T.S. Debby Drowns Five Dogs

Every natural disaster or severe weather event brings stories of tragedy and heartbreak. As Tropical Storm Debby now clears the coast of Florida the local animal community is left with one such story. On Monday, June 25, 2012 Jacksonville.com reported the deaths of four puppies and oneyoung dog, drowned in a flash flood that engulfed Bradford County Animal Control. 

Familiar with the dangers brought by tropical storms and flash floods, the shelter staff had prepared as best they could and their animals were safe. Animals had been moved to the higher parts of the shelter, drainage ditches had been dug, and sand bags were laid. However, despite their best efforts, shelter staff was devastated to find that a nearby creek had broken it banks and flooded the shelter. Like many people, they were caught out by the phenomenal, some might say biblical, amounts of water dumped by Debby. 

At times like this it is natural to point fingers, lay blame, or otherwise vent our anger and frustrations towards shelter staff. I myself am not averse to such behavior and I'm usually not backward in presenting my opinions. Today I want to take no such action. It seems to me that the staff did what they could. All we can do is hold those lost dogs in our thoughts and prayers, and hope that the shelter staff can recover in the face of their loss when faced with the power of Mother Nature.

PETA Favors Kill Shelters Over No-Kill Shelters?

A recent op-ed posted on the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) which can be found here suggested that no-kill animal shelters were, in some ways, as damaging to animals as unnecessarily euthanizing them, stating that "euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world."

 As usual, an organization that is known for extremist views and actions is using extremist scenarios to justify its own opinions. Critical observation of the article easily shows the flaws in their argument. While it is true that many no-kill shelters find themselves full and overwhelmed by the demand for space, when faced with a request to rescue they will network to find the space elsewhere. As with anything else the qualities of animal shelters lie along a spectrum from excellent to really really bad. The examples given by PETA represent those shelters that lie at the extreme end of bad.

Most no-kill shelters, while not perfect, attempt to provide adequate exercise and socialization for the animals in their care. Examples of animals living in a cage for 12 years, as given, represent an obvious rarity – perhaps more frequent than we would like, but still a rarity.

 No-kill shelters cannot save every animal in the world but they are doing their best. As with any group of people you will find some who believe they are acting in the best interest of the animals but may be ultimately harming them. I believe those shelters that are harming animals in the belief that they are actually caring for them are uncommon. These people, in fact, have more in common with hoarders than with true animal rescue shelters!

 PETA is viewed by many as a joke because of extremist views and extremist actions and statements like this will do nothing to change that opinion. Undoubtedly, they have the best interest of animals at heart but until the majority of people can take them seriously they will remain, in the opinion of many, a bunch of rabid loons who are ultimately defeating their own goals!

America's Dirty Little Dog Secret: End This Now!

Watching the HBO documentary, One Nation Under Dog: Stories of Fear, Loss, and Betrayal, last night revealed a glimpse into one of the dirty little secrets in the United States. I have seen several estimates of the number of dogs euthanized each year but even the lowest is in the millions. Many of these lose their lives in gas chambers. The opening scene of section 3 of this documentary was a horrifying, harrowing, and heartbreaking picture of one such event.

Let me describe the scene for you: several dogs were walked or carried to a modified trash skip and lifted inside. The lid of this skip was closed, a hose attached, and a gas – presumably carbon monoxide – introduced through the hose. The dogs could be heard whining, crying, and scrabbling for escape as they breathed the deadly vapor. This method does not cause instant death. The dogs have to breathe the gas until it reaches a sufficient level in their lungs and their bloodstream to kill them. After several minutes the crying was replaced by silence. This was not the end; worse was to come! The lid of the skip was opened to reveal the dead dogs. Then, the handlers began to carry several puppies and stand them on top of the corpses inside the skip. The process was repeated and again the whining, crying, and scrabbling filled the air until replaced by that heart-wrenching silence. Time and again the process was repeated until the skip was full of canine corpses. The video then switched to a picture of a refuse collection truck lifting the skip and unceremoniously dumping these once noble creatures into the onboard trash compactor.

These images will haunt me, possibly for the rest of my life.

Many states have prohibited such gas chambers in favor of euthanizing dogs by the injection of drugs such as pentobarbital. While euthanizing healthy animals remains unacceptable, this latter method is much more humane and, essentially, is the same method used by your personal vet when a medical issue becomes terminal. However, those of us in the animal rescue business know that what the law requires is not always what happens!

Please visit the website, Facebook page, or twitter feed of your favorite animal rescue organization to find out what they are doing to end this barbaric practice. WE MUST ALL ACT NOW!

Profiling--Can't Do It To Humans, But Dogs . . . That's Different!

About a week ago, I shared an article from sports.yahoo.com on Facebook regarding how Miami Marlins player, Mark Buehrle had to buy a home well away from the stadium because he owned an American Staffordshire Terrier. This breed is included in a pit bull ban enforced by Miami-Dade County where the stadium is located. I stated that I was sick of this breed being vilified because of the publicity surrounding vicious pit bull attacks. The reaction to sharing this article was predictable. A few people "liked" this, one friend who had been the victim of a savage pit bull attack disagreed, and another – my brother, of all people – voiced the opinion that a ban on pit bulls was appropriate because pit bulls are dangerous. Facebook is not really appropriate location for an extensive discussion regarding this, so I thought I would expand upon my reasoning here. 

Before I proceed, I must emphasize that I truly feel for those who have been victims of savage attacks. However, using their experiences as proof that this means that all pit bulls are vicious is faulty logic!

On my Facebook post I initially used the analogy that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I'm not sure why I did this because this is one of my least favorite arguments in the world. However the analogy does stand up: it is the ineffective or irresponsible ownership of guns that leads to a problem. Supporters of gun rights frequently make this very point and argue that this doesn't mean everyone should be punished for the actions of the irresponsible ones. So why is this not also true of dog owners? Should everyone be deprived of the friendship of a particularly loving and loyal breed because of inadequate or irresponsible ownership by others? A pit bull that is roaming loose and in a position to attack a person or another dog says more about the owner than it does about the dog. But here are a few more thoughts:

·         Many dog attacks or dog bites go unreported because they are inflicted by smaller dogs. The reason that pit bulls and other large, powerful dogs make the headlines is because when they do bite they are capable of inflicting massive damage. We all know of aggressive small breeds that frequently bite, but because there is little damage we don't hear of these cases.

·         Idiots are often attracted to powerful breeds such as pit bulls and Rottweilers because of their reputation. They train the dogs to be aggressive or to be guard dogs, and then ignore them, neglect them, or let them run loose.

·         Many pit bull owners who pay appropriate attention and give appropriate love to the dogs report that they are the friendliest, gentlest, and most loving dogs you will ever meet.

The reason that dogs attack is often unclear but when a dog is chained, neglected, abused or allowed to run loose an attack is more likely. This is true of all breeds! I have many more reasons why I am staunchly against bans on pit bulls specifically – not least of which is the fact that this is obvious stereotyping and profiling, something that we all scream about when applied to humans – but I will stop here in the hope that some of you reading this may join in the conversation.

Any thoughts?

In Dog Adoptions We Are All Equal

In the current social climate, as the haves and have-nots are becoming increasingly hostile toward one another, it is nice to see that there is one area where there is no distinction made: dog adoption!

 In mid-December Petfinder.com reported on an interview with George Clooney that was published in Esquire magazine. In this interview, among other things, George relates how he was drawn to online reports regarding a Cocker Spaniel mix called Einstein. He attempted to adopt Einstein and was informed that he would have to pass a home visit. Of course, the interview goes on to describe in humorous detail George's attempts to ensure that Einstein would like him during the visit, but the basic point is, that like everyone else, he had to pass the home visit.

Obviously, there are inequalities. Someone with George Clooney's financial resources would have no problem fencing an area of his yard or paying the adoption fee, for example. However, as I say, he did have to pass the home visit. I am not naïve enough to think that all animal shelters are the same when it comes to applying their rules but we must applaud this particular shelter for applying the rules strictly no matter who the applicant was. 

Any thoughts?

The Drought Is Almost Over!

The recent period of inactivity on this site, which has been much longer than I anticipated – and seemed to be brought on by a combination of illness and the holidays – is almost over. Please watch this site; new posts will be appearing on a regular basis within the next few days. Hopefully, I have not chased off the few readers that I had, and I look forward to a fun and interactive time in the near future.




, Hopefully

An Apology

I would like to offer an apology to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis, if there is anyone who reads it on a regular basis.  Even though it is a relatively new endeavour there already has been a noticeable drop-off in posts over the last couple of weeks.  This may be due to the holiday season causing a reduction in my ability to be pissed off, or it may be a simple case of writer's block . . . whatever the reason, I apologize. As they used to say on British TV--they used to have to say it ridiculously often, actually-- "we apologize for the interruption . . . normal service will be resumed as soon as possible."

I would also like to make a request . . . if you see something that you disagree with or have your own opinions on or just that you would like to add to, please feel free to make comments. We can all learn from the experiences and opinions of others, especially if we disagree.  I would prefer this to be a forum for discussion (and even argument) rather than a simple one-sided rant. 

Thank you to anyone who who takes time out of their busy life to spend a few minutes here.  Have a joyous holiday season.