Doggy Out or Doggy in?

Doggy Out or Doggy in?… Or Should It be Called:  Owner Dumb or Owner Smart?  or Owner Mean or Owner Kind?

Isn’t my dog happier living outside?

Only if you live outside with him! Dogs are pack animals they are used to living in groups, not by themselves. More than ten thousand years ago dogs were domesticated to live with humans, they long for our companionship and need it. Dogs that do not have constant human contact have more behavior problems.

The reason I put my dog outside is because he was destroying the house. I had no choice, what else could I do?

By putting your dog outside you will only increase his behavior problems.

Dogs that live outdoors are more likely to bark, dig, chew, jump the fence and bite. The reason for this is because they become lonely, bored and anxious. Dogs need constant human contact and interaction. You can have a well-behaved dog that lives indoors.

My dog started to jump the fence, so I had no choice but to chain him to a tree. Do you have any other suggestions?

One of the cruelest things you could do to a dog is to chain them for a prolonged period of time. It is cruel and inhumane! Dogs kept on chains, watch as the world goes by, imagine what life would be like.

Chained dogs suffer from psychological deprivation which results in listlessness, depression, frenzied barking and aggression. There is nothing positive about keeping any dog on a chain. If your dog is jumping the fence, he’s probably bored. Take him for lots of walks to alleviate his boredom and bring him inside with the family.

I wanted a barking dog to protect my property if intruders came by the house. How can he do that inside?

First of all, your dog will want to protect you and your home if he is bonded to you. If he is outside alone the bond probably isn’t very strong. Secondly, a barking dog is like a car alarm that goes off, nobody pays attention, because they hear it all the time. Besides how can your dog fight off any intruders if he’s in the yard? If you want a dog to protect you the best way is to love him, keep him inside and he’ll want to watch over you and the family.

If I have no choice but to keep my dog outside, what kind of shelter is necessary?

The law requires that your dog has access to “proper” shelter at all times! Just as you would not like to be exposed to the rain or hot sun neither does your dog! Be sure your dog has a comfortable, weather- resistant house to protect him from the elements.

Hat Tip:  DogWork.com  –    www.dogwork.com/feeling/

When I read articles like this or worse read about poor animals subject or selfish, ignorant, mean and inhumane owners I really have to stop myself from hyper-ventilating and then screaming at the top of my lungs.

Almost every person, and especially children, are better for having a pet, especially a dog… but it is the responsibility of the rest of us to make sure that these loyal creatures are saved from the worst among us… the inhumane, the ignorant the selfish and the cruel pet owners, who are almost always also the same types or parents, spouses and people in general.  Do not stand idly by!!

“Man truly is the cruelest animal on the Earth and compared to our actual brain capacity and what we do with it, probably the dumbest!!” … Just One More Pet

Some Dog Foods Deliver Toxic Doses of Poison

With the memory of the melamine pet food scare still fresh in the minds of many, the Environmental Working Group is publicizing a new threat: potentially toxic doses of fluoride in dog food.

An EWG analysis found troubling levels of fluoride in 8 of 10 dog foods tested. The concentration of fluoride was up to 2.5 times higher than the safe level the EPA sets for drinking water. Some puppies may be exposed to five times this limit.

The fluoride in dog food originates in bone meal and animal by-products. EWG recommends choosing dog food brands free of bone meal and meat by-product ingredients like chicken by-product meal, poultry by-product meal, chicken meal and beef meal.

Sources:

The Daily Green June 30, 2009

Environmental Working Group June 26, 2009 [Full Report]

Related Resource: Dr. Mercola

Most pet owners consider their four-legged companions beloved members of their family. With everything else to keep track of, the diet of your pet can easily get tossed on the backburner. Unfortunately, your pet’s health is as dependent on the food you serve as the rest of your family.

Fluoride, it seems, may be a particular problem, as many pet foods contain some form of bone meal, which is believed to be the main source of fluoride in commercial pet foods.

The Power of Advertising is Just as Potent in the Pet Food Industry

As you probably know by now, the food industry spends millions of dollars each year influencing your dietary habits, and the pet food industry is no different. But despite advertising claims and pictures of happy puppies, the majority of commercial pet foods are far from optimally healthy.

Much of the so-called “healthy pet foods” on the market contain inferior meat meals, cheap grains like corn and soy, fillers, by-products, food coloring, pesticides, preservatives, and other contaminants, including fluoride.

Pet food has simply not gained the same amount of scrutiny as human foods, and only when widespread disaster struck did the quality of pet food ingredients become the talk of the town. You may remember the melamine mass-contamination that rocked the pet food industry last year. Since it led to thousands of sick and dead pets around the country it was impossible to ignore.

Fluoride, on the other hand, is more insidious, and likely will not cause sudden death. But it is a potent toxin that can have devastating long-term health effects, both in humans and in pets.

Dangerous Levels of Fluoride Detected in 80 Percent of Commercial Pet Food

When the Environmental Working Group (EWG) conducted a survey of ten national brands of dog food, they discovered that all but two contained “potentially dangerous” levels of fluoride.

Unfortunately, no one really knows what the safe levels of fluoride for animals might be and there are no standards for pet foods, but eight of the brands contained fluoride in amounts between 1.6 and 2.5 times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum legal dose in drinking water.

We also know that 2 grams of fluoride is enough to kill an adult, and just 500 mg is enough to kill a child. To those of you not familiar with the metric system, a teaspoon is 5 grams. So less than one half teaspoon of fluoride will kill most adults and one tenth of a teaspoon will kill most children.

In the U.S., people have died, and many have become sick, when faltering fluoridation equipment has pumped excess fluoride into the water. And, since fluoride is used as anactive ingredient in a number of pesticides, we also know it’s definitely deadly to a number of smaller critters, in small amounts.

At an average of 8.9 mg of fluoride per kilogram of dog food, the sampled brands also contained far higher amounts of fluoride than what is associated with osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer that typically occurs in young boys.

Posted: Just One More Pet

Stop California SB 250 – Save Our Dogs and Our Rights

I hate “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” as much as the next gal, but you know, when big hunks of blue stuff dotted with clouds are crashing into your head while you walk across the street, what are you gonna do?

So, Californians who think that medical decisions about your animals should be made by you and your veterinarian and not the good folks in Sacramento, please check out this action alert from Laura Sanborn of Save Our Dogs, who says that despite recent amendments, the core provisions of California’s SB 250 are unchanged — and very similar to the defeated mandatory spay/neuter bill, last year’s AB 1634:

Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket.  You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.

All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.

SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs and strips pet owners and people in general of another right.

This is a terrible and stupid law. It will not do what it claims to want to do, and it will worsen the lives of pet owners, cost money, and kill pets. Please follow these simple action steps and help stop SB 250. Act now!

UPDATE: Gina mentioned this in the comments, but I’m adding it here, too: Alley Cat Allies is urging Californians to contact their legislators to speak against SB 250, saying it will hurt stray, homeless, and feral cats. You can read their take on it, and use their action tool, here.

Source:  PetConnection.com

SB 250 – full Senate votes this week!

Posted:  Just One More Pet

Related Articles:

• Pet Sterilzation Laws Raise Health Concerns

New First Pooch Is Arriving Soon

Warren Harding with Laddie Boy Library Of Congress / Getty ENLARGE + Print EmailShare ReprintsRelated

During the dog days of last summer, perhaps the most important looming decision facing Barack Obama was choosing a dog for his girls.  Way back, as he set out on this quest for the Presidency, he made the one campaign promise he absolutely could not break: that when it was all over, whatever the outcome, his daughters could get a dog.  And if they ended up at Pennsylvannia Avenue the pup would certainly not be the first dog or pet in the White House so would have a long legacy of presidential pets to follow and live up to.

Things have changed since the days when George Washington could name his hounds Drunkard, Tipler and Tipsy. Warren Harding’s Airedale Laddie Boy had a valet and occupied a hand-carved chair at Cabinet meetings. Ulysses S. Grant told his White House staff that if anything happened to his son’s beloved Newfoundland, they’d all be fired. Teddy Roosevelt had, along with a badger, a toad, some snakes and a pig, a bull terrier named Pete who once ripped the pants of a French ambassador. Cousin Franklin’s dog Fala had a press secretary, starred in a movie and was named an honorary private in the Army. George H.W. Bush’s springer spaniel Millie wrote a book, which sold more copies than the President’s autobiography. And then, of course, there was Checkers. Harry Truman supposedly once said, You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog. ( By Nancy Gibbs/TIME)

It’s hard enough to pick the right dog.  But adding the fact that you may be the First Family and need a hypoallergenic breed increases the difficulty of the process.  So the American Kennel Club (AKC), hoping to help ensure the 23rd purebred dog into the White House, conducted a survey. The public could even vote online for the type of dog they thought the Obamas should get for the AKC survey, and other groups sponsored similar surveys. Since first daughter Malia has allergies, the AKC limited the ballot choice to five hypoallergenic breeds. It suggested the bichon frise with its history as a companion to French noblemen implying qualification of the breed for the White House. But perhaps it was not the exact image the Obamas were looking for. It recommended the miniature schnauzer as an excellent watchdog, for a little added security (although probably not needed), and the soft-coated wheaten terrior with its sweet-temperament as a positive goodwill ambassador, though it “must be handled firmly and with consistency,” which also may not have been the ideal characteristic choice for the candidate of Change.

The AKC’s preference for purebreds, however, missed the obvious stellar opportunity for the Obamapup. Surely a self-proclaimed postpartisan reformer, who promised to ‘reach across the aisle’,  would lean toward some stunningly blended mutt, a rescued shelter dog or at least one of the American Canine Hybrid Club’s 500 plus registered hybrids. Afterall, the hybrid pooch or designer dog was bred to give you the best of both breeds: a Labradoodle, a Peke-a-Poo, a Bagle (half basset, half beagle) or a Chiweenie (half chihuahua, half dachshund). A bully pulpit seeking candidate might like the Bullypit (a bulldog-pit-bull mix), or he could go for a Sharmatian–part Chinese Shar-Pei, part Dalmatian–and get the whole East-and-West, black-and-white thing going in one single pooch.

There was even a suggestion during the campaign, that their decision for a type of dog, if not actually getting one before the election,  should be moved up, given the competition from the ‘McCainines’. An AP–Yahoo News poll last June (2008) found that pet owners favored John McCain over Obama, 42% to 37%, with an even bigger margin among dog owners. One participant explained that it “tells you that they’re responsible at least for something, for the care of something.” Or, in the McCains’ case, “many somethings”:  their menagerie includes a slew of fish, some parakeets, turtles Cuff and Link, Oreo the cat and four dogs, including terriers Lucy and Desi. Obama could take comfort in his 14-point lead among non–pet owners, except that they form a definate minority of U.S. households.

The Obamas were pre-warned, that although a good one, they were definitely looking at another major life change by getting a dog for the first time. “A dog was never an option in the apartment where I grew up”, said Obama, “and my daughters knew that training the dog they so desperately wanted was nothing compared with training me to accept one”.

Well it is now two and a half months into the presidency and still no first dog, and it seems like the whole world, at least the pet loving world, is waiting for their choice and the arrival of the first pooch.  The word from First Lady Michelle is April, after their Spring Break family vacation, and possibly a Portuguese Water Dog…  and not a puppy (which could mean that in the end the AKC got their next purebred into the White House afterall).  Senator Ted Kennedy, whose neice Caroline got a pony while in the White House, highly recommended the breed.  He has two.  Their coat is a single layer and does not shed. In most cases, these dogs are hypo- allergenic, making them a good choice for those that have allergies.

So, there will be a new pooch frolicking on the South Lawn by the end of this month.

The next obvious question for speculation, of course, is the perfect name for the next first dog. Some suggest the Obamas should just get two, one for each of the girls, and call them Hope and Change.  Of course there are others that suggest getting two dogs but calling them Smoke and Mirror or Fear and “Quo”, for Status Quo, would be the best call, but that would be a subject for another type of blog or article.

Related Articles:  

• President Bush and His Pets
• Arrival of New First Pooch Imminent
• Bush and Barney, Just Like Old Times

By Marion Algier/Ask Marion – Posted – Just One More Pet

Special Screening of Beverly Hills Chihuahua Movie for Chihuahuas and Their Owners

“Some Days Just Go To The Dogs…”

 

Disney Sponsored a Beverly Hills Chihuahua Movie Premier Yesterday, 9.13.08 at the Fine Arts Theatre In Beverly Hills

 

 

300 Chihuahuas and Chihuahua Mixes Gathered With Their Humans for Photos, Goodies and the First Public Screening

of Beverly Hills Chihuahua, For “Meet-up” Chihuahua groups from Irvine and Los Angeles

 

 Fun was had by all.

 

 

Papi, one for the two main characters of the movie was found and rescued from the Moreno Valley Animal Shelter as were many of the dogs featured in the film; who were rescued from shelters in both the Los Angeles area and Mexico.

 

Doggie Treats and Souvenir T-Shirts Were Given to Each Chi…

Their Humans Had To Buy Their Own Treats 😉

 

Our Gang Modeling Their Souvenir Tees…

 

The film opens nationwide on October 3rd. 

“Owning a pet is a major responsibility.  Dogs require daily care and constant attention. Before bringing a dog into your family, research the specific breed to make sure it is suitable for your particular situation.  Learn about and be willing to undertake the serious responsibilities of dog care. Always consider adopting from a reputable shelter or rescue program.”  Animals are not toys… they are live creatures who need love and attention and want to become part of your family.  But there are thousands of animals who are euthanized because they can’t find a home and the shelters are over-crowded… so Adopt Just One More Pet if you can!

By Marion Algier/Ask Marion – Photos by Marion Algier – The UCLA Shutterbug

Related Articles:  Shelters Full of Chihuahuas