Recently, some other bloggers have written about PETA's dismal record of animal adoptions, using PETA's own statistics, which by law had to be supplied to the state of Virginia. I won't go into the actual intake versus adoption versus euthanasia numbers here. Go investigate for yourself if you're so inclined.
What I want to talk about here is the fact that these bloggers, after writing using unquestionably accurate information, received letters from one of PETA's attorneys, warning them to cease and desist. While I don't support what PETA is doing as far as companion animals are concerned, I really can't stomach this attempt to curtail freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Short of slander, libel, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, we as Americans are supposed to have the right to speak -- or write -- our minds at any place and any time. Yet here is this massive "nonprofit" organization, one of the biggest moneyraisers in the country, using some of their gelt to try and muzzle those who would dare to utter a word against them.
Well, in this case it has backfired, as other writers and bloggers are now adding their voices to expose this attempt to silence our brethren. Perhaps PETA's lawyers are going to be very busy, churning out those "cease and desist" letters, or perhaps they will realize that this is not an effective way to keep the press reporting only what PETA wants them to report.
Funnily enough, though I disagree with the goals of PETA, I have in the past defended their right to state their case. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone, even those with whom you disagree. The powers-that-be at PETA might want to sit down and think about that.
Mar 31, 2008
Mar 14, 2008
Companionship
Rather than write about something serious this week, I thought I would share a prose poem I wrote for StreamFest, our local celebration of our land trust. They asked for art celebrating the North Olympic Peninsula here in Washington. Of course, my thoughts include my dog. I hope you enjoy them.
My dog and I walk the beach.
Well, I walk.
He runs the curl of the wave, herding its break onto the shore.
I look down, hoping to add to the jumble of beach glass, agates, and figured rocks in my pocket.
I look up as an eagle soars overhead, flapping perhaps twice to drift easily over
Protection Island.
Mount Baker seems impossibly near, just a skip across the island to the mountain.
The splash of sea salt mixes with pine scent and decaying seaweed in a perfume unmatched.
Clouds scud by, patterning the water dark, perhaps hiding a sea monster.
My dog runs up, happy mouth open, and shakes a spray of water across my legs.
I send him to the base of the bluffs to sniff for mastodon teeth. . .
Maybe one day we'll find one.
I pull my coat down to sit on its tail in defense against the damp of the beach log.
My dog runs up the beach to challenge some gulls.
A mist is starting to fall.
But we are happy.
My dog and I walk the beach.
Well, I walk.
He runs the curl of the wave, herding its break onto the shore.
I look down, hoping to add to the jumble of beach glass, agates, and figured rocks in my pocket.
I look up as an eagle soars overhead, flapping perhaps twice to drift easily over
Protection Island.
Mount Baker seems impossibly near, just a skip across the island to the mountain.
The splash of sea salt mixes with pine scent and decaying seaweed in a perfume unmatched.
Clouds scud by, patterning the water dark, perhaps hiding a sea monster.
My dog runs up, happy mouth open, and shakes a spray of water across my legs.
I send him to the base of the bluffs to sniff for mastodon teeth. . .
Maybe one day we'll find one.
I pull my coat down to sit on its tail in defense against the damp of the beach log.
My dog runs up the beach to challenge some gulls.
A mist is starting to fall.
But we are happy.
Hoarders
You may have heard about the case in Arizona where approximately 800 dogs were removed from the mobile home of a couple. These were all toy dogs, mostly Chihuahuas, and the people were selling them alongside roads and at shopping centers. Print reports made it sound like it was all simply a case of getting in too deep, with statements such as "the dogs had free run of the house" and "the couple were grateful for the help of animal control." But the limited television coverage and the accounts of humane workers on the scene painted a different picture. The inside of the home was wall-to-wall plastic crates, many containing more than one dog. The dogs had broken teeth from trying to chew their way out, and some were missing paws. Bitches were giving birth on the way to the shelter. This was a for-profit operation with little consideration for the well-being of the dogs. Those in the area said that no buyers were ever allowed to visit the premises.
This is not a case of initially well-meaning individuals attempting to do animal rescue and getting in over their heads, ending up with too many animals. These animals were being intentionally bred to produce more animals. It's important to separate these two things.
Animal hoarders, those who think they are doing a good thing, but end up with their "rescues" in an abusive situation on their own premises, generally suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. What starts out as an admirable act quickly mushrooms into trying to save them all, an act clearly beyond the abilities of any person or group. But the hoarder does not see the reality of what is happening, and gets in deeper and deeper. They usually truly are grateful when authorities step in.
Animal hoarders should receive a medical referral rather than punishment -- OCD can often be treated successfully. Those keeping dogs to create a marketable product, with little or no regard to the welfare of the animals or the ultimate human-animal bond with an often-defective "product" should be prosecuted.
This is not a case of initially well-meaning individuals attempting to do animal rescue and getting in over their heads, ending up with too many animals. These animals were being intentionally bred to produce more animals. It's important to separate these two things.
Animal hoarders, those who think they are doing a good thing, but end up with their "rescues" in an abusive situation on their own premises, generally suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder. What starts out as an admirable act quickly mushrooms into trying to save them all, an act clearly beyond the abilities of any person or group. But the hoarder does not see the reality of what is happening, and gets in deeper and deeper. They usually truly are grateful when authorities step in.
Animal hoarders should receive a medical referral rather than punishment -- OCD can often be treated successfully. Those keeping dogs to create a marketable product, with little or no regard to the welfare of the animals or the ultimate human-animal bond with an often-defective "product" should be prosecuted.
Pet Food Safety
Most of the furor over the huge pet food recalls has died down, but now some new information has arrived - a 2004 recall that was attributed to contamination with mycotoxin (a naturally occuring grain contaminant) now appears to have been the same combination of melanime and cyanuric acid contamination as the most recent case. An article in the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation reports that necropsy findings from the affected dogs in the 2004 Asian case and the 2007 U.S. case are identical. Because the 2004 case occurred in the Philippines, Japan, and Hong Kong, we didn't hear much about it in the states. But it was massive. And once again, the ingredients originated in China.
So I have to ask - when are we going to wake up and realize that more needs to be done to ensure the safety of our food supply, not just for our pets but for ourselves? What other combinations of potential contaminants aren't being tested for because they just aren't expected to happen? How can we have any assurance that anything is safe? Shouldn't food at least be labeled with country of origin so that we can choose on that basis? Now that seafood products are labeled, I can avoid tilapia farmed in China if I so choose. But why only seafood? With recall after recall, ranging from pet food to toothpaste to latex dog toys, why isn't our government looking more closely at this issue? Could it be because of the billions of dollars our country owes to their country?
For our pets, at least, we can choose to avoid Chinese imports. Ask the manufacturers of your dog's food where the ingredients originate. Any of the organic products will be happy to tell you that there's nothing from China in there, and that all ingredients have had to pass an additional level of inspection. Look at the companies that didn't have any foods involved in the most recent recall. You'll know they weren't and aren't importing glutens from China.
It seems we have to do our own due diligence, rather than relying on government inspections. If you won't do it for yourself, at least do it for your dog.
So I have to ask - when are we going to wake up and realize that more needs to be done to ensure the safety of our food supply, not just for our pets but for ourselves? What other combinations of potential contaminants aren't being tested for because they just aren't expected to happen? How can we have any assurance that anything is safe? Shouldn't food at least be labeled with country of origin so that we can choose on that basis? Now that seafood products are labeled, I can avoid tilapia farmed in China if I so choose. But why only seafood? With recall after recall, ranging from pet food to toothpaste to latex dog toys, why isn't our government looking more closely at this issue? Could it be because of the billions of dollars our country owes to their country?
For our pets, at least, we can choose to avoid Chinese imports. Ask the manufacturers of your dog's food where the ingredients originate. Any of the organic products will be happy to tell you that there's nothing from China in there, and that all ingredients have had to pass an additional level of inspection. Look at the companies that didn't have any foods involved in the most recent recall. You'll know they weren't and aren't importing glutens from China.
It seems we have to do our own due diligence, rather than relying on government inspections. If you won't do it for yourself, at least do it for your dog.
Mar 4, 2008
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)
Some of you may know that in 1991, the United Kingdom passed the Dangerous Dogs Act. This act banned ownership of dogo Argentino, fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, and pit bull terrier. Never mind that in the UK, the pit bull terrier is not even considered a breed, so banning it was rather problematic. This was going to solve the problem of dog attacks in the United Kingdom, or so the act's proponents claimed.
Now Britain's Liberal Democrats have conducted a statistical survey and found that the number of people visiting the emergency room after a dog attack has risen more than 40 percent over the last 4 years. As in most cases, young children and teenagers are most often the victims of the bites, and in the UK, there is also a strong regional variation. For example, the numbers doubled in London and rose by almost 80 percent in the West Midlands, whereas the East Midlands showed barely any increase.
In London, the response has been surprisingly reasonable - several groups have come together to launch a campaign for responsible dog ownership. If their campaign is effective, it's likely to have much more of an impact on the incidence of dog bites than the banning of specific breeds has.
A lot of dog people support the saying "it's the deed, not the breed," and indeed it should be. Doberman Pinschers were once rather sharp reactive dogs, and they still find their way onto dangerous dog lists, even though breeders have done an excellent job of changing their personalities to be more of a big energetic marshmallow.
I live in the U.S., where we are not supposed to profile anyone even after the terrorist attacks, because it could harm the innocent people who happened to fit the profile. We should exend the same courtesy to our dogs, and judge individual actions rather than a breed and a "dangerous dog" label.
Now Britain's Liberal Democrats have conducted a statistical survey and found that the number of people visiting the emergency room after a dog attack has risen more than 40 percent over the last 4 years. As in most cases, young children and teenagers are most often the victims of the bites, and in the UK, there is also a strong regional variation. For example, the numbers doubled in London and rose by almost 80 percent in the West Midlands, whereas the East Midlands showed barely any increase.
In London, the response has been surprisingly reasonable - several groups have come together to launch a campaign for responsible dog ownership. If their campaign is effective, it's likely to have much more of an impact on the incidence of dog bites than the banning of specific breeds has.
A lot of dog people support the saying "it's the deed, not the breed," and indeed it should be. Doberman Pinschers were once rather sharp reactive dogs, and they still find their way onto dangerous dog lists, even though breeders have done an excellent job of changing their personalities to be more of a big energetic marshmallow.
I live in the U.S., where we are not supposed to profile anyone even after the terrorist attacks, because it could harm the innocent people who happened to fit the profile. We should exend the same courtesy to our dogs, and judge individual actions rather than a breed and a "dangerous dog" label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)