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. 

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