blog dogs informations

California’s “Hayden Law”, enacted in 1998, extended the mandatory holding period for shelter animals from 72 hours to four to six business days. It encouraged shelters to work proactively to place animals and reduce euthanasia rates. The provisions of the Hayden law have been loosely adhered to over the past decade and a half, and this has resulted in great improvements in shelter practices in the State of California. Because this extended hold is a statewide mandate, the state must reimburse local shelters for their costs.



California is just plain flat broke, and for the past few years hasn’t had the money to reimburse shelters the $23 million dollars per year it owes them under Hayden. But besides just plain not having the money to fund this mandate, another problems is the fact that the state reimbursement is only paid to shelters for animals who are ultimately killed. Those animals reclaimed by their owners, sent to rescues or placed for adoption must have their impound expenses paid for by the agencies or individuals who take them from the shelter, and not by the state. Shelters may not be as proactive as necessary because they will, in theory at least, receive reimbursement for animals that are killed. Laws with good intention often come with unintended consequences, and the Hayden law is no exception, as it has served as a disincentive for adoption.


Most shelters currently hold dogs and cats much longer than the prescribed four to six days anyhow, and even if the Hayden law is repealed in whole or in part, shelters would most certainly not be REQUIRED to kill in three days. They can continue with their current best practices and techniques. Adoptions and numbers of pets sent out to rescues are at an all-time high. No one wants to kill, we hear from the shelters.

Los Angeles County holds animals for an average of eleven days, and the City of Los Angeles holds them for an average of nine days. Well beyond any state legal requirement. Since there has been no state reimbursement since 2009, there will be no real substantive change in conditions with a repeal of the reimbursement mandate. The law will just be altered to reflect the reality of the state’s inability to fund local shelters.


Besides, there are plenty of other action, progressive actions, that could be taken to reduce the burden on animal shelters.


Here are just a few that could help:


• Raise the limit on the number of dogs someone can own. Why is "3" a magic number – especially if they’re small?


• Stop raiding places where the dogs are fine. Stop confiscating dogs from kennels where the dogs aren’t sick, in danger, or dying. Then there wouldn’t BE so many in the shelters. OH – and if there’s NO ROOM at the shelter, then don’t confiscate what you can’t take care of!


• Start doing a better job of identifying what breed the animals in shelters belong to - THEN maybe they’ll be placed in appropriate rescue groups, or sold to people who will know what to expect when it comes to behavior – and the boomerang effect will be broken.


• How about lowering the price of shelter dogs and dog licenses – so people can AFFORD to own one.


• Stop the 2-tiered fee scam which requires a higher license fee for intact animals. Most of the owned dogs and cats in our state have already been castrated anyhow. But there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that intact owned animals are any more a burden on society than sterilized ones.


• Stray or feral animals are the ones who are problematic, but they don’t have OWNERS to sterilize them. Feral cats comprise the majority of intakes and deaths. Trap-neuter and release of feral cats is a proven solution that few animal control departments use. I guess it’s easier to continue to blame animal owners for all the animals out there who don’t have owners.


• Stop the exaggerations about the numbers of dogs that are pure-bred. Many shelter workers have personally told me, and I’ve seen it, that there are VERY few. The ads/promos make it sound like the shelter has ALL the breeds, just come and get one. People go looking for a pure-bred – and they’re not there. There are many excellent reasons for purebreds – including some idea of personality, size, and behavior – not to mention benefits of specific breeds for people with allergies.


• Provide incentives for apartment owners to allow pets.


• Picked up a stray with a license or a valid microchip? Give it a free ride home. Stop charging up the ying-yang with outrageous impound fees so high that people can’t afford to bail their pet out.


• Stop the mass importation of stray dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, the Caribbean, Spain, Brazil, etc. Shelters and rescues import thousands every year.


• Make the shelters report legitimate numbers – and NOT count the dogs multiple times, NOT count those who are Dead On Arrival, and NOT count the ones brought in at the end of their lives for a merciful death.


• Take the funds that encourage illegal aliens to take up residence and live in comfort and distribute them to the shelter system instead.


• Stop making it more profitable for the shelters to kill than to rescue. Hey – make them WORK with rescue groups.


• Stop the unionization of the shelter workers. No union will EVER agree to a reduction in their work force or anything that might affect their job security.


• FINALLY – HSUS, PETA and other sham organizations could give some of their ill-gotten SCAM monies to our shelters.


• Just STOP making laws that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to own a pet.


Our legislators should be able to come up with many more ideas – that are NOT onerous to pet-owners, that encourage people to have pets, and that would shrink the shelter population.

(Thank you Carol Hamilton for all these great suggestions!)

The Boston Globe - Editorial



"Dog show: Canine 1 percenters only"


February 15, 2012


For those who know the world of dog competitions mainly through the 2000 comedy film “Best in Show,’’ it’s all too easy to dismiss the humans in this world as obsessive fussbudgets who’ve lost track of the bigger picture. The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show surely hasn’t dispelled that image with its decision to part ways with its former sponsor, Pedigree, over the pet food brand’s ads urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs.


Those Pedigree ads were powerful, featuring noble-looking canines and a somber voice-over urging viewers to adopt shelter dogs, not pity them. This was too much of a downer for the kennel club. “Show me an ad with a dog with a smile,’’ a kennel club spokesman told the Associated Press. “Don’t try to shame me.’’ Sure enough, the ads on this week’s broadcast, from competitor Purina, have been far more upbeat.


The kennel club is free to accept whichever sponsors it chooses. But a dog show - one billed, no less, as a celebration of dogs - is the best possible forum to urge the adoption of shelter animals. Instead, the kennel club’s stance only highlights the disconnect between the plight of millions of mutts and the bizarrely cosseted existence of canine 1 percenters.

Response -

PEDIGREE AND WESTMINSTER


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
letters - dog show hounded by controversy


February 23, 2012


RE “DOG show: Canine 1 percenters only’’ (Editorial, Feb. 15): The Globe mocks those who enjoy showing their dogs as a hobby, yet remains stone silent on the hypocrisy of the animal rights groups, whose shelter ads only serve to inflame public ill will toward dog show participants.


That “somber voice-over’’ in the Pedigree commercial belongs to David Duchovny, an animal rights extremist and supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA attempted to interrupt this year’s Westminster dog show with with a stage-grabbing protest, like a similar protest two years ago. Thankfully, they were held back this time by security. The American Humane Association, a co-sponsor of the Pedigree adoption drive, is also a fanatical anti-breeding animal rights organization.


We are fed up with so-called animal rights groups. PETA euthanizes dogs by the thousands at their Virginia “shelter”, as do other animal rights groups through their promotion of anti-animal ownership legislation.


Breeders, on the other hand, do not suffer from any “disconnect’’ from shelter animals. We rescue and re-home thousands of dogs every year through breed rescue efforts. We support the Canine Health Foundation, which helps improve the lives of all dogs, whether purebred or mixed breed. Who are the animal rights groups to dare lecture the rest of us on how “unlucky’’ shelter dogs are, compared to the dogs who have the spotlight?


Animal rights groups should not be allowed advertising spots to heap scorn and derision on dog hobbyists.

Geneva Coats


PETA – “BREEDERS KILL DOGS”


February 26, 2012


IT’S DISINGENUOUS for letter writer Geneva Coats to criticize those who must perform the thankless, heartbreaking task of euthanizing homeless and suffering animals when the purebred dog-breeding industry she supports directly contributes to the need to do so ( “Breeders aren’t the problem; PETA is the problem,’’ Letters, Feb. 23).

The Westminster dog show is well aware of its role in the animal
homelessness crisis, which is undoubtedly why it blocked commercials
urging viewers to adopt homeless dogs for being too sad. Sad indeed:
thousands of healthy dogs are waiting behind bars in shelters at this
very minute. Their lives depend on being adopted, yet breeders continue to churn out litters of puppies, in hopes of making profits or winning ribbons. Every time someone buys an animal from a breeder, a dog or cat in a shelter loses her chance at a home and will pay with her life.

Breeding may be a hobby for people like Coats, but for dogs waiting in
shelters, it is a death sentence. If breeders really cared about
animals, they would stop bringing more of them into a world that is
tragically short of good homes and work to promote spaying, neutering, and adoption instead.


Daphna Nachminovitch
Vice president,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, Va.

“RESCUE”


I started doing what is now called “rescue” in 1981. Not because I set out to save the world one dog at a time but because I was taught it is what you do for your breed. We didn’t call it by the dramatic name of “rescue”. We called it “helping out”, “doing what is right for the breed”, rehoming. There was no need to run around squawking about what a “horrible situation” the dog had been “rescued” from – just take the dog and find the dog a new home. Proclaiming loudly about “abusers” and “hoarders” to raise funds wasn’t done. We found the money and did for the dog. Even as a kid I knew that life is what happens while we are making plans and sometimes bad things happen even to good people. I think we are all aware there are the Vick type monsters out there but I really believe enough in the goodness of mankind that I believe Vick types are the exception NOT the rule. Just my opinion, I guess but also my hope for mankind.


The first dog I took in was a sheltie found by my vet in bad shape, wandering a small town, grazing from dumpsters and handouts. Her nails were too long, her coat matted and she had stiches in her belly that my vet felt indicated a c-section, possibly involving a spay. We assumed that she had been in some kind of breeding facility and maybe dumped after her usefulness was ended. We checked to see if she was simply an escapee but no one claimed her. My vet and I, cleaned her up, vetted her, cut her nails and found her a new home. She showed no signs of “abuse”, just some neglect and some of that could have occurred while on her wanderings. I placed her with a young family who had a farm and she lived out the rest of her life as a very happy farm dog not even taking very long to adapt so you have to wonder.


I tried at the time to get my club involved in setting up some kind of program to deal with rehoming but they weren’t interested. They just told me that the “good breeders” would take theirs back and anything else wasn’t their problem. Fortunately things have changed greatly since then and that club had an active “rescue” program the last time I checked.


I have stayed quietly involved with “rescue” from the sidelines ever since that first dog, mostly just holding a dog for a few days, transporting or picking up a dog for a rescue, passing on information, educating new owners, doing some home visits and evaluating dogs. Small things that I felt I could help with but not going full bore into “rescue”. I don’t go around bragging about what I do because I feel it is what I owe my breed, not something I accomplish.


I also don’t put down the owners of dogs coming into rescue FOR ANY REASON. First of all, I don’t know the whole story of that person’s life. I only see part of it. There are a lot of reasons in this world that someone’s life changes and frequently giving up a dog is a part of it. It may be a very difficult part but still necessary, and sometimes it is the best thing for the dog as well as the owner.


I had to give up my dogs when my husband got sued years ago. I had no choice. It was feed my kids or feed the dogs. It was rough, especially when my son had to give up his golden because we were moving into an apartment that wouldn’t take a large dog. The apartment was all we could afford at the time. I was lucky enough to have the resources to place my dogs myself. Not many people do. The golden went to my boss and a year later saved his 5 year old daughter’s life. Needless to say, that dog had a good life with that family. I cried a few tears and thanked God that the dog was in the right place.


To me that is what “rehoming” is about – the right place for the dog. Not “glory” for me as a hero for “rescue”, not shame for someone who gives up or loses their dog for whatever reason. It’s about God given compassion for the dog and God given charity for the owners. Because every time I see some story about dogs taken from an “abuser” or a “hoarder” I know that with the political climate what it is today thanks to the animal “rights” extremists – there but for the Grace of God, go I. There are too many whackos out there that believe that keeping dogs as DOGS is abuse and that no human is good enough to own a dog. And there are too many “rescuers” who feed into that mind set with their screaming pleas for help and money for the dogs that have been “rescued” from some abuser or hoarder.


I am always happy to do what is right for my breed and help in any way I can with the placement of a dog but I won’t do it at the expense of a human being. And when a “rescue” starts squealing about “hoarders” and “abusers”, I simply step away. It’s not necessary to denigrate another human being in order to help a dog. Just do what is right for the dog and let God take care of the rest.






Elizabeth Brinkley, MFA in Theatre,
Legislative Liaison TRSSCGP
Dante Kennels, est. 1974, Latrobe, PA
AKC Breeder of Merit
http://www.dantekennels.com/
Member - ASSA, TRSSCGP, WCOTC, OHA


"When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty." T. Jefferson

"One of the greatest delusions of the world is the HOPE that the EVILS of this world are to be CURED BY LEGISLATION. " Thomas B. Reed 1886