Bon Soir Foie Gras

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE:  United States Supreme Court backs California's foie gras ban! http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/14/

Courtesy Google Images

Effective July 1st 2012, foie gras made from force feeding ducks, geese or any bird will be banned in California. In other words, the actual force feeding in California is prohibited as well as merely selling the pate if made elsewhere using the force feeding technique.

The law was passed in 2004 but it's effective date was delayed almost 8 years to give producers a chance to convert to a humane method of feeding the birds. The only producer in California, Artisan Foie Gras, in Sonoma, has declined to make those changes.

Recently, a group of chefs was unsuccessful in urging the legislature to repeal or extend the effective date of the ban. Though drowning their sorrows with their customers in secret foie gras parties (to avoid protesters), the chefs are really concerned that this ban will spread to other states. It is already banned in other countries such as Argentina, Israel, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Italy and lawsuits against the USDA as well as public pressure could soon create more momentum to stop this form of pate.


                  There once was a goose named Dakota,
                    who lived on a farm in Sonoma.
                  With a tube down her throat and a chef at the moat, 
                    she called on the people to help her.

                  The votes were amassed.
                  A foie gras ban passed.
                  And Dakota's liver is much slimmer.


Bon soir foie gras....
  

Rihanna's Dog Got "Minxed"

Courtesy Instagram

The latest trend in manicures and pedicures is the minx manicure. It is a process where pictures and patterns are painted onto fingernails and toenails thereby instantly transforming ordinary fingers and toes into works of art.

It was only a matter of time before this new art form appeared on a pet. In this case it was  Rihanna's dog. She posted a photo of  her dog with the caption "Bitch got minx."

The product is said to be toxic, odorless, chemical free and perfectly safe for natural nails. However, before you try something like this on your pet, use common sense. When in doubt, ask a veterinarian - is this safe for pets? Procedures and materials deemed safe for people may still have adverse effect on animals.

If it's safe - make sure it's something your pet tolerates and is comfortable doing. If your dog needs a sedative to do it, it most likely should not be done.

Need I say- don't even think about this for a cat!

Food for Thought...

Courtesy FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I recently attended a conference on multiple perspectives of animals and the law. Gary Francione, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School was one of the presenting speakers. Some of his remarks have stuck with me this week, and so, I thought I would share them with you.

Professor Francione asserted that the animal rights movement focuses on reducing animal suffering while tolerating the killing of animals. This results in the widely held platform that it is permissible to use animals for food, clothing and research as long as they don't suffer in the process while ignoring both the question as to whether the use itself is moral and the consequential fact of the death of the animal.  He was concerned with this paradox.

To that end he referenced a national animal rights group that ironically euthanized most of the animals in its care. He then referenced another national humane organization that campaigns across the country to reduce the size of battery cages for hens by a few inches. While it is questionable that such a modification would even end the suffering of those confined animals Professor Francione then announced the one certain result is that this particular animal rights organization has essentially become an adviser to those who would abuse, exploit and ultimately kill animals. He used an example of a person, though opposed to water-boarding, counseled the use of a padded water-board to be used to torture the hapless victim instead! Of course this produces a bizarre result. The torture continues despite the use of pads or filtered water!! In both cases the actual killing of the animals is not seen as the main issue.

The cynical reality is that these humane groups, who "advise animal abusers" raise millions for these legislative and ballot initiatives while simultaneously easing the conscience of those who want to believe that suffering is eliminated and the use of the animal is therefore justified.

A worse thought is that the factory farmers are laughing all the way to the bank as they can charge more for their product (fewer animals in larger spaces) and tout the endorsement and approval of animal rights activists to generate corporate good will and secure more customers while still behaving in precisely the same way as before plus or minus 6 inches.

Everybody wins of course, except those who need the help.

I concur with Professor Francione that it is certainly time for those of us advocating for animal rights to engage in some self-reflection, long term strategic planning and to commit to talking about these things.

Thoughts?

Pit Bulls -- A Tale of 2 Confused States

Courtesy Google Images

The Maryland Court of Appeals has found that pit bulls and pit bull mixes are "inherently dangerous" dogs and that the owner and/or landlord who knows that an attacking dog is a pit bull or mix is strictly liable for damages to the victim of the attack. In other words, regardless of the nature of the specific dog or the reason the dog attacked there is liability. It is therefore possible that a pit bull service dog is now declared dangerous in Maryland and a pit bull that was provoked or defending his/her human companion would be presumed to have attacked because of an "inherent" characteristic.

Meanwhile, in Ohio, the dangerous dog laws have been amended so that pit bulls, after 25 years, are no longer deemed "inherently vicious"!

This is completely irrational. Can we please focus on the specific behavior of a particular dog in the context of an actual incident rather than just profiling a breed and all the combinations of mutts in that mix?

Perhaps our legal system is “inherently contradictory”.

Chris Brown Breeding and Selling Pit Bull Puppies for $1000 Online

courtesy Google Images

Would you buy a used car from Chris Brown? Let alone a pit bull puppy.

Chris Brown is breeding and selling 2 month old pit bull puppies for a $1000 each.

Why does a rock star and known domestic violence abuser choose to breed dogs, and why, specifically pit bulls? What does Brown know about the genetics of responsible breeding? Will the dogs be fixed? How will they determine what is a good home? Who would pay that price? Do pit bulls enhance his "bad boy" image?

Animal shelters across the country are brimming with unwanted pit bull dogs. Adopters shun them because they fear that the dogs have violent dispositions as they are associated with dog fighting, gang violence and other crimes. Home insurance companies won't insure homeowners with pit bulls as pet. The breed is completely banned in some cities altogether and some animal shelters won't adopt them out as a matter of policy.

The result is the dogs suffer when they are misused and abused by felons and those who want to convey a "bad-ass" image, or euthanized in droves because nobody wants them - not even the "good ones". So it is this dog that Chris Brown chooses to breed.

I fear that people who want a celebrity dog will pay this price despite the fact that they can get a dog from an animal shelter for a fraction of the cost. I fear that those who wish to emulate Brown's tough guy persona and violent temper will now want a pit bull accessory. I wish his mother would talk some sense into him rather than advertising these dogs on Twitter. I wish that Brown would use his celebrity and financial resources to help deal with the existing pet overpopulation problem in this country.

I would love to see the USDA ( as online sales will cross state lines) or local enforcement that regulates breeding step in and stop this activity and perhaps deter any other similar escapades.


Where did I place my magic wand?

Stop the Cruel and Bullying "Sport"of Hounding California's Bears and Bobcats

Senate Bill 1221 will stop the cruel and bullying pastime of “hounding” bears and bobcats.

Courtesy Google Images

"Hounding" is a hunting practice where dogs are first sprayed with a bear attractant and fitted with high‐tech radio collars, that permit the hunters to hunt remotely. The dogs can chase the bear or bobcats for miles until they are treed or exhausted, at which time the tip-switch on the collars alerts the hunters, who, arrive and shoot a weary animal at point blank range. Essentially, the hounds take all the risks while the "sport" hunter lounges around in the park waiting for the signal to exert him or herself enough to shoot a trapped, immobilized animal.

Courtesy Google Images

Notwithstanding the terrifying ordeal suffered by the target animal, the hounds don't fare much better. They are not treated as pets but as working animals. They get injured running, hit by cars, and are often wounded or killed by the target animal or any other wildlife (such as deer) that they may encounter. There are reports of shelters receiving these dogs dehydrated, skinny and injured after they are no longer any use to the "sportsman".

I respectfully submit that this form of hunting is neither sport nor sportsman like. As comedian Paul Rodriguez said: "In a sport both sides should know they are in the game".

Not only do the animals not know they are playing - the bullies are cheating.

It is time to end this practice in California. Please contact your representatives http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html and urge them to pass SB 1221.

Thank you.

"Something's Happening Here - What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear..."

I wasn’t going to write about this – but – it has been bothering me.  Last week, the aspca (NOT a national umbrella organization) subsidized adoptions across the country for a couple of days. The subsidy allowed some shelters to give away pets, or to charge 10 or 20 dollars for the pet.  So why has this been nagging at me?

Courtesy spcaL

I began to wonder why they are really doing this.  Promoting adoptions is the obvious answer but is it the correct one? You and I will never know – but here is what I think. The aspca has been and is under fire for fundraising in everyone’s neighborhood and amassing approximately 188,024,402 million dollars in New York to the detriment of all the other spcas and the animals they serve. They get away with it because consumers believe that they are the “national office” and that every spca in the country is a chapter which receives funding from them. Not true.  Each spca is a separate and independent legal entity and it could affect the aspca’s ability to raise funds if they disclosed that.  In fact, out of that near 185,000,000 million dollars,  they grant out fewer than 6 million but spend over 25 million on fundraising.

So, they throw pocket change at this adoption promotion, publicize the hell out of it and generate more smoke for the mirrors.

But was it a good event that helped animals? In California they worked mostly with government pounds where adopters are not screened and all one needs is the fee to take home an animal. At no charge or even with a nominal charge many animals very likely went to hoarders, backyard sellers, and other entities that had only plans to resell the pets at a huge mark up. How many sales were an impulse grab where the pet was returned or simply turned out? It is easy to empty a shelter but not so easy to have the adoption stick and actually find the pet a home. It is neither a success nor even an adoption if the pet is not kept. Do you think the aspca is tracking that or is even concerned about that? I don't know, but if so, the event business model would have been different. Of course there are those of us who would cherish a pet for life that we found on the street or received at no cost. I am not talking about us.

I think that my disquietude comes from the fear that many of these animals might be in awful places as a result of the aspca’s public relations effort to appear to be funding animals in areas in which they solicit donations and provide nothing in return.

They could be throwing couch cushion change to seem to be something they are not, while perhaps tossing pets to the very real wolves.  

Please donate locally.