pet connection

Hat tip to straybaby for the link to the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association, opposing forced spay-neuter for Chicago. From the ISVMA:

The Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA) opposes the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance being proposed for the City of Chicago.  Although the ordinance’s stated goals to reduce the number of unwanted pets and gang activity are laudable, the reality is that it will have no effect on these problems. Instead, it will create some serious public health concerns, cause many animals to be denied necessary health care, and will trample on the personal property rights of conscientious pet owners. 

The ISVMA opposes this proposed ordinance for the following reasons: (explanations below)

• The ordinance implies that dog bites will vanish because of a simplistic, and non-scientifically based assumption that only intact animals bite.

• There is no conclusive evidence that mandatory spay/neuter programs work.

• This mandate would discourage pet owners from seeking rabies immunization if they are opposed to neutering/spaying and fear they will be reported.  Currently, we struggle to ensure the proper safeguards are in place to protect the public from rabies.  Rabies is essentially a 100% fatal disease to humans, dogs and cats.

• There are not enough resources in Chicago to enforce this law in a meaningful way.

• With regard to creating a healthier pet, there are both positive and negative affects accrued from sterilization. It appears that benefits outweigh risks; however, there are many breed and individual dog variants, suggesting that professional judgment is required to determine whether and when to neuter/spay pets.

Read the entire document; it’s well worth your time.  Should we paying attention to a retired TV game-show host or the detailed explanation of peer-reviewed work of general practice veterinarians, public-health veterinarians and veterinary behaviorists? Let’s put a cork in Bob Barker’s forced spay-neuter “tsunami” and work on community-wide, progressive, carrot-not-stick approaches to getting pets into homes and keeping them there.

I take back what I wrote yesterday. Illinois does have more common sense than California. The best the California Veterinary Medical Association could do on forced spay-neuter here (AB 1634, in its new and arguably worse incarnation coming to the California State Senate floor as early as Monday) is back away from “support” to “neutral”  after its members went ballistic.

At least in Illinois, they’ll look at the issues, the facts and the science and speak up for what works … and what doesn’t.

When you’re right, you’re right: Bob Barker is right about one thing … forced spay-neuter laws are indeed a tsunami, as in a wave that wipes out and kills everything in its path. Check out the killing and the costs that come in the wake of forced spay-neuter legislation, most recently in L.A. (Thanks to SaveOurDogs for the research and for putting it all in one place.)

Why is this even being discussed anywhere?

Gina, ask and ye shall receive. I’ve been looking into dog theft recently. The American Kennel Club sent out a press release in April suggesting that dog theft is on the rise, based on the number of news reports they’ve seen about it this year. More than 30, so far, compared to 10 in 2007.

Now, there’s no way of knowing whether dog theft is really on the rise. No one keeps track of how many dogs are stolen each year, and in many cases there’s no way of knowing whether the dog was really stolen or just strayed away. The Newport Beach Police Department web site has a press release about three stolen Bulldog puppies, but officer John Lewis says it’s not really a common crime in the area. The Beverly Hills cops say it doesn’t happen much there, either.

Nonetheless, based on a totally unscientific Google search, there are certainly quite a few “stolen dog” stories out there: thieves walk out with puppies from pet stores and kittens from shelters, they break into cars and homes and take dogs, or they walk off with dogs tied up outside coffee shops or stores. And then there are the people who find lost dogs and simply decide to keep or sell them, despite knowing that someone is looking for the dog (see last week’s The Ethicist in the NYT magazine).

On the rise or not, to me it seemed like a good opportunity to talk about ways to protect dogs from loss or theft and ways to get them back, and to my editors it seemed like a good commentary on the tanking economy, both subjects discussed in tomorrow’s column. Here’s a bit of a preview.

Microchipping is a given. None of the people I spoke with actually got their dogs back because of the microchip, but it’s a way to drive down the dog’s black market value, and it’s proof of ownership in the event of a dispute.

Kit Lofgren, whose 4-month-old Bernese Mountain Dog was stolen from her front yard last year, was able to access a list of Bay Area veterinarians and ask them to scan any Berner puppies brought in.

Make the theft or loss common knowledge. With the help of friends, Lofgren was able to blanket the Bay Area with flyers and posters. Friends who were driving north and to the East Coast put up flyers at every rest stop. She posted the information on lost dog web sites and Berner chat lists.

We killed his market value through exposure. There were two Berners his age that lived close to us and one of them took to wearing a sign saying ‘I’m not Kit Lofgren’s dog.’

Weed out crank calls by withholding certain identifying information. Unlike most Berners, Heikki didn’t have a lot of white on his feet. Lofgren never published any photos showing his feet, so when people called in the middle of the night claiming to have her dog, she had an easy way of knowing whether they were legit. Heikki was returned two weeks later by someone who claimed to have found him.

Barb Schaefer, whose Siberian Husky Gateway was stolen from a van in Utah and found running alongside the freeway a week later, used similar tactics in her search for him. Now when she travels with dogs, she carries a large folder with a pre-made “lost dog” flyer, a photo of each dog traveling with her, and each dog’s tattoo and microchip numbers.

I don’t count on the tattoo or microchip to get my dog back, but I count on it to be able to verify to someone that that is my dog.

Use common sense. Don’t take your dog with you on errands unless he can go inside with you (the dry cleaner and the bank, yes; Starbucks, the grocery store or Costco, no).

Don’t leave your dog alone in the car, especially if your car also contains other valuable items that might attract a thief’s attention.

Don’t answer questions about your dog’s value. I haven’t come up with a snappy response to that one yet, but I don’t care for the one that’s sometimes suggested–He’s priceless to me–since that might encourage someone to steal the dog and demand a ransom.

What’s your best advice for preventing loss or theft?

Gratuitous Cavalier blogging: I’m so excited! I finally have a dog who responds without hesitation to the Come command (not always something you can count on with a birds-on-the-brain spaniel, which is why they’re usually leashed). We were at Cavalier park day yesterday, probably the only place my dogs are allowed to play off leash. A Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier came walking through, also off leash, and Twyla–who thinks that she is some kind of huge guard dog–took off after her, closely followed by Harper. I called Harper to come and she immediately stopped and came back to me. Yesss! The even more amazing thing is that Twyla followed her. Good girls!

How many years of work in canine health research does someone have to have under her belt before she gets a pass from the dog world on belonging to an organization some of us may not like?

Apparently more years than there are stars in the sky, if the recent reaction to a letter to PETA written by Dr. Jean Dodds is any indication.

Dr. Dodds is a regular speaker at dog clubs, including purebred dog clubs. She has assembled three decades of data on canine diseases both genetic and infectious. She operates a canine blood bank, Hemopet, and has published research on vaccination, thyroid disease, and other topics related to hematology. She is famous in the dog world for doing vaccine titer testing at a very reasonable price, as well as thyroid testing, and then getting on the phone with the dog owner to discuss the test results. Believe me, that kind of access is not typical.

Dr. Dodds is certainly no stranger to controversy. Some of her research leads to nothing much more than raised eyebrows among the veterinary community, while in other areas she’s regularly published and quoted even by skeptics. Some vets find her “too alternative” while most alternative vets find her not “holistic” enough. (more…)

So I’m innocently working away in my office when the phone rings. It’s Jeff Barringer, who runs PetHobbyist.com, where I’m an editor.

“Well,” he said, “the feds have done it this time. They’ve written a law that bans cats.”

Jeff tends to exaggerate, so I just laughed. “Yeah?”

“And cows,” he responded. “And I guess parrots, too. Snakes. Horses. And I don’t know, are dogs a native species?”

He had my attention. “What are you talking about?’

It turns out he was talking about a proposed piece of federal legislation known as H.R. 6311, written by House Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam). I’m sure she didn’t mean it this way, but she managed to write a bill that seems to threaten the continued existence of most of the domesticated species of animal in America.

Known as the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, if passed the bill would create two lists onto which every species of animal on the planet would be placed, excepting only those species native to the United States. On one list, the so-called white list, would be species that had been proven not to “negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species’ health.”

On the black list would be all other species — as in, literally, every other species on the planet — and no such animals could be imported into this country. (more…)

The news that a judge had trimmed the amount put into trust to care for the dog of the late billionaire Leona Helmsley from $12 million to paltry $2 million was immediately overshadowed by a little tidbit that immediately got every big non-profit animal-advocacy group in the country salivating in their conference rooms:

The bulk of the Helmsley estate is to go to the dogs. Well, maybe. From the New York Times:

Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.

It is by no means clear, however, that all the money will go to dogs. Another provision of the mission statement says Mrs. Helmsley’s trustees may use their discretion in distributing the money, and some lawyers say the statement may not mean much anyway, given that its directions were not incorporated into Mrs. Helmsley’s will or the trust documents.

As HSUS top dog Wayne Pacelle points out, this

[...] would represent the largest investment in animal protection in U.S. history. Currently, the largest foundation for animals, Maddie’s Fund, has assets of $300 million. There are many smaller foundations, but in the aggregate, their holdings do not approach the size of the Helmsley fortune.

If her estate is put to use in a way that is consistent with her instructions, a total of $8 billion would result in $400 million flowing to the cause of dog protection per year (if the standard five percent of the corpus is allocated each year).

Assuming the trustees do set up some sort of Maddie’s Fund organization to help dogs (too bad Helmsley apparently didn’t like cats, because the need is in many ways even more dire with them), I would like to see some out of the box thinking, not just a hunk of billions sitting in a trust funding more of what we already do, just at a higher price level.

If the money becomes available, I don’t want it to go to any established national group. None of them. They have money, goals and programs already. Let them go on with them.

What I would like to see it a new organization with an entirely new approach. Like Maddie’s Fund, on steroids. I would like to see a group that doesn’t preach, doesn’t punish and doesn’t try to fix after the fact, but rather starts upsteam, identifies situations that will become problems and prevents them before they do. This must be done with respect for the people who can be helped to help dogs, not with the judgmentalism and arrogant superiority of the “we know better” mind-set that’s all too common animal-advocacy groups large and small.

Too often our animal-advocacy groups decide on the message they want and deliver it in the way that makes sense to them and their donors. People who aren’t reached by these methods are considered “stupid,” “poor,” or “bad” — the latter used as a rationale to punish them with laws and their animals with death in shelters.

To me, this long-accepted strategy of preaching to the donor choir misses the mark by a mile, because it never acknowledges that:

• Most people want to do what’s right for their pets, but many who struggle resent being told what to do by a movement that’s mostly middle-class, white and female. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
• Most people will do what’s right for their pets, if you help them without making it seem like you’re judging them or talking down to them.

So, here’s what I would do with a big chunk of the money and that new organization:

Look at what BadRap has done in some of the toughest, most challenged neighborhoods in the country. They haven’t gone in and told people what to do and how bad they are. They’ve gone in and offered help, and asked people what help they needed:

At our recent Richmond based Free Shots Fair, BR volunteers David & Mary asked Richmond residents for suggestions for improvements that would help pet owners in Contra Costa County. The tape quality is a little ruff, but some of the quotes are great.

What do urban pet owners want? - The same as everyone, everywhere: More accessible vet care, more responsive animal control, more options for exercising pets, more training and education.

You never know until you ask…

Problem is, few ever ask. We see a tough-looking kid walking down the street with a pit bull on a chain and we assume he’s a Michael Vick wannabe, a total write-off. Or we assume people who are selling puppies in front of the big box store are doing it to pick up some cash to buy meth, not because they didn’t have the money to spay their girl or the transportation to get her to a clinic.

Start with a fact-finding force to:

• Find out what how we can help pet-lovers who can’t always help themselves. What, exactly, do they need in terms of services and supplies and how can we get those to them?
• Find out how to communicate on their terms, without coercion, arrogance or derision on the part of the people who are providing those goods and services.
• Find out how to deliver these basics, especially spaying and neutering services, in a way pet-lovers can really use and feel good about. No one likes to feel like a charity case.

For example, don’t offer reduced-cost spay-neuter services (with vouchers to limited-hours clinics they can’t get to because they can’t take a pet on the bus), but bring free mobile veterinary clinics into the neighborhoods and take care of pets no questions asked. And when you get your dog or cat altered, not only is it free, but you get some pet supplies and food to take with you. Some programs even pay people who have their pet altered. We all want more of that, so why not offer a cash incentive, if that works (and it has shown to)?

Treat people like valued customers, in however many languages it takes. Thank you for your business, sir! We’re glad you’re here, ma’am! And yes, that is a mighty cute little puppy! How can we help? Can we show you how to stop your puppy from pulling on the leash? Yes, we DO have a database of housing with pets accepted! And yes, we WILL guarantee your pet deposit with the landlord.

Make the environment of providing services and goods such that people can find out more information easily and in the way they want to get it. They should not be lectured about what you think they should do. Ask what other barriers to responsible pet care they are dealing with …. and help them get over those barriers, too. And remember: Cut people a little slack. Everyone isn’t coming from where you are, and everyone — even people who love their dogs — doesn’t believe a dog belongs on the bed … in the kitchen … or even (gasp!) in the house.

Back to BadRap, which is truly the most innovative organization I’ve seen in the animal world:

In digging around the Net, it seems that Responsible Owner materials offered in Spanish are either hard to find or sorta preachy, so I updated our Great Owners = Great Dogs poster in hopes that it helps makes a difference to somebody. The blurb in red reads:

Important! Dogs that live on chains can become frustrated and dangerous. Do not allow children near dogs that live on chains.

If I were one of the Hemsley trustees, I would so ask the BAD RAP people to be on the Board of Directors. The work they have done continues to defy all history, “common wisdom” and expectations.

This kind of money really can change the world, for dogs and (whether Hemsley wanted it so or not, and it seems apparent she did not) for people whose lives can be changed for the better by an association with animals that’s based on love, care and respect. This is especially true of children, because they more than anyone are who need the help, to break these cycles that frustrate us all.

Let’s get these dogs what they need, and in so doing help people gain the many, long-established benefits of pet-ownership.

Please, Helmley trustees, don’t take that money and do more of the same, putting in place people who pat themselves on the back while looking down their noses at the people who don’t do things the way they want them to. Look at what the innovators are doing to change perceptions and let’s do more of it, from coast to coast. I’m sure the folks at BadRAP would be happy to help, as would any number of leaders in the no-kill movement, people who really are looking at what we do and asking if that’s the only way to do it.

Don’t make it just about the top down. When you want to know what works and what people need, don’t assume … ask them.

By the way, I have a suggestion for the name of this new group: Here Comes Trouble. Because Trouble is the name of the Helmsley dog, of course, and because a group with money that ignores the status quo will be nothing BUT trouble for the old guard. And hooray for that.

Elswhere: Lots of good stuff I keep meaning to point out. Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly stands her ground when people insist that she sign a health certificate on deadline to put a dog on a risky flight … and then when she refused, the people have the gall to try to shake her down for the cost of the flight they missed. … Terrierman gets snarky at the AKC, yes, again, but it always has entertainment value and more than a few valid points … Nancy Freedman-Smith goes green with dog hair. … Best in Flock offers good advice about screaming parrots. (Yes, Eddie, I hear ya. The neighbors two blocks away hear ya, too.) … Nathan Winograd waves a red cape in front of PETA’s lawyers. … Yes, Biscuit! follows up on the moron mayor who thought the answer to an unadequate animal shelter was to turn the dogs loose in a national forest. (By the way, for a place no one has ever heard of, West Helena, Ark., has sure been in the news a lot lately, including for a new book about a massacre there in 1919.)

Remember we are shutting down the blog for the holiday weekend, so make your plans accordingly.