Do you like this story?
Thursday begins with a great rabbit story, and gets even better
By David S. Greene
December 17, 2009
Hey everyone, it’s bunny time! I’m going to give you an article summary that sounds like it’s straight from The National Enquirer, but it’s true.
A rabbit inspired an abused woman to seek help, which then led to the rabbit being cured of cancer. I didn’t make this up. Even I’m not that imaginative. A tip of the hat to loyal reader Mary Mary for this one. The bunny story comes to us from USA Today.
In November, Joy Gioia, head of the St. Louis chapter of the House Rabbit Society, which takes in and re-homes some of the growing number of pet rabbits landing in animal shelters, got a heartbreaking call. It was from a woman who’d been abused by her husband for a very long time and had finally screwed up her courage in October to flee … with nothing but her rabbit. She’d lived on the streets for a time, she told Gioia, making do with handouts. When food was scarce, she made sure there was enough for the dark-furred bunny she had named Ruby Angel because the white mark on her nose resembled an angel.
[...]The rabbit was saved not just from more abuse, but from cancer. When Ruby was spayed two weeks ago, as is the practice when HRS accepts rabbits, she was found to have uterine cancer. The cancer had not yet spread, so Ruby has a future.
Recovering with four-legged friends requires less pain medication: Although this feels intuitively true, data now backs it up. Specifically looking at joint replacement surgery patients, the study says that patients with pets needed up to 50% less pain medication then those who didn’t.
“Evidence suggests that animal-assisted therapy (AAT) can have a positive effect on a patient’s psychosocial, emotional and physical well being,” said Julia Havey, RN, study presenter and senior systems analyst, Department of Medical Center Information Systems, Loyola University Health System (LUHS). “These data further support these benefits and build the case for expanding the use of pet therapy in recovery.”
You can read the rest of the article here at ScienceDaily.
Indiana looks to control puppy mills: If you live in Indiana and run a commercial dog brokerage operation, starting New Year’s Day you’ll have to register with the state board of animal health and pay the state $1,000 a year. The threshold for brokers: 500 dogs or puppies sold annually. For breeders: it’s 20 unspayed females who are at least a year old, and the fee will depend on the number of dogs (after 20, presumably). One important note from the article:
The law doesn’t affect animal shelters, rescue operations, hobby breeders, and anyone who breeds at least 75 percent of their dogs for sporting, service or law enforcement and military purposes.
Common sense advice on handling pets around people at the holidays: A valuable annual reminder from The Other End of the Leash. It never hurts to keep in mind some of these guidelines before the aunts and uncles, nieces, nephews and assorted cousins descend upon you, or when you head across the river and through the woods to grandmother’s house (hint: dog sitters can be worth their weight in gold).
The best newspaper lede of the week: “So you think you know about dogs? Sorry, you do not”. That’s the beginning of a column from the Denver Post that made me laugh out loud and think. The message behind the humor is sobering, which makes it even more effective. …
I’ll be back Monday if not sooner. Got a good link? In the comments to share.
Image: Ruby Angel, from USA Today.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Sadly, the Denver Post article repeats without checking Dr. Voith’s pronouncement that DNA testing is an accurate way to determine breed.
From what I’ve seen of the commercially-peddled results, doggie DNA breed ID (as opposed to parentage determination) is in the same league as the hypoallergenic cat scam.
Comment by H. Houlahan — December 17, 2009 @ 7:03 am
Denver of course has the most vicious enforcement of a pit bull ban than maybe anywhere in the US (yes, even more than Tom Skeldon’s former kingdom), where ACO steals innocent pets from their homes in front of screaming children and kills them for the crime of having the appearance of being a pit bull, hundreds/year. Everyone who’s ever gone down the death row of their Municipal Shelter has testified that many of the dogs are not even pit bull mixes (and you don’t need a DNA test, bogus or not, to know it). The Denver Post has always supported this law, and written more than one editorial supporting it. Anything that sets their little minds spinning at the possibility that their support has meant that “non pit bulls” are ALSO are being killed can only be a good thing.
Comment by EmilyS — December 17, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Emialy, remember the “editorial voice” of a newspaper is not indicative of all the reporters and editors there.
Why I’m glad I don’t have a newspaper job anymore: I can say what I believe without worrying about my continued employment. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 17, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Why is it that the law says 20 unspayed females automatically makes you a “breeder’.. suppose you never bred any of them.. would you still be a “breeder”.. a breeder is a person who breeds.. not a person who owns. How can this bill NOT affect hobby breeders? and who will determine if 75% ( an arbitrary number) of the dogs are bred for ‘sporting purposes”. What is a ‘sporting purpose”? Why can ‘rescues” have over 20 unspayed females but the average person cannot?
Comment by bestuvall — December 17, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Why can ‘rescues” have over 20 unspayed females but the average person cannot?
Comment by bestuvall — December 17, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Because it’s a temporary state and the spays are planned? Not sure why you have the word rescue in quotes.
Comment by Mary Mary — December 17, 2009 @ 10:18 am
I just saw this article - it so such a wonderful story about Faith the two legged dog: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....legged_dog
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 17, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Personally (and I stress that part), the numbers in the law aren’t what concern me, though I agree they feel suspiciously random. My fear is how the enforcement protocol will play out on the ground in Indiana. Who’s going to be dedicated to keeping people honest? Worse, who and how many will slip through the cracks? Are there enough staff up to the task (I’m thinking not)? How will the state funding affect this? Frankly, my cynical side is concerned that this is sloppy policymaking begging for problems, and I’m willing to bet a bag of Greenies that sometime in the next 12-18 months (perhaps sooner) I’ll be reporting a sad or frustrating pet-related story from the Hoosier state.
Comment by David S. Greene — December 17, 2009 @ 10:59 am
A Dog is getting a heart pacemaker - and it is a shelter dog too. Wow.
http://cbs13.com/watercooler/p.....75477.html
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 17, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Thanks for the URL’s, Snoopys Friend! You are hereby hired as my primary volunteer researcher.
Comment by David S. Greene — December 17, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
Ha, Ha David. You do all the hard work!
Comment by Snoopys Friend — December 17, 2009 @ 12:37 pm