Hence the happy cha-chinging of IEAH Stables’ Michael Iavarone, who even after 10 days of angry international criticism of breeding practices and more following the death of Eight Belles at the Kentucky Derby, was clueless enough to crow to the Bloodhorse that the Derby winner Big Brown — you know, the one with bad feet? — would be retired to stud after his campaign as a 3-year-old:

Speaking at a post-post position draw press conference for the second jewel of the Triple Crown, IEAH Stables’ Michael Iavarone said the chances of Big Brown running as a 4-year-old were “none.”

Yeah, that’s right. Make your money and get him to the breeding shed before the horse can’t run anymore. Heaven forbid he get a chance to show what he can do as a mature horse, or even prove that he can last that long.

Anyone who doubted that money and nothing but money was the goal all along? Here’s more from Iavarone:

“I bought him as a ‘dirt’ horse’,” Iavarone said. “I knew he could run on the turf, but I knew I couldn’t make back the money running him on the turf.”

A horse with bad feet who has run in only four races but will be passing along God knows what to his offspring. A trainer with a shady past. And an ownership syndicate run by an investment banker who wants to build a horse hedge fund. (Read the profile on the IEAH’s own Web site and let me know if you get any sense at all that this man gives a rat’s ass about any horse. Not a mention of anything but return on investment.)

Suddenly, I feel dirty. I think I will take a shower now.

Don’t watch the Preakness this Saturday, and take the time to tell the network and the sponsors why you are not. Horse racing must reform, for the safety of the horses and the jockeys. It’s a business, but it doesn’t have to be a heartless one. There are plenty of people in racing who truly do care. Help them work the inside by working the outside.

Bah to the Big Brown team (and their UPS marketing deal, too, more cha-ching).

Related: The most dominant sire in recent times, Storm Cat (pictured above) has just been retired from stud duty. His record for money-making off the track is remarkable, but his racing stats aren’t: Six races as a 2-year-old and two races as a 3-year-old, with only one graded stakes win. I wrote about him, and his mother Terlingua, just before the Derby, here.

As I reported yesterday, FDA will continue to accept public comments until June 13, so it’s not too late to let them know what’s on your mind. And even if you think you already did, do it again, because there are reports coming in from all over that people’s comments aren’t being included. Perhaps it’s because there was a mid-process docket number change. Perhaps it’s because there was some kind of problem with the website where Internet users could leave their comments. Perhaps, as someone suggested over on Eddie’s blog, it’s because there is some kind of arcane requirement that you have to opt in to having your comment made public.

If you haven’t commented, do it now. And even if you already think you commented, go here, and if you don’t see your comment, do it again. How?

First, go here.

There is a line that says “Meeting Being Planned to Obtain Public Input for Ensuring the Safety of Pet Food,” dated January 7, 2008. At the far right on that same line, there is a little yellow button in the “Add Comments” column. Click on it.

Use the new docket number: FDA-2007-N-0442.

Be sure to indicate your comment is intended for public viewing.

Don’t trust the Interwebz?

Send written comment submissions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Don’t forget to include the docket number: FDA-2007-N-0442. Tell them you want your comment to be public.

If you have submitted a comment and don’t see it on the website, you can call 301-827-6860 and ask to have it scanned.

And let us know here if you have any trouble getting your comments to the FDA. Encourage your friends to respond as well. Remember, FDA got more phone calls and complaints about the pet food recall than on any other issue in their history. Don’t let them think we don’t care.

Here’s wishing for relief for the people dealing with an earthquake that has killed thousands in China. I mentioned Doctors Without Borders earlier this week; how about helping Oxfam now?

We’ve had our issues. When he reached sexual maturity, he decided I was his mate, and that I wasn’t behaving as he expected me to. That led to tantrums, biting (him, not me) and “marriage counseling” with my “Birds For Dummies” co-author, avian specialist Dr. Brian Speer (pictured with Eddie), who is one of only a handful of veterinarians certified in avian medicine in both North America and Europe. More importantly, Brian’s a funny guy and a great communicator.

Anyway, Eddie and I worked through our issues with Brian’s help, with me being very careful to handle Eddie in a gentle, confident way that reinforced the idea that I wasn’t the missus, but rather the boss. Also, lots of trick training, which is not only fun — and dead-on easy for the genius of a parrot — but also again gets things right in the avian mind. Oh! Her? Nah, she’s the boss. Pretty easy boss, but still.

Pretty smooth sailing ever since, for the most part. Now and again, we have flare-ups of nasty behavior. But that’s life with a parrot, which is really like living with a three-year-old. Parrots can be sensible, snuggly and focused one minute, and throwing a screaming tantrum the next. Although in all fairness, he really gets snotty only when I get busy and he doesn’t get as much time as he deserves. (Yeah, I have parrot guilt at such times.)

Aside from his issues, Eddie is darned entertaining. Caiques aren’t known for talking, but he manages a couple of phrases. Most commonly: “What are you doing?” Most endearingly, he whistles “Here she is, Miss America!” when I come into the house. (Yes, I know I should be embarrassed to admit I taught him that. I’m not.) He also does the Florida State war chant, although in a wimpy whistled version that would never strike fear into the heart of any UofFlorida Gator.

The morning, Eddie is truly on the war path. Why? Because last night he got his toenail caught in toy.

I had to wrap him in a towel, spend a few minutes trying to disentangle him, cut off the toy and finally realize that his nail was so jammed into the jingle bell inside that there was nothing to do but cut the nail off, cutting well back into the quick. Yes, I know that hurt. Lots. Bloody, too. The dogs and cats ran from the room, because Eddie was screaming, first in pain and then in righteous anger. Fortunately for my own safety, he was so snuggly wrapped so he couldn’t return the favor by drawing blood from me. Ohhh, though he wanted to!

He’s fine this morning, eating well. I know his foot hurts. And I can tell he’s still itching to make me hurt.

This is going to take some time to resolve.

Sorry, Eddie. I had to do it, unless you really wanted to go through life with a toy on your foot.

Last year, PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2006 (containing its official “kill” numbers) didn’t show up on the website of Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) until nine months after it was supposed to. So this year, we pressed the issue. And in response to our written public-records request, VDACS delivered the goods. PETA’s 2007 “Animal Record” still isn’t available online through the Virginia government, but we’re making it available today at PetaKillsAnimals.com.

Here’s what the report shows. Not including the animals PETA spayed and neutered, the group had possession of 1,997 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” in 2007. And PETA — which professes a belief that animals should never be slaughtered for food, used for medical research, or killed for clothing, nonetheless put 90.9 percent of them to death at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. And despite its official status as a “humane society” and a pet “releasing agency” in Virginia, PETA found adoptive homes for only 17 animals all year. Just 17.

Look. I’m not donating money to the Center for Consumer Freedom, 501(c)3 status or no. But a lot of people who donate money to PETA would be surprised to read the state of Virginia report. Which means they need to see the state of Virginia report and make up their own minds about what it means.  

PETA, by the way, doesn’t seem to like this information being shared. They have argued that the animals they kill  are not “in search of new homes” but rather were so unadoptable that being killed was the only kind solution for them. 

They have, incidentally, threatened to sue people who say otherwise. Except, well, the state of Virginia has pointed out to them — in a letter, copy and explanation here – that the law requires them to report animals taken in “for the purpose of adoption.”

I’ve make it clear that I believe PETA has a right to advocate for animal rights. I’ve also made it clear that I don’t agree with their point of view, which, if taken to its simple, logical conclusion, would mean the extinction of nearly all domestic animals, pets included.

If someone agrees with that position, that’s their right. I just want to make sure people  know what they’re supporting before they send a check to any advocacy group.

As we wrote earlier this year, FDA is looking for pet food owner input on this matter prior to the meeting, and will also accept comments until June 13.

Here’s where it gets a bit tricky, however.

There has been a docket number change (new docket number is FDA-2007-N-0442), and I was not able to get a definite confirmation as to whether or not comments submitted under the old docket number (2007N-0487) are being included. Also, FDA had some problems with its online comment system.

If you submitted a comment, you can check to see if it was received here. There are currently only 23 comments listed.

I contacted FDA, and was told that if someone submitted a comment and doesn’t see it, they need to call the “reading room” and ask to have it scanned. The number is 301-827-6860.

If you want to submit a comment, it’s not easy. I know my way around the Interwebs pretty well, and it took me, oh, an hour to figure it out. But now that I’ve done that, I have a little map for you to follow.

First, go here.

There is a line that says “Meeting Being Planned to Obtain Public Input for Ensuring the Safety of Pet Food,” dated January 7, 2008. At the far right on that same line, there is a little yellow button in the “Add Comments” column. Click on it.

What is the meeting intended to cover? You can read the whole announcement here, but it’s pretty hard to slog through. Notice that the first part is aimed not at the general public but more at industry and regulatory agencies, and there’s also discussion of a second meeting about animal feed regulation on May 14. All of that is coverered before you get to the part on pet food and the kind of input they’re looking for.

Section A basically sets forth the proposal to make the labeling and other requirements of pet food match not human food, but animal feed:

(B)ecause pet food is well-integrated into the overall animal foods and feeds industry, FDA is concerned that certain new requirements, if limited to pet food only, would be impractical to implement, difficult to enforce, and would not effectively provide the safety enhancements intended by FDAAA. Furthermore, because the standards mandated by FDAAA do not currently exist for any animal food or feed, limiting new requirements to pet food only would fail to address the broader food safety concerns associated with food intended for other animal species, particularly food-producing animals.

FDA is interested in obtaining input from interested stakeholders and the public as to whether the ingredient standards and definitions and processing standards should be developed for all animal feeds. There appears to be little or no difference between ingredients intended for use in pet foods and those intended for use in other animal foods and feeds. Therefore, the agency believes the most appropriate course of action is to develop ingredient standards and definitions and processing standards for all animal feeds, including pet food. FDA believes that such an approach would more effectively carry out the safety objectives of FDAAA, and the broader human food safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

I can now see every rancher and agribusiness interest in the country going excuse me, what? We’re supposed to label livestock feed the same way some latte-sippin’ liberal out in California needs to have their organic teacup poodle chow from Whole Foods Market labeled? Say what? Talk about de-fanging this whole proposal before it’s even in its final form.

When you get to Section B, where the considerations are actually spelled out, including things like nutritional labeling similar to what’s on human food packaging, it’s easy to see how rolling this into an animal feed regulation is going to seriously dilute what can be done to improve pet food labeling. You tell me what you think the chances are that we’re going to see livestock feed labeling issues like these be taken seriously?

1. How could the nutritional information (e.g., guaranteed analysis, nutritional adequacy statements/life-stage claims) already present on pet food labels be improved?

2. How could the ingredient information already present on pet food labels (i.e., the ingredient list) be improved?

3. How could the current feeding instructions/recommendations section already present on pet food labels be improved?

4. Should feeding recommendations be required on the labels for all types of pet food?

5. Should a Nutrition Facts box, similar to the format that appears on human food labels, replace the current Guaranteed Analysis that currently appears on pet food labels? If so, how could this Nutrition Facts box be made to clearly distinguish it from human food labeling?

6. What other information should be required on pet food labels that is not generally present on pet food products sold in the United States?

7. Are there existing state laws, regulations, guidelines, or other models that FDA should consider when drafting the proposed pet food labeling?

In case anyone’s keeping track, I am adamantly in favor of a “yes” answer to number 5. There’s no consumer-benefiting reason to use the “guaranteed analysis,” which you need a calculator to get any useful information from, instead of the simple calories per serving, serving size, calcium/fat/protein/carbohydrate per gram, and other useful, easy-to-understand facts that human food is required to include. It serves only an industry that wants leeway in what it includes in the food from batch to batch to do it the other way. It’s not acceptable to me as a consumer.

And I can’t even begin to understand why the box needs to “clearly distinguish it from human food labeling.” Huh? I don’t know, put “PET FOOD NUTRITIONAL LABEL” on it?

Section C discusses issues related to standardized ingredient definitions.

Section D returns to a discussion of combining regulation of pet food with regulation of animal feed. The basic description of animal feed systems is here, and while it’s extremely vague, it’s easy to see that simply writing one standard for both is going to make any kind of meaningful consumer reform of pet food labeling and processing far more difficult both to write and to “sell.”

Please let us know if you submitted a comment, if it’s showing up on the comments page, and your thoughts on these proposed changes.

We’ve watched large, wealthy national animal groups lay on the “yeah but …” excuses for why no kill won’t work while failing to get off their own wealthy butts to push for shelter reform — with some groups actively working against it.

One of those “yeah buts … ” you hear all the time involves pit bulls, which may in all their incarnations (AmStaffs, Staffordshires, AMPT, pit mix, etc., etc.) be the No. 1 breed in the country and certainly seem to be the No. 1 breed in the shelters. And the pit bull “yeah, but …”? Here it comes:

“Yeah, but … maybe no kill would work if all we had to place were fuzzy, floppy-eared little poodle mixes, but pit bulls? Hopeless. We just gotta kill them, because even if they were safe, nobody wants them. Except the people who do want them, who will use them for bad things.”

Or so the story goes.

Well, guess what? When a community works together to take on a pet placement problem, even one as challenging as the breed with the worst PR ever, change can happen. From the BAD RAP blog:

Ten years ago, the 60 runs at open-admission Berkeley Animal Care Services were depressingly full, sometimes doubled up, and staff was forced to euthanize for space…up to 600 dogs a year. But in 2007, the number of dog euthanasias was down 90%, with only 50 dogs put to sleep. Check it: BACS Stats

Since last summer, the number of dogs coming in to BACS has dropped so much that almost one half of the runs are now consistently EMPTY. Last week, an all time low with 34 empty runs. It’s almost too quiet in there! What’s going on? We have to credit a combination of efforts: Successful Marketing of Shelter Dogs, Owner Education including Free Training, Volunteerism, Rescue and Voluntary Spay/Neuter Programs. In short: The community kicked ass to make some changes.

Go read. I gotta tell you, it made my whole weekend. Bully to you, BAD RAP. Bully, I say.

More: Tip of the hat (again) to BAD RAP for pointing out this piece on Caveat, who completely dismantles some of the “yeah, but …” crap on “pit bulls,” this bit put out by the head of a municipal animal control agency. Arrrrgghhhhhhh!

The next drawing is June 1. All you have to do to be eligible is be a subscriber to our free e-mail newsletter.

Check out the goodies:

• RapidBath Pet Bathing System
• 1-yr supply of RapidBath shampoo (18 cartridges)
• Paw Monster
• Golden A5 Heavy Duty Clipper
• Nail Grinder
• Odor Grabber Deluxe
• 1-yr supply of Odor Grabber replacement filters (6 filters)
• Oster Shedding rakes (set of 3)

All that, PLUS a $500 PetSmart Gift Card

Shipping within the continental United States is included in the deal, but not in the retail value.

What are you waiting for? All you need do to be eligible is sign up for the free e-newsletter. Click here to get started.

No big blog post from me today: I gotta write for deadlines, big-time. The fall books are due to the publisher … May 25.

OMG OMG OMG.

Actually, we’re in good shape, but still … May 25.

Maybe Christie or Kim will jump in today with some good reading. I’m not even going to look in here today (well, maybe once or twice, heh). In the meantime … I’m sharing this picture I took last night of Ilario catching a bug.

By the way, Clara is now allowing him within a foot of her before she moves away. Hasn’t hissed at him for a week. It’s just a matter of time before she gives up and decides she likes him. What’s not to like?

It’s a soap opera around here, I swear, with the animals playing all the characters.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone would choose to live without pets. But then, I’m a pet-care writer, so what do I know?

Please share links to any good reading you find.