Obama to Decide Whether to Expand Military's Animal Cruelty Policy

The Department of Defense is asking President Obama for permission to expand the military's current animal cruelty policy to include abandonment and to also apply to personal pets rather than just those owned by the military. The constant relocation and reassignment of military families has resulted in many pets simply being left behind, abandoned, and unattended. Stars and Stripes is reporting that the problem is so great in  places like Hawaii and Germany that local shelters are reluctant to adopt pets to Americans and/or military families at all.

The military is further concerned that the problem will worsen as United Airlines, the airline contracted to transport military personnel, refuses to permit certain breeds of dogs, such as American Staffordshire Terriers, on their planes, and will not waive this restriction for the Defense Department.

While I fully support holding those who choose to have a pet responsible for caring for that pet and accountable to the authorities for not doing so, I would also suggest that the military drop United Airlines and contract with another carrier so those with "banned" family dogs can travel without the additional heartbreak of the loss of a pet or the expense of funding their own flights on another airline. It seems an unnecessary stressor for those who would otherwise not abandon their pet.

In fact, if all pet lovers chose, in sympathy, to fly with different airlines - maybe we would see an attitude change from United.

The president is expected to decide this spring.

Tortoiseshell Cats Cannot Be Cloned

courtesy Google Images

The ability to genetically engineer food animals, replicate disease free humans and clone your favorite pet have been the fodder for science fiction films as well as for very real debates about the ethical issues attendant when  humans create life. There was quite a stir when a man paid $100,000 to a South Korean laboratory for a genetic replica of his beloved dying dog, as the science involved is not perfect and so may dogs are waiting in shelters for homes.

Well nature has found a way to thwart science in the case of tortoiseshell cats! These cats will not be cloned! The tortoise color comes from one red gene and one black gene that reside in the cat X chromosomes. Due to a process where the developing embryo cells randomly select and deactivate an X chromosome a cat can be black, red, or tortoise - black and red. There is no set blueprint that governs the cells in this process. The cloning procedure takes DNA from one cell which will have only one color. The cats are so stubborn that even if scientist takes a cell before the random deactivation occurs it ultimately occurs anyway and affects the color of siblings. A clear explanation can be found in 109 science publication:

“Tortoiseshell cats are the result of two different genes teaming up. One gene will turn the cat red, a nice solid ginger. The other will make it a black cat. Each gene is inherited from one of the tortoiseshell’s parents. Each is on one of the tortie’s X chromosomes. The tortoiseshell look is produced because of a process called ‘X-linked inactivation.’ The cells of developing embryo of the tortoiseshell cat randomly shut off one of the X chromosomes. And there’s no general consensus among the cells about which one to switch off, so each cell simply picks one. This random shut-off is why tortoiseshells have an unpatterned mix of black and red hair over their bodies.

Cloning a tortoiseshell involves taking the DNA from one cell. Since each of the cells have only one active X chromosome, when a new tortoiseshell embryo is developing using the borrowed DNA, it only has one gene affecting its coloration.

Thus, a cloned tortoiseshell kitten will generally be either black or red. Even if someone were to nab a cell from a developing embryo before the X-linked inactivation happened, the new cloned kitten would also randomly inactivate its X chromosomes, leaving two cloned siblings that don’t have the exact same color pattern.” 

There you have it. I am reminded of this exchange from the film Jurassic Park (1993):

Henry Wu: You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, I'm, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way. 

Indeed.

Kony Social Media Activism - Good or Bad for Change

As advocates and activists for the welfare of animals, and users of social media to help achieve those ends, I felt compelled to study the issues attendant to the Kony video campaign. Can we learn anything that will help our animals? What is the best role for social media in our work?  We have responded to specific need requests such as pet food, calls to action involving legislative policies, event publicity and funding pleas. Clearly, social media activism is effective in communicating quickly with a lot of people and in asking for a specific thing such as spreading news, sending an email and providing cash for a project. But can this type of activism bring about sustained change such as ending famine, stopping war crimes or attitude adjustments that last and change our way of life. Is it becoming the easy "go to" tool in the box? Is there a danger that we will get lazy in our activism and let the "mice" do all the work? As a huge believer that there is never too much knowledge I was also startled by the reaction that giving people this information in the first place is not wise as it creates false expectations and dumbs down complex issues. Frankly, that scares me. I am already worried that so much information is filtered through the whims of celebrities. The cynical reality is that if a famous person speaks-more attention will be drawn to the message and the audience will obey. That is why charities seek such spokespeople. I worry about what critical news we are not hearing about simply because Justin Bieber doesn't find it of interest as he did in the Kony situation. I prefer to see everything and decide for myself what to worry about. I also believe there is a valid use of the medium for activists, but that it is not a short cut to the hard work required to ultimately attain our goals. So I wrote the piece below and would be most interested in your thoughts.

courtesy Google images

The use of social media as an activist tool poses interesting questions. The Joseph Kony video is a great case study. The film, celebrity involvement, a charity, Facebook, Twitter, and the ability to click and see the story of a Ugandan war lord and his treatment of children on 100 million smart phones sparked an international conversation. Debates over Ugandan politics, the motives and legitimacy of the charity (Invisible Children) who created the video, the frustration of journalists who reported the story 2 years ago to an apathetic audience, and whether the actual facts were vetted properly – lit up the airwaves and internet.

The discussions are useful. They serve as a natural fact checking process to determine whether there is a real problem that needs addressing, whether this was a fundraising manipulation by a charity, or both. Of course, more people will watch the video than read assorted articles by experts in that area, but, the information is out there to evaluate. Arguing whether this method of messaging is over simplified, sensational, biased, and bad for children is likewise useful as allows us to examine how we receive, process and restate information to each other and to our politicians. The celebrity factor is also at play here.  Journalists couldn’t get the story heard years ago yet with the nudge of a couple of celebrity re-tweets it went viral. In other words, if the subject is interesting to Justin Bieber or Rihanna, we are more likely to hear about it.

The ultimate question seems to be whether or not this type of activism is successful in effectuating positive change and therefore should be replicated. Success is defined in the eyes of the beholder. The goal of boosting awareness and raising funds is not the same as actually arresting a war criminal and changing a political system. We know the use of social media can succeed in achieving the former, but we are not so sure about the latter. Additionally, one wonders how many times it could work successfully before the responding clickers lose interest or become desensitized to endless horrors and cause campaigns.. 

In October of 2010, Malcolm Gladwell published an article for The New Yorker entitled “Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”. Comparing the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and other social revolutions, Gladwell asks the same question. He describes the scene where 4 black college students sat down at a “whites only” lunch counter in Greensboro North Carolina and refused to leave their seats. The restaurant would not serve them. More protesters gathered on their behalf, sit-ins began and eventually 70,000 students were actively involved in the protest. He argues that this type of   “high risk strong-tie” commitment is not created through social media platforms which are built upon “weak-tie connections”. Gladwell goes on to say: “ Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.”

It seems social media activism is still evolving. Knowledge is critical. We need to know of a problem to solve it. Now 100 million people know something. Critical thinking about the information allows the vetting, analysis and evaluation of the issue to occur. Then old school hard work must follow to ultimately accomplish change. Documentation, constituency building, organizing and developing strategic plans to implement reforms must also occur.

Knowing is better than not knowing, but clicking is not enough action.



Article first published as Are Social Media Campaigns Like Kony Successful in Effecting Change on Technorati.

Lion Slaying Fish & Game Commissioner Must be Fired

Courtesy Google Images

The President of the California Fish and Game Commission, Dan Richards, whose mandate it is to protect native species, killed a mountain lion in Idaho and posed grinning with the carcass. It has been against the law in California to hunt mountain lions since 1990 so Richards is reported to have paid about $7000 to hunt this cat.

Today, outraged by this behavior, 40 members of the California State Assembly, led by Assembly-member Ben Hueso, called for Richards' resignation in a letter. In addition to expressing their outrage in his exercise of judgment and resultant behavior, the lawmakers went on to say:

     

 "Your actions have raised serious questions about whether you respect the laws of the people of California and whether you are fit to adequately enforce those laws. Without the proper credibility to hold such an important representative position as the one you hold, you can only succeed at one outcome, eroding the public's confidence and trust in their government."

To say the least! The people of California have led and continue to lead the nation in animal protection initiatives. I and many other animal protection advocates have come before the Fish & Game Commission to plead for the lives of bears offered up to hunters, to stop the imports of frogs and turtles that decimate California's native species and to increase humane protections for our captive wildlife.  It was us, the people of California who passed Proposition 117 which actually banned the hunting of mountain lions. Commissioner Richards knew that when he signed up for his hunt and essentially gave us the "Bronx Cheer" while flaunting his trophy. This is who is supposed to serve as guardian of our native wildlife. 

The legislature has the authority and must so exercise it to immediately remove this man from his position. I would also like to see an investigation into whether or not he brought the $7000 body back with him to California which is also illegal.

It is irrelevant whether his acts were legal in Idaho or not. What is relevant is the act itself. It speaks volumes about Richards' attitude towards protecting wildlife. It shouts his lack of regard for the opinions of the California public and it has, in the end, killed a lion.

 
"I'm glad it's legal in Idaho," said Richards. 

"Shame on you" said us. 




Article first published as Legislators Demand Resignation of California Fish & Game Warden Who Killed Lion on Technorati

Westminster Dog Show Disallows Shelter Pet Message

courtesy spcaLA

The exclusive Westminster Kennel Club (WKC) Dog Show has banned the mere mention of shelter dogs at its event.

They have dropped Pedigree, a long term dog food sponsor, because they didn't like Pedigree's ad campaign which encouraged people to adopt shelter pets. David Frei, a spokesperson for the show is reported as saying:
“Our show is a celebration of dogs. We’re not promoting purebreds at the expense of non-purebreds. We celebrate all dogs. When we’re seeing puppies behind bars, it takes away from that. Not just because it’s sad, but it’s not our message.”

Really? Pedigree, though often marketing to pure breeds, hence the name Pedigree, does not feel compromised in also addressing the plight of shelter pets. Shelters, do not feel their message is undermined by ministering to the needs of homeless pure breeds -often about 25% of their residents -and I believe a message that advocates the humane treatment, appreciation and respect for all dogs is one that truly celebrates dogs.

In fact, I get sad when watching the fancy breeds in the dog show and imagine them living in puppy mills, and wonder, how many of these less than fortunate members of this exclusive club will end up in my shelters sad, sick, and homeless.

Now that takes some of the enjoyment out of  it for me.

When Was the Last Time I Asked the Government to do Nothing?

courtesy Google images

In 1999, an animal shelter mandate known as the “Hayden Bill” was enacted, among other things, to increase holding periods for stray cats and dogs in shelters, create behavior assessments for cats appearing to be feral, and to extend these holding periods to pocket pets as well. In exchange for performing these additional “mandates”, the state was required to reimburse cities and counties for these extra costs.

Against the landscape of a poor economy, these mandates have been suspended as a cost savings measure since 2009. Now, in his FY 2012-13 Budget, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed to permanently repeal them. Many of you have been subjected to hysterical calls for action and misinformed assertions by the media and concerned citizens that animals will be euthanized en masse upon repeal of these sections of the law. I am sure most of you didn’t know that California shelters have been struggling to operate without being reimbursed for these suspended mandates for the past few years.

Your spcaLA, and its president, who also serves as the legislative chair of the State Humane Association of California (SHAC), have been working closely with Sacramento to protect the remaining language in the law and to ensure that minimum holding periods be added back into the bill text. California Animal Directors Association (CACDA) has also been part of these negotiations. SHAC represents the collective voice of California’s humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCAs), while CACDA represents the municipal shelters in California. 

That said. I strongly urge that the governor maintain the status quo and not permanently repeal these mandates. I remain confident that our economy will eventually improve and enable these protections for our pets to revive as well. 

The stewardship of our stray, abused and unwanted pets should be a priority in this state – the first to be funded and the last to be cut. Sadly that is not the case.

Please call ((916) 445-2841) and/or email our governor and tell him that we are sure he will turn California’s economy around and to not repeal these mandates.

Trying a Chicken McBite is Less Risky than Being Struck by Lightning

courtesy google images

The omnipresent fast food chain, McDonalds, in an advertisement designed to introduce a new menu item, the chicken McBite, claimed "Trying a new menu item at McDonald's isn't risky. You know what's risky? Petting a stray pit bull". 

To those who understand that not all pit bulls are dangerous, though some pit bull owners are, the ad seemed like a cheap shot against an already disparaged and beleaguered breed of dog.  These dogs are banned, euthanized, disallowed under home insurance policies, and automatically assumed to be vicious, just because they appear to be pit bulls. In two instances, pit bulls working as service dogs were prohibited from performing their functions in what is currently being litigated as a violation of the American with Disabilities Act.  McDonalds in playing to their “unsafetiness” perpetuates a stereotype and reinforced the seeming unsuitability of every pit bull dog as a possible family pet.

McDonalds also crowed that it is less risky to try the chicken dish than "naming your son Sue", again suggesting acceptance of the routine tormenting and bullying of boys with any effeminate trait!  At a time when we are trying to teach open mindedness and tolerance these ads just ring flat.

Ironically, it was also reported that a carcinogen known as tertiary butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ) is used in another McDonalds ‘chicken treat  called the McNugget, ostensibly to preserve freshness.  Unlike pit bulls who can be nurtured to be loving and loyal pets, and children who can be educated not to taunt those perceived as different - carcinogens can’t be taught to be safe!

A corporation with the financial resources of McDonalds, that is able to fund slick “ad men” and purchase expensive air time might think about using their resources to eliminate carcinogens from their food and donating to organizations that teach responsible pet stewardship and respect for diversity.

McDonalds did apologize and did halt the pit bull advertising spot. But they need to put their mcmoney where there mcmouth is.