"No-Kill" does not mean no death - It's often worse

A puppy is born with a swollen head and no chance of survival as so decreed by a veterinarian. Because the shelter alleges that it is "no-kill", a shelter employee, a "no-kill" ideologue, insists on fostering the puppy with hopes that he will be all right. This employee has no medical knowledge or ability to soothe this baby as there is no treatment for the condition and his system is too frail to survive pain killers. The puppy, however, is suffering horribly. He screams when touched and his breathing is labored. The zealot, bathed in self-righteous glory, watches the puppy die slowly, unable to touch him, for 15 tortuous hours, proud to worship at the "no-kill" ideology altar. The employee returns the little body to the shelter, where his death is classified as "died in care", or lack thereof, rather than "humanely euthanized".

"Died in care" has become the new statistical catch-all for permitting animals to suffer in agony and die while perpetuating the lie that the euthanasia rate is low or non-existent. In other words, if cages are overloaded and animals kill each other, if animals are allowed to die like this puppy, if animals are given to hoarders or incompetent/fake rescues in an endless game of three card monte where they live for years cramped into feces filled airline crates, the shelter administration can statistically present the shelter to the public as "no-kill", thus turning their back on the suffering thereby condemning these pets to a fate worse than death. It is shameful, cruel and conscience shocking.

Of course, the politicians want the lie and demand to be lied to, psychopathic fanatics monetize their no kill behavior to fund themselves and shame others, and the public begins to believe that all is well with the world while also withdrawing support from shelters who won't play this game, classifying them as pro-kill. Shelters themselves have become the hoarders and as such can neither prosecute a hoarder who they continue to supply with animals nor rescue animals from harm because of lack of space.

It is quite clear what the result of this diplo-feculence means. Our pets our being victimized both by animal abusers and those charged with protecting them. How would you feel if your pet ended up grieving and pain ridden in an environment like this? How can the same person claim to be an advocate for life while compliant in such misery and anguish?

I, for one, am sick of this. We need to expose this for what it is and stop the enabling.

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.

Polar Bear in Alaska Hazed to Death by BP Security Guard

A polar bear was shot by a security guard hired to protect BP's Endicott Field compound on the North Slope of Alaska. Polar bears are considered a "threatened species" and it is illegal under federal law to kill them. Measures to protect the polar bears notwithstanding, it is still legal to "haze" or scare them if they threaten humans but only by non-lethal means.

BP asserts that this was a hazing gone wrong. BP Alaska spokesperson Steve Rinehart claims the guard thought he fired a bean bag at the bear that was approaching the compound, but "accidentally" used a cracker shell instead which struck a fatal blow. Cracker shells are a type of ammo that is loud, has characteristics of an explosive, and can propel explosives large distances. There use has recently come under fire by the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other government offices as too dangerous and unpredictable to use without a proper license.

Rinehart went on to say that the "polar bear death is the first time in 35 years of working on the North Slope that a bear has been killed by a security guard working for BP, and we dearly wish it had not happened".

Unfortunately it took the bear several days to die from the wound.  The United States Department of Fish And Wildlife Service is investigating the killing. I hope they answer these and other questions:

1. The bear was shot on August 3rd. Why are we just hearing about it? Was there a cover-up?
2. How does one confuse an explosive shell  with a bean bag?
3. How much training does the security guard have in the use of these weapons?
4. If he couldn't tell the bear was hit-how close was the bear really?
5. Was the bear actually threatening anybody?
6. Were permits needed for the shells? Did BP have them?
7. How much more of our wildlife and environment are we going to let BP destroy? Remember the Gulf of Tears

I "dearly wish" BP and its guard company are held accountable.


Article first published as A Threatened Polar Bear Killed by BP Security Guard in Alaska on Technorati.

Give the Sharks an XMAS Gift-.Ask Obama to Sign Shark Conservation Act

The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 will ban the practice of shark finning, which involves catching sharks, cutting off their fins, and releasing them alive into the water to suffer a slow painful drowning death. All for shark fin soup and other "delicacies". This act would close a loophole that banned the practice in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico in earlier 2000 legislation, but omitted the Pacific Ocean. It also will require that boats in  United States waters keep the entire shark carcass intact.

Besides the cruelty issue, shark populations are dangerously dwindling which is itself bad enough, but worse, when you consider that as scavenger fish, they are responsible for and essential to maintaining a thriving and clean ocean. As goes the shark, so goes other marine life.

For more information see http://www.stopsharkfinning.net/index.htm and please - take a moment to ask President Obama to sign the Act. http://www.emailthepresident.com/  It is a little effort for us to email - but it means the world to the sharks. Thank you.