Archive for July, 2007

How many Believed “Proof of the Pudding”?

Those of you who doubted the authenticity of “Proof of the Pudding-No Kidding” are correct. This is a satire written as such from a satirical purpose website.

Those who believed it are undoubtedly very familiar with the activities of animal rights activists and this article fit right in to the profile often expressed by such people.

Those who are skeptical of the last sentence should visit and listen to the audio of Bruce Friedrich, vice president of PETA, talking about the folks who burn and bomb capitalistic enterprises.

We put up the article for two purposes;1. to see what kind of comments we would get, and 2. to see how many would believe it, although there were certain puns imbedded in the article that gave clues as to it’s actual origin. The only comment we got was from a regular reader who said, ”Oops”, then gave the source URL. She caught it. Nobody else commented.

Our next post will be on the possible economic effects of AB1634, should it pass upon resurrection in January, 2008.

We invite all comments, thereby to have a good dialogue with all sides to AB1634.


Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 11:40 am 1 comment

Course of future blogs – Keep on Reading

As the owner of dogs, and as a fancier of all purebred dogs (admittedly some more than others) I have suffered through an amazing year so far. I am absolutely sure that many or most of you have also shared the agonies over California AB1634, and have also been watching other states as to legislative , legal  and law enforcements actions. Frankly, it is overwhelming to see the torrent of legislation,  the myriad of lawsuits, and the blitzkreig of arrests and seizures. The daily counts are huge! There is no end of subject matter- and seemingly no end of people willing to speak out on each subject. Sifting through the information and online postings is more than a full time job. And, depending on your personal leanings, this activity could drive you bonkers very easily.

First things first: This being a San Diego , California blog, we shall concentrate on local and California events and legislation. And to do that, since AB1634 is still looming on the January horizon, we shall begin with a step by step analysis of this onerous bill. Our analysis will be simply to show the shortfalls, omissions, and negative effects of AB1634, as this blogger is convinced that the concept is so flawed that this bill cannot be enforced without doing irreparable, fatal damage to the societal fabric of this formerly great state. (At this point, California is a great big state, with climate in it’s favor) We shall examine economic, social, legal, and constitutional issues involving AB1634. These shall be published serially, with some other informational subjects interspersed between some 1634 issues of the blog. Doing a concentrated series is difficult and mind bending, and we do not want to pre-empt items of direct local importance, and such postings will give us the needed breather on the subject matter to deliver more clarity.

Reader comments are very important, as we then know you are reading. And I would rather have you disagree with me than agree-as long as we are both clear on the subject. So, please post the comments, regardless of your stance. This is still part of the USA and freedom of speech shall not be abridged in this blog also.

In case you have not noticed, you can subscribe  to the blog, and receive an email, following and consisting of, each new post. Then, you can access the blog and post your comments. This may save you time and , hopefully, will get us some great comments.

Watch for our postings on AB1634 to begin very soon.

Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 9:07 am 1 comment

Foxtail Danger to Dogs

Foxtails are prevalent in many of the yards here in Southern California.

If dog owners do not keep their yard lawns cut and watered, foxtails will grow.foxtail42.jpg

Because of the way foxtails grow, they can easily imbed right through the fur and into the skin. Below is an illustration of what can happen if a dog gets foxtails into his fur. A grass seed that started when it embedded in his coat, penetrated his skin, threaded through his muscles, and partially collapsed his lung. He has a heavy coat, and the only reason we knew something was wrong, was because he did not play basketball with my puppy. When he refused to move and preferred to watch. He seemed bright and very alert, just reluctant to move.I picked up the phone and called the vet and asked if I could get him in for a checkup. His surgery was scheduled the next morning (Thursday)


Monday, July 23, 2007 at 5:33 pm 2 comments

AB1634- A Point Missed by a Mile

AB1634 is sitting and festering until January, where it will re-emerge into the same committee that sidelined it. At that time, when the bill is re-heard by the Senate Local Governments Committee, It will undoubtedly be re-written, and hardly recognizeable as the original bill. But , there is no doubt it will be as destructive and insidious as the original, still aiming directly at the people who have been working so hard to solve problems that now, generally, do not exist, except in small pockets of special circumstances.

Among the dog fanciers, and those who opposed the bill, one finds statements of extraordinary clarity. I am posting below a description of one family’s treatment of their dogs, as described by a competent observer and dog fancier. The dog fancier part is important, as the treatment of these dogs offended the observer, as it would offend all of us. To Laura Finco, we thank you for this exemplary observation and analysis, in the shadow of the possible passage of Ab1634. No one has offered a better reason to not pass that awful legislation. See below:

I know that I should be feeling a bit relieved since AB 1634 truly is “dead” for 2007 in spite of the supporters claim that all is good and fine and that they will be back stronger in 2008. But I am angry.

In listening to the Levine interview after the hearing, it angers me that he still insists in villianizing the animal fancy because we chose to go out in forceful opposition to him and this bill. He says that we refuse to recognize there is a problem. What he fails to consider is what we have been telling him all along:  whether or not an animal has gonads has nothing to do with why animals end up in the shelter. Cutting off the source of pets is not going to stop people from getting pets. Nor is the statewide sterilization of all domestic cats and dogs going to keep irresponsible owners from adopting a cute puppy or kitten and later abandoning it.

This is why I am even more angry today than before:  I have a neighbor who seven years ago went to the shelter because her children wanted a puppy.  They adopted a young pit bull mix. The dog spent 100% of its time in the backyard and when the cuteness wore off, it got very little attention from anyone. Then they adopted another puppy a few years later– a small jack russell mix. The JRT and pit didn’t get along and one day, the smaller dog mysteriously disappeared. Three months ago, the family decided to move to a condo. They couldn’t take the pit with them (BSL restrictions) so they left him in their backyard. They were coming over every few days to feed and water him but with no one around, he got frustrated and began chewing his way out of the fence. Animal control picked him up several times. The fines were getting doubled each time so on the last call (this time from another neighbor who had noticed that the dog was wrapped up in a tether the family hooked the dog to), they decided not to go to the shelter and pick him up again. I had contacted Pit Rescue for the family, but they couldn’t take him because he was too old to be placed or adopted. Wednesday, July 11th was his last day.

Here is my message to Levine about his keeping up the fight for AB 1634:

Tell me that this family would not have adopted a dog if AB 1634 was enacted.

Tell me that by requiring me to castrate all of my dogs, that it would have prevented this family from getting a pit bull mix and then abandoning it.

Tell me that by requiring me to purchase a permit, have my civil liberties violated and risk the future of my passion that this family would have been more responsible with their decisions about their dog.

Because dang– if any of these sacrifices would have kept this family from getting and then abandoning their dog I would be in favor of AB 1634. But until someone can guarantee me that my sacrifices will keep all the idiots in the world away from owning an animal, then I will continue to fight legislation that does not address the problem but wants to “solve” it on paper off my back!

Nothing in AB 1634 or what even Kehoe was presenting to Levine at the hearing will prevent people from going to shelters or pet adoption days or on the internet, getting puppies and kittens, dogs and cats, and then having some life change or event happen and either abandoning their pet or worse. Even stopping all backyard breeding, oops litters, or restricting the number of litters an animal can have will not stop people from getting pets if they want them.

Levine– you want me to acknowledge there is a problem? Then you need to be willing to accept that the sterilization of my dogs would not have stopped my neighbor from being an irresponsible pet owner.

Laura Finco

Laura Finco is on the Board of Directors of Concerned Dog Owners of California. We thank her for this clarity of thought. I hope all you readers will share it with whomever will give it attention, Laura gives her her permission to do so.

Comments invited

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 9:59 pm Leave a comment

Add to Technorati Favorites

Add to Technorati Favorites

Event Calendar

July 2007
« Jun   Aug »

Recent Posts

Flickr Photos