Archive for May, 2007
Dog Food, What About it?
I was recently reading some web post with people whimpering about all the injustices done regarding laws and products available to the dog owners of the world. One comment was posted by a lady from England in which she bemoaned that the dog food companies put ashes in the food. She couldn’t be more wrong, and that inspired me to think about the subject for this blog.
And wouldn’t you know it, I found that even I am out of date on some things. And no, they still do not put ashes in dog food.
Let us settle that misconception of old. It is of old, because the labelling of dog food containers has changed, and to the better as now no one will be led to believe that ashes are in the food. Here is the old story:
There is a basic analysis section of the food contined within the bag. It is usually indicated by a square shape and lists things like crude protein, fat, moisture, etc. It used to have a listing for ash content, which was required and terribly misleading. My current bags from two different manufacturers do not have such a listing. But what if it did, and what did that listing of yesteryear mean?
Previous measurements of dog food contents tried to be accurate and inclusive. However, there are some contents that exist in immeasurable quantities under most circumstances. While moisture, fat and crude protein are measureable, some of the minerals, especially those that are not specifically added, are not readily defineable. For this reason and because they are somewhat important, some measure of these minerals was deemed important. And how do you measure overall mineral content? You burn a measured amount of the product and the ashes left are the unburnable mineral content of that product. Since the amount burned was measured, the measurement of the ashes was expressed as a percentage of the original and printed on the bag, not as mineral content, but as the final form of ash content.
Can you see why the uneducated mind would be led to think the dog food companies were putting ashes in the formula?
Now, for those of you who would like to know more about the food you are feeding your treasured dog, and to keep this blog short, we have two places for you to go and learn a lot. This blog is indeed grateful to the web sites, part one and part two for their research , study and composition of the information.
Please go to:
http://www.doberdogs.com/foodcht1.html and
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-2/Pet-Food.html
In spite of the recent recalls of food because of scurrilous activities by an unscrupulous Chinese business, and probably because of it, I, personally, have great faith and confidence in the pet food manufacturers in the United States. I have seen dog food go from formulas containing ground corn and tomato pomace and little else to some very good recipes that nourish dogs exceedingly well. We have a lot to be thankful for in the system that provides for the competition to excell in the production of finer products and the ability of the people to buy it. You have many very good choices.
AB1634 and the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America:” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The opinions expressed below are done with the expressed power afforded citizens in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America.
California Assembly Bill 1634 is an assault upon 15,000 years of human history, 231 years of American History and 157 years of
California history. During these years the owners of dogs and cats have had all the responsibility and privileges of managing their pets, companions, hunting partners, sentries and working animals lives. Now this bill deems these people insufficient to make and employ their own decisions regarding their own animals. The replacement for owner responsibility is a law by an ignorant non-animal owning lawmaker spurred on by a non-taxpaying organization bent on removing animal ownership as a right of American Citizens. In this law, the power of enforcement is given to non-elected agencies of local government who are not prevented from creating and enforcing even a more stringent law to accomplish the same purpose.
In fact, Article 2, section122336.1 of AB1634 (proposed) establishes a civil penalty of $500.00 for violation and specifically states “this penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or CRIMINAL penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction”. This clearly encourages local jurisdictions to enact more stringent laws, especially including criminal designations, for the purpose of additive punishment, perhaps imprisonment, and larger monetary fines.
Our Fourth Amendment rights come into play in the violation of our right to feel secure in our houses and effects (dogs and cats), secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of those same dogs and cats, when all those years of history and tradition are violated by AB1634. Is it to be deemed reasonable to breech the security and privacy of homes to search for and seize pet animals whose gonads remain intact within their bodies, despite the fact that those very organs are unused for the primary purpose of reproduction? Does mere possession or the thought that such a possession of said animal inspire judges to issue warrants to invade hearth and home and snatch innocent animals from the owner in order for the state to steal their function from the animal and owner alike? Does living in the fear of such occurrence itself violate the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Such fear alone may certainly eliminate the ability to feel secure in both persons and houses.
Fortunately, courts have held that even an unauthorized look over a backyard fence, in the absence of a duly authorized warrant, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Your house extends to your yard. But does this mean that effectively your intact animals, who may not be duly permitted, licensed or otherwise legalized are effectively under “house arrest” for their entire lives? And would you feel secure inyour house under such conditions?
Would some judge consider that suspiscion of harboring such an antisocial animal be adequate to issue a warrant for invading your domicile to seize such an abhorrent creature? Not under most current circumstances, as it is difficult enough for police to get warrants for really criminal acts in enforcing laws to protect us from really dangerous felons. But the meaning of enforcement changes over time, and judges sometimes have their own ideas of protecting the public. Can you always feel secure in your homes with this law in place?
AB1634 is a travesty against human history for as long as man has been peacefully coexisting with and in a symbiotic relationship with dogs, at least for the last 15,000 years. It must be prevented from becoming law, and consuming the domestic tranquility of the State of California.
Do Not Believe Everything You Hear!
Hype always surrounds controversy and AB 1634 is no exception. There has been a rumor circulating that Petco is a sponsor behind AB 1634, the mandatory spay/neuter bill.
This is strictly rumor and nothing more. Petco was contacted today and responded as follows:
Thank you for taking the time to contact PETCO Customer Relations with your concerns about Assembly Bill 1634, the “California Healthy Pets Act.” To clarify, PETCO is not on record supporting this legislation. In fact, we have not taken a formal position on the bill and we do not intend to do so.
We don’t know the source of information mistakenly saying we support AB 1634, but it is incorrect. Please feel free to share this information with others as you see fit, and to pass along to us any source of misinformation so that we may set the record straight.
It is possible that some people may confuse AB 1634 with an unrelated bill that PETCO does support, Assembly Bill 1347, the “Pet Store Animal Care Act.” AB 1347 would improve and clarify standards for care for pet store animals in California. We are actively supporting AB 1347.
Once again, we are not in any way supporting AB 1634. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us again by phone toll free at Customer Relations 1-888-824-7257. We will be more than happy to assist you.
Again, thank you for your concern and for contacting PETCO.
Sincerely, Christina D.
Customer Relations Floor Supervisor
At PETCO, Animals Always Come First… Our People Make it Happen!
Time to have some fun until next effort
Well, Folks, the last weekend was filled with a really fine set of dog shows at the iPay Sports Arena. Friday had a few specialty (one breed) shows sharing the grounds. Saturday found a really smooth all-breed show going great guns. Sunday, another all breed show was pleasantly conducted by Cabrillo Kennel Club. I think all the exhibitors had a good time, and most of the spectators commented favorably. However, the club felt that the site was far too expensive to return there and they are looking to possibly go to the Del Mar Fairgrounds for next year.
Then came the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearings on AB1634 on Wednesday. Ab1634 was passed out of the committee hearing and is headed for debate upon the floor of the entire Assembly. No date is set at present. This was passed despite the oposition outnumbering the proponents at about two to one, and the volume of mail opposition outweinging the proponent mail at about three to one. It is time to weigh in on your side again, as the author of the bill, who has no pets at all, has amended it again and again, trying to cover all the new areas of discontent that keep popping up. Each new version just confuses it more and more. If it does pass, it will take a herd of lawyers to explain it and everybody will be soaked for more taxes, if you can stay out of jail from it.
Meanwhile, let us do have some enjoyable times and go to the next San Diego County dog show. This will be presented by Bahia Sur Kennel Club at the Southwestern College Soccer Field on June 16 and 17. Parking is free, no admission charge, easy access for disabled, plenty of vendors of doggy goodies, devices and gear. Food and restrooms are near and available. The area is usually swept by a genetle breeze which keeps it pleasantly cool. It is June, and that usually means overcast until about 10 or 11 and then the breeze keeps it nice. There will be conformation judging, Junior Showmanship,obedience trials and rally obedience trials. The whole thing starts at 8Am and runs till done, usually about 5PM. Dogs that do not win are released to leave, if they wish. So it is wise to get there as early as possible to get the best selection of the breeds you want to see. And seating is limited, so you might want to bring your own folding chairs.
After the regular championship show on Saturday, there will be an all-breed match. This is a practice show for younger dogs and novice handlers, as well as the more experienced. Dogs as young as three months can participate, and judging is only for conformation. Dogs must be purebred, but their registration need not be noted. Anyone with a purebred dog of a breed recognized by AKC can participate. But you need to sign up before the event, so the paperwork can have you in theright place at the right time. One nice feature is the “Bred by Exhibitor class. This is where the “rubber meets the road” and folks are the proudest of the home bred pups (what AB1634 would abolish).
If you are coming to just watch, and maybe make contact with a breeder, or just shop, we welcome you heartily. If you are coming to make breeder contact, please wait until the person has shown their dog before approaching them. Times get a little tense before showing, and afterward is the best time.
If you are coming to learn about dog shows, there will be tours, conducted by a veteran dog show person. These tours will be announced periodically over the public address system.
Please leave you own dogs at home, unless there is a specific purpose for having them there. Assistance dogs are always welcome, as their behaviour is predictable and needed. AKC rules state that dogs ineligible for entry in the shows are prohibited from being on the showgrounds. This rule simply makes it possible to hold the owners of misbehaving dogs accountable. And it seldom happens that dogs misbehave at dog shows.
Sadly, I must comment that should AB1634 pass, this may be the very last show that is possible for Bahia Sur Kennel Club. The unrealistic requirements placed upon dog owners by that law may drive them out of state or underground to the point they feel that public appearances are too dangerous to attempt.
Bahia Sur Kennel Club is the recipient of the 1995 AKC Outstanding Club Award, presented at a time when there were only four per year awarded. This was earned by giving aid to the Chula Vista Animal Shelter during a time of great stress upon the city. Members donated many materials, appliances, labor, dog food, and services. The spirit of community service has always been a part of Bahia Sur, and will be as long as the club is allowed to exist. It is with a heavy heart that this blogger looks to a possible future without the celebration of beautiful dogs competing for the best in show award on the fine turf at Southwestern College. It will take the combined input of all the citizens of the County of San Diego to voice their opposition to AB1634 to get it defeated in the Assembly and to preserve our traditions of good animal husbandry and sportsmanship in San Diego County. Please do your part and talk to your Assemblyperson.
Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit (crossposted)
http://bluedogstate .blogspot. com:80/
Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit
Lloyd Levine’s mandatory castration proposal could lead to record corporate
profits — pet owners are in the cross hairs.
Has your personal information been databanked ?
Read it and weep, California pet owners. Last week we did a little
speculating on enforcement strategies for Lloyd Levine’s radical proposal to
surgically sterilize every single pet dog and cat in the entire state of California.
But that was then, and this is now. The beat goes on.
The Mother of All Databases is already a reality
PetData Inc., a private corporation in Irving, Texas, already collects
information on law-abiding citizens who happen to own pets. They say they have
already databanked information on 2 million residents in more than 20 U. S.
communities, and four entire counties. Matthews, North Carolina, just joined the
ranks of municipalities contracts with PetData.
Your personal privacy on the auction block
If you live in a community that out sourced animal licensing functions to
PetData, you may not even realize it yet. When you vaccinate your cats and dogs
for rabies, your vet forwards the details to PetData Inc.
Your name, your address, your contact information. And your dog’s, or cat’s,
veterinary information- -including reproductive status. It all goes into
for-profit PetData Inc.’s privately-owned, privately-controlled database.
PetData proudly advertises its membership in the Humane Society of the
United States. It has no corporate privacy policy.
From rabies vaccination to Animal Control at the door –two shakes of a
lamb’s tail!
These California communities already contract with PetData–
a.. Antioch
b.. Dana Point
c.. Fairfield
d.. Oakland
e.. Riverside
f.. San Clemente
g.. San Luis Obispo
h.. Torrance
i.. Vacaville
j.. Vallejo
k.. County of San Luis Obispo
l.. County of Solano
If you live in one of these California municipalities or counties, your
local elected officials struck a deal with PetData. For a modest fee, PetData is
doing the animal licensing enforcement for your community. If you vaccinate
an unlicensed pet, you’re going to hear from PetData.
But it gets better.
PetData can kick back and watch the profits roll in.
Matthews, North Carolina, is paying them $3.75 for each one year license
they collect on.
That’s just the beginning.
Its the aftermarket sales that are going to be most valuable to PetData.
Insurance companies, landlords, breed bigots, pet supply marketers. . .Gonad
Nazis
PetData is building itself one hell of a marketable databank. Not just for
California, either. Check out the website. Albuquerque signed a five year
contract with PetData.
But in a world where greed is good. . . who cares? Its the American way.
Plus, your dog or cat is already neutered. You’re not breaking any laws. Life is
good. Right?
Wrong.
The New York Times reports that its virtually impossible to find housing in
Manhattan–where housing vacancy rates hover in the very low single digits–
if your household includes a dog that weighs over 20 lbs. If you’ve got more
than one dog or cat? Fudge about it.
Gawd knows insurance companies are itching to drop dog owners. They just
have to find ‘em.
But Gonad Nazis on a mission ? Oooh, baby! PetData is marketing the reports
it can run from the data it collects. Need a list of households with intact
dogs or cats in Riverside, California? Shazaam!
Not paranoia. Not a conspiracy theory. They are coming for you. And certain
sensitive parts of your pets.
The Humane Society of the United States, the largest, wealthiest animal
extremist organization in the country–one that is dedicated to eliminating pet
ownership– is already using PetData as a mouthpiece.
Will municipalities increasingly outsource law enforcement responsibilities
to profit-motivated private organizations? Ones with no public
accountability?
As a private corporation, PetData’s employees are responsible to their own
Board of Directors. We the People don’t get to vote on what they do, or how
they do it.
Meanwhile, back at the Nanny-State nursery
Poor, clueless Lloyd Levine.
Levine — the pro-choice Democrat, representing a pro-choice constituency in
a pro-choice state — who wants to deny pet owners any choices.
Levine-the-liberal — now turned animal extremist poop-boy– intent on
bringing fascism to the homes of California dog and cat owners.
Maybe freedom of choice and the right to privacy really don’t matter to
Lloyd Levine. Or maybe he thinks its okay to deny these liberties to “certain
people”, like pet-owning Californians.
But I’m thinking the 60+ percent of Californians that own cats and dogs
would kick his butt from one end of the state to the other if they knew what AB
1634 really means to them, and to the pets they love.
San Diego Dog Show
<><>This weekend is Cabrillo Kennel Club’s all-breed dog show. The show will be held in the San Diego Sports Arena. Today, local San Diego dog clubs held specialty shows at the arena for specific breeds. If anybody is interested in taking in a dog show, now is the opportunity. The San Diego Sports Arena is centrally located, just west of I-5 and Rosecrans. The shows start at 8am. Below are some pictures, taken today. <>
United or Fractured Fancy?
These post were sent out this morning May 9, 2007
POST #1
It has come to my attention that Levine has been making last minute amendments to his bill before presentation to the Appropriations
Committee. This has come about because of the meetings that CDOC has had with him recently (and continue to have scheduled).Knowing that the general dog fancier DID NOT want compromise, theCDOC went and did that very thing. This enabled Levine and those
that support the bill to say that they are working with “AKC members” on terms.
So while many of us were out there trying to let the general public know about this bill and working at fighting it, we were undermined.
The general public will now feel that once again, the “elitist”purebred people tried to make it better for themselves and left the
general public out in the cold.
Permission to cross post as this needs to get out. The dog fanciers needed to unite and this split faction has just made the work to
defeat this bill much harder. The opposition already had enough obstacles to maneuver; the support side has HSUS money and PETA
backing and the opposition undermines itself right off the bat.
Lori Frost
POST#2
Last evening, Cathie Turner of CDOC was a guest at our Club BOD meeting. In regard to the confusing Jan 1, 2009 exemption language in AB1634 , she stated “that is being fixed tomorrow”. She said that Levine wasn’t aware if its importance to people.
There were also some other amendments made yesterday.
Jane Jensen
POST#3 (reply to Post#2)
Oh GREAT! Why don’t they just throw a victory party for Levine and HSUS now and get it over with?
Don’t they realize that this only gives Levine fuel to pass his Bill and put all the little things he’s taken out back in after it is law? I am so upset I’m not sure we shouldn’t come out with NO ON CDOC buttons and T-shirts! PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED!
Some content of the above was intentionally deleted.-ed
Well, is this fancy united or irrevocably fractured? and where is CFoDC in all of this? And who gave CDOC permission to represent anybody?
I beleive that vanity is the strongest trait of owners/exhibitors in the fancy. Stubbornness runs a strong second. Good sense and humility are way down the list. Just a little humility might have led folks to talk together and present a strong, resolute front, impregnable to the cajoling of the purveyors of this gruesome bill. Now, you have some folks with an “In” to the author/sponsor who , no matter what, will be taken as spokesmen for the entire fancy. That is because that is all the sponsor of the bill wants to hear. As misdirected as he has allowed himself to be, this writer presumes Mr. levine to be unsalvageable with education.
This is FACT: AB1634 is flawed beyond redemption and will inflict misery and pain upon 62% or more of the California Population. It must not pass!!
Now it seems that a Mr. Hoffman has stated in an article also distributed greatly this morning, originally printed in Dog News, that the fancy needs to be proactive and write a bill of our own.
That may be an answer: Write a bill that mandates records on every category of intake and output of every government Animal Control Agency and every humane society. This bill should also prevent any new bills for a period of 5 years, while data collected is studied. Then, there may , or may not be an actual basis for something as stupid and punitive as AB1634.
MEANWHILE- are we going to roll over to a bill amended by the input of a few “elite” priveleged to have a contact fanciers? Maybe, if they will tell us who apointed them to represent us, and to compromise our position. Think they even have a clue?
MEETING-SPORTS ARENA- 3PM–FRIDAY
Mount Up! Fix Bayonets! Take no Prisoners!
There is a new revelation regarding both the content of AB1634 and the tactics of its proponents! Take heed for these evil, treacherous and ultimately cruel folk have no respect for the citizens they purport to govern!!!!!
AB1634 contains a clause to allow competition dogs to escape the knife. All you need to do is to get an intact permit from your local government agency, once they determine the following; 1. How much to rip from your wallet, 2. Whether they respect the registry of your dog, 3. Whether your dog actually qualifies for the permit, due to the “nature” of the competition it is in, or, 4. whether you dog is already over two years of age, the mandatory cut and slash age.
They do not make it plain that such permits expire in Jan 2009 and there is no provision for any issue after that.
In the commercial fields of insurance, real estate, and other sale field this could be prosecuted as an error of misrepresentation by omission. The guilty party could lose his license to engage in this line of work. Of course, this would be too good to happen to legislators of this extremely low, devious, unscrupulous, and questionable character. He is even representing organizations, not the people who elected him.
Let all be reminded: When all else is lost, when government becomes the ultimate enemy and there is no hope of discourse with the oppressor, when all that is precious stands in peril, we still have the second amendment.
By the rude bridge that arched the flood. Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled. Here the embattled dog lovers stood.
And fired the shot heard ’round the world.
You are getting very close to creating such a situation, Mr Levine – Or a great California Exodus.
MEETING! FRIDAY! SPORTS ARENA— 3PM BE THERE
An Orange County Columnist speaks
Sandiegodog Blog is open to the more cogent arguments regarding AB1634. The remarks below are crossposted from BSL56-UAOA@yahoogroups.com . This list, with pet-law@yahoogroups.com provide a forum of clear and irate thinking regarding the ramifications of AB1634. Sandiegodog Blog is unalterably opposed to this proposed law and wishes everyone, both dog fancier and “civilian” dog owner to be as informed as possible. It is the citizens of California that will bear the brunt of this Draconian, Orwellian scheme to imprison this important aspect of the rather free life we have in this country. Read on, of Citizens, and follow your conscience at the polls next time around!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Bad pet owners are the ones to snip
To spay or not to spay, that is the issue in California.
GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow@aol.com
Almost everyone would agree that there are too many unwanted pets in California, and that reducing that number would be a worthy end. But when it comes to the means to achieve that end, people will fight like cats and dogs.
Consider, for example, the bitter battle over California Assembly Bill 1634, also known as the “California Healthy Pets Act,” which is now working its way through the Legislature.
The proposed new law would require that, with a few exceptions, every single dog and cat in the state that’s over 4 months old would have to be spayed or neutered. Dog breeders and owners of show or competition or working dogs could be exempted if they got a local “intact permit” – for an as-yet-unspecified fee – as would people who could get a letter from a veterinarian saying their animal is too old or sick to undergo the procedure. For every other dog and cat it would be snip-snip time, with violators – the owners, that is, not the dog or the cat – subject to a $500 fine.
It’s hard to say how many of the estimated 15 million or so pet dogs and cats in California are already sterilized and how many aren’t. But if enacted, AB1634 would mandate the most massive pet sterilization program in American history.
So is it a good idea? Or a draconian governmental intrusion on the rights of pet owners?
The bill’s author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), and its many supporters – which range from the California Animal Control Directors Association to a group called the Canine Crusaders – say the measure is desperately needed. They say that every year some 500,000 unwanted dogs and cats wind up in animal shelters statewide, of which about 300,000 are ultimately killed. And they insist the legislation is primarily aimed at irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to roam and reproduce indiscriminately.
“We won’t have dog and cat police going door to door lifting up your animal’s leg to check” if it has been spayed or neutered, Levine said in a radio interview last month. Although the law would cover all dogs and cats, supporters say enforcement would be directed at people whose pets come in contact with animal control officers – and even they could avoid the $500 fine if they subsequently got their animal “fixed.”
But the many opponents of the measure, who range from breeders to pure-breed cat and canine clubs to something called SoCal BARF (short for “Biologically Appropriate Raw Feeders”), believe the mandatory spay/neuter bill is a Big Brother-ish attempt by government to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong – which is to say, in their pets’ nether parts.
“It’s Orwellian,” says Kay Novotny of La Palma, who has three Borzois – some people describe them as “long-haired greyhounds” – that she raised for shows and competitions. “We all agree there are too many animals in shelters, but this isn’t going to solve the problem. The vast majority of pet owners are responsible people, and they’re the ones who will be punished. The scofflaws will still be scofflaws.”
In fact, Novotny and others say that in addition to putting a financial burden on responsible pet owners, and allowing the government to make health decisions for their pets, the bill might actually exacerbate the problem by prompting irresponsible pet owners to dump their animals rather than get them fixed. And despite what Assemblyman Levine says, they aren’t so sure there wouldn’t be “dog and cat police” checking for compliance – and even if they didn’t, the law could still make lawbreakers out of millions of responsible pet owners who aren’t part of the problem.
Well, both sides have good arguments on the proposed mandatory spay/neuter law – too many to fully go into here. And it’s not my place to tell you what to think on the issue.
Still, personally I have to wonder about a law that casts such a wide net, one that mandates restrictions on the responsible many because of the irresponsible actions of the relative few. It seems like we have too many laws like that as it is.
In any event, if you want to sound off on Assembly Bill 1634, pro or con, contact your California Assembly person. To find out who that is, and how to contact them, check the “state government” listings in the front of your phone book, or go to http://www.legislature.ca.gov and click on “Legislators and Districts.” If you don’t have Internet access, ask someone to do it for you.
In the meantime, I’d like to propose another law, one that would require the forcible spaying or neutering of any human who abuses or abandons a dog or cat.
Yes, I know, some people might say that’s a little harsh. But in addition to improving the gene pool, unlike a lot of laws, current and proposed, at least it would put the punishment on the guilty.
And leave the innocent alone.
714-796-7953 or GLDillow@aol.com
Recent Comments