survive her ordeal, along with five of her puppies. Four of the newborn puppies were found dead from exposure. It was estimated that Nala and her puppies were left in that truck for up to ten hours before they were discovered. It was clear on inspection that Nala had been neglected; underfed and thin, her nails allowed to grow uncommonly long.

Her vulva, having been exposed to the frozen metal of the pickup truck was injured. And she suffered frostbite on her upper lip. The puppies have red patches visible on their skin, as evidence of frostbite. They are all expected to recover. People are understandably upset and outraged that anyone could possibly be so heartless as to expose these beautiful creatures to dread weather conditions that no animal should be left in to fend for itself.

Nala and her puppies have been taken in by the Valley Boxer and Mastiff Rescue home, operated by France Turcotte. "I'm not angry about all this. But really, truly how I feel about this is I feel bad that (the owner) felt that was the only option available to him or her ... A dog is just not something you can throw out or throw in the back of a truck. People need to understand that a pet is a member of your family and they require money and care."

Nala, a boxer-mix, and five of her newborn litter of nine pups were recovering on Monday after the dog was abandoned in the back of a pickup truck behind the Outaouais SPCA overnight Saturday night. Four pups froze to death before they were found by SPCA staff on Sunday morning.

Pet ownership is a commitment, a responsibility. How people can view the safety and security and well-being of an animal in their care with such a pitiless lack of concern is beyond intelligence. How anyone could conceivably be oblivious to the potential fate of a dependent, vulnerable animal, particularly a female about to give birth, and abandon her at her time of need is beyond belief.

For the next six weeks the puppies will remain in the care of France Turcotte, a caring and responsible individual whose volunteerism in the rescue of unwanted and neglected animals should serve as an inspiration to those who love animals. When they are ready to be weaned from their mother they will be returned to the Outaouais SPCA and put up for adoption.

One can only hope that Nala and her puppies will be taken in by people prepared to appreciate and nurture them, providing them with the affection and material needs that trusting animals require from those who sincerely propose to make them members of their families.

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."

Six of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution refer directly or indirectly to personal property rights. (2)

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!

(1) http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ownership_guidelines.asp

(2) http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/

(3) http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets

ANIMAL WELFARE - IT JUST TAKES A FEW MINUTES

Even if you don't have a lot of time you can help make a difference to the welfare of dogs, other domesticated and non-domesticated animals by taking a few minutes once a week you can make a difference - and it does not have to cost you any money!

Three simple ways to choose from...

One - You can sign a petition;
Two - You can donate a tweet;
Three - You can click to give free food and care to a homeless pet.

It is quick and easy, I will provide you with the links below! 

If you don't believe doing so will make a difference you are wrong! 

When enough people pitch-in we do have the power to make change. Here are a few very recent examples for you...

A man in Greece lured and then beat three defenceless dogs with a sledge hammer - one died, the other three survived, only because some people came by in time to see what this man was doing. The two surviving dogs, although horrifically injured they underwent extensive surgery and are now recovering. A petition was started to try to persuade the Greek authorities to take action. Well enough of us signed to make a difference - we spoke for those poor dogs who could not speak for themselves. More than 20,000 signatures. Well the trial occurred this week of January 9th, 2012 . Due to the pressure exerted by all of the signatures –  for the first time in modern Greek history a proper sentence (if there can said to be one) was imposed on the man – jail time and $10,000 (US $). Those few seconds it takes to sign can make a difference!

Another one I signed – a man had his gentle service dog taken away (in the USA) just because it was a Pit Bull mix, again so many people signed the petition the dog was returned and taken off of death row last week.

And this week I received notice that Bones the Pit Bull - was released to a rescue organization. Bones, like so many Pit Bulls had no choice about who acquired him. He was purchased by a man in NYC who was a thug. The man murdered an acquaintance and just because Bones was owned by the murderer, Bones was condemned to death. Well, a petition went out and enough of us signed and emailed. This week I received notice from the NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene that they had decided to release Bones and not euthanize him - the pressure was too great - they have given him over to a rescue group. Bones is a beautiful boy and can now have the opportunity to live the life he deserves to live - to be loved and to give love like only a dog can.

We all have the opportunity to help change the future!

So if you would like to donate even a few minutes a week to support animal welfare, here are some excellent sites that will help you contribute to making the world a better place for our animals.

Petition Sites...

You can go to any of these sites to choose a petition of your choice to support. Most of these sites also have petitions for environmental causes as well.

If you do not have time to look yourself, you can always follow me on twitter as I tweet to share and exchange information (with other animal welfare advocates) many animal welfare petitions.

Care 2

Change Org

Force Change

Go Petition

The Animal Rescue Site

World Society for Protection of Animals (WSPA)

Global Animal

Center for Biological Diversity

Donate a Tweet...

If you do not want to sign petitions, but would still like to help you can choose an organization to donate a tweet to on a daily basis by going to JustCoz.Org, just browse and choose.


Donate a Click - The Corporate Sponsors Donate Food and Care
This costs you nothing but your time, when you click the sponsors donate food and care...


The Animal Rescue Site - Click to Provide Food and Care for Pets in Need

CARE 2 - Click to Feed Pets In Need 

Freekibble - Click to Feed Dogs 

Freekibble - Click to Feed Cats 

And my dogs would like to say thanks to you for reading this and helping other dogs and animals who need help!

Robbie

Abby

Jordie

Tasha

Sarah

Buddy

Stevie

Zoey

Carmen

Jacob

Thank you everyone, woof :>)

Censorship on Facebook

After yesterday's post "Why Animals Don't Have Rights" was  shared on Facebook, there was a block placed on any messages from the Time4Dogs blog being posted. When you try to use the share button, you will see this message:


Sorry, this post contains a blocked URL

The content you're trying to share includes a link that's been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:

2.bp.blogspot.com
For more information, visit the Help Center. If you think you're seeing this by mistake, please let us know.
 
I've certainly contacted Facebook to express my displeasure at their blatant censorship. Several times.
 
The simple truth is so threatening to certain animal extremist groups that they resort to desperate attempts to suppress that truth. Luckily, we still have freedom of speech in SOME internet venues. Just NOT Facebook.

Why Animals Don't Have Rights

The phrase "animal rights" sounds pleasant enough on the surface. Kind-hearted people the world over love animals and wish to see them treated humanely. Abuse and neglect of owned animals is illegal in every state of the union. We as a society value and promote the welfare of animals.

However, upon close examination, we find that the concept of "animal rights" is invalid.

"Rights" is defined as "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral".

What specific "rights" are animals entitled to claim, under a system of justice? This must be determined in order to discuss the situation intelligently.

Here is a listing of some commonly-accepted "rights":

·        right to life

·        right to liberty (freedom from slavery or serfdom)

·        right to own personal property

·        right to equality of justice

·        right to vote

·        right to free speech

·        Freedom of religion

·        Freedom from torture

We can't reasonably expect for animals to participate in free speech, or in a political system whereby they vote, or in the selection of a religion.

Rights are civil and political concepts. In order for animals to have rights, they must have an established system of government. They must have laws for which there is punishment for infractions, determined by a system of justice.

Animals don't have laws. The concept of justice does not exist for them. They don't live by a moral code.

In order for rights to exist, corresponding responsibilities must also exist. For instance, if one expects the right to vote, then one must abide by societal rules and laws that have been instituted in order to maintain that right. The right to liberty must be balanced with a respect for the rights of others. Animals do not have a respect for the rights of others, and therefore the liberty of wild animals is balanced only by the forces of nature such as predation and the food chain. Animals may have a concept of possession of property, but no reciprocal idea of theft being "wrong".

There are also social rights concepts such as sexual equality, racial equality, rights to education and to health care. These rights are agreed upon by the members of society as beneficial and just for the group. Animals have no understanding of or participation in abstract concepts like equal rights based on gender, race or age.

The concept of "animal rights" ignores the very nature of animals. Animals fight for territory or partners. They hunt, kill and eat each other. They rape, pillage and plunder at will. Humans have established official codes of conduct that prohibit such activities impinging on the "rights" of others. While the very nature of "humane" treatment prohibits any human-caused torture of animals, there is no such natural prohibition against torture in the animal world. 

Animals are incapable of moralizing; and even if capable, should the lion be told that he may not eat the lamb? Should the very process of natural selection and evolution be altered in consideration of the "right" of prey to avoid being someone's dinner? Of course not. 

Most people do, however, believe in the concept of humane stewardship toward animals. The very use of the word "humane" tells us that compassionate treatment of animals and each other is an ideal inherently related to human values, ethics and morals.

 We believe that the animals we own should be treated with compassion and mercy. We believe that animals in the wild should be conserved from the effects of mankind that might serve to decimate their populations. This ideal of stewardship of animals (or animal welfare) is vastly different from the concept of animals having "rights".

Animal rights activists have waged a campaign to convince the public that animals ownership is akin to slavery; that breeding is no different than rape; that animals on farms are the moral equivalent of Nazi holocaust victims. Such comparisons are deeply offensive to anyone who cherishes genuinely "humane" ethics and values.

 

The idea that animals must be "free" from human use ignores our human biology. We are not herbivores, with multiple stomachs and lengthy intestines, who ruminate a grassy diet; we are omnivores who rely on some meat and animal products in our diet to maintain our health. We have evolved in this manner. We co-evolved with dogs, who hunted alongside us and helped us to herd our flocks, so that both our species could enjoy our natural diets. 

Those who believe that the concept of "Animal Rights" is worthy of support may obtain self-satisfaction derived from a sense of moral superiority, but their logic and intelligence is certainly questionable.

Petition the White House to investigate the HSUS

Please visit the official White House petition site and register, and SIGN this petition for the HSUS to be investigated for excessive lobbying.

 

Use this link:
 

http://tinyurl.com/7abq3r4

 

 

At the *very bottom* of the screen on the right-hand side, you'll see sign in/create account.  Click. 

 

If you haven't used We the People before, you will need to create an account.  It will ask for your first and last name and your zip.  Your last name will NOT be shown on the petition site.

 

Then you'll have to verify the little curly numbers in the box.  If you can't read them, click on the arrow to get another challenge box (might be easier to read), or click on the little megaphone for an audio challenge.  Type in what you see or hear. 

 

Click on Register.

 

Wait a minute or two then check your email.  You should receive a confirmation link from the petition site.  Click the link.  YOU ARE NOT DONE YET.  You must click on "sign petition".  You should get a little acknowledgement box once you have signed.

 

It takes a bit of effort but well worth it to help preserve our rights as dog owners. Don't give up!! And share the link and the instructions please!

Banning pet shop animal sales

I was recently asked this question:

"Why would you oppose a ban on pet shop sales?  One would think you'd support such a ban." 

A more interesting question might be why one would think we should support such a ban? 

Two reasons spring to mind.

 (1) You believe that there is an overpopulation of pets, and that the breeding for sale of dogs and cats contributes to this overpopulation, or

(2) You believe that the dogs sold in pet stores (or their parents) are mistreated. 

We know that both (1) and (2) are essentially false. 

The myth of pet overpopulation (1) has been thoroughly debunked. (See links to references below).

As for (2), dog breeding, transportation and sale are heavily regulated --

at the federal level, by the Animal Welfare Act, and

at the state level by the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122045, et seq.), 

Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122125, et seq.) and

the animal cruelty statutes (Penal Code Sec. 597, et seq.). 

As a result, purchasers at pet shops can determine the history of the dogs offered for sale and be assured of the standards of care in which the pet was bred, raised and sold. Violators of these laws are subject to civil and criminal penalties. 

Given the protection and disclosure required for the sale of dogs in pet shops, why would I support a ban on pet shop sales?

Education, not legislation, is ultimately the most effective weapon against impulse buying. While I believe the wisest choice is to purchase a dog or cat directly from an ethical hobby breeder, some people choose to obtain a pet from a pet store. Others may select a pet from a shelter or rescue group.

Sales bans usually exempt animals obtained from "rescues" and shelters. Such bans create an artificial market for "rescued" dogs, to be filled by black market suppliers who breed underground or outside the continental US.

Laws and policies that ban the sales of purposely-bred dogs send an extremely negative message about dog breeding. We would be foolish to perpetuate such negative stereotypes and misperceptions.

Mom-and-pop pet stores find it difficult to compete with the Pet Smarts and the PetCos, and even more difficult to compete without the ability to sell pets. We know that these days it is difficult for any business to remain afloat. We have even seen organized protests, threats and intimidation used against businesses selling pets. This type of activity is in violation of the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. There's also a section in the California Penal Code (Section 602.1) that makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally interfere with any lawful business by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on the business or their customers.

Isn't it ironic that anyone would consider banning the sales of pets, yet no one is suggesting that we ban the sale of pet foods containing toxic ingredients that have killed these same pets? What has happened to our priorities? Are we allowing the animal extremist groups like HSUS and PETA determine what our priorities should be? 

We have become a nation bent upon controlling every action of our citizens. When perfectly legal possessions like pets are legislated into contraband items comparable to street drugs, we have to wonder where it will all end. Pet extinction, perhaps?

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." 

Plato 

Debunking Pet "Overpopulation":

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/12/rethinking-spay-and-neuter.html

http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-earth-is-flat-pet-overpopulation-exists-and-other-myths-we-ve-been-told