JustOneMorePet

Every Pet Deserves A Good Home…

Obama Admin Gives Green Energy Firms A Pass On Killing Bald Eagles

obama-thumbs-up

Whatever right?

WeaselZippers Via CBS:

The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its environmental consequences.

The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration’s reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. The White House has championed wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan.

In other areas, too, such as the government’s support for corn-based ethanol to reduce U.S. dependence on gasoline, the White House has allowed the green industry to do not-so-green things. Another AP investigation recently showed that ethanol has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

This April 18, 2013 file photo shows a golden eagle flying over a wind turbine on Duke energy’s top of the world wind farm in Converse County Wyo. The Obama administration will allow companies to seek authorization to kill and harm bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty in an effort to balance some of the environmental trade-offs of green energy. AP Photo/Dina Cappiello

Under the change announced Friday, companies would have to commit to take additional measures if they kill or injure more eagles than they have estimated they would, or if new information suggests that eagle populations are being affected. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they kill. Now such reporting is voluntarily, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information.

"This is not a program to kill eagles," said John Anderson, the director of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association. "This permit program is about conservation."

Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

Flying eagles behave like drivers texting on their cellphones; they don’t look up. As they scan below for food, they don’t notice the industrial turbine blades until it is too late.

No wind energy company has obtained permission authorizing the killing, injuring or harassment of eagles, although five-year permits have been available since 2009. That puts the companies at legal risk and discourages private investment in renewable energy.

It also doesn’t necessarily help eagles, since without a permit, companies are not required to take steps to reduce their impact on the birds or report when they kill them.

The new rule makes clear that revoking a permit – which could undermine investments and interest in wind power – is a last resort under the administration’s energy policy.

"We anticipate that implementing additional mitigation measures … will reduce the likelihood of amendments to, or revocation of, the permit," the rule said.

Conservation groups, which have been aligned with the wind industry on other issues, said the decision by the Interior Department sanctioned the killing of an American icon.

"Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check," said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold in a statement. The group said it will challenge the decision.

The wind energy industry has said the change mirrors permits already in place for endangered species, which are more at risk than bald and golden eagles. Bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007 but are still protected under two federal laws.

The regulation published Friday was not subjected to a full environmental review because the administration classified it as an administrative change.

"The federal government didn’t study the impacts of this rule change even though the (law) requires it," said Kelly Fuller, who formerly headed up the wind campaign at the American Bird Conservancy. "Instead, the feds have decided to break the law and use eagles as lab rats."

The Fish and Wildlife Service said the new rule enables it to better monitor the long-term environmental effects of renewable energy projects.

"Our goal is to ensure that the wind industry sites and operates projects in ways that best minimize and avoid impacts to eagles and other wildlife," the agency said in a statement.

Last month, Duke Energy Corp. pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other birds at two wind farms in Wyoming, the first time a wind energy company has been prosecuted under a law protecting migratory birds.

A study by federal biologists in September found that wind farms since 2008 had killed at least 67 bald and golden eagles, a number that the researchers said was likely underestimated.

It’s unclear what toll, if any, wind energy companies are having on eagle populations locally or regionally. Gunshots, electrocutions and poisonings almost certainly kill more bald and golden eagles than wind farms. But with the industry still growing, the toll could grow, too.

A recent assessment of status of the golden eagle in the western U.S. showed that populations have been decreasing in some areas and rising in others.

AP

Feeding the Eagles

The Amazing Bald Eagle

December 7, 2013 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Rights And Awareness, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Political Change, Unusual Stories, Wild Animals | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

First The Greenies Want Us to Eat Our Dogs… Now the Academics Say It Is Insulting to Call Them Pets

ACADEMICS: CALLING ANIMALS ‘PETS’ IS INSULTING

Last week for Earth Day the Disciples of Global Warming re-cycled their campaign to Eat the Family Pet to reduce our carbon footprint.

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars [birds] should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.  Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue. …

In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.  It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated.

“Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims.  “Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.”

It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’

“For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence.

“There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”  [h/t WeaselZippers / the Blaze]

Personally I prefer to think of my pets as ‘furkids’ and part of the family to love, not as property.  They add much more to my life than the so-called care-giving I do for them could be counted as a burden.  I don’t mind doing for them as I don’t for any family member and believe they deserve fair treatment and love.  As of insulting them if they are called pets… doubt they’d notice. But as for eating them or euthanizing them for global warming… not a chance!

Perhaps these academics might want to put themselves to work fighting some of the real anti-pet, anti-animal, animal cruelty issues??  What a concept.  Here are a few if they can’t find any:

The Latest Enemies of Iran: Dogs and Their Owners

No Mercy:  Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed

Greenies Gone Wild Again… for Earth Day  -  Back to Americans Doing More, Including Eating Our Dogs

China, Korea and many other nations are still eating dogs and cats:

STOP KILLING DOGS! 2 Million Dogs Killed in Horrible Ways Every Year in South Korea

Olympic Clean-up Chinese Style:  Beijing’s Shocking Cat Death Camps

And how about the fact that we in the United States we are Still Euthanizing 4 Million Dogs Plus Additional Pets in Shelters in America Every Year because of don’t have a good system. We base rules on lobbies or making money and we restrict people in far too many communities to one or two pets.  No one is promoting hoarding, but 3 to 6 pets are the right number for some people, one is too many for others and abuses need to be addressed on an individual bases.  We also allow vets to over-charge for spay and neutering procedures and demonize private breeders and people who choose to let their pet have a litter but too often look the other way when it comes to puppy and kitten mills and the pet stores who buy and sell the the ‘mill’s animals.  Join the “NO KILL Movement” and report all abuse and neglect, against animals and humans.

Related:

UN Document: Mother Earth Has Same Rights as Humans

Protect Innocent Animals; Make Bestiality a Felony

Gov’t to Decide What Pets You Can Own

April 30, 2011 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, animal abuse, animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Rights And Awareness, animals, Dogs, Fostering and Rescue, free range rescue, Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Pet Friendship and Love, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change, responsible pet ownership, Stop Animal Cruelty, Stop Euthenization, Unusual Stories, We Are All God's Creatures, Wild Animals | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Greenies sic Fido in new guilt push: "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living"

Greenies sic Fido in new guilt push…

Do you love your pet? Of course you do.

So you might want to hide your pooch from the greenies, because now they want you to sacrifice your pet–in the name of the Earth.

An outrageous new book with the disgusting title, “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” attempts to make the weak case that a medium-sized dog does more damage to the planet than two SUVs, mostly because of all the land and energy it takes to make dog food.
But the eco-nuts don’t really want you to ditch the dog and keep the SUV–they want you to shed both to live in their Luddite paradise.

The authors of this brainless book also accuse our beloved companions of attacking the local wildlife and polluting the planet with their poop. As if that’s not a natural part of life for ANY animal, wild or domestic–including human beings.

But I do agree with them on one point: Store-bought dog food is wasteful–but not because it destroys the planet. It’s expensive and unhealthy.

My beloved Weimaraner, Silky, eats raw chicken necks (with the skin on), fatty raw hamburger, raw eggs (including the shell) and a raw pork or beef joint two or three times a week. And you wouldn’t believe how healthy my little darling is–all muscle, covered in the shiniest coat of fur you’ve ever seen.

If you want to give it a try, start by working these healthy raw meats into the supermarket dog food. Over time, use less kibble and more meat.

Just do it for your dog’s health and not for some imaginary environmental impact. That’s just a smokescreen for an extremist movement with a radical left-wing political agenda. They haven’t gotten very far with science–so now they’re trying guilt.

They want you to feel guilty about eating meat, guilty about driving to work, guilty about having a pet–guilty about living. Not long ago, one environmental space cadet even declared that the human race would need to become vegans to survive.

They come up with ridiculous concepts like “ecological footprint” or “carbon footprint”–call it what you want, there’s no getting around the fact that it’s simply been pulled out of thin air, manufactured to make you feel… you guessed it: Guilty!

Some of them even try to collect money off you based on the theoretical size of your nonexistent imaginary carbon footprint.

Forget blackmail–you can call this ploy greenmail.

And if you’re sick of vegans claiming moral superiority, speak up…

Dr. William Campbell Douglas II, M.D.

Posted:  Just One More Pet

Related:

Ditch Your Family Pet to Save the planet – I Think NOT!!

January 11, 2010 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Rescues, Animal Rights And Awareness, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Fostering and Rescue, Just One More Pet, Pet Adoption, Pet Friendship and Love, Pet Nutrition, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, responsible pet ownership, Stop Animal Cruelty, Stop Euthenization, Unusual Stories, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why All Your Healthy Pet Efforts May Be Worthless if You Do This…

dog, chew bone, pet

You may have noticed you can no longer find those trendy green dental bones at your local grocery store or Wal-Mart.

NUTRO Products, Inc. says it is pulling its Greenies line of pet dental chews from supermarkets and other mass markets. Beginning in June, the Greenies — which have been blamed for illness and deaths in some dogs and cats — will be distributed only through veterinary hospitals and pet specialty retailers.

It’s the latest attempt to resolve highly-publicized incidents of pet deaths attributed to the popular treats. Pet owners said the treats failed to be properly digested and led to fatal intestinal obstructions.

This is a voluntary move on the part of the manufacturer. The company has pulled their product from the shelves of supermarket and mass merchandise-type stores, but will continue to supply pet stores and veterinary offices.

The company didn’t make the reasons behind their move very clear, but did offer this explanation:

“We believe that pet medical professionals at veterinary hospitals and well-trained, knowledgeable staff at pet specialty stores are best equipped to answer pet owners’ questions about our products and to make the right recommendation,” said Carolyn Hanigan, vice president of marketing for Nashville, Tenn.-based NUTRO.

It seems NUTRO is saying their green dental chews should only be sold to pet owners who have received training in how to use them.

A dental bone that comes with expert instruction? Why?

Investigation Exposes Pet Injuries and Deaths from Green Dental Chews

In 2006, the Cable News Network (CNN) investigated consumer complaints about the product and uncovered 40 cases over a three year period in which veterinarians extracted Greenies from dogs.

In all 40 cases, the chews had become lodged in either the esophagus or the intestine. Tragically, 13 of those dogs could not be saved.

The fact is, NUTRO has been trying to fix problems with their product for years — first in 2006 by clarifying package instructions, followed in 2007 by a reformulation which was supposed to make the chews easier to digest, particularly for dogs.

And now in 2009, they have decided to sell Greenies only through veterinary clinics and specialty retail outlets where instructions will (hopefully) be handed out to pet owners.

As a veterinarian, I have not and will not recommend these dental chews for your pet.

Picking the Right Dental Bone for Your Dog Isn’t as Easy as You Might Think

The design of many popular chew bones makes them very difficult for your pet to break down. Your dog is apt to swallow the entire chew — or a big chunk of it — whole.

This undigested mass can lodge in your pet’s digestive tract, blocking it, and require expensive, risky surgery to remove. The other problem with traditional dog chew bones is they are just not healthy for your pet. Many come from China and contain unknown ingredients. They can also contain:

  • Gelatin, which can be toxic
  • Hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, an artificial sweetener
  • Soy protein isolate, a known allergen and potentially cancer-causing
  • Propyl gallate, a preservative which is also potentially carcinogenic

Are Dog Dental Bones Really Necessary?

Yes, absolutely! Pets are designed to chew!

Feral cats and dogs, while often faced with other health issues, naturally have beautiful teeth and healthy gums. This is because the food they eat in the wild (think mice and other rodents) requires a lot of chewing, and the sinewy composition of the prey helps to clean each entire tooth.

This natural way of maintaining good dental hygiene is what you want to reproduce for your companion animals.

A fully digestible, high quality dental dog chew provides mechanical abrasion to help control plaque and tartar, and is similar to the effect of eating whole, raw food in the wild.

Plaque is the sticky stuff that collects on teeth (yours and your pet’s). It’s a combination of bits of food, minerals from saliva, and bacteria.

Left on teeth, plaque hardens, turns brown, and becomes tartar. If enough tartar collects in your dog’s mouth, it will end up under the gums as a breeding ground for infection. Over time, your pet’s teeth will become painful, loosen, and eventually fall out.

The time to arrest the whole process is at the plaque stage. When you prevent plaque from turning into tartar, you prevent most dental problems in your pet.

How to Choose a Good Dental Bone for Your Dog

Make sure to read the ingredient panel on any product before you make a purchase.

A high-quality dental dog bone will NOT contain:

  • Wheat, gluten, soy or corn
  • Saturated fat or trans fat
  • Added sugar or salt
  • Animal byproducts (gelatin, animal glycerin)
  • Chemical preservatives
  • Artificial flavors or colors

Even the “green” brand of dental chew contains unhealthy fillers and additives. When you factor in their potential to lodge in your dog’s digestive tract and cause an obstruction, I would strongly advise against them.

What you want is a tasty, all natural and completely digestible dental chew for your four-legged companion.

I highly recommend Mercola Healthy Pets Dog Dental Bones. They are 100% natural, and contain absolutely NO:

  • Corn
  • Soy
  • Gluten
  • Extra fat or sugar
  • Animal byproducts

This is the brand of dental bone I recommend to all my canine patients, and sell at my hospital.

A high-quality dental chew like Mercola’s Dental Bones for Dogs, a balanced, raw food diet, along with daily brushing and a professional cleaning by your vet as needed, will insure the long-term health of your pet’s teeth and gums.

Source:  Dr. Becker

Posted:  Just One More Pet

September 1, 2009 Posted by | Just One More Pet, Pet Health, Pet Nutrition, pet products, Pets | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Owners: Dog treats killed our pets

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) — At least 13 dogs have died after being fed the top-selling pet treat in the country, owners and veterinarians have told CNN.

The problem comes because the treats, called Greenies, become lodged in a dog’s esophagus or intestine and then some veterinarians say they don’t break down.

“I know they are marketed in saying that they do digest. Certainly the ones that we’ve taken out, esophageal or intestinal, that have been in for days are still very hard,” Brendan McKiernan, a board-certified veterinary internal medicine specialist from Denver, Colorado, told CNN.  (Watch a vet retrieve a two-day old, undigested Greenie from a dog — 7:40)

Greenies recommends owners check that the treats are chewed and Joe Roetheli – who launched the brand as a treat that can freshen a dog’s breath and clean its teeth – said it was important to pick the correct chew for a particular dog. There are 7 different sizes to choose from depending on the size of the dog.

But most of the dog owners CNN talked to say they did follow package instructions and they still had a problem.

Mike Eastwood and his wife, Jenny Reiff, recently filed a $5 million lawsuit in New York, blaming Greenies for the intestinal blockage that caused the death of their dog Burt.

“I’m mad that their packaging states that the product is 100 percent edible, highly digestible and veterinarian approved, yet our dog died of it,” Eastwood told CNN.

S&M NuTec, which manufactures the toothbrush-shaped chew, won’t comment on the case but in court papers denied the allegations.

Roetheli said the focus should be on the dental benefits and Greenies are saving dogs’ lives by lowering the risk of periodontal disease.

He says feeding Greenies is far safer than putting a dog under anesthesia to clean teeth.

“Dogs really love the product!” he said. “They do a very effective job of cleaning teeth and freshening breath.”

Any suggestion that Greenies are defective was rejected by Roetheli, who developed Greenies with his wife, Judy.

“Our product is safe. It is used every day by thousands of dogs, millions a week and it is basically a very safe product.”

A CNN investigation uncovered 40 cases since 2003 where a veterinarian had to extract a Greenie from a dog after the treat became lodged either in the animal’s esophagus or intestine. In 13 of those cases, the pet died.

One of those was Tyson, Josh Glass and Leah Falls’ 8-month-old boxer, who was taken to Brent-Air Animal Hospital in Los Angeles, California, where vet Dr. Kevin Schlanger found the animal had a blocked intestine.

“It was very clear that it was something dense and firm that had caused the obstruction,” Schlanger said. He removed a Greenie from the intestine.

McKiernan’s says his Denver clinic has seen at least seven cases in the past five years, which he says is an unusually high number. That prompted him to start researching and writing a paper to warn other veterinarians of the problem.

He says his research, which he hopes to get published in a veterinary journal, shows compressed vegetable chew treats, of which Greenies is the most popular, are now the third biggest cause of esophageal obstruction in dogs behind bones and fish hooks.

The federal Food and Drug Administration says it’s looking into eight consumer complaints about Greenies but has no formal investigation.

The issue has also been the topic of news reports across the country.

The chews are made of digestible products like wheat gluten and fiber, experts say, but the molding process makes the treat very firm and hard.

Roetheli, who runs S&M NuTec from Kansas City, Missouri, says Greenies do break down when properly chewed and swallowed by a dog.

He told CNN that any product has the potential to cause an obstruction in a dog and that Greenies packaging warns dog owners to monitor their dog to ensure the treat is adequately chewed. “Gulping any item can be harmful or even fatal to a dog,” the package says.

The company’s Web site addresses the issue in its FAQ section with the question “When giving an animal Greenies, does it affect their digestive system?” The answer “The only time dogs would be unable to digest anything would be if they didn’t chew it up before they swallowed it. Canine and Feline Greenies are highly digestible when chewed.”

The company says the number of complaints it has received is very low in relation to the vast numbers of treats sold, and CNN spoke with several vets who recommended Greenies.

Introduced in 1998, we found Greenies now selling for about $16 a pound. Last year, 325 million individual treats were sold around the world, nearly three times the sales of its nearest competitor Milk Bone, according to the marketing company Euromonitor International.

“At the end of the day … literally millions of Greenies are enjoyed by dogs on a weekly basis with absolutely no incidents,” company vet Brad Quest told CNN.

By Greg Hunter and Pia Malbran

Source:  CNN.com

February 21, 2009 Posted by | Animal Rights And Awareness, Just One More Pet, Pet Health, Pet Nutrition, Pets, responsible pet ownership | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment