Comments on: It’s baccccckkkk … and it hurts like … a morning update

By: Katrina

Katrina — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:41:22 +0000

Well, you do have a few good points, Gina. But let me explain the plane thing a bit more. Apparently pilots need to log a certain number of flight miles in order to maintain their license. Makes sense to me. I wouldn’t want to get on a private plane with someone that hasn’t flown for 5 years. Anyways, there are a couple of “boards” where a pilot can list their flight plan, and a shelter or rescue can contact them to take a couple of animals. Or a rescue or shelter can list a couple of animals needing transport from point a to point b, and if a pilot is headed that way, and is willing, can take the animals. It’s all very informal and not real reliable, but it is a method of moving animals in danger of being killed to someplace they stand a greater chance of being adopted.

As for the rescue railroad, it could certainly become more efficient. On the east coast, they seem to have several groups that arrange large transports. On the west coast we don’t seem to be quite so efficient. And since I am new to this, I’m not sure if its because we are so new to the idea of the rescue railroad on the west coast, or our population is less dense than the east coast so fewer options or need.

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:04:28 +0000

I gotta say I can’t IMAGINE the circumstances that would require a homeless pet to be moved by private plane. Geez, I’m even cutting down on my OWN air travel to reduce my carbon footprint, and that’s of the cattle-car Southwest variety.

How can such a waste of a limited resource be excused to move a homeless pet? (I’m not really keen on it being wasted to move Donald Trump either, but that’s another discussion.)

As for moving pets from one part of the country to another to improve adoption prospects, I’m all for it, but I’m sure there are more fuel-efficient ways to do it than by handing one or two pets at a time along the rescue railroad.

We’re all going have to get more fuel-efficient and make some changes in our lives. Even if there are ways for fuel prices to come down in the short-term, the long-term prospects are not good.

By: Katrina

Katrina — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:50:52 +0000

Gina wrote: Will high gas prices accelerate the shift from big dogs to small ones? Terrierman muses that the end of the massive fuel-sucking SUV may mean a whole lot fewer Labradors.

Unfortunately, I think higher gas prices are going to mean more dogs and cats die. Persons that are involved in transporting dogs all across the country, whether by car or private plane, in order to get them out of shelters and into places where they have a better chance of being adopted (ie: rescues), are going to have a harder time doing that with the gas prices going up and up and up. And the word is out that the gov’t says that these prices are going to last awhile.

By: Marjorie

Marjorie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:21:41 +0000

Yeah Holland! I read the press release and I was very pleased.

I’ve paid special attention to Holland’s ban because my husband is Dutch and we own property there. There’s a good chance we may live there, one day, but it would never happen as long as there are breed bans. (My husband and I have an agreement about when we’ll be fleeing evil Ontario.) (Pray for Banned Aid. No. Wait. Please donate to Banned Aid!)

Actually, on that note, I have a funny-to-me story to tell. My husband is a consultant, and usually has clients in brokerage/banking. For about the past year, though, most of his clients have been government Ministries. (No, not the Ministry of the Attorney General. That wouldn’t be tolerated, even for a minute.)

Whenever he calls from his office at his current gig, the call display reads, “Ont Gov’t” (or something like that). When I see that, I answer the phone, “What do you want, you dog-killing bastards?” He laughs knowingly.