THIS FILM IS NOTHING compared to SEEING IT IN PERSON and KNOWING you can only SAVE 17 and the other 6 are EUTHANIZED.
or
GOING TO PICK UP 4 DOGs and 1 CAT and as you wonder back YOU SEE YOUR BREED STICKING OUT OF A 55 GALLON DRUM -
BECAUSE they DON'T HAPPEN to LIKE THAT BREED.
OR - -
TELLING PETA THAT YOU HAVE 3 GROUPS WAITING TO TAKE 7 of THEIR PICKED UP ANIMALS......................
.........
.....
AND PETA R E F U S E S
So, when PETA gets the pets, THEY KILL THEM RIGHT THERE IN the PETA truck ...........
................
and.......
.......
THROUGH THEM IN A DUMPSTER
............
after LYING TO EVERYONE !!!!!!!!!!
PETA's attorneys get them off LIGHTLY !!!!
PETA KILLS
********
PETA KILLS GOOD, HEALTHY PETS !!!!!!!
########################
R E S O U R C E S :
Dalmatian at protest over PETA killing Dals.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm?id=129
PETA trial is over
Dalmatians among those killed by PETA
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day4.cfm
Hinkle and Cook "acted out of love for animals" and "had no criminal intent."
PETA kills animals because "there's an enormous animal overpopulation problem."
Hinkle and Cook were just doing their job. PETA issued "a work order" (literally) and the employees did the work. Hinkle "was assured by PETA that it was perfectly proper and legal for her to go out and administer lethal injections of sodium pentobarbital."
"Those animals would have been put down anyway."
January 28, 2007 | The animal-cruelty trial of PETA employees Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook has the weekend off, but it's still a hot topic. The Sunday Telegraph is sharing the story with its readers in Great Britain. And dinner-table conversations all over the North Carolina towns of Winton and Ahoskie are
Last, we'd like to share a few thoughts from Ann. She's been watching the trial along with her friends from a local animal-adoption program called PAWS of Hertford County. PAWS stands for "Protecting Animals Worth Saving."
"If PETA were taking [the animals] back up to a big-city area like Norfolk," Ann tells us, "they could find homes, especially for kittens and Dalmatians. They could have been turned in to a Dalmatian rescue. It really would not have been that hard. As soon as we found out these animals were dumped in the dumpster, everyone realized that they weren't given a chance at all."
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day9.cfm
The End of Happy
Last week Bertie County Animal Control Officer Barry Anderson testified that he trusted Adria Hinkle so much that he asked her to find an adoptive home for one of his own pets. It was a terrier named "Happy." This is what Anderson said on the witness stand last week:
"I knew that by talking to Ms. Hinkle that she could possibly find a home for it, someone that was looking for a good dog … To my understanding, she found a home for it in Virginia ."
Not so much. Hinkle testified today that "the only time I can remember leaving with a dog alive would have been Happy." And although Anderson thought the dog at least had a chance at a better life, she killed it when she got back to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.
Wait. It gets worse.
She sent Anderson photos of the dog taken on the way back to Norfolk . Happy was pictured wearing a leash and a collar, in a flower garden in front of a brick house.
We're not making this up.
Here's how District Attorney Valerie Asbell questioned Adria about those photos:
Asbell: "How did these pictures get back in the possession of [Animal Control Officer] Barry Anderson?
Hinkle: "I sent them to him."
Asbell: "Why?"
Hinkle: "I thought he would appreciate them. I knew that it was a very hard decision for him to give Happy up."
Asbell: "And when you sent these pictures back to him, did you tell him that 'I killed the dog in Norfolk '?"
Hinkle: "No."
Asbell: "Why not?"
Hinkle: "I didn't think it was necessary."
Asbell: "Why?"
Hinkle: "I don't know."
Asbell: "When he gave you this dog, and entrusted you to take it and adopt it, out, why did you not tell him that you killed it?"
Hinkle: "No reason. I didn't want to hurt Barry's feelings."
Asbell: "If you didn't want to hurt his feelings, why didn't you leave the dog with him?"
Hinkle: "I don't know."
R.I.P., Happy.
Ethical, shmethical.
last day of Trial is so deceiving and hypocritical
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day10.cfm
Culling of dogs
Dalmatian at bottom 2nd over
http://sirius.2kat.net/cixiguilin.html
find animal welfare and many other helpful city searches.
www.local.com
http://www.local.com/results.aspx?keyword=animal+welfare&cid=645&gid=US_-_Test_-_Aug_31&gclid=CNrl3PKnnooCFQRDYQodB2xXig
Korea Yahoo!
cat alive with eye out, dogs in runs
http://kr.img.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=%B5%BF%B9%B0%BA%B8%C8%A3&b=90&z=&oid=16223881&subtype=com&target=detail&
http://kr.img.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=%B5%BF%B9%B0%BA%B8%C8%A3&b=90&z=&oid=16223881&subtype=com&target=detail&
What it is about SPAY and NEUTER - - -
- you need to look at both sides of the discussion to be informed.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ''''''''''''''' ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
It is NOT HEALTHY for animals to be spayed or neutered early.
EVEN VETERINARIANS ARE NOT UP ON THIS SUBJECT and WILL NOT DISCUSS with the REGULAR PET OWNER.
It needs to be not healthy for IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE without punishing the responsible breeders.
SINCE the Laws are NOT ENFORCED, I follow-up closely on my puppies to make sure they get neutered/spayed after age 1 year to 18 months.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I have several solutions, 1 being that a "BREEDER CHIP" be put in all pups & kittens and then 1 "OWNER CHIP" be put in after sold 2 people can be traced & made responsible for lost, stray, bred, etc. pet.
To enforce, use the money saved from fewer euthanasias and the fines for no rabies & no microchips.
Can you imagine if a puppy mill business or a commercial, for-profit back yard breeder had to chip ? If the owner could not be found, the breeder would have to cough up money for re-homing....
or ...
have the one responsible pay for the euthanasia and body disposal. Have court order they hold the pet while it is PTS on top of the fines.
###################################
######################################
While the risks may outweigh the cons, please look at the cons in neutering so early.
Special concern would be with
1.) growth plates don't grow properly,
2.) more ACL tears,
3.) more hypothyoridism,
4.) heart tumors,
5.) prostate cancer,
6.) bone cancer,
7.) spay incontinence,
8.) block stones in the penis os.
Something to put in your "Dog Health" file.
http://www.caninesports.com/EarlySpayConsiderations.pdf
SIDE NOTE on GELDING of HORSES
In horses, breeders that are going to geld a stud colt do it early. Why ? Because the growth plates remain 'open' longer and therefore they grow taller. Close observation on the amount of protein and how much the gelding is shaking in the knees (usual area I notice, anyway). The colt is basically unable to support his weight because of the gaps betweent the larger structured leg bones.
If any of you want more information on growth plates not closing in neutering animals - due to the hormones, not just the male or female hormones - please search the net.
At a dog seminar I went to, the veterinarian put on the screen a "specimen" photographs from a vet textbook.
These photos demonstrated * * progressively* dwarfed os penises * from male dogs prematurely castrated at 5, 10, 18, 20 and 50 weeks.
.... EARLY, PREMATURE NEUTERING OF DOGS, "PREMATURE" DEFINED AS.....
"BEFORE COMPLETING PUBERTY AT 50 WKS OF AGE."
"...CASTRATION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF GROWTH COULD RESULT IN A ......
SMALLER THAN NORMAL OS PENIS."
photos shown left to right ... (L-to-R: At 5, 10, 18, 20, and 50 weeks.)"
After this point in the seminar, it was shown different type of stones obstruct throughout the canine urinary system.
The vast majority of obstructions being at the os penis of the lower urinary system.
FOR THOSE CONCERNED WITH RESCUE AND THE NUMBER OF INTACT DOG ABANDONMENTS, NO QUESTION, IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL.
The source vet journal article was:
"Elective Gonadectomy in Dogs: A Review"
by Katharine R. Salmeri, DVM,
Patricia N. Olsen, DVM, Ph.D. and
Mark S. Bloomberg, DVM, MS.
It was published in the April 1, 1997 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, volume 198, pages 1183-1191.
...The most common cause of incontinence in spayed dogs, however, is
urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence (USMI), an ** uncommon disease in intact bitches ** with reported incidences of 0.2%...
... I just wanted to address what appears to be the implication that
incontinence in EARLY-SPAY bitches is somehow different than "normal" spay incontinence.
There may be differences in the incidence and/or intensity of
symptoms with early spay, but the underlying condition is the same... an EARLY SPAY.
Moving on to symptoms, one vet journal article summarizing over 100
publications on neutering, stated animals with spay incontinence "will have
no physical or neurological abnormalities, but will involuntarily leak urine
when recumbent or asleep." That does not mean bitches who leak "when
recumbent or asleep" cannot have another type than spay incontinence.
But ......
if other types are ruled out by history, examination and testing, the vet
generally ends up with a final diagnosis of spay incontinence based on it
occurring during sleep.
My 3 experiences with spay incontinence was classical....the ***** never awoke from sleep while she was leaking nightly, she leaked only when asleep not awake. he never emptied her entire bladder as with normal urinating.
All 3 had been spayed months before her first heat, so her spaying was premature.
Proin's (medication) has effectiveness for most types of incontinence (the bacterial type due
to infection perhaps being an exception) and seems to apply...not "especially"
to early spay incontinence. However, there are some veterinarians that have good results with PPA.
REFERENCE which explains why PPA is more effective for early spay dogs."
Surfing the net with "phenylpropanolamine pharmacology" comes up with many authoritative articles, especially from the National Library of Medicine.
Those strongly suggest the drug acts against all spay incontinence in very
specific ways.
That pharmacologic evidence strongly is supportive of PPA's
chemical action having an affect on certain nerves which enervate structures
of the urinary system including the sphincter muscle. Whatever is the
underlying reason for a sleeping *****'s sphincter muscle to permit leaks,
it's then possible (note "possible") PPA's drug action creates via its
neurological actions what's termed "urinary retention" whether by
strengthening the sphincter or whatever else induces the sleeping leaking.
In the past 15 years, the number of owners with bitches
leaking while still asleep, was unanimous that empirically, PPA proved
effective with their dogs' incontinence. "Empirical" in medicine means "the
proof of the pudding is in the eating." ie. no research
Many vets, for example, will prescribe an antibiotic for a urinary tract infection (UTI) without having the owner authorize a bacteriology culture including disk-sensitivities revealing which of several antibiotics will be the most, specifically
effective against that dog's infecting bacterial species.
If the dog's UTI does not respond, the dog is shifted to another antibiotic until one proves effective. This is empirical drug prescription writing.
I had a ***** with chronic UTI. After running through several unsuccessful antibiotics, I requested a bacteriology culture with antibiotic sensitivity testing. It revealed her * * UTI was caused by not one but three bacterial species, one or all of which was unresponsive to the prescribed antibiotics. * * The cost of
the bacteriology test, though not inexpensive, was less than what the series
of unsuccessful antibiotics had been. I also had a girl that had to continue on an anti-biotic for 6 weeks .... per instructions of specialist and after the C&S.
With bitches, prices can vary depending whether the spaying is a
** total hysterectomy **
or
a **partial spay** -
leaving some of the female genitals intact, even though she may be functionally neutered.
#####################################
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
***********************
Read below for even MORE info on WHY TO NOT SPAY or NEUTER an IMMATURE ANIMAL : :
http://dogtorj.net/id57.html
Neutering Issues
Early Spaying- A Good Idea?
The Rottweiler Study
The Negative Aspects of Neutering Your Pet
88888888888888888888888888888888888888
************************************************************
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
http://www.caninesports.com/EarlySpayConsiderations.pdf
Something to put in your "Dog Health" file.
Spay/nueter is not the innocuous procedure that they let you believe. Spayed/nuetered dogs have a greater incidence of bone
cancer, more prostate cancer, heart tumors, the growth plates don't grow
properly, more ACL tears, more hypothyroidism, etc.,
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/11/1434
In summary, this study found that male and female Rottweilers with the shortest lifetime gonadal exposure had the highest risk for bone sarcoma. Dogs that underwent early elective gonadectomy had a one in four lifetime risk of bone sarcoma development compared with a significantly reduced risk among dogs that were sexually intact throughout their lifetime.
Although it remains unclear how endogenous gonadal hormones influence bone sarcoma development, our work provides the framework for selecting a target population for bone sarcoma prevention studies. We have identified a subgroup of Rottweiler dogs, recognizable as.......
......it continues.......
66666666666666666666666666666666666666
77777777777777777777777777777777777777
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The fact that spay and neuter isn't as good for dogs as we have been told is just the tip of the iceberg.
A large part of the spay/neuter (or speuter) drive as some say, came out of the covert activities of the animal rights orgs- PeTA and the Humane Society of the US. Their admitted goal is the extinction of all pet animals and food animals. "One generation and out," says Wayne Pacelle of HSUS. So, they started a campaign to inform people that speutered animals are happier and healthier.
They also worked underground within the breeders community to put out the message that "responsible" breeders spay and neuter every puppy they sell. That's a great way to limit the breeding pool. I know of many breeders who look at their pet puppies later and find several that they wish they hadn't speutered.
This all started before the bloom of internet lists, so no one really knew what was going on. Now as people compare notes on line every day and with the availability of lists like pet-law, everyone is finding out that a lot of these so-called "good breeder" practices were driven by the animal rights orgs.
They say dog show breeders need to stop breeding because we're contributing to the number of dogs in the pounds and shelters. I know there are purebreds in the pound, but most are not, so that shoots that one down.
Also, the euthanasia rate in the country is down by 75% over the past 10 years. Something is working. Some shelters are even importing puppies from other countries because they don't have any dogs to sell.
The ar's can't touch the commercial breeders since they're protected by the USDA, so they turn on the hobby breeders to reach their goal of zero dogs/cats/ferrets/goldfish/etc. They started the term "puppy mill" and "puppy factory." I agree that there are horrible commercial breeders out there, but there are some that treat their sires and dams well and treat the puppies well. They try to sell healthy puppies because they don't want to lose business for selling a shoddy product. Then there are the Amish/Mennonite farmers who don't have much invested in the "business" so don't worry if they lose a bunch of dogs. They're just trying to make the most while investing the least.
But the bottom line is that the ar groups pitted the show/hobby breeders against the commercial breeders (the best term, btw) in a divide and conquer movement.
Show/hobby breeders never have and never will be able to keep up with the demand in many breeds, so we actually need the commercial breeders to keep supply up and prices somewhat lower than they might be if only show/hobby breeders were breeding.
Meanwhile, some breeds are on the verge of extinction anyway as they have natural temperaments that make them less appealling or because they have a natural low birth rate.
It's a pretty high traffic list, but if you're interested, join pet-law@yahoogroups.com Walt Hutchens is the moderator and a sane and reasonable person. There are no flaming lunatics on the list, but there are some ar moles
But the good thing is that their groups and their goals have been "outted" and more people can now recognize an ar agenda.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
COMING UP: PET POPULATION CONTROL SEMINAR
The Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control hits Alexandria, VA, this November.
#######################################
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Permission:
Anyone who wants to may cross post, link to the URL, or print copies for non-commercial distribution.
+ Laura Sanborn
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#####################################
The information on this subject is available to all of us, as it's
already been published in the veterinary medical literature.
Any of us can search the medical databases using PubMed, and now Google
Scholar.
I made a number of trips to the Univ. of California, Davis
medical libraries to copy papers from medical journals.
And I read them. I have a science background but not a medical background.
One of the things I found interesting in doing this is that sometimes published research gets misrepresented even in peer-reviewed medical journals.
An example is the 1969 epidemiological study on mammary
cancer risk as a function of spay timing. This is THE source of the recommendation ever since to spay female dogs when they are young to prevent this cancer.
That study has gotten misinterpreted by other researchers in their published papers, and by veterinarians. The text of the thing is plain and clear, to anyone who would bother to read it.
While a lot of information on the long-term health effects of
spay/neuter in dogs has already been published, it's scattered around in 50+ separate journal articles.
Often times it's buried in articles like "Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma", which examined a number of risk factors for this cancer, not just spay/neuter.
What's been missing is that no one has published a review article on this subject in the veterinary medical journals.
One often finds review articles on various topics in medical journals. I got tired of waiting for somebody else to do it, that's why I wrote it.
I didn't write it for formal publication in a veterinary medical journal, but for a wider distribution.
For example, I had to remove medical jargon and use terms that most of us are familiar with (ovariohysterectomy =spay, gonadectomy = spay or neuter, neuter can mean spay or neuter, etc.)
For example, if one does a bit of googling, one will find hundreds of documents.
These almost always falsely assert that neutering reduces
or eliminates the risk of prostate cancer in dogs.
In addition, they almost never mention the most serious downside risks of spay/neuter...
such as documented increased risks of osteosarcoma and
hemangiosarcoma...
cancers that are far more likely to kill dogs than all of the cancers of the reproductive organs, combined.
I've spent a good bit of time reviewing the veterinary medical
journals and research on the long-term health impacts of spay/neuter in dogs. I've written a paper summarizing this literature.
Unlike what you will find in Spay/Neuter Fact Sheets, the health impacts of spay/neuter that are discussed in this paper are all backed up with citations to the veterinary medical literature.
You can find the paper here:
http://escregistry.kattare.com/healthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
I started this effort in an attempt to find the factual basis behind
the health benefits that are claimed for spay/neuter. I believed what
we've all been told, that spay/neuter is a huge win for canine health.
I was surprised by what I learned.
It is astonishing to me that the California Veterinary Medical
Association is lobbying hard for mandatory early spay/neuter of all
dogs and cats, given what the body of documented evidence in
peer-reviewed veterinary medical journals indicates about the health
impacts of these procedures.
This reaffirms what I've noticed for some time...
Even MANY VETERINARIANS are UNAWARE of what the
veterinary medical literature has to say about spay/neuter health impacts.
+ Laura Sanborn