Dog and cat bill of rights is nothing of the sort

Why are animal welfare groups, including California Animal Welfare Association (the California 

A famous shelter supporter/adopter

membership entity that represents both private and public shelters) opposed to California Assembly Bill 1881, (AB 1881) the so called dog and cat bill of rights? 

Because this bill is hypocritical and nothing of the sort. Besides being an insult to California’s animal shelters, rescues, and adopters. It’s an ignorant and disgruntled statement by our legislature that shelters and rescues are doing a poor job educating adopters and that our adopters are ill-prepared and have bad intentions. 

Here's the issue. 

Those of us in the animal welfare field want all animals to enjoy a respectful, humane and good quality of life. This bill only cares about dogs and cats. 

Shelters send the fewest animals into the public square for adoption. Breeders, pet stores, veterinary offices, private sellers, puppy mills and so on are not included in the bill. In fact, it is punitive, via fine, against shelters and rescue groups only. 

Are those dogs and cats not worthy of inclusion?

Shelter and rescue professionals have been and are committed to the sheltering, care, reunification, and adoption of animals that come to us for care. spcaLA has been caring for animals since 1877! In fact, the number of animals coming into shelters has dramatically decreased nationally because of our collective educational programs, adoption counseling and aid to adopters.

As stated in California Animal Welfare Association's an opposition letter, "this bill is designed to be punitive and specifically targets shelters and there is really no justification in doing so. This bill does not solve a problem. The sponsor of this bill thinks that “bad” people are adopting animals from shelters, behaving irresponsibly, and then returning them. There is no data to support this". The document goes on to say that "the sponsors of this bill allege that our sheltering professionals are not properly counseling or communicating with adopters about the expectations to provide quality care. As a result, the state must step in and provide us with a notice to post in our facilities".  Again, not true and insulting.

Even if the sponsor's assertions are true, which they are not, does any rational person think that posting a flyer to a wall solves the problem, and that punishing the shelter as opposed to those that actually don't care for their pets properly accomplishes anything?

If you ask me, I think this ridiculous bill, if passed, would signal that all the other animals in the shelter, (horses, rabbits, pigs, birds, pocket pets, etc., who need extra special adoption counseling would require none at all. 

Silly - No?

RIP SHOOTING VICTIMS

optimism

Guns can be both defensive and offensive, used for war or to protect the peace, automatic or a six shooter, and, definitely a thing that must be managed safely, for a purpose, and one that should be placed in the hands of appropriately trained users who understand, respect, and are mindful of their actions. There is no one fix that will prevent mass killings and out of control gun violence, but there are multiple simultaneous approaches that can surround the issue to stop the violence before it starts. First, we must legislate the rules by which guns can be obtained and used. Second, we must provide the training to identify predictor issues, and third, we must offer sufficient resources to intervene effectively and early. It must be a multi-pronged, multidisciplinary solution, with both general mandates and customized provisions as well. 

Besides the enactment of intelligent legislation, it is imperative to examine all the possible factors that can contribute to shooting tragedies and that can provide clues to prevent them from happening at all.

In other words, the answer to the question "why".

Identifying and examining the root causes of violence, whether attributed to mental illness, bullying, random circumstances of nature and nurture, is not enough. We must learn to identify the external manifestations of such a problem so that they may be recognized, studied, and dealt with as early as possible. There are glaring symptoms and tangible early warning signs of future violent behavior that can be detected now and successfully treated with early intervention - sometimes as early as pre-school age.

In other words, the answer to the question "did I miss something"?

 According to the FBI, abnormal behaviors such as pyromania, enuresis (excessive bed-wetting), animal cruelty and other acts demonstrating a lack of empathy, have been credited as precursors to committing future violent acts. Isolation, loneliness, radicalization are other factors.  Some behaviors such as deriving pleasure from causing an animal pain can be seen even in very young children. As most children are not born violent, (true sociopaths notwithstanding) such behavior towards an animal is abnormal and indicative of a problem, which if not addressed can deepen and escalate until the cry out for attention results in a tragedy that can impact many lives. 

In other words "you are not seeing or hearing me".

Both recent mass shooters (the supermarket inBuffalo and the school in Texas) had instances of animal cruelty in their pasts. I would never say animal cruelty is the only factor or manifestation of a serious issue that is the ultimate answer to all the questions. Nor would I suggest that had this one behavior been addressed and examined early on there would be no tragedy. I am saying, that the more signals, clues, acting out, or abnormal behavior that is recognized as problematic, the earlier we can intervene and hopefully help that individual thereby saving others as well. 

Teachers, parents, social workers, friends and others in contact with our youth must be trained to recognize the symptoms. If you see something, say something.

In other words, the answer to the question "could I have done something to stop it"?

I can’t tell you how often I am told by a parent when informed that their son or daughter committed an act of animal cruelty - “It’s just a dog. You should be happy it’s not a person.” "Boys will be boys". "I wish I had known my child was in pain..." I wish my kids told me."

 My response - they just told you. Now let's find help before it is too late.

Again, the earlier the warning signs are recognized, the greater the chances of successful intervention, behavior modification and the abatement of future violent behavior.

In other words, "we did everything we could to protect our community". 

 

spcaLA (not affiliated with any other spca as there is no national/umbrella spca) has a series of core programs designed to intervene and prevent animal abuse as well as to deter violence towards people. They comprise a court mandated alternative sentencing course for juvenile offenders convicted of bullying, animal abuse or other violent crimes, an internationally acclaimed "at risk" youth program where schools target certain students to participate in the program, and one assisting victims of domestic violence and their pets where immediate help is mandated.  Check spcaLA.com for details.

 

 

Just Watch the Movie!

 courtesy wikimedia commons

The film "Dog" stars, along with the human actors, a Belgian Malinois character named Lulu. 

I am terrified that shelters everywhere will be inundated with these dogs who will 

be bred and inbred in order to satisfy consumer demand. We need only look recently at the fate of Dalmatians and Huskies to reasonably expect a surge of 

Belgian Malinois. 

It is important to remember that movie dogs are highly trained actors. Often, as in this case, the dog actor that you see is a group effort by more than one dog.  Lulu is 3 dogs!  A dog that is purchased, adopted or even responsibly bred will not act like the one in the movie. In fact, the actual animal actor will not behave that way either unless the training regimen continues to be reinforced. 

A Belgian Malinois, though adorable, smart and loyal, can also be aggressive and destructive if not stimulated properly. They are often used for police and military work as they need to focus on jobs and use their natural aggressive traits safely and productively. They are not for everyone and not for every family. Unscrupulous breeders will, through poor breeding, make matters worse and the dogs less adoptable. 

The result will be that the dogs will be turned into shelters for care, and possible suitable safe placement.

Can we just agree to watch the movie and explain to our children that the dog is a working movie actor and that we need a pet that is best for our families? I think we can... 

Hairless French Bulldogs! What could go wrong?

It seems that a hairless french bulldogs is now a new designer dog. This is another example of a deranged need to breed and crossbreed weird dogs for unsubstantiated reasons, (allergy) and for the shock value. 

There are already so many medical and behavioral issues that result from poor breeding, inbreeding and crossbreeding inbred and overbred dogs that cause heartbreak and suffering to people and pets alike, that now adding hairless creates new risks and compounds old ones.

A dogs' natural hair coat helps regulate his or her temperature. The hair keeps the dog warm in the winter and cool in the summer. The skin of a hairless dog can become sunburned, can become cracked and infected if too dry and can be easily injured or scratched. 

We have got to stop creating a demand for designer dogs. Until we do the unscrupulous breeders and con artists will make more, and more, and more. How much harm are we willing to inflict on our dogs?

A Horse, a Princess, and a Fashion Show Runway !

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Kangaroo_Boxing_sideshow_poster.jpg

A princess, riding a horse was featured trotting around a Chanel fashion show runway in Paris.

Is it a lack of imagination? An uncreative marketing team? A cry for attention? Or what??

Let us assume that the horse was treated well, not sedated, accustomed to crowds and not terrified of trotting on a fashion runway, (which may or may not have stairs), in an indoor space with music - should we do this? Is this alright? Because someone can make the horse do this - should they? Should the lack of illegality make it right? 

When all else fails and the muse deserts, the default idea still seems to be an animal act. A sideshow attraction that suggests an uninspired main event with no draw. Was the beautiful princess not enough? Were Chanel fashions not enough?

Our community has evolved passed this. Consumers are saying no to circuses, mammal water parks, real animals in the movies, red painted elephants, pink donkeys and live fish in keychains to name a few. Yet, in 2022 we see a horse trotting around a fashion show runway.

Is this right? I think not. 

The power to exploit members of a vulnerable class must include the courage to not do so, and a refusal to encourage those who do. 

What do you think?