Two Toes

To contact us Click HERE
Two Toes is a dog from Red Lake Rosie's Rescue that went to ARVSS for foster and adoption. ARVSS received the following news and photos from his new family:

UPDATE: We just wanted to give you an update on Two Toes. When we got him we decided to change his name to Stout. So far Stout is starting to respond to his name.     Our friends and family really like Stout. Even though when he first meets people he is very very hyper, he settles down after a while. He has met a few dogs around the neighborhood and he likes them all and just wants to play!     He is a very sweet dog and it didn't take long for us to fall in love with him. We taught him how to shake and we are getting him trained with a bell for when he wants to go outside. He is getting along with our cat, but she stays away because he just wants to play. We haven't taken a lot of pictures of him yet, but I do have a few, we will send you more when we get some good ones!! Hope all is well and we are very happy with our new addition!!

Time to prepare RLRR for winter

To contact us Click HERE
Brr, We hate to think of winter, but it is sure to come! We want Red Lake Rosie's Rescue to be ready for it.


At RLRR shelter, the dogs and puppies must thrive in outdoor kennels. We do all we can to help make it more comfortable with fresh, dry oat straw and tarped and plastic-wrapped kennels to keep out the wind and snow.

We get subzero temps plus wind chills in the winter.


Last year we had Linda, Darcy, Jeanette, and Collen who helped weatherize the kennels. Linda has come up with a plastic sheeting solution for some and we also use tarps 8 x 10 foot and 10 x 12 foot.

The process also required cable ties mainly the 12 inch length.


Thanks to Susan of ABE! Fund we have our 2012-13 supply of straw. She has supplied the straw for 3 years in a row now.


Our needs for winter are the tarps, zip ties, heavy plastic sheeting-2 rolls, and wooden lathe.

One other supply would be heavy duty black rubber pails that will not shatter when they freeze. These are used to water the dogs.


Last but not least, we need the volunteers willing to come up to the shelter to help us get ready for winter.

Thanks,
Karen and the animals of RLRR

Little Sully

To contact us Click HERE
UPDATE ON SULLY WHO HAD EYE SURGERY:
Little Sully continues to bubble over with joy and energy. He was good natured and happy when he was blind, but as a seeing dog he is ecstatic!

He has become quite popular at the dog park , the first one out of the gate when we arrive and the last one willing to head home. Chasing the big dogs is his favorite passtime.

Sully had a check up with Dr. Olivera a couple of weeks ago. The doctor and his staff adore him! His eyes are looking good, but he probably will be on drops for the rest of his life. His blind eye doesn't tear properly and had become irritated, but the drops seem to have alleviated the problem. He has drops for his sighted eye too, and that eye is clear, bright and healthy, He did have a couple of seizures several months ago, so he is on a very small daily dosage of medication.

He has a huge appetite for food as well as for life, and like so many rescued dogs he seems to have that attitude of gratitude. How fortunate Sully was to have had all the wonderful, generous supporters who made his surgery possible!

Foster mom wasn't able to get new photos, but I just had to share the update :-)
Denise

Cause of Death in Lee Co, SC Dog Attack

To contact us Click HERE
A follow up on the 65 year old woman in SC who died during a dog attack last week:

Lee County Coroner Alford Elmore told The Item of Sumter that an autopsy Friday showed that Ethel Horton had an enlarged heart and died before the dog did much damage to her.

The woman died of a heart attack. The husband, who was attacked first, remains in the hospital. The dog was killed following the attack.

What's Going on at the Robeson Co Animal Shelter in NC?

To contact us Click HERE
An online search turns up countless stories of neglect, cruelty and killings alleged to have taken place at Robeson County Animal Shelter in NC. As with all things posted on the net, you have to judge for yourself what seems credible to you. Stories include:

• 1997 video of pets being cruelly killed by shelter workers (Warning - graphic)
• After the lawsuit which followed the video, the shelter reportedly changed its ways. This posting details a 2010 eyewitness account indicating the shelter has not changed and is still inflicting unnecessary cruelty in the killing of pets.
• 2010 video depicting 73 empty kennels (out of 100) at the shelter yet a dog with a rescue waiting to pull her was killed
• Another lawsuit is currently being considered against the county by the same complainant as the previous case alleging similar acts of cruelty and neglect by the shelter.

The director of the county health department (responsible for shelter operations) recently sent a letter to a local paper in defense of the shelter. He ends the letter as follows:

There are three animal control officers and three employees at the shelter — with some contract assistance — who take care of the animal needs of a human population of nearly 130,000 people in the largest county in the state. They are typically stressed and stretched. By and large, they remain conscientious of their duty to the residents and the animals. The constant probing and prodding take away any satisfaction in the job.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It is good though, it adheres to all standards and licensure requirements, but it could be better. We continue to move toward that goal.

While the opposing sides are far apart, I'm sure most everyone will agree that working towards continued improvement is a worthwhile effort. I wonder if the shelter could make its practices more transparent to the public and thus reduce the perceived "probing and prodding" referred to in the letter. Public shelters should be accountable to the public to my mind. If there was more transparency in the sheltering world, it would go a long way toward reassuring the community that pets are being well cared for which is the main concern I think.

How about it Robeson County - could the shelter make itself more transparent to the public so that the community doesn't have to rely on internet postings for information on how the shelter cares for pets?

Note: There are numerous posts circulating indicating that ABC News is looking for eyewitness accounts for a story they are doing on the Robeson Co shelter. The posts provide the contact information for someone at ABC. I have contacted the person listed and she does not wish her name and contact info to be posted any further so please do not post it in the comments.

"I know what the caged bird feels"

To contact us Click HERE
In this terrible economy, I'm inclined to feel sympathy for anyone who gets evicted from his home and has to move to another city. He's obviously not moving by choice and who knows why he was evicted - maybe he just fell on hard times financially.

In the case of someone who has 7 Pitbulls (a male, a female and a litter of 5 pups), that's going to be a tough situation. I can't think of many landlords who would be eager to accept a tenant who's bringing along a reproducing pair of Pitbulls and their current offspring. In fact, I'd wager many friends and relatives would feel the same way. In a case like this, networking online, reaching out to local rescues and placing ads in area papers to place the dogs might all be options. And if nothing works out, there is always your local shelter. This is what animal shelters are for. But a NJ man by the name of Keifan Thomas had a different idea when he was faced with these circumstances this Winter.

Mr. Thomas packed up the plantation and chained his adult male dog to the fence, stuffed the dam into a small metal cage and let the puppies roam around the trash in the yard. In Winter. In New Jersey. Three weeks later, a neighboring business called animal control who picked up the dogs. The dam was, of course, dead in her cage. The other dogs survived and were adopted at the shelter. That's the good news.

Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to 4 counts of animal cruelty and received - can you guess? - a suspended jail sentence. On the plus side, he did receive a substantial fine. An AC officer noted that “Mr. Thomas appeared to be sympathetic” - Right. I'm guessing he sympathized with himself for getting caught and for having to pay a fine. It's hard to imagine him having any sympathy for the dogs, which is like the whole point. I assume he'll be getting another dog (or dogs) sometime soon since the article makes no mention of Mr. Thomas being barred from owning pets.

The AC officer said he hopes Mr. Thomas has learned a lesson. I hope so too and I like to think everyone deserves a second chance blah blah blah. It's hard though. Stuffing the dam into a little metal cage in freezing temperatures - that would be cruel if he'd done it for an hour. He did it until that poor dog died. She suffered while her puppies ambled through trash around her cage, probably crying for their mama. I can imagine the male, alert barking until he was hoarse, chained to the fence. It's a real stretch to think of someone who would do that to his own pets being in any way "sympathetic".


Sympathy

I know what the caged bird feels.
Ah me, when the sun is bright on the upland slopes,
when the wind blows soft through the springing grass
and the river floats like a sheet of glass,
when the first bird sings and the first bud ops,
and the faint perfume from its chalice steals.
I know what the caged bird feels.

I know why the caged bird beats his wing
till its blood is red on the cruel bars,
for he must fly back to his perch and cling
when he fain would be on the bow aswing.
And the blood still throbs in the old, old scars
and they pulse again with a keener sting.
I know why he beats his wing.

I know why the caged bird sings.
Ah, me, when its wings are bruised and its bosom sore.
It beats its bars and would be free.
It's not a carol of joy or glee,
but a prayer that it sends from its heart's deep core,
a plea that upward to heaven it flings.
I know why the caged bird sings.

- Paul Laurence Dunbar

Case Update: Walker Co Humane Society in AL

To contact us Click HERE
Brett Wadsworth, the attorney representing Boost's owner against the Walker County Humane Society (you might remember that the shelter killed Boost immediately upon admission and then lied about it), says that last week, the shelter made the owner an offer of $2000. They are refusing the offer and pursuing their lawsuit.

Good on them.

You can read all the posts on this case here.

Two Pitbulls Rescued in Arkansas

To contact us Click HERE
I just love these nutjobs who are all anti-government until they want clean drinking water or a road to drive on or a way to get across a river besides swimming. And who do they call when their barn goes up in flames? The government, of course:

[William] Stewart's criminal activities were first discovered by White County authorities when they responded to a fire at a barn on his property Thursday night. After the smoke dissipated, they say they discovered evidence of dog fighting, two boa constrictors, more than 100 marijuana plants each worth $1,000, a trailer dubbed "The Romance Club," nearly 40 loaded weapons and anti-government pamphlets.

William Stewart was reportedly known in dogfighting circles as "Rushin' Bill" and published a dogfighting magazine called The Pitbull Reporter for many years.

Deputies Thursday found a pit bull fighting ring, two dogs and enough chains for 40 more.
[...]
Deputies say all the weapons were loaded proving Stewart was ready to defend his property, but they say he killed himself before there was any confrontation.

The two dogs were saved.

What's Going on at the Robeson Co Animal Shelter in NC?

To contact us Click HERE
An online search turns up countless stories of neglect, cruelty and killings alleged to have taken place at Robeson County Animal Shelter in NC. As with all things posted on the net, you have to judge for yourself what seems credible to you. Stories include:

• 1997 video of pets being cruelly killed by shelter workers (Warning - graphic)
• After the lawsuit which followed the video, the shelter reportedly changed its ways. This posting details a 2010 eyewitness account indicating the shelter has not changed and is still inflicting unnecessary cruelty in the killing of pets.
• 2010 video depicting 73 empty kennels (out of 100) at the shelter yet a dog with a rescue waiting to pull her was killed
• Another lawsuit is currently being considered against the county by the same complainant as the previous case alleging similar acts of cruelty and neglect by the shelter.

The director of the county health department (responsible for shelter operations) recently sent a letter to a local paper in defense of the shelter. He ends the letter as follows:

There are three animal control officers and three employees at the shelter — with some contract assistance — who take care of the animal needs of a human population of nearly 130,000 people in the largest county in the state. They are typically stressed and stretched. By and large, they remain conscientious of their duty to the residents and the animals. The constant probing and prodding take away any satisfaction in the job.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. It is good though, it adheres to all standards and licensure requirements, but it could be better. We continue to move toward that goal.

While the opposing sides are far apart, I'm sure most everyone will agree that working towards continued improvement is a worthwhile effort. I wonder if the shelter could make its practices more transparent to the public and thus reduce the perceived "probing and prodding" referred to in the letter. Public shelters should be accountable to the public to my mind. If there was more transparency in the sheltering world, it would go a long way toward reassuring the community that pets are being well cared for which is the main concern I think.

How about it Robeson County - could the shelter make itself more transparent to the public so that the community doesn't have to rely on internet postings for information on how the shelter cares for pets?

Note: There are numerous posts circulating indicating that ABC News is looking for eyewitness accounts for a story they are doing on the Robeson Co shelter. The posts provide the contact information for someone at ABC. I have contacted the person listed and she does not wish her name and contact info to be posted any further so please do not post it in the comments.

Action Alert for Austin Pet Lovers

To contact us Click HERE
You are invited:

When: 10am Thursday, March 11, 2010
Where: City Hall in the Council Chambers (301 W. Second St in downtown Austin)
What: The city council will vote on adopting a plan to make Austin a no kill city.
Why: The city shelter currently kills pets even when they have space for them. Sometimes they kill them just because they're young. The community does not want this happening in their city.

Attend the meeting tomorrow to show your support for saving Austin's homeless pets. Additional info here.

Animal Rights group claiming not enough affection

To contact us Click HERE
Animal Rights group changing their language to include "care and affection'. Boy oh boy- I really, really hope this makes it into laws protecting humans. Lets advocate that anyone who has foster children has to demonstrate they can provide care and affection for the children they care for- THAT would save taxpayer dollars down the road.
(from Protesters dog Longwood greyhound-racing track)
"Wilson, a regional coordinator for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, or ARFF, said trainers don't provided greyhounds with the proper care and affection — which track officials and patrons dispute."

New Zealand: Supermarket chain bans shepherds from using dogs to help manage lambs

To contact us Click HERE
New Zealand shepherds stop using dogs as stresses lambs
For centuries shepherds have herded their flock with the help of their expert sheep dogs. But one man and his dog has been replaced by one man and his stick, after Tesco claimed shepherds' faithful canine companions "stressed" the sheep.

By Harry Wallop and Matthew Moore
Published: 6:13PM BST 03 Apr 2009

Tesco has told farmers, who supply the supermarket giant with lamb, to stop using the dogs unless they can be retrained to be "more considerate" towards the flock.

The shepherds have reacted with outrage, and claimed up to 60 dogs have now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

However, Tesco was adamant that one of its largest suppliers in New Zealand, Silver Fern Farms in Fairton, should stop using dogs to herd sheep into the abattoir.

Unlike in Britain, most abattoirs are attached to farms in New Zealand, ensuring the farm does not need to truck its flock down the motorway to a slaughterhouse.

The supermarket wants the shepherds to wave their arms, beat sticks or wave flags, to move the sheep into the abattoir.

The surprise order from Tesco, which comes into force next week, came to light thanks to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph by an upset reader.

Mick Petheram, one of the shepherds, said: "New Zealand sheep are used to dogs, they know dogs. There's more stress in a human herding and manhandling them, waving their arms and beating sticks. Dogs are part of a sheep's life. This is absolute baloney."

He said that he and his fellow workers would have to sell their dogs, or worse, put them down. "We'll be desperately trying to sell them, but most of us will end up putting down three or four each. These are bloody good dogs. Taking away our dogs is like taking a hammer away from a builder; we can't do our job without them," he said.

New Zealand is the biggest source of lamb in Britain at this time of year, and it is understood that the Silver Fern Farms is one of Tesco's biggest suppliers.

It was visited by Tesco buyers earlier this year, who were "upset" at seeing the dogs "running riot", according to a spokesman for the supermarket.

The National Farmers' Union said that it was not aware of any research indicating that farm animals suffered stress because of sheepdogs.

"Sheepdogs are trained specifically to herd sheep and in some cases cattle and we have heard no problems about them being harmful to the animals," a spokesman said.

Tesco stood by its decision. "We don't have a problem with sheep dogs, but we need to make sure they move the sheep in a considerate manner, so they don't stress the sheep out," said a spokesman.

Scientists have found some evidence that if animals that are "stressed" immediately before slaughter the pH level of the meat increases, creating a pale, watery cut.

Leading animal welfare charity the RSPCA said it had concerns about the anxiety suffered by sheep as they are circled and pursued by dogs, but did not believe a ban was necessary.


Meanwhile: At a sheep workshop I attended this year, an unrulely 12 year old girl caused a lamb to break its leg as she chased the sheep around the pen attempting to catch it. Multiple lambs in the group ended up limping as she dove on animals to catch them, only to have them get away causing her to attempt to catch another. Humans cause more stress than well trained herding dogs.

NY- Conflict of Interests: Human Societies should not be given authority to seize animals

To contact us Click HERE
Here is yet another case of Human Societies stealing animals. Of course it is a conflict of interest to allow shelters to enforce animal cruelty cases- they are the ones who BENEFIT from such cases. Yes- benefit is the right word. Shelters get donations when they cry, "help stop abuse" and they get to SELL (yes, that's right- it is a sale- you don't have the option of NOT donating if you want an animal) the pets they take in. Cover their costs? Maybe, but their costs include staff and a building. Not everyone is a VOLUNTEER. Of course they want to stay in business. They have almost make theft legal- expect that sometimes it smells like a Rat!

Our Towns
A Case of Pet Care and Politics

By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: October 7, 2009
GARRISON, N.Y.

Two things struck many people as odd three years ago when sheriff’s deputies came to Sandy Saunders’s 150-acre farm, said they had found “shocking” conditions, arrested him on nine counts of animal cruelty, and seized five horses, three sheep and a goat that have never been returned.

The first was that the barn owned by Mr. Saunders, a well-known local environmentalist and gadfly, was a popular and quite public gathering place. In the five weeks before the animals were seized, an annual barn dance there brought out perhaps 200 people, and a political fund-raiser drew 150. A woman who had visited with her children said that she had seen dozens of farms and that Mr. Saunders’s was “one of the cleanest and well-maintained I have come across.”

The second was that Barbara Dunn, the deputy who seized the animals and participated in a separate raid and arrest involving the care of purebred Maltese dogs that same month, was also the president of the Putnam Humane Society, where the animals were taken, which struck many people as an unfortunate mixing of responsibilities.

The two arrests set in motion a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the indictment of Deputy Dunn this week on 28 counts, including grand larceny, perjury and official misconduct, some stemming from her testimony in the investigation involving the dogs.

It would be nice if the indictment suggested a clear motivation. Instead, it’s more of a reminder that while politics involving humans can be pretty complicated, they’re nothing compared to the politics of people and critters.

Mr. Saunders’s case had no direct bearing on the indictment, a result of an 18-month investigation. Deputy Dunn was accused of larceny, insurance fraud and official misconduct for claiming workplace injuries when, in fact, she had fallen off a horse, prosecutors say. And she was accused of perjury and official misconduct in connection with her testimony about the seizure of the dogs from Linda Nelson, a breeder in Kent.

Deputy Dunn pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Monday. William Aronwald, her lawyer, said the notion that she was improperly acting in the interests of the Humane Society ignored the evidence. “She took six Maltese dogs that hadn’t been fed, had no water, were sitting in their own excrement from a sweltering, hot room and took them to the Humane Society,” he said. “What other recourse did she have? Just leave them there? I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the Humane Society benefited from this.”

The problem is that a State Supreme Court judge, Justice Andrew P. O’Rourke, in dismissing charges against Ms. Nelson, ruled otherwise, saying: “Deputy Dunn, in her position as president of the Humane Society, engaged in a public campaign to garner support for the renewal of the society’s contract with the county. She increased the number of seizures of animals and sought increased fines for animal-related violations in order to increase the coffers of the Humane Society.”

It’s small potatoes, unless you’re the one accused. In addition to the worthy work that animal protection groups do, there have been allegations elsewhere of animals improperly seized and reputations ruined out of excess zeal. An investigation by “20/20” in 2005 included numerous claims from people who said that instead of helping them care for wanted pets, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confiscated their animals, sold them within days and kept the money.

BUT if that kind of conflict was at work, it didn’t show up in the indictment. Christopher York, the chief assistant district attorney in Putnam County, said he had no way of knowing if any improprieties in Deputy Dunn’s conduct were affected by excess zeal for animal rights, the interests of the Humane Society or a belief that she was acting properly. “We don’t have to prove motivation,” he said.

Still, regardless of whether she’s found guilty, you could deduce three things. The first is that an accusation of animal abuse can be as damaging as one of child abuse. Mr. Saunders found himself reported on animal abuse Web sites. (He agreed to give up the animals in return for the dismissal of the charges against him.) The second is that being on the side of the animals doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the side of the angels. And the third is that giving the president of the local Humane Society a badge and a license to investigate animal abuse isn’t the smartest move.

E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com

TX- SPCA steals livestock while claiming abuse

To contact us Click HERE
Community Rallies Around Seized Animals' Owners

The SPCA says the animals were abused, but supporters say the accused is an excellent care giver.

Living things get sick from time to time. If a calf has scours, which is caused by a bacteria or virus- that alone dose not mean the animal is abused. Did any person you know make it through a year without coming down with a cold? Those too are caused by bacteria and viruses. We live in a world full of them.

Chickens that have feather loss? Oh NO! You are kidding! (said in jest)- have you even seen a playground of children with no cuts or scrapes? I hope not- because that is what happens when children interact.

The SPCA is out to steal animals and raise money to end "abuse"- but look carefully- they are the ones doing the abuse- they are abusing power and authority and it is time it is stopped!

PA: Humane Society takes a dog from a homeless man- and won't return him even after a court order to do so

To contact us Click HERE
Good Grief! Give the man his dog back! This man lost his home, his job, his wife and family, and now the HS takes his DOG!!! You have got to be kidding!
What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!

At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew

Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.

Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied.

Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie.

However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.

Justifying Shelter Killing

To contact us Click HERE
Why do we kill pets in shelters? I no longer believe in the"too many pets, not enough homes" reasoning because the math does not add up. But I understand this is a point of contention for many who cling to the old thinking. I'm guilty of clinging sometimes myself so I understand. So let's say, for the sake of argument, it's true that we have too many pets and not enough homes. Don't ask me how the math would work on that scenario because I have no idea. (Anyone?) But let's just say it's true for pretend purposes.

So here we are at Our Beagle of Mercy Shelter in Southtown, USA and we've got too many pets and not enough homes for them all. We know there are many pet lovers in the Southtown area and that at least some of them will be looking for a new pet at any given time (first time pet owners, expanding the pet family, death of a pet, etc.) So the first thing I'm going to say to my shelter staff is "Be nice to people". While many people we meet are experienced pet owners who take good care of their pets, it's a given that within our community there will be some irresponsible pet owners just as there are irresponsible parents and irresponsible people in all walks of life. Unless these pet owners are sadistically cruel, we can hope to educate them on becoming responsible owners. But we will never educate anyone if we blame them for the community's pet problems. In order to address the "not enough homes" part of our problem, we do not want to do anything that compromises our good relationship with the people who will provide the homes we seek.

While we are being friendly to folks, we need to reach out to the community to get our foster pet and low cost spay-neuter programs going. We'll need volunteers from the veterinary community, donations and transportation volunteers from the public, and media promotion to spread awareness of the clinic. We know that the major obstacles standing in the way of getting more pets in the community neutered are education, cost and transportation. We're going to continually work to remove those obstacles so that everyone who wants to get his pet neutered can do so. Our community's feral cats will be trapped, neutered and returned to their living areas. We'll continually seek foster homes for pets from the community. All of this will help us with the "too many pets" part of our problem.

In addition to our efforts in the community, we are going to extend our reach by utilizing social media such as Twitter. We'll also be networking online with shelters and rescues in other parts of the country because not all of them are going to have the same "too many pets, not enough homes" problem we have. We may be able to arrange for some of our pets to go to areas where there are fewer pets in need of homes.

Our website will feature adoptable pets as well as strays who are pending redemption. We'll keep our shelter doors open during the hours we know the public is most likely to visit, including weekends. Because we take good care of the animals we shelter, the public will see clean kennels and pets who have been adequately fed, watered and exercised. Sick pets will receive veterinary care so they can be adopted and medically hopeless pets who are suffering will be euthanized.

I know by now skeptics are thinking, "All this fancy no kill talk sounds good but meanwhile there are pets piling up in your shelter and you've got to do something with them". Right. And we will, but it's not going to be killing. Never that. Instead, we are going to shelter them - not warehouse them, not dump them in unscreened homes or rescues - really and actually and truly shelter them. Because Our Beagle of Mercy is an animal shelter, that's what we do. In fact, that's what the public has a right to expect and demand from every shelter in this country - sheltering of the community's pets. Anything less is a crime.

WANTED: Common Sense in Emmetsburg, IA

To contact us Click HERE
The city codes in Emmetsburg, Iowa deem Pitbulls to be dangerous dogs. City residents Andrea and Jeremy Bowman have a dog in Emmetsburg who may be part Pitbull (the dog is a mixed breed and those breeds are in dispute). I want to make clear at this point there is no mention of allegations of biting or even growling at any person or animal by the dog.

The Bowmans, along with one of their neighbors, appeared before the city council this week to appeal the dangerous dog ordinance. The owners and neighbor stated the dog is friendly to people and other animals. However another of the Bowman's neighbors appeared to complain that the dog was seen running loose and had pottied on her lawn. (The owner admitted her kid had left the door open and the dog got out once.) So this neighbor who is unhappy about the dog pottying in her yard once schleps down to the council meeting to appeal for the dog to be kicked out of the city because she says, she fears for the safety of her 2 year old son and doesn't want to have to put up a fence to protect him. (I guess I should have warned readers of a Flying Logic Leap in advance, sorry about that.) I suppose that lady's 2 year old has never thrown a temper tantrum outside the home and caused a public disturbance. Because if he had, I'm sure she would have banished him from the city.

Again, the dog hasn't been accused of biting anyone and the owners have not been cited for anything. The principal of the Catholic school across the street from the Bowmans sent a letter of concern to the council. She too wants the dog ridden out on a rail. Not because he terrorizes kids at her school or anything like that but apparently because he's sucking up oxygen and stuff. (Which pets would Jesus ban?)

The council ordered the Bowmans to get a DNA test for their dog at their own expense. They have 30 days to comply.

There is another dangerous dog appeal detailed at the link involving a Drahthaar but my brain is too burned out to post about that one.

Robeson Co Animal Shelter Inspections

To contact us Click HERE
The following info is snipped from state inspections of the Robeson Co Animal Shelter over the past two years. These snippets are summaries - not direct quotes. You can click the links to view the original reports (pdfs). My notes are in parentheses.

April 16, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 54 dogs and 4 cats in the shelter. Cross contamination issues.

April 22, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 33 dogs and 4 cats in the shelter. Pets need resting surfaces. Use large feed trays for resting surfaces if size appropriate.

May 15, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 55 dogs and 15 cats in the shelter. Cross-contamination and resting surfaces issues remain.

August 25, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 43 dogs and 19 cats in the shelter. All runs now have resting platforms. Cross-contamination issues. Sick/injured pets are not being treated or euthanized in a timely manner.

October 2, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 43 dogs and 5 cats in the shelter. Sick pets being euthanized in a more timely manner than previously. (No mention made of sick pets receiving veterinary care.) Cross-contamination issues.

December 16, 2008 inspection: 108 enclosures with 24 dogs and 2 cats in the shelter. Cross-contamination issues.

(No inspection reports listed for 9 month period - were any performed?)

September 8, 2009 Euthanasia inspection report: Animals being killed without being checked for tattoos, identification or microchips first.

September 8, 2009 inspection: 108 enclosures with 27 dogs and 15 cats in the shelter. Awaiting new kennels to address cross-contamination issues.

November 17, 2009 Euthanasia inspection report: The shelter is converting their feed room into a euthanasia room.

November 17, 2009 inspection: 108 enclosures with 29 dogs and 1 cat in the shelter. New kennels have been installed and no issues of cross-contamination.

March 1, 2010 inspection: 108 enclosures with 75 dogs and 10 cats in the shelter. Shelter is using Ajax mixed with Clorox to clean kennels, resting boards and food/water bowls. The Ajax label says the product should not be mixed with chlorine bleach. Irritating fumes present in shelter. Dogs and inspector suffered from eye irritation and discomfort as a result.

March 9, 2010 inspection: 108 enclosures with 30 dogs and 10 cats in the shelter. No longer mixing Clorox and Ajax. Every animal now moved to a clean pen daily. Staff no longer cleaning with animals in cages. (The shelter manager, Jeff Bass, apparently provided the inspector with copies of e-mail complaints he received at this visit. The e-mails are not shown in the pdf. Mr. Bass refers to the e-mails in this letter: "[...]the messages continue to come like "chieu hoi” pamphlets falling from the sky in Vietnam".)

***

A few observations: At the time of the above inspections, the shelter was never at capacity. The population ranged from 26 to 85 pets during the time span. With 3 AC officers and 3 employees, I have to wonder why they are killing pets (without checking for chips/tattoos!) when there are empty cages at this facility. And yet:

Bass said that at one time, the shelter was putting down 90 to 95 percent of the animals that came through its doors because of too little space and too few adoptions.

Where is this "too little space" issue? It's not evident to me from these inspection reports.

I also wonder why there is no mention of getting veterinary care for sick/injured pets. Has the shelter tried to get veterinary care for their pets?

Mixing Ajax with bleach - duh. Even if your mama didn't tell you to never mix ammonia and bleach and you didn't bother to read the label on the bottle, you could always check the internets (search for "homemade bombs"). Didn't it burn the staff's eyes too?

At any rate, the inspection reports appear to corroborate at least some of the allegations made by eyewitnesses in various online postings about the shelter.

Memphis Animal Shelter News Bits

To contact us Click HERE
Matthew Pepper, the new director of the Memphis Animal Shelter (MAS), met with the Animal Services Advisory Board this week to discuss his plans for turning the shelter around. He will meet with them again next week:

Pepper plans to join the Animal Services Advisory Board for a public discussion next Tuesday on the issue of spaying and neutering. The meeting is scheduled for March 16th at 4pm at Memphis City Hall.

I sincerely hope Mr. Pepper will be speaking in favor of low/no cost spay neuter programs for Memphis and against the mandatory spay-neuter proposals on the table:

Councilman Shea Flinn is proposing an ordinance that would require all dogs and cats owned by Memphis residents to be altered, with several exemptions. The proposed law is in response to the overpopulation of animals in the city, which has led to a euthanasia rate in the Memphis Animal Shelter of more than 79 percent.

Again, this meeting is open to the public and you may speak if you wish. MSN doesn't decrease shelter killing. Sometimes it increases the killing. Only comprehensive reform will reduce the killing in Memphis. And if Memphis is looking for funding for low/no cost neuter, look no further than your own backyard:

For months you've been paying three Memphis Animal Shelter employees to sit at home. All of them were suspended in the latest scandal at the facility.

Memphis taxpayer and attorney Bryan Mauldin doesn't understand why the three employees are still collecting a paycheck, while they're off the job. Mauldin says “Our shelter has limited resources and we can't afford to squander that money.”

On a related note, perhaps taxpayers are getting their money's worth from Mr. Pepper who is apparently not only a shelter director, but also a qualified behaviorist who can make a preliminary assessment of seized Pitbulls in the blink of an eye:

The 4 pitbulls seized from the active dog fight were impounded at the Memphis Animal Shelter Thursday night. Director Matthew Pepper says the condition of the dogs shows it wasn't their first fight and it's too early to tell what will happen to them.

"Some violent and aggressive tendencies have been ingrained in them so, it's difficult for us to determine what we can safely do with them," Pepper said.

Well you could start by getting the dogs a fair evaluation from an experienced group or individual. These dogs have been rescued and placed in your care MAS. Whatever they've been forced to do in the past is over. Do not judge them on the cruelty of their abusers. They are each individual dogs with needs and abilities all their own. Violence and aggression are not "ingrained" in them. Judge them with a kind eye, as you would any dog who's been rescued from abuse. Don't allow your judgment to be clouded by preconceived notions.

Mr. Pepper wants a chance to show he can turn around the MAS. I hope he gives these 4 dogs a chance too. Every dog deserves a fair evaluation.

Update on Spork Case

To contact us Click HERE
The owners of a Dachshund who bit a CO veterinary technician have been granted a 6 month deferred prosecution by a judge. So long as Spork doesn't bite anyone during the next 6 months, the charges will be dropped.

One of the many things I've learned from Cesar Millan would potentially be applicable in Spork's case: Hand little dogs off backwards. That is, when Person A is holding a little dog and wants to hand the dog over to Person B, Person A first turns the dog around so that his face is pointing towards Person A and away from Person B. This helps prevent the dog from being afraid when Person B invades his personal space and it removes any easy target (such as a face, in the Spork case), should the dog bite. Of course nothing beats a muzzle for preventing bites but it's always good to have additional tools in the toolbox.

PA: Harrisburg Human Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizes

To contact us Click HERE
Harrisburg Humane Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizesBy John Luciew
October 14, 2009, 3:44PM
UPDATE: A Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture inspector warned the Harrisburg Humane Society last month that a number of its cages were too small for the dogs being housed, according to department press secretary Justin Fleming.

Fleming sought to correct a earlier statement made by his staff that the animal agency was warned by the state that its Swatara Township, Dauphin County, kennel was overcrowded following a Sept. 22 inspection. That was not the case, Fleming said.

As a nonprofit shelter, the Humane Society is allowed to have an unlimited number of dogs provided there is ample space so as to not endanger the welfare of the dogs, Fleming said. At the time of the Sept. 22 inspection, the Humane Society housed 178 dogs, including 20 puppies, he said.

The state does require that dogs have at least six inches of head room in their cages. The state inspector found that a number of dogs at the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area were in cages that were too small for them, Fleming said.

LA- New Orleans to Consider MSN & Breeding Limits

To contact us Click HERE
UPDATE: New Orleans City Council MSN Vote Scheduled for November 5
The AKC has confirmed that the New Orleans City Council has delayed the vote on the mandatory spay/neuter proposal until Thursday, November 5.

It is imperative that dog owners in the New Orleans area use the next few weeks to continue contacting the city council and expressing opposition to this proposal. Read our previous alert for more information on the proposal, as well as obtain contact information for the council.

The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to provide updates as they become available.
NEW ORLEANS UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20! VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION NOW!

[Thursday, October 15, 2009]

The New Orleans City Council will consider Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell’s mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at its meeting on Tuesday, October 20th. The American Kennel Club vehemently opposes this draconian and ineffective proposal. All responsible dog breeders and owners in the New Orleans area are encouraged to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting to speak in opposition to the ordinance, and to contact the City Council members (listed below). Respectfully yet strongly express your opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal, and urge them to vote against it. Encourage them to begin an in-depth study of any existing animal population issues in New Orleans, and to work on better enforcement of the City’s existing animal ordinance. (For detailed talking points and a sample letter of opposition that you can customize, please click here.)

Meeting details:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
10:00 AM
City Hall Council Chamber
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112

(Those attending the meeting are encouraged to arrive at least one hour prior to the meeting’s 10:00 AM start time to secure parking near City Hall. Parking is available at several nearby locations.)

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

[Wednesday, September 23, 2009]

A mandatory spay/neuter and breeding restrictions ordinance is under consideration by the New Orleans City Council. The ordinance, which was introduced by Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, will require all dogs to be sterilized by six months of age or force their owners to purchase a costly breeder permit. It is likely that the ordinance will be considered at the city council’s upcoming meeting on Thursday, October 1st. The American Kennel Club, which opposes the ordinance, believes that this proposal is unreasonable, difficult and costly to enforce, potentially unconstitutional, and will do nothing to protect the health and welfare of dogs. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog owners and breeders in New Orleans contact the members of the New Orleans City Council and respectfully yet strongly urge them to vote down this proposal.

The American Kennel Club opposes mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.

If enacted, the new ordinance will impose many new unreasonable requirements on responsible dog owners in New Orleans, which include:

•Requiring all dogs six months of age or older (with few exceptions) to be spayed or neutered or force owners to purchase costly $50 breeder permits to keep any dog intact. Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have not been effective anywhere they have been adopted. In fact, in many cases the euthanization rates in surrounding areas have declines faster than in those areas with mandatory spay/neuter policies. Additionally, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have both issued policy statements in the past year stating that mandatory spay/neuter policies are not effective. Enforcement of existing law, including leash laws, is a better alternative.

•Limiting female dogs from whelping more than one litter per year, or whelping a litter if the female is younger than 18-months of age. The AKC opposes any arbitrary limitation on the responsible breeding of purebred dogs, and believes health and reproduction decisions are best made by owners in consultation with their dogs’ veterinarian.

•Permitting the Louisiana SPCA, which will be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance, to determine whether or not an applicant for a breeder license has “space determined to be suitable…in which to breed dogs and raise puppies.” As there are no specific guidelines included in the ordinance, it is not clear what a breeder would need to do to be approved. This will allow for subjective and arbitrary decisions that may cost responsible breeders thousands of dollars to come into compliance, or may prohibit them from breeding at all.

•Imposing significant fines for those who are found to be in violation of the ordinance, with the income from the fines to be used to further finance the LaSPCA’s animal control efforts. The AKC contends that the cost of enforcement of the ordinance will be far greater than any revenues gained through fines or fees assessed. Further, it may cause a drop in licensing compliance, as otherwise responsible may owners seek to avoid high fees they are unable to pay. It may also lead owners to avoid proper veterinary care and vaccinations in order to avoid detection.
Please click here for a copy of the proposal.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

The American Kennel Club strongly urges all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New Orleans to contact the City Council members. Let them know that you strongly oppose this ordinance, and urge them to vote against it. Instead, encourage them to strengthen enforcement of New Orleans’ existing animal control laws. For a sample letter that you can download and customize, please click here.

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

Spay/neuter..... not so fast

To contact us Click HERE
A Healthier Respect for Ovaries - a research study conducted by David J. Waters, DVM,PhD, Diplomate ACVS reveals shortened longevity as a possible complication associated with ovary removal in dogs.

Thank you Dr. for doing a study to show that spaying dogs at an early age (less than 4 years of age) will significantly decrease the life of a female dog. Really, is keeping track of your girl for a few weeks every 6 months so difficult? Is convenience worth more than a few more years with your dog? Not for me. Spaying and neutering causes serious "complications"- ie DEATH.

Want to give to animal related charities this year? Give locally- not to national animal rights groups

To contact us Click HERE
Animal lovers should stop sending money to zealotsRich Landers
The Spokesman-Review

I took a beating in the letters-to-the-editor pages a few weeks ago for pointing out the threat national-scale animal rights groups pose to the sports of hunting and fishing.

Now I’m turning the other cheek.

Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.

Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.

The published letters came mostly from one group of Spokane-area animal rights activists and Wayne Pacelle, the national figurehead for the Humane Society of the United States.

But many phone calls and e-mails called for more scrutiny of these groups and the moral fascism they are trying to impose on society’s use and enjoyment of animals.

One veterinarian pointed out that these groups are clawing their way through legal and legislative channels toward giving pets individual rights rather than leaving them designated as the property of their owners.

The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.

“Can you imagine the costs of routine pet procedures if we have to run unnecessary tests and insure ourselves for protection against possible multimillion-dollar lawsuits?” he said.

One e-mail came from a woman who works with a small-town animal welfare organization that does the dirty work of caring for the epidemic of lost, abused or unwanted pets. She thanked me for pointing out that these local nonprofit animal rescue groups – including the local Humane Societies that have no connection with the Humane Society of the United States – are always scrapping for money to do their work.

“I used to donate (to HSUS), years ago, but all the money seemed to go to mailings with another free key chain and a request for more money,” she wrote. “I was never sure that my donation was helping homeless animals.

“I now only donate locally, like to the Spokane Humane Society, or to our organization, where 100 percent of funds are spent on vet care.”

This woman, the veterinarian and others asked not to be identified because they didn’t want to endure the crap animal rights groups like to dish out to dissenters.

Speaking out publicly can start a smear campaign and financial burden for a pet care professional or local animal charity.

A story in Tuesday’s paper detailed how the HSUS, PETA and other animal rights zealots are trying to prevent the use of animals in veterinary training and biomedical research.

Medical and veterinary students cannot learn the complexities of hemorrhage on a computer model. Period.

Scientists who are trying to find cures for diseases and test surgical procedures and devices are having their lives threatened by the moral fascists.

“I’d rather see (animals) euthanized than go to a research facility,” said Minnesota Animal Rights Coalition president Charlotte Cozzetto.

These are the nuts who are draining millions of dollars from the checking accounts of little old ladies and others in the uninformed masses who think they are saving puppies and kittens.

But in most cases, these national groups donate little or nothing back to the actual care and welfare of those unwanted animals that are euthanized by the hundreds of thousands every year.

Pacelle smugly wrote The Spokesman-Review to charge me with misinforming the public about the ramifications of his recent testimony before the Supreme Court. He said the case had nothing to do with possibly making hunters and anglers criminals for being filmed or photographed with their quarry.

What he failed to say was that it was Justices Scalia, Sotomayor and others in the Supreme Court chambers who were making that association, not this lowly scribe in Spokane.

He also failed to acknowledge the numbers I shared with readers from the HSUS tax forms showing that more than half of the $4.8 million the group raised in one year for its feeble facade of creating wildlife sanctuaries goes back into mailing and propaganda.

This is the huge difference between sportsmen-supported wildlife conservation groups and national animal zealot groups.

When you write a check to Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or The Nature Conservancy, the money goes into preserving habitat for wildlife survival and human quality of life.

A check written to HSUS largely supports moral fascism.

These zealots must constantly squeal about animal atrocities, because to be reasonable and effective would curtail the heavy flow of cash into their pockets.

Contact Rich Landers at 509 459-5508 or richl@spokesman.com.

Why you should give money to LOCAL shelters- NOT HSUS

To contact us Click HERE
Remember- HSUS dose NOT operate a SINGLE shelter. Your local shelter shoulders the burden of care and expenses for the consequences of the legislative actions the HSUS works to pass.

Also take a look at HSUS Federal 990 for 2008.

For those of you looking for a little extra reading to do over the weekend, HSUS' 2008 New York tax return is up on the CharitiesNY.com website. This is a huge file, some 370 pages. It has multiple attachments.

http://tinyurl.com/yjgzpzr

Revenue was down in 2008 vs 2007 only because they lost money on their investments ($7M). They paid out less in grants (about $1.4M less), but increased compensation /benefits by $10M for a loss of almost $14M.

Attachments:

1.) Disclosure of agreements between HSUS and fund raising professionals (i.e., Share Group), fund raising counsel, and commercial co-ventures (i.e, PetPlan, MBNA America Bank, etc). Copies of the letters of agreement with the fund raising professionals/counsel/co-venturers are attached. The co-ventures agreements are at the end of the file.

2.) Copy of the public disclosure copy of the federal 990 for 2008. I'm not sure if this is a complete copy, but it looks like it might be.

A few of their grants:

Californians for Humane Farms (Prop 2 sponsor) $2,250,000 in cash, $44,480 noncash assistance. (Add to that $1,360,000 given per their 2007 tax return).

The Committee to Protect Dogs (MA Greyhound Protection Act) $200,000. (They also list a grant to them in 2007 for $200,000).

PETA $10,000 - I guess Ingrid was short on funds last year

WSPA $35,000

Tufts Univ School of Vet Medicine $22,625

Univ of Florida Foundation $25,000

Alliance Contraception in Dogs & Cats $50,000 (might want to keep tabs on these guys. They have a website).


3.) Copy of their consolidated financial statements

Enjoy.

The Audacity of The Hope

To contact us Click HERE
From the home page of The Hope Sanctuary's website:

We are about to be evicted from our premises. We need to fundraise and FAST.
We desperately need $1 million US to buy the Sanctuary before March 31st. If not and heaven forbid, we may have to put down all the dogs and cats we shelter. That's over 100 dogs and 25+ cats. Please pass this on to anyone and everyone - local and overseas. Anyone with any fundraising suggestions, solutions or investors/donators - PLEASE contact us[...]

To paraphrase, give us a million bucks or we'll kill every last one of these pets.

This "sanctuary" is in Barbados. I've never been to Barbados so I don't know if there is some kinda secret definition for sanctuary there but gee, this has got to be one of the worst fundraising pitches ever. What if I give them $5 or $500,000 and then they don't get enough from other donors to make up the $1 million needed? What happens to my money? Will it be used fund the killing of 125 dogs and cats?

OK I don't actually have $500,000 (take a check?) so here are some alternative suggestions:

• Look for a place to house the 125 pets that costs less than a goddamn million dollars.
• Failing that, see if you can find permanent or foster homes for the pets. You can also network with other rescues to see who might be able to help.

Sanctuary. Ha.

"Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow, horrible death."
"Well, at least it gets you out in the open air."

PETA Continues Slaughtering Pets in 2009

To contact us Click HERE
PETA has roughly 187 employees in addition to interns and volunteers. The group has 2 million supporters. If we make the assumption that PETA is like most organizations who kill pets, we can assume that employees, interns, volunteers and supporters will, on occasion, save a pet from being killed by adopting that pet themselves. This is common practice and easily understandable - people who work with pets, even shelter staff who kill them, often have a fondness for them and keep pets themselves.

In 2009, PETA took in 2366 animals. Of those, they adopted out 8. That's a .34% adoption rate. I can't help wondering if, given the number of staff, interns and volunteers at PETA, they couldn't have adopted out more pets to themselves. It's not realistic to think every staffer could adopt a pet every year but it certainly seems like they could have found homes for more than 8 pets among their ranks. I wonder too if they could have appealed to their 2 million supporters for homes for these 2366 animals. Many killing "shelters" utilize their own websites, along with other online resources such as Petfinder, to try to find homes for the pets in their care. In this way, their potential reach is greatly expanded and they don't have to rely solely on staff or supporters to adopt the pets in their care. Where were these 2366 animals PETA took in listed? Or did they not even try to find homes for them?

As longtime PETA staffer Daphna Nachminovitch testified at the 2007 Piggly Wiggly dumpster trial:

"PETA does not maintain an animal shelter. PETA has a couple -- we call them 'quarantine rooms' -- which are used to house animals that are held for one reason or another. And animals who are, who have a chance for adoption, are usually fostered in private homes. We do not have a public facility that's open to the public where people can stroll through and pick an animal. That's not a service that we are able to provide. We're an office building."

Did you ever hear anyone who supposedly cares about animals make pet adoption sound so dirty? "...[P]eople can stroll through and pick an animal" - eww, those filthy people who want to adopt pets. Look how they stroll though like they have some kind of right to save a pet. And then they pick an animal they want to care for and love. It makes me sick!

The question that makes me sick: How does killing 97% of the animals in your care, apparently without even trying to find homes for them, jive with the phrase "ethical treatment of animals"? Killing healthy/treatable pets is not ethical. Duping the public to the tune of millions of dollars with the notion that your group helps animals is not ethical. Operating a pet slaughterhouse while filing as a tax-exempt charity organization is not ethical.

Pet friends don't let pet friends donate to PETA. Find your local no kill shelter and make a donation there instead. It's the ethical thing to do.

Stolen Puppy for Sale?

To contact us Click HERE
Border Wars has a post about someone claiming to have stolen a mixed breed puppy and advertised her on Craigslist for $125. Although I have no way of verifying the story, I do hope police will look into the matter. If it is true that the pup was stolen, let's hope she is returned to her rightful owners and that police take the crime seriously. If it turns out to be a hoax, dude - not funny.

More on Robeson Co Animal Shelter

To contact us Click HERE

There is another article in the local paper regarding allegations of cruelty at the Robeson Co Animal Shelter (RCAS). It's basically a he said/she said type deal with the shelter manager countering one eyewitness report with this handy retort:

“She did not witness anything. What she thinks she saw was not the truth.”

Beyond the back and forth, there are a couple of noteworthy items:

Robeson Co is paying for the HSUS to come down and evaluate the shelter. Part of the expense is being covered by a "grant" although the article doesn't give any details on that. It seems a shame that a shelter with less than a $400k annual budget would spend money on getting an evaluation from an organization that does not operate a single shelter. Since RCAS kills roughly 4000 of the 6000 pets they take in each year, I would think they'd want to spend their money on consultants who actually shelter and save pets. But what do I know?

The article ends with the county and Rachelle Dudgeon, a shelter critic, enthusiastically blaming the public for the killing:

One point the county and Dudgeon agree on unequivocally is that the shelter’s problems start with pet owners: “These animals wouldn’t even be in the shelter if people took care of them,” Dudgeon said.

County officials and animal rights advocates both emphasize the necessity of spaying and neutering animals and properly identifying them with collars and tags, which would reduce the number of animals that have to be euthanized.

“Everyone needs to understand that everything that is happening is preventable,” Dudgeon said.

There will always be pets in shelters. Pet owners become incapacitated/die, stray animals reproduce, etc. The idea that if everyone just did what I said, we'd have no need for shelters is fatally flawed.

Preventing unintentional breedings and putting ID on pets are fine ideas but those things are not going to stop the killing.

What is preventable is killing healthy/treatable pets. And you don't have to pay HSUS to tell you that.

Blog Moving

To contact us Click HERE
Update: 9am, 3-17-10: The new blog is up: http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/

***

Added: 4pm, 3-16-10: The new blog is currently down. My bad. Will update this post as soon as I figure the bugger out.

***

I'm doing that annoying thing bloggers sometimes do - moving my blog. I'll leave this one up as an archive source (although I have moved some of the posts to the new blog). To allow everyone time to update bookmarks and such, I'll crosspost everything to both blogs for the rest of the week. Starting next week, I'll be posting new stuff only at the new blog.

I don't have all the curtains up or doilies out at the new place yet but it's livable. Please feel welcome to let me know if you have any problems with or comments about the new blog.

Click the links above or copy and paste
http://yesbiscuit.com/wordpress/
into your browser.

Animal Rights group claiming not enough affection

Animal Rights group changing their language to include "care and affection'. Boy oh boy- I really, really hope this makes it into laws protecting humans. Lets advocate that anyone who has foster children has to demonstrate they can provide care and affection for the children they care for- THAT would save taxpayer dollars down the road.
(from Protesters dog Longwood greyhound-racing track)
"Wilson, a regional coordinator for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, or ARFF, said trainers don't provided greyhounds with the proper care and affection — which track officials and patrons dispute."

New Zealand: Supermarket chain bans shepherds from using dogs to help manage lambs

New Zealand shepherds stop using dogs as stresses lambs
For centuries shepherds have herded their flock with the help of their expert sheep dogs. But one man and his dog has been replaced by one man and his stick, after Tesco claimed shepherds' faithful canine companions "stressed" the sheep.

By Harry Wallop and Matthew Moore
Published: 6:13PM BST 03 Apr 2009

Tesco has told farmers, who supply the supermarket giant with lamb, to stop using the dogs unless they can be retrained to be "more considerate" towards the flock.

The shepherds have reacted with outrage, and claimed up to 60 dogs have now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

However, Tesco was adamant that one of its largest suppliers in New Zealand, Silver Fern Farms in Fairton, should stop using dogs to herd sheep into the abattoir.

Unlike in Britain, most abattoirs are attached to farms in New Zealand, ensuring the farm does not need to truck its flock down the motorway to a slaughterhouse.

The supermarket wants the shepherds to wave their arms, beat sticks or wave flags, to move the sheep into the abattoir.

The surprise order from Tesco, which comes into force next week, came to light thanks to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph by an upset reader.

Mick Petheram, one of the shepherds, said: "New Zealand sheep are used to dogs, they know dogs. There's more stress in a human herding and manhandling them, waving their arms and beating sticks. Dogs are part of a sheep's life. This is absolute baloney."

He said that he and his fellow workers would have to sell their dogs, or worse, put them down. "We'll be desperately trying to sell them, but most of us will end up putting down three or four each. These are bloody good dogs. Taking away our dogs is like taking a hammer away from a builder; we can't do our job without them," he said.

New Zealand is the biggest source of lamb in Britain at this time of year, and it is understood that the Silver Fern Farms is one of Tesco's biggest suppliers.

It was visited by Tesco buyers earlier this year, who were "upset" at seeing the dogs "running riot", according to a spokesman for the supermarket.

The National Farmers' Union said that it was not aware of any research indicating that farm animals suffered stress because of sheepdogs.

"Sheepdogs are trained specifically to herd sheep and in some cases cattle and we have heard no problems about them being harmful to the animals," a spokesman said.

Tesco stood by its decision. "We don't have a problem with sheep dogs, but we need to make sure they move the sheep in a considerate manner, so they don't stress the sheep out," said a spokesman.

Scientists have found some evidence that if animals that are "stressed" immediately before slaughter the pH level of the meat increases, creating a pale, watery cut.

Leading animal welfare charity the RSPCA said it had concerns about the anxiety suffered by sheep as they are circled and pursued by dogs, but did not believe a ban was necessary.


Meanwhile: At a sheep workshop I attended this year, an unrulely 12 year old girl caused a lamb to break its leg as she chased the sheep around the pen attempting to catch it. Multiple lambs in the group ended up limping as she dove on animals to catch them, only to have them get away causing her to attempt to catch another. Humans cause more stress than well trained herding dogs.

NY- Conflict of Interests: Human Societies should not be given authority to seize animals

Here is yet another case of Human Societies stealing animals. Of course it is a conflict of interest to allow shelters to enforce animal cruelty cases- they are the ones who BENEFIT from such cases. Yes- benefit is the right word. Shelters get donations when they cry, "help stop abuse" and they get to SELL (yes, that's right- it is a sale- you don't have the option of NOT donating if you want an animal) the pets they take in. Cover their costs? Maybe, but their costs include staff and a building. Not everyone is a VOLUNTEER. Of course they want to stay in business. They have almost make theft legal- expect that sometimes it smells like a Rat!

Our Towns
A Case of Pet Care and Politics

By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: October 7, 2009
GARRISON, N.Y.

Two things struck many people as odd three years ago when sheriff’s deputies came to Sandy Saunders’s 150-acre farm, said they had found “shocking” conditions, arrested him on nine counts of animal cruelty, and seized five horses, three sheep and a goat that have never been returned.

The first was that the barn owned by Mr. Saunders, a well-known local environmentalist and gadfly, was a popular and quite public gathering place. In the five weeks before the animals were seized, an annual barn dance there brought out perhaps 200 people, and a political fund-raiser drew 150. A woman who had visited with her children said that she had seen dozens of farms and that Mr. Saunders’s was “one of the cleanest and well-maintained I have come across.”

The second was that Barbara Dunn, the deputy who seized the animals and participated in a separate raid and arrest involving the care of purebred Maltese dogs that same month, was also the president of the Putnam Humane Society, where the animals were taken, which struck many people as an unfortunate mixing of responsibilities.

The two arrests set in motion a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the indictment of Deputy Dunn this week on 28 counts, including grand larceny, perjury and official misconduct, some stemming from her testimony in the investigation involving the dogs.

It would be nice if the indictment suggested a clear motivation. Instead, it’s more of a reminder that while politics involving humans can be pretty complicated, they’re nothing compared to the politics of people and critters.

Mr. Saunders’s case had no direct bearing on the indictment, a result of an 18-month investigation. Deputy Dunn was accused of larceny, insurance fraud and official misconduct for claiming workplace injuries when, in fact, she had fallen off a horse, prosecutors say. And she was accused of perjury and official misconduct in connection with her testimony about the seizure of the dogs from Linda Nelson, a breeder in Kent.

Deputy Dunn pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Monday. William Aronwald, her lawyer, said the notion that she was improperly acting in the interests of the Humane Society ignored the evidence. “She took six Maltese dogs that hadn’t been fed, had no water, were sitting in their own excrement from a sweltering, hot room and took them to the Humane Society,” he said. “What other recourse did she have? Just leave them there? I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the Humane Society benefited from this.”

The problem is that a State Supreme Court judge, Justice Andrew P. O’Rourke, in dismissing charges against Ms. Nelson, ruled otherwise, saying: “Deputy Dunn, in her position as president of the Humane Society, engaged in a public campaign to garner support for the renewal of the society’s contract with the county. She increased the number of seizures of animals and sought increased fines for animal-related violations in order to increase the coffers of the Humane Society.”

It’s small potatoes, unless you’re the one accused. In addition to the worthy work that animal protection groups do, there have been allegations elsewhere of animals improperly seized and reputations ruined out of excess zeal. An investigation by “20/20” in 2005 included numerous claims from people who said that instead of helping them care for wanted pets, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confiscated their animals, sold them within days and kept the money.

BUT if that kind of conflict was at work, it didn’t show up in the indictment. Christopher York, the chief assistant district attorney in Putnam County, said he had no way of knowing if any improprieties in Deputy Dunn’s conduct were affected by excess zeal for animal rights, the interests of the Humane Society or a belief that she was acting properly. “We don’t have to prove motivation,” he said.

Still, regardless of whether she’s found guilty, you could deduce three things. The first is that an accusation of animal abuse can be as damaging as one of child abuse. Mr. Saunders found himself reported on animal abuse Web sites. (He agreed to give up the animals in return for the dismissal of the charges against him.) The second is that being on the side of the animals doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the side of the angels. And the third is that giving the president of the local Humane Society a badge and a license to investigate animal abuse isn’t the smartest move.

E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com