Kitten Mills...what you may not know!

Most of us know about puppy mills...but...cats and kittens suffer from these cruel practices as well. Please don't forget about the millions of cats that suffer at the hands of cruel people every day.If you care about the puppies and their breeder moms, you should be inclined to care about and help spread awareness of the kittens and cats that are abused in the same way puppies and dogs at puppy mills are.
The best way to show you care is to adopt -- never buy from ANY breeder -- and encourage others to do the same.
Please PLEASE always adopt. I have rescued cats, and my life is forever enriched because of them.
http://www.petfinder.com/
If you use facebook, please join this Group page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2231723482#/group.php?gid=59671486684&ref=mf
Here you will find more hard facts and information about the feline side of breeding mills. The bottom line is that the best way to stop this cruelty is to not support it. Over the years, we have seen increasing numbers of mill busts by groups like the Humane Society of the United States, Rescue Ink, and Companion Animal Protection Society. But there are tens of thousands of these mills across the country and in other countries as well, including suburban areas in Canada, where mills churn out puppies and kittens (and rabbits, for some) to be sold not only in Canada but in the United States as well. Because there is still demand, stores that sell animals, particularly puppies and kittens, are making significant profit off animal cruelty. The aforementioned groups are making significant inroads on combatting this problem, but it's a huge industry and we need more people to be educated and take actions on their confictions that animal cruelty is wrong and should NOT be tolerated anywhere.
If you want to take your stance against animal cruelty one step further, don't buy ANY products from stores that sell these animals. I recommend buying your pet food and supplies at smaller boutique and neighborhood stores that tend to carry the higher quality food, such as Wellness, Weruva, Blue Buffalo, and Halo, to name a few. I personally would prefer people make the choice to buy their pet good from these smaller stores that do not sell any living beings of any type -- not bird, gerbels, or even fish.
Remember -- you can empower yourself and reaffirm your stance against animal cruelty by making informed choices and not giving money to any business that exploits animals. It's up to you!
For more information about the kitten/cat mill industry and how you can help, see below:

What can you do to help?
1) NEVER BUY A CAT OR KITTEN FROM A BREEDER. Always adopt from your local shelter or rescue organization. Find the perfect cat or kitten in your area here: http://www.petfinder.com/.
2) BECOME INVOLVED WITH A CAT RESCUE ORGANIZATION. These organizations save lives every day by rescuing unwanted cats and kittens from local shelters and helping to find them homes. Many also provide low or no-cost spay and neuter services that help curb feral cat populations without killing. This is some of the most important work that can be done.
Join Stray Cat Alliance.
WEB http://www.straycatalliance.org/
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59671486684#/group.php?gid=38783974284&ref=ts
Join Alley Cat Allies
WEB http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=191
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alley-Cat-Allies/37899252087?sid=66d31e438b18fb0697fa04d1d967c75c&ref=s
Join Kitten Rescue
WEB http://www.kittenrescue.org/home.php
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kitten-Rescue/115219435429?sid=b9e79643375723ef5ce0161bde38a1e5&ref=s
PLEASE DONATE YOUR TIME OR MONEY TO AN CAT (OR DOG) RESCUE / AWARENESS GROUP.
Your help is desperately needed, and every little bit helps.
In New York City, please go to http://www.animalalliancenyc.org/ to find a group in your neighborhood or that you're interested in volunteering for or donating to.

Contact ckistler@rational-animal.org to find out how to get involved with our awareness campaigns aimed at shutting down breeding mills and fighting other cruelty issues, including educating the public and engaging people to be active in supporting kindness to animals and efforts to lower homeless animal populations.

Senate Bill (S. 727) to Ban Horse Slaughter Introduced

Senate Bill (S. 727) to Ban Horse Slaughter Introduced

THE DEAL
Recently, a bill to ban horse slaughter was introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Senator John Ensign (R-NV). The Landrieu-Ensign "Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act" (S. 727) will end the slaughter of American horses here and abroad. In 2002, legislation was first introduced to protect horses from slaughter. Recieving strong bipartisan support, the bill made horse slaughter and associated activities illegal and included both civil and criminal penalties. A subsequent version of the bill passed in the House by a landslide vote in 2007. This 2009 Act would amend Title 18 of the US Code and give law enforcement more tools and resources to ensure all horses are protected from the cruelty of slaughter. The law will be uniform across the US and enforced by professionals trained in upholding federal law.
------
THE REALITY
Some of the horses at the slaughter auctions and then the actual facilities where the slaughter is carried out are ex-carriage horses. The horses you see in Central Park, in Columbus Circle, and maybe even on the West side near Javits Center, are often sold for money at horse auctions from which they are then transported, sometimes for 24 hours without food, water, or a chance to walk outside, in large cramped trailers with all the other horses who have been sentenced to death; they are unloaded at the slaughter house quarters, they wait, then they are, one by one, shoved into a metal confinement and are shot with a bolt gun (like a nail gun but bigger and more powerful) in the head. This is the typical scenario, and I emphasize typical, because I don't know what happens at every single slaughter house. Some may be better than others, and some, may be worse and crueler than the following:
These bolt guns are controlled by one person who does this same job all day and operated by a longer mechanical arm, rendering the device unwieldy and inprecise. The executioners often miss the spot on the horse's head where they are supposed to shoot the nail to render it unconscious. Thus, the horse endures numerous attempts before collapsing. One side of the confinement opens, and the horse is then strung up with a thick rope by one hind leg, attached to a suspended conveyer. The live horse is moved to an area where more men reside most of the day to carry out the job of slicing open each horse's throat. Their job is to slit the jugular, but, certainly they don't always hit the small, precise spot on each individual horse where the center of the jugular is supposed to be. Hopefully the men slit the jugular to hasten to dying process. When the horse seems dead, it is dismembered and chopped for meat. Eventually humans consume the horse.
-----
POINT / COUNTERPOINT

Not everyone agrees with a BAN on horse slaughter -- a level higher than these previous protection laws. A friend of mine who lives in the LA area supports the ban and posted this information and a link to a website with expanded details to her Facebook page. She recieved some responses that I wanted to share, including my own take.

Author post: http://capwiz.com/compassionindex/issues/alert/?alertid=13041801


Response 1: Banning horse slaughter is not the answer. Educating the public about horse ownership and lifetime expense, and reopening supervised slaughter facilities is the answer.http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses_faq.asp


Author's Rebuttal: Why not do both? These issues won't be solved on one front alone. They need to be addressed from every angle. There is no one right "answer" as far as this is concerned. What is wrong with banning horse slaughter while we educate the public?


Response 2: We'd need ~2700 new rescue facilities per year to deal with the current number of unwanted horses. We must reopen slaughter facilities until we can get the horse population under control. The cost of hay has been through the roof the past year and many people are allowing their horses to starve because they can't pay for food. Many also can’t afford euthanasia or burial expenses. (usually about $300-400) Small animals can go to a shelter and hopefully be adopted out or meet a peaceful death with barbiturates. This is rarely the case with horses. It just isn't nearly as feasible to open enough shelters for horses as we have for small animals. What you’re saying is tantamount to saying that we should close all small animal shelter before educating the public on spay/neutering and rescue.


Author's Rebuttal 2: Yes, I did read the entire link. Clearly, you don't expect me to read a link and simply accept it as fact? I could send you links all day to the contrary, so it isn't about reading or not reading the link.


CK: Perhaps it is necessary to look at why horses go unwanted. If there are initiatives to provide slaughter houses and those which are back by so-called humane advocates, then people will be more apt to discard the animal rather than plan for long-term care and, if necessary down the road, plan for an alternative to slaughter. In addition, when the when the opportunities to make profit at slaughter houses dwindle, this will also add to a general impetus to direct attention to sanctuaries rather than meat auctions. IT would also lower demand of horses for any purpose. The above will have a trickle-down effect, in a the way of education, as people will begin to view horses, animals in general, as beings to be respected not property to be discarded at a point that any given human declares it to be. The same concept applies to small domestic animals, and the debate is similar to that between people like and organizations like PETA who advocate for euthanization over rehabilitation.In addition, we'd probably need 27,000 new rescue facilities per year to deal with the current number of unwanted cats and dogs, rabbits, other. The reasons they are or go unwanted is at the crux of coming up with solutions and enforcing those solutions, such as spay/neuter, humane edu, and adoption. Shelters, sanctuaries need more resources and attention. The efforts for the above are generating positive results but it is a long-term effort, and simply killing all leftover animals that do not have homes is counterproductive. I’m for prevention, as I believe most people are. It’s just a matter of understanding the concepts that put such sentiments into action and effect the desired results.


Author's Response: CK, you so eloquently made these points that I won't try repeating them. I will also add that slaughtering the leftover horses is also done for financial gain, and this makes it even more wretched (and also distinct from the situation of domestic animals).

-----
If you would like, here is a real -- graphic yet real -- video of the process of horse slaughter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyF3IcIK2_A. I encourage everyone to please take a chance to view this. Without knowledge of the truth about the way humans treat animals, we cannot mobilize properly to stop it. If you are against cruelty, please watch this video of cruelty and affirm your convictions.

-----
If you agree with the ban, please take a moment contact your Senators and ask them to cosponsor this vital legislation.

For more information please contact AWI at:
Animal Welfare Institute
900 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 337-2332
http://www.awionline.org/

Letter to NY Times, in response to Nicholas Kristof's "Humanity Even for Nonhumans"

Any time an animal rights or welfare article comes out in a prominant publication like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal...or Forbes (eh, rarely), I will usually find it on one of my friends' Facebook profiles, either as their status or as a Note with a few others' comments below it.

So yesterday I came across this one from the New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof: "Humanity Even for Nonhumans". He is well-respected and prolific, and I was very please to see him take up the topic of legislative protection of animals and the general animal rights issues this inevitably brings to the conversation. I took some issue with his interviewing Peter Singer, however, as Singer is not a lawyer, a legislator, or even a law professor. Singer is a philosopher and an ethics and philosophy professor at Princeton. Philosphy is grand, I do believe, but it is limiting as far as using various principals in every day life. When it comes to animal rights, philosphical beliefs that Singer subscribes to, most of which I do as well, come unraveled, however, at a certain point. What is left to do then? I assert then one analyzes law and focuses on the very things that Kristof began his piece with.

And hence...

-----------------------

From: Courtney Kistler <ckistler@rational-animal.org>

Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Subject: Letter, response to Humanity Even for Non-humans

To: letters@nytimes.com

In response to Nicholas Kristof's article today, "Humanity Even for Non-humans":

Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for paying some time and attention to this topic and noting that the rights of animals are indeed of greater importance to more people now than ever.

I thought it odd, however, that, though he referenced Bentham's assertion ‘...can they suffer?’ as principal for himself, Peter Singer said he was “unsure about shellfish”. I would assume he's aware of the practices of commercial fishing and the suffering that other animals, including mammals, endure as consequence.

But then again, this is why Philosophy is impractical and needs Law to bring it to life.

Your piece did not pay attention to the enforcement gap hindering the effectiveness of humane law in America. Because this exists, free-range farm workers may continue inhumane practices, unmonitored. This is very important in our deciding whether or not to eat produce from these places.

While I'm glad you wrote on the topic and cited the increase in protection of animals through legislation, I hope you will write a second piece and get the opinion of a law professor or legislator who knows about Prop 2 and has practiced in humane law. In a way, there is a point where Philosophy stops and Law takes over.

Next op-ed, Cass Sunstein?

Courtney Kistler

Rational Animal

New York, NY

courtney.j.kistler@gmail.com, ckistler@rational-animal.org

(212) 933-1688 or (419) 261-0223

-----------

Numbers and stats supporting argument above re. commercial fishing practices:

A Global Assessment of Fisheries By-catch and Discard

By-catch of Marine Mammals in US and Global Fisheries

Description of the actual fishing practice that continues to kill off marine life including sea mammals and endangered species like all six species of America's sea turtles: http://oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-dirty-fishing/about

Some factory farm / animal issues to read up on:

Battey-caged chickens: http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/nbe

Fois gras: http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/ffa

One of the best resources for like...everything: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/

The Animal Rights Orgs' Undercover Investigations...and becoming an educated, informed consumer

People for the Ethical Treatment of animals conducted an undercover investigation at an Iowa Hormel pig factory farm.

From PETA.org: “For more than three months, PETA went undercover at an Iowa pig factory farm, which supplies piglets who are raised and killed for Hormel products. PETA found rampant cruelty to animals committed by workers and supervisors. The farm changed ownership and management during PETA's investigation, but that made no difference to the animals who were born and confined there: Abuse and neglect were widespread during PETA's entire investigation.”

PETA is one of the few organizations that actually monitors this closely the practices at factory farms. Lawmakers and legislators do not go in with their cameras to film what they are supposed to be regulating. This is raw video, this is not edited, so please be aware that much of this is very difficult to watch – yet this is reality. These are people in OUR country committing such brutal, cruel acts on animals. These people can be walking next to you outside, driving down the highway on the same mile as you, sitting next table over at a restaurant eating the very animals they bloodied, tortured, and in the case of dozens of piglets, beat to death just earlier that day.

I commend those at PETA who undertook this painful assignment. Very few are capable of carrying out filming something so horrific and disturbing. While you and I watch the video and hear the pig screaming for mercy as a farmer beats a pig on his back and stomach with a metal gate rod, a person with a camera is there witnessing it him or herself. Most, including myself, would be incapable of standing there and not trying to stop any of those men from abusing the animals. But in order for us to become educated, informed consumers, we need groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, whose footage from puppy mills to animal testing labs has been aired on network TV, out there taking on these tasks of exposing animal abuse and then taking action on stopping it, as well as educating and informing we consumers about how we too can take action to stop it.

Although these videos are very difficult to watch, I would encourage everyone to watch for at least a couple seconds – because this is not a TV show or movie, this is real and these are people in our country committing such atrocities. I hope that fewer and fewer people turn a blind eye to this, because it reflects a part of our population that lacks sensitivity, that lacks compassion toward life in general, and that exemplify the cowardice in attacking a living being who is rendered helpless and defenseless.

The factory farm employees in this individual video represent hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others just like them who perhaps wouldn’t allow cameras in their factory farms.

Please understand that without large animal advocacy organizations with resources and finances to carry out these documentaries of abuse, we would not have the opportunities to learn the reality of an industry we have daily interaction with.

This article conveys the other side. A writer for the Farm & Ranch Guide wrote about a Minnesota factory farm who was exposed for abuses, just as the one in Iowa was. Their employees committing atrocities against the animals on their farms was caught in real life, on camera.

You will read that through most of the article, the MowMar farm representatives are defensive: “We're here to demonstrate this can happen to you. All of us in the industry, and all sizes and types of operations, need to be prepared and try to prevent this type of action from happening...The amount of extra time and strain it has put on us, we really don't want anyone else to have to go through."

On the experience: “It was a coordinated effort of many industry partners…makes things go smoother and quicker, and easier to defend…I think we did pretty good, but we could have been more prepared.”

The reporter finally said that it is very important that applications are completed and that the farming employer conducts a background check.That this needs to be reiterated in the context of an article like this is appalling. Furniture companies do background checks, my dad’s dealership conducts background checks. Shouldn’t that go without saying for a company who relies on individuals’ proper handling of live animals in order to profit?

You will also read toward the end an admission that proper regulations, employee screening processes and training, as well as management consistently monitoring their businesses on the ground is lacking. The only victims are the animals, as each of these farms continues to employee people and make money. If their only motivation to treat animals humanely is so they don’t have a PR crisis on their hands, then I’ll take that. It’s not the reason I’d prefer, but if animals’ lives are in better care, then I would call PETA’s actions successful. Their aim is to expose the abuse not change things overnight or solve the problem in one day or with one sole investigation.

Lastly, the only way to help stop these atrocities is to not support the business. Go veg. Click here to read about all the reasons why it’s better for you, for the environment, for all living beings with whom we share Earth.

If you do not add to the demand, Hormel and other meat-producing corporations will not have means to keep producing the supply. And as demand for vegetarian products rise, farmers will shift toward cultivating these products, away from the slaughtering of animals.

SI 2008 End of Year Issue: What happened to Michael Vick's Dogs

The Good News out of the Bad Newz Kennel
By Jim Grant

Since being rescued 20 months ago from the dogfighting ring financed by Michael Vick, all but a few of the abused pit bulls have been recovering in sanctuary, foster care and adoptive homes. Now even the most traumatized of them can have a happy new year.
The dog approaches the outstretched hand. Her name is Sweet Jasmine, and she is 35 pounds of twitchy curiosity with a coat the color of fried chicken, a pink nose and brown eyes. She had spent a full 20 seconds studying this five-fingered offering before advancing. Now, as she moves forward, her tail points straight down, her butt is hunched toward the ground, her head is bowed, her ears pinned back. She stands at maybe three quarters of her height.
She gets within a foot of the hand and stops. She licks her snout, a sign of nervousness, and looks up at the stranger, seeking assurance. She looks back to the hand, licks her snout again and begins to extend her neck. Her nose is six inches away from the hand, one inch, half an inch. She sniffs once. She sniffs again. At this point almost any other dog in the world would offer up a gentle lick, a sweet hello, an invitation to be scratched or petted. She's come so far. She's so close.
But Jasmine pulls away.
PETA wanted Jasmine dead. Not just Jasmine, and not just PETA. The Humane Society of the U.S., agreeing with PETA, took the position that Michael Vick's pit bulls, like all dogs saved from fight rings, were beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them was a misappropriation of time and money. "The cruelty they've suffered is such that they can't lead what anyone who loves dogs would consider a normal life," says PETA spokesman Dan Shannon. "We feel it's better that they have their suffering ended once and for all." If you're a dog and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals suggests you be put down, you've got problems. Jasmine has problems.
They began in 2001, about the same time Vick started cashing NFL paychecks and bought a 15-acre plot of land at 1915 Moonlight Road in Smithville, Va. The property sits across from a Baptist church. A bright green lawn surrounds a white brick house that has a pool and a basketball court in the backyard and is bordered by a white picket fence. When Vick bought the land, the house didn't exist and wouldn't be built for a few years. It wasn't a priority. The Atlanta Falcons' new quarterback never intended to live there.
Beyond the house, shrouded by trees, were five sheds painted black from top to bottom, including the windows and doors. Past them were scattered wire cages and wood doghouses. Farther still, where the trees got thicker, two partly buried car axles protruded from the ground. This was the home of Bad Newz Kennels, the dogfighting operation that Vick and three of his buddies started a year after Vick became the first pick of the 2001 NFL draft. When local and state authorities busted the operation in April 2007, 51 pit bulls were seized, Jasmine among them.
By most estimates Jasmine is around four years old, which means she was most likely born into Bad Newz, and her life there fit the kennel's name. A few of the dogs, probably pets, were kept in one of the sheds. The fighters and a handful of dogs that Bad Newz housed for other people lived in the outdoor kennels. The rest -- dogs that were too young to fight, were used for breeding or were kept as bait dogs for the fighters to practice on -- were chained to the car axles in the woods.
The water in the bowls was speckled with algae. Females were strapped into a "rape stand" so the dogs could breed without injuring each other. Some of the sheds held syringes and other medical supplies, and training equipment such as treadmills and spring bars (from which dogs hung, teeth clamped on rubber rings, to strengthen their jaws). The biggest shed had a fighting pit, once covered by a bloodstained carpet that was found in the woods.
According to court documents, from time to time Vick and his cohorts "rolled" the dogs: put them in the pit for short battles to see which ones had the right stuff. Those that fought got affection, food, vitamins and training sessions. The ones that showed no taste for blood were killed -- by gunshot, electrocution, drowning, hanging or, in at least one case, being repeatedly slammed against the ground.
It's impossible to say what Jasmine saw while circling the axles deep in the woods, but dogs can hear a tick yawn at 50 yards. The sounds of the fights and the executions undoubtedly filtered through the trees.
"Multiple studies have shown that if you take two mammals, say rats, and put them in boxes side by side, then give the first one electric shocks, the reaction of the second one -- in terms of brain-wave and nervous-system activity -- will be identical," says Stephen Zawistowski, a certified applied animal behaviorist and an executive vice president of the ASPCA. "The trauma isn't limited to the animal that's experiencing the pain."
In a sense, then, whatever atrocities any of the dogs suffered at 1915 Moonlight Road, all of them suffered. So one would think that April 25, 2007, the day law-enforcement officials took the dogs from the Vick compound, would have been a good one for Jasmine.
Zippy is not a big dog, but she's a pit bull, one of the Vick pit bulls, and she's up on her hind legs straining against the collar, her front paws paddling the air like a child's arms in a swimming pool. The woman holding her back, Berenice Mora-Hernandez, is not big either, and as she digs in her heels, it's not clear who will win the tug-of-war. "Watch it!" she says to the visitors who stand frozen in her doorway. "Be careful. Sometimes she pees when she gets excited, and I don't want her to get you." And just like that Zippy whizzes on the floor. Twice.
Berenice's six-year-old daughter, Vanessa, disappears and returns with a few paper towels. The spill absorbed, Zippy is set free to jump up and lick and wag her hellos before she leads everyone into the family room, where Berenice's husband, Jesse, sits with the couple's five-week-old son, Francisco, and two other dogs, who rise in their pens and start barking. But Zippy has no interest in them. Instead she leaps onto the couch where Vanessa's nine-year-old sister, Eliana, is waiting. Vanessa joins them, and over the next 15 minutes the two girls do everything possible to provoke an abused and neglected pit bull who's been rescued from a dogfighting ring. They grab Zippy's face, yank her tail, roll on top of her, roll under her, pick her up, swing her around, stick their hands in her mouth. Eliana and Zippy end up nose to nose. The girl kisses the dog. The dog licks the girl's entire face.
Zippy is proof that pit bulls have an image problem. In truth these dogs are among the most people-friendly on the planet. It has to be. In an organized dogfight three or four people are in the ring, and the dogs are often pulled apart to rest before resuming combat. (The fight usually ends when one of the dogs refuses to reengage.) When separating two angry, adrenaline-filled animals, the handlers have to be sure the dogs won't turn on them, so over the years dogfighters have either killed or not bred dogs that showed signs of aggression toward humans. "Of all dogs," says Dr. Frank McMillan, the director of well-being studies at Best Friends Animal Society, a 33,000-acre sanctuary in southern Utah, "pit bulls possess the single greatest ability to bond with people."
Perhaps that's why for decades pit bulls were considered great family dogs and in England were known as "nanny dogs" for their care of children. Petey in The Little Rascals was a pit bull, as was Stubby, a World War I hero for his actions with the 102nd Infantry in Europe, such as locating wounded U.S. soldiers and a German spy. Most dog experts will attest that a pit bull properly trained and socialized from a young age is a great pet.
Still, pit bulls historically have been bred for aggression against other dogs, and if they're put in uncontrolled situations, some of them will fight, and if they're not properly socialized or have been abused, they can become aggressive toward people. It doesn't mean that all pit bulls are instinctively inclined to fight, but there is that potential. Bad Newz killed dogs because it couldn't get them to be aggressive enough. The kennel also raised at least two grand champions, dogs with a minimum of five wins apiece.
"A pit bull is like a Porsche. It's a finely tuned, highly muscled athlete," says Zawistowski. "And just like you wouldn't give a Porsche to a 16-year-old, you don't want just anyone to own a pit bull. It should be someone who has experience with dogs and is willing to spend the time, because with training and proper socialization you will get the most out of them as pets."
The pit bull's p.r. mess can be likened to a lot of teens driving Porsches -- accidents waiting to happen. Too many dogs were irresponsibly bred, encouraged to be aggressive or put in situations in which they could not restrain themselves, and pit-bull maulings became the equivalent of land-based shark attacks, guaranteeing a flush of screaming headlines and urban mythology. Some contend that this hysteria reached its apex with a 1987 Sports Illustrated cover that featured a snarling pit bull below the headline beware of this dog. Despite the more balanced article inside, which was occasioned by a series of attacks by pit bulls, the cover cemented the dogs' badass cred, and as rappers affected the gangster ethos, pit bulls became cool. Suddenly, any thug or wannabe thug knew what kind of dog to own. Many of these people didn't know how to train or socialize or control the dogs, and the cycle fed itself.
Three pit bulls attacked 10-year-old Shawn Jones near the Hernandezes' town in Northern California 7 1/2 years ago, tearing off the boy's ears and causing other injuries, but Berenice stood up for the breed then and still does. "It's almost always the owner, not the dog," she says, who's responsible for aggressive behavior. Her family has been "fostering" pit bulls -- minding them in their house in Concord until they can be adopted -- for nine years and has never had a problem with one. "These girls have grown up with pit bulls their whole lives, and they've loved every one of them."
That wasn't hard to do with Zippy. When she arrived from the rescue group BAD RAP (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls) in October 2007, "she was afraid of her own shadow," says Berenice. Loud noises made her jump, and when she entered another room she'd crawl through the doorway on her belly. That lasted about six weeks, but once Zippy got comfortable she took over the house. She races from room to room, goes for runs with Berenice and plays in the yard with the other two dogs: the family's big blue pit bull, Crash, and another foster dog, Roller, a bulldog-pit mix.
As the girls run out of energy, Zippy moves on. She pops up from below the tangle of limbs and black hair that are Eliana and Vanessa and prances over to Jesse, who's still holding his infant son. Zippy noses up to the baby, takes a few sniffs and then licks his foot. Taste test concluded, she shoots over to the side door, pushes down the handle with her snout and disappears into the side yard. "You see that?" Berenice says. "This one's so smart. I never had another dog here who figured out how to do that." Moments later there's a little rap at the door. Berenice pulls it open and in comes Zippy, ears up, tail wagging.
Eliana, meanwhile, has pulled a spiral-bound notebook from her book bag. It's late November, and she wants to read a Thanksgiving essay she wrote at school. As her little voice takes hold of the room, Zippy curls into a circle beside her. The last lines of the story go like this: "Zippy is one of a kind. I named her Zippy because she is really fast. I don't want any of my dogs to be adopted."
After being taken from the Moonlight Road property, Vick's dogs were dispersed to six animal-control facilities in Virginia. Conditions differed slightly from place to place, but for the most part each dog was kept alone in a cage for months at a time. They were often forced to relieve themselves where they stood, and they weren't let out even while their cages were being cleaned; attendants simply hosed down the floors with the dogs inside. They were given so little attention because workers assumed they were dangerous and would be put down after Vick's trial. The common belief is that any money and time spent caring for dogs saved from fight rings would be better devoted to the millions of dogs already sitting in shelters, about half of which are destroyed each year.
What the pit bulls had going for them was the same thing that had once seemed to doom them: Michael Vick. They were, in a sense, celebrities, and there was a massive public outcry to help them. Letters and e-mails poured in to the offices of Judge Henry E. Hudson and of Mike Gill, assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Gill had worked on several animal-related cases and still had ties to the rescue community. He reached out to, among others, Zawistowski. Could the ASPCA put together a team to evaluate the animals and determine if any of them could be saved?
Around the same time Donna Reynolds, the executive director and cofounder, along with her husband, Tim Racer, of BAD RAP, sent Gill a seven-page proposal suggesting a dog-by-dog evaluation to see if any could be spared. The couple, who have placed more than 400 pit bulls in new homes during the last 10 years, knew it was a long shot. It's faster and easier to judge the entire barrel as rotten. Zawistowski put together a team composed of himself, two other ASPCA staffers, three outside certified animal behaviorists and three members of BAD RAP, including Reynolds and Racer.
On Aug. 23, 2007, Vick appeared in U.S. District Court in Richmond, and Judge Hudson accepted a plea agreement in which the former quarterback admitted that he had been involved in dogfighting and had personally participated in killing animals. The agreement required him to pay $928,000 for the care and treatment of the dogs, including any humane destruction deemed necessary. "That was the landmark moment -- when he not only gave the dogs the money but referred to it as restitution," says Zawistowski. "That's when these dogs went from weapons to victims."
On Sept. 4, 5 and 6, under tight security and a court-imposed gag order, Zawistowski's team assembled in Virginia. It quickly agreed on a protocol for testing the dogs that would show their level of socialization and aggressiveness. Among other things, the dogs were presented with people, toys, food and other dogs. Their reactions and their overall demeanor were evaluated. In those three days the team assessed 49 dogs at six sites.
It didn't help that the assessors had no idea what to expect. Besides their time at Bad Newz, the dogs had spent four months locked up in shelters with minimal attention. That alone could push many dogs over the brink. "I thought, If we can save three or four, it will be fantastic," Reynolds says.
Adds Racer, "We had been told these were the most vicious dogs in America."
So what they found in the pens caught them off guard. "Some of them were just big goofy dogs you'd find in any shelter," says Zawistowski. No more than a dozen were seasoned fighters, and few showed a desire to harm anything.
"We were surprised at how little aggression there was," says Reynolds. Many of the dogs had all but shut down. They cowered in the corners of their kennels or stood hunched with their heads lowered, their tails between their legs and their feet shifting nervously. Some didn't want to come out. As far as they knew bad things happened when people came. Bad things happened when they were led out of their cages.
One dog was so scared that even the confines of her kennel offered her no comfort. Shelter workers used a blanket to construct a little tent inside her cage that she could duck under. Remembering that dog, McMillan says, "Jasmine broke my heart."
Jonny Justice likes to lie in a splash of sunlight that stretches across the floor of the living room in the San Francisco split-level of Cris Cohen. Head lolling back, eyes closed, legs sticking up in the air, he lets the rays warm his pink belly. Comfy as this is, Jonny doesn't have long to linger. He's on a tight schedule. He's up every day at 6 a.m., out for a 45-minute walk, making sure to avoid the garbage trucks, which freak him out. After that it's back home for a handful of food, some grooming, a quick scratch-down and then into his dog bed with a few toys and food puzzles. At lunchtime he's back out for a quick trip to the yard, some play time and a little lounging in the sun, followed by a return to the kennel until around 4:30. Then it's another long walk -- an hour this time -- dinner, a game of fetch in the yard, quiet time and sleep.
After the ASPCA-led evaluations, the dogs were put into one of four categories: euthanize; sanctuary 2 (needs lifetime care given by trained professionals, with little chance for adoption); sanctuary 1 (needs a controlled environment, with a greater possibility of adoption); and foster (must live with experienced dog owners for a minimum of six months, and after further evaluation adoption is likely). Rebecca Huss, a professor at the Valparaiso (Ind.) University School of Law and an animal-law expert, was placed in charge of the dispersal.
Jonny was a foster dog that was taken in by Cohen, a longtime BAD RAP volunteer who owns another pit bull, Lily, and had cared for seven previous fosters. "When he first came, I could see he was dealing with some serious stress," Cohen says of Jonny. "Everything scared him: running water, flushing toilets, rattling pots. He was like Scooby-Doo seeing a ghost -- he'd jump straight in the air and take off. We dealt with that by putting him on a solid routine. Everything the same, every day. Dogs thrive on that. If they know what to expect, they can relax."
"You ease their fears by building confidence through simple everyday tasks," says McMillan. "We have to show them that the world is not out to harm them. It's a peaceful, trustworthy place."
After about two months, Jonny began to chill out, and Cohen started working on his manners. "His original name was Jonny Rotten," Cohen says, "because he was such a little monster. He'd never lived in a house before. He didn't know his name. He had no clue what stairs were or how to go up them. He'd tie you up in the leash every time you took him out. He'd just flat out run into stuff." Jonny responded to weekly obedience training and to Cohen's personal training, and in a few months his name was changed from Rotten to Justice.
During a walk in Golden Gate Park one day, Jonny was mobbed by a group of kids. Cohen wasn't sure how Jonny would react to all those little hands thrust at him, but the dog loved it. He played with the children, and Cohen realized Jonny had an affinity for them. He enrolled Jonny in training for the program Paws for Tales, in which kids who get nervous reading aloud in class practice their skills by reading to a canine audience of one. Jonny was certified in November, and now once a month he sits patiently listening to children read.
He's not the only one of Vick's former dogs lending a hand. Leo, who lives with foster mother Marthina McClay in Los Gatos, Calif., is a certified therapy dog who spends two to three hours a week visiting cancer patients and troubled teens. Two other dogs are also therapy dogs, and two more are in training. A total of six have earned Canine Good Citizen certificates, issued by the American Kennel Club to dogs who pass a series of 10 tests, including walking through a crowd and reacting to unexpected sights and sounds. "It's great to show people how much these dogs have to offer," says Cohen.
Jasmine runs in the yard of the small suburban Baltimore house, jumping on Sweet Pea, another pit bull, and nipping at the back of her neck. Sweet Pea spins and leaps into Jasmine, and the two tumble together for a minute, then pop up and continue their romp. When they roll around it's difficult to tell one from the other, because they are the exact same color. Sweet Pea is a few years older and a little bigger, and she has markings that Jasmine does not: a series of scars on her snout and head indicative of combat. Still, Sweet Pea loves to be around other dogs. She and Jasmine have a special connection and have brought each other a bit of peace. The people who know them best think that Sweet Pea is probably Jasmine's mother. That's why their families try to arrange play dates for them twice a month.
Jasmine wound up in the hands of Catalina Stirling, a 35-year-old artist who lives with her husband, Davor Mrkoci, 32, an electrical engineer; her children, Nino (4 1/2) and Anais (2 1/2); Rogue, a spunky spaniel-lab mix; Desmond, a three-legged foster basenji-lab mix; and Thaiz, the family cat. The fenced yard is big enough for running, and the living-dining area, which contains almost no furniture, has a smattering of dog beds and water bowls. Catalina and her children have painted angels on one wall.
In her evaluation Jasmine was considered for sanctuary with Best Friends, but when volunteers from the Baltimore rescue group Recycled Love went to see the pit bulls at the Washington (D.C.) Animal Rescue League, a volunteer was so moved by the sight of Jasmine hiding under the blanket that she crawled into the cage and began massaging and whispering to the dog. Jasmine seemed to respond. So Huss sent Jasmine and Sweet Pea to Recycled Love, which subsequently turned Jasmine over to the woman who had crawled into the cage: Catalina Stirling.
Despite a promising start, Jasmine had a long way to go. For months she sat in her little cage in Stirling's house and refused to come out. "I had to pick her up and carry her outside so she could go to the bathroom," Stirling says. "She wouldn't even stand up until I had walked away. There's a little hole in the yard, and once she was done, she would go lie in the hole." It was three or four months before Jasmine would exit the cage on her own, and then only to go out, relieve herself and lie in the hole. Sweet Pea, who's better adjusted but still battles her own demons, was an hour away, and her visits helped draw out Jasmine. After six months Stirling could finally take both dogs for a walk in a big park near her house.
Jasmine has come far, but she still has many fears. Around people she almost always walks with her head and tail down. She won't let anyone approach her from behind, and she spends most of the day in her pen, sitting quietly, the open door yawning before her. Stirling works with her endlessly. "I feel like what I do for her is so little compared with what she does for me," she says, welling up.
In the end, 47 of the 51 Vick dogs were saved. (Two died while in the shelters; one was destroyed because it was too violent; and another was euthanized for medical reasons.) Twenty-two dogs went to Best Friends, where McMillan and his staff chart their emotional state daily; almost all show steady improvement in categories such as calmness, sociability and happiness. McMillan believes 17 of the dogs will eventually be adopted, and applicants are being screened for the first of those. The other 25 have been spread around the country; the biggest group, 10, went to California with BAD RAP. Fourteen of the 25 have been placed in permanent homes, and the rest are in foster care.
Still, it's Jasmine, lying in her kennel, who embodies the question at the heart of the Vick dogs' story. Was it worth the time and effort to save these 47 dogs when millions languish in shelters? Charmers such as Zippy and Leo and Jonny Justice seem to provide the obvious answer, but even for these dogs any incidence of aggression, provoked or not, will play only one way in the headlines. It's a lifelong sentence to a very short leash. PETA's position is unchanged. "Some [of the dogs] will end up with something resembling a normal life," Shannon says, "but the chances are very slim, and it's not a good risk to take."
Then there are dogs like Lucas, who will never leave sanctuary because of his history as a fighter, and Jasmine and Sweet Pea, who will never leave their Recycled Love families. "There was a lot of discussion about whether to save all of the sanctuary cases," says Reynolds, "but in the end [Best Friends] decided that's what they are there for. There are no regrets."
BAD RAP works out of Oakland Animal Services, where above the main entrance is inscribed a Gandhi quote that dog people cite often: the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
"Vick showed the worst of us, our bloodlust, but this rescue showed the best," Reynolds says. "I don't think any of us thought it was possible to save these dogs -- the government, the rescuers, the regular people -- but we surprised ourselves."
Jasmine doesn't know about any of that as she sits on the back deck of Stirling's house. Stirling kneels next to her, gently stroking the dog's back. "I used to think any dog could be rehabbed if you gave it food, exercise and love," she says, "but I know now it's not totally true. Jasmine's happy, but she'll never be like other dogs."
It's quiet for a moment, and the breeze blows a shower of brown and red leaves off the trees. Then Jasmine turns, looks up, and licks Catalina's face. It is the sweetest of kisses.
To support animal-care groups cited in this article, go to their respective Web sites: http://www.badrap.org/
http://www.bestfriends.org/,
http://www.recycledlove.org/
http://www.ourpack.org/

With Westminster approaching this weekend...

...is it time for fans of these dog shows to re-evaluate what really happens with many of the dogs?
I came across this article from the SF Chronicle (Feb 3, 2009).

Some good points made there...read it if you have time.I was shocked (eh...delightfully, really) that the BBC did a documentary on dog shows. "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" aired, and subsequently the British version of the AKC made new rules for their various breed clubs. The BBC did not air the Crufts dog show, however, despite the demands for new, supposedly more humane, regulations on how breeders cut and mold their perfect pups and the nature of such actions.

Here's something I'm against – ear cropping. Should people who buy American Staff Terriers (a breed listed in most, if not all, city, county, state level pit bull ban legislation) be allowed to do this? The Westminster definition does state that ear cropping is "optional" (I feel ill just saying that): “ears may be either cropped or natural.”

One of the main reasons I wish this didn’t happen is because it is being done to pit bulls – not just pure breed staffies. I have seen my fair share of pit bulls whose ears are cropped in the crudest manner. If someone is going to go to the trouble to pay a breeder for one of these dogs and see a veterinarian to have the animal’s ears cropped to “look the breed”, is that person going to dump their dog out on the street? Not likely. The strays that come in to New York's Animal Care and Control shelters, whose ears have been sliced in half, whose faces and legs are scarred, do not “look the breed” – in other words, that is not why it is being done. Example - Grace Chon, photographer in LA, photographed Clancy, a rescue with Lori Wiese, of Downtown Dog Rescue.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Moving on, consider the following lines from the SF Chronicle article: “By restricting breeding pools, which is how you create and maintain “pure” breeds in the first place, you limit genetic diversity. Selecting dogs for a single set of characteristics that help them win at dog shows instead of, for instance, how healthy, happy and long-lived they are, limits it even further.”Bear in mind she is speaking mainly of people who breed in order to win at Westminster and, I guess, whatever other shows they think they can get cash from.

I personally think these dog shows are gross displays of animal exploitation. And I really can't stand that Discovery and Animal Planet disrupted their regularly scheduled shows, such as the rescue-focused Underdog to Wonderdog, to air the AKC/Eukanuba show this weekend. Hope some day these networks will take after the BBC.

The other side of these dog shows is that they get a lot of media attention for the winning breeds, which in turn, prompts people to want to buy them. This feeds the breeding business, including irresponsible breeders and puppy mills. Not only do these shows, whose judges and participants use animals as status symbols and for their own profit, invigorate a consumer base for a few select breeds, by widespread advertising and press coverage, further the idea that animals are property to be bought and sold...and discarded. All this going on, of course, while millions of animals are abused, thrown out on the street, sitting in cages, and are euthanized every year...

While millions of perfectly wonderful animals are in need of homes, those selling the dog show and breed industry are making money producing and selling animals.

Note Westminster's statement.

It's all about the breed (and cash and status, of course)...but what about the animal?

But anyway, I'm curious of other opinions, especially those opposite of mine.

Are dog shows OUT? Do they lend themselves to animal cruelty?

Have we entered a stage of animal overpopulation, homelessness, and recognition of adoptions that dog shows are being seen in a different light?

Feel free to drop a note.

--------------
There are amazing animals for adoption in shelters and in foster homes through rescue groups. Always adopt... http://www.petfinder.com/ or if you're in NYC: http://www.nycacc.org/ and http://www.animalalliancenyc.org/ for rescue groups.

'Owner' vs. 'Guardian' of dogs - California ordinance debate

A friend of mine sent this article to me: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_11365700?IADID=Search-www.ukiahdailyjournal.com-www.ukiahdailyjournal.com - from the Ukiah Daily Journal, Ukiah, California (approx. 150 mi North of San Francisco, inland)

Some progressive-minded council members and animal advocates in Ukiah, California, are working to change the language of how their community refers to dogs (such as on legal documents, etc.) from "owner" to "guardian". They are on the verge of seeing this happen!

As you probably know, Rational Animal's Animal Guardian Ribbon (i.e. the pewter Animal Guardian pin) is a symbol of the concept that humans do not own animals as property but must be responsible guardians for their animals and view them as members of their family. Nice to see some people feel the same way and are taking action!

Just a couple of my own thoughts...

What I found most interesting were the opinions of those against this. There is a confusion between what dissenters believe is animal welfare and animals rights -- viewing a change in this one term as a start down a path toward animal rights extremism (naming PETA as one entity they regard as extreme). Both the councilmember and dog trainer note that there is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights, but they very clearly misunderstand where "animal guardian" falls in this context. In reality, the difference between animal welfare and AR is not even a relevant issue here.

I think you'll find that the proponents of changing the term used to describe people who have dogs in their household as "guardians" rather than "owners" come across as more educated, informed, and articulate than those against the ordinance change. This article also indirectly points out that there are still lingering stereotypes about those involved in helping animals and educating the public about the pertinent issues.

Feedback, comments welcome!

-Courtney

ckistler@rational-animal.org

http://www.animalguardianribbon.org/