Let’s Talk: What Do You Think of This Anti-HSUS Ad That Ran During the Oscars?

The anti-HSUS group found an effective way to get attention during the Oscars

The Academy Awards always comes with some interesting commercials, but if you were watching the Oscars on Sunday in the D.C. area, you may have seen a rather startling one. The ad attacked the Humane Society of the United States, saying it spends less than one penny out of every donated dollar on animal shelters. It tells viewers instead to support their own local shelter instead.

The ad opens with a blaring siren and an emphatic voice announcing “Consumer Protection Alert!,” which alone is a bit startling. It’s only 30 seconds, so you can watch it for yourself here.

Wow, well that sure might make some donors question why they’re spending $19 per month to save shelter animals, as the heartbreaking HSUS commercials like this one request viewers to do:

Who would attack the HSUS on these grounds, and why? According to Mother Jones:

The group behind the ad is the Center for Consumer Freedom, a creation of the Washington PR guru Rick Berman, who runs an array of corporate-funded front groups targeting public-interest outfits, unions, and other organizations that pose a threat to the bottom line of Berman’s clients…

According to the Center for Consumer Freedom’s 2010 tax filing, the group set aside about $1 million to set up its anti-Humane Society website, Humane Watch. Berman has created a separate group with the oddly similar-sounding name, the Humane Society for Shelter Pets. Its website snarks at the Humane Society for failing to provide more money for animal shelters.

Berman’s group openly acknowledges that it is supported by restaurants and other food companies … So why would a group funded by the food industry group go after the Humane Society? Both the Humane Society and the Center for Consumer Freedom seem to agree this is not about lost puppies. Rather, it’s about the Humane Society’s success in altering laws and regulations dealing with animal cruelty, which can sometimes increase the cost of doing business.

The HSUS fought back fast. According to Humane Watch:

We knew our ad during Sunday’s Academy Awards would ruffle some feathers, but HSUS replied yesterday with an especially vicious attack. Though our ad ran in only the D.C. area, HSUS put out a national alert that it was launching a new fundraising campaign — to stop our so-called “campaign for cruelty.”

So let’s get this straight: Our ad asked people who want to help shelter pets to donate to their local pet shelter. And, somehow, that’s a “campaign for cruelty”? If that doesn’t sum up how paranoid and demagogic HSUS is, we don’t know what does.

“…nowhere in HSUS’s fevered response does it mention supporting local shelters! Wethinks HSUS doth protest too much—and in fact, it’s a bit funny that HSUS unwittingly revealed its true motive: factory fundraising. Unfortunately, we’re outgunned here. Our annual budget is less than what HSUS puts into its pension plan. We haven’t mastered the art of deception and inflammatory Orwellian rhetoric like its CEO Wayne Pacelle, and we don’t have untold millions to pump into misleading marketing.

So we need your help. Here’s what you can do:

1. Donate supplies or money to your local pet shelter.

2. Write to the editor of your local newspaper or magazine, asking readers to give locally, and telling them how HSUS gives only 1 percent of its money to local shelters. (If you want more talking points, read this.)

3. If you run a blog, write about how inhumane HSUS is to shelter advocates.

4. Spread the word to your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

We’re not intimidated by HSUS’s smear tactics and attempts to stifle the truth. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Together, we can expose HSUS and help groups that truly walk the walk.

And here’s what HSUS’s CEO and president Wayne Pacelle says about the campaign in his blog:

Your HSUS is under attack because of our work to prevent cruelty to all animals, and we need your help. That’s why today I am launching the “HSUS Fund to Stop Rick Berman’s Campaign for Cruelty,” and I hope you will join me. Whenever he does his worst, we need to do our best in response. So will you join me today and donate $25, $50, or even $100 to help animals in the name of Rick Berman? We’ll put the money to good use. We’ll take the fight straight to his shadowy paymasters and show them that attacking the cause of animal protection will backfire big-time as a business strategy. I’m making the first donation of $500.

We’ll dedicate half the donations for our work against puppy mills, and the other half will boost our efforts to combat factory farming abuses. Your contributions will fund the undercover investigations, litigation, corporate campaigns, and the other work that Berman and his paymasters so desperately hope to stop.

CBS’ 60 Minutes investigated him years ago and dubbed him Dr. Evil. He’s like a bad penny ? he turns up opportunistically as a corporate hireling to take on any number of common-sense ideas, whether it’s attempts to rein in drunken driving, to place limits on smoking, or to combat animal cruelty …

It’s high time to send these animal abusers a message and to make the name “Rick Berman” do something to help animals, something real. By donating to The HSUS for this new fund, you can help us expose those who make money from mistreatment of animals.

Donate here to our HSUS Fund to Stop Rick Berman’s Campaign for Cruelty, and we’ll keep you posted on how your donations in Rick’s name are helping animals. As I said, I’m kicking things off with a $500 donation, and other members of our executive team at HSUS are chipping in another $2,500. I know with your help we will reach our goal of $250,000 — that’s $125,000 to help pets, and another $125,000 to take on factory farming abuses, all thanks to Rick Berman.

Did the HSUS make lemonade out of lemons, or is the group going to sour some donors by its reaction to the ad?

Well it does sound like HSUS acted pretty fast to find a way to make lemonade out of lemons, but I wonder if this tactic of raising money in this way will sour some people who think they’re taking advantage of the situation just a little too much?

Okay, readers — I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit confused. I need to do a lot more research to know just what’s going on here. I’ve heard for some time about the HSUS donations to shelters being abysmal despite its sometimes very frequent TV pleas for money for shelter animals, but I didn’t check it out for myself.

So I ask you: Is the HSUS being attacked unfairly, or do you smell a scam? Or does it even matter if 99 percent of its donations doesn’t go to shelters? Does Humane Watch have a valid point, or is it just trying to keep life for farm animals from getting too cozy and thereby increasing restaurant prices? I’ll bet some of you can shed some light on this situation. Let’s talk! (I’ll mostly listen.)

View the original article here

First-Ever Golden Collar Award Nominees: Which Dog Actor Do You Think Should Win?

The Golden Globe Awards are so last weekend. The awards event that’s shining today is the Golden Collar Awards, a new institution recognizing the best canine performances in film and television.

The first-ever Golden Collar Awards, put together by Dog News Daily, will follow in the decade-old pawsteps of the Palm Dog Awards at Cannes in honoring the year’s top dog actors. The nominations came out yesterday, and we were not too surprised to see some of our favorite four-legged thespians on the list. Check out the nominees below and let us know who would get your vote if you were a judge.

The spotlight has been shining brightly on the amazing Uggie, the 9-year-old Jack Russell who had a major role in the wonderful film, The Artist. He upstaged pretty much everyone at the Golden Globe awards on Sunday with his incomparable cuteness. His Uggieness even inspired a call to start recognizing dogs at the Golden Globes and the Oscars (check out the Consider Uggie Facebook page), but there has been no official movement in that direction. Well, who needs a statue when you can get a cool collar?

Penelope Ann Miller and Uggie announced the Golden Collar Awards yesterday

Uggie, who helped his human costar, Penelope Ann Miller, announce the nominees, was nominated twice for a top-dog award. (His other nomination was as Queenie in Water for Elephants.) Judges will probably have a hard time, because last year there were some superb canine performances.

One of my favorites on the list is Cosmo, the uber-adorable Jack Russell who played beside Christopher Plummer in the indie breakout film, Beginners. I saw that in a special screening with Dogster Managing Editor Janine Kahn, and was grateful we brought a little packet of Kleenex with us.

Both Uggie and Cosmo were rescued from shelters by their trainers. How cool is that?

As well as telling us who you think deserves the Golden Collars in their categories, let us know what you think about the up-and-coming idea of having a category in the Oscars for performance by an animal. Stephen Spielberg is reportedly behind this effort; he apparently would like to see the horse who played Joey in War Horse nominated for such an award. (From what I read, several horses played Joey. Not sure how that would work …)

The awards ceremony takes place on Monday, February 13, at 6 p.m. (PT) at the Hotel Palomar in Westwood/Los Angeles. You won’t be able to tune in, because it’s not being televised, but we’ll bring you the results.

Canine nominees for the Golden Collar Awards were announced in five categories:

BEST DOG IN A THEATRICAL FILM

COSMO as Arthur — BEGINNERS (Focus Features)

UGGIE as Queenie  — WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (Fox)

DENVER as Skeletor — 50/50 (Summit Entertainment/ Mandate Pictures)

HUMMER as Dolce — YOUNG ADULT (Paramount/Mandate)

UGGIE as Jack — THE ARTIST (The Weinstein Company)

BEST DOG IN A FOREIGN FILM

KOKO as Red Dog — RED DOG (Roadshow Films, Australia)

LAIKA as Herself — LE HAVRE (Janus Films, France)

BIINA as Alf — THE DAY THE DOGS DISAPPEARED (Nippon Television, Japan)

ICHICO as Tao — THE DAY THE DOGS DISAPPEARED (Nippon Television, Japan)

BEST DOG IN A TELEVISION SERIES

ROCY as Arnold — ENTOURAGE (HBO)

CHUNK as Himself — CHELSEA LATELY (E! Entertainment Television)

BRIGITTE as Stella — MODERN FAMILY (ABC)

DART as Chance — HOT IN CLEVELAND (TV Land)

JASON GANN as Wilfred — WILFRED (FX)

LAMBCHOP as Yakult — SUBURGATORY (ABC)

BEST DOG IN A REALITY TELEVISION SERIES

GIGGY — THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS/Lisa Vanderpump (Bravo)

MILLOU — THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF NEW YORK CITY/Sonja Morgan (Bravo)

JACKPOT — THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF BEVERLY HILLS/Adrienne Maloof (Bravo)

SPARTACUS — ICE LOVES COCO/Coco (E! Entertainment)

HERCULES — PIT BOSS/ Shorty Rossi (Animal Planet)

BEST DOG IN A DIRECT-TO-DVD FILM

FRED as B Dawg — SPOOKY BUDDIES (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)

GASTON as Beethoven — BEETHOVEN’S CHRISTMAS ADVENTURE (Universal Home Entertainment)

ANGEL as Chloe — BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA 2 (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)

ROWDY  as Marley — MARLEY AND ME: THE PUPPY YEARS (Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment)

RUSCO as Papi — BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA 2 (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)

View the original article here

Let’s Talk: Do You Use Retractable Leashes, or Do You Think They’re Completely Lame and Dangerous?

A blessing for man and beast, or a potential finger guillotine? How do you feel about retractable leashes? (Photo from the Flexi leash website)

Fabulosa Dogster Managing Editor Janine Kahn gave Jake something the other day for review purposes. It’s a new take on retractable leashes, and, as luck would have it for Jake, it is a pretty shade of pink, with cursive writing front and center. Jake has been wearing girly things all his life because he’s a member a household where girl humans outnumber boy humans, and it seems his reputation has now spread to Dogster HQ.

Jake sighed when I showed him the LeashLocket; he’s a dog resigned to forever breaking the gender barrier despite his best intentions. The LeashLocket’s slogan —  “Let Your Dog Carry His Leash for a Change” — sounded interesting.  I snapped it onto an attachment I had put on his deep-pink Ed Hardy collar and he looked so … well, so pretty. (Sorry Jake.) Perhaps a little wary as well.

Jake modeling the LeashLocket in its "dormant state." He's so pretty in pink, and it matches his nose.

He didn’t seem to even notice it was there when he ran around in his usual blissed-out state. It weights only four ounces, and has a six-foot retractable leash inside. It’s far smaller and lighter than any retractable leash we’ve ever used. In its “dormant” state, it’s about the size of a fat dog tag on major steroids. Here’s what it looks like when you unsnap it from its superstrong magnetic attachment and use it as a leash.

The LeashLocket in extended mode. It's a tape leash, but you can't tell in this picture. Jake is checking it out and can see it's tape, not string..

It’s a handy contraption, but I don’t mind holding his regular leash or retractable leash, so I will be giving it  to a friend who is always losing track of her dog’s leash at the dog park. She has a beagle, so I hope this leash doesn’t take up too much neck room. My friend gets positively giddy over devices like this. And her dog is female, which is probably a better choice for this color.

When Janine gave me the LeashLocket, we got into a conversation about retractable leashes. I frequently use one with Jake. He’s not a big puller anymore, and I like to give him a little freedom on our walks in spacious parks where he can’t be off leash. It allows him to sniff around and enjoy life without me having to traipse into the bushes or whatnot as he does so. We’ve never had a problem with a retractable leash in our nine years together.

But it turns out that Janine and some others in the office are not fans. This is mostly because retractable leashes can be rather dangerous. I read the instructions and safety info when I bought Jake’s Flexi leash, but chalked it up to an overzealous legal department protecting the product from lawsuits just in case. Here’s the stark language with which it begins:

“To avoid the risk of eye or face injury and cuts, burns, and amputations to your body or the body of another person from the leash cord/tape or all belt and hook, read and follow these Warnings and Directions for Use before using your Flexi leash.”

I’ve compiled some of the visual warnings from the Flexi site.

Oof! Okay, you may have chuckled at a couple of these because when they’re happening to this hapless stick figure it has a comic-book humor. But in real life, these things are not cool.

If you’ve never had a problem with a retractable leash, you may be interested in this story I found on the Consumer Reports website.

Heather Todd didn’t bring a leash with her the day she took her pooch Penny to a pond near Boston in 2005. So she borrowed a retractable dog leash to help keep her Labrador retriever in check.  But it didn’t. The 90-pound dog suddenly took off running and dragged Todd across the sand.

When she came to a stop and recovered her wits, she spotted something lying on the sand. With horror, she realized it was a human index finger; with greater horror, she realized it was her own. The cord of the retractable leash had looped around her finger and pulled taut when Penny bolted.

“It just cut it off like a sharp knife,” Todd says.

Horrible! Imagine seeing a finger on the ground and then realizing it’s yours. This woman — a nursing student — took her finger and drove the emergency room (!) but doctors could not reattach it.

The article goes on to cite Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics of 16,564 hospital-treated injuries associated with leashes in the previous year. Nearly a quarter were finger injuries. The leashes aren’t broken down by type, but as the article states, such amputations were likely the result of a retractable leash.

I had little idea retractable leashes were potentially so dangerous. Many people who commented on the Consumer Reports article were adamant the leashes should be banned. But I’ve been using them with Jake for nine years and with my previous dog, Joe, for 13, and not once  have I had a problem. So unless I can’t get the image of that poor woman’s finger out of my head, I will continue to use the leash in wide-open parklands we’ve been going to forever. (Some caveats, though; I would not use it around traffic or where there are lots of people. That’s probably where things start to get a little dicey. And I use the all-tape (no cord) Flexi, which makes a very durable leash.)

How about you, Dogsters? Are you okay with retractables, at least in certain situations? Or do you think they are far too dangerous to be on the market?

View the original article here

Ever think about cloning your pets?

Peter Onruang loved his terrier mixes Wolfie and Bubble. How much did he love the two sisters? The Los Angeles Times will tell you how much:

Before Wolfie’s demise, Onruang took measures to preserve her genetic material and that of her sister Bubble in the hope that he could have them cloned at some point in the future.

First, Onruang had to raise the money to have the expensive cloning procedure performed on Wolfie and Bubble. He founded a company, Hollywood Paintball, with the express purpose of raising the money — to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

A few years later, Onruang says a South Korean company has been paid for the cloning procedure, and he now awaits the births of Wolfie and Bubble clones. (He plans to call the puppies Wolfie and Bubble, if you’re wondering.)

Mr. Onruang has a website explaining what he’s doing. This makes a great addition to the ethical debate — adopt, breed or clone (assuming you have a spare hundred thousand kicking around).

Puppy mill debate includes multiple voices: In 2008, the state of Pennsylvania took a major step forward in cracking down on their (at the time) enormous puppy mill industry. They passed a law to substantially upgrade the standards of breeding kennels.

Now, State Rep. Gordon Denlinger of Lancaster County is making new claims about the 2008 law costing the state millions in sales and tax revenue. The ASPCA isn’t buying it, and they’re not pulling any punches. They want HR 89 shot down, saying it would create the first step toward gutting the 2008 measure.

Who supports HR 89? The American Kennel Club. From Bill White of the Allentown Morning Call:

“The AKC encourages Pennsylvania responsible breeders and dog owners to contact the committee, and your state representative, and ask them to support House Resolution 89,” the AKC says in a press release that appears on its website. It repeats all the preposterous claims of the puppy mill shills who concocted this scheme.

[...]

Make no mistake about why almost 2/3 of Pennsylvania’s commercial kennels have disappeared. It’s because Amish/Mennonite farmers and other operators were unwilling to make the investment needed to upgrade their facilities. They profited richly by exploiting these dogs. Running a legitimate, humane business? Not profitable enough.

Despite the best efforts of their lobbyists and apologists, they lost that fight. The new state dog law passed overwhelmingly. And if some breeders won’t change the way they operate, I’m glad they’re out of business.

Lead sponsor Gordon Denlinger, R-Lancaster, claimed the resolution, which cleared the state House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee Tuesday and now goes to the full House, is not intended to reopen the law but rather to study its impact on state revenue and jobs. That claim doesn’t jibe with the language and tone of his resolution — or for that matter, with Denlinger’s history as an opponent of the original legislation and de facto defender of puppy mill operators, many of them based in his home Lancaster County. And why “study” the impact of the law before all its provisions even have gone into effect? The last set of regulations won’t kick in until this July. Makes no sense, unless the goal is to derail it before it starts.

The AKC, as you might presume, has a whole different take on the issue.

HR 89 also contains a number of positive statements in support of breeders and the impact overly-restrictive breeder legislation has on the economy, including:

Recognition of the “substantial investments” that breeders have made in land, buildings, veterinary care, etc.Estimating that the new laws have resulted in millions of dollars in economic losses for small businessesRecognition that the laws/regulations have resulted in the loss of numerous jobs.Recognition that there are many questions regarding the costs in implementing the new regulatory standards.

The AKC strongly supports this resolution, which recognizes the significant impact that dog breeders have on the economy and the significant resources breeders devote to their business.

The bill has made it out of the Agriculture Committee. If you live in Pennsylvania, make your voice known to your local rep.

Attention all cat owners with kids: There’s good evidence indicating that domestic cats do a great job calming people. Here’s the tricky part —  why? Professors Ben and Lynette Hart of the University of California, Davis are working to gather data to furnish clues. Specifically, they’re interested in surveying families with children and cats. From the Daily Democrat:

The Harts, working with veterinary geneticist Leslie Lyons, have begun a multi-part study to tease out how those relationships benefit children and whether feline genetic traits can help identify positive behavioral characteristics in cats.

In their part of the study, the Harts are asking adult cat owners in families with children to respond to an online survey to help develop a picture of children’s relations with cats. The anonymous questionnaire asks about the family and the behavior of their cat around children, including its friendliness, aggression and fearful behavior.

A family member over age 18 may take the survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ucdcatbehavior/. The survey takes about 15 minutes to complete. Respondents also have the opportunity to provide some personal details about the family cat in a special comments section.

Blind CKCS regains sight, loses best friend: From the Manchester Evening News, a great news, terrible news story. Ellie is a one year-old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel who had been blind, but had her vision restored with successful cataract surgery. That’s the good news. The bad news is her faithful guardian, a big German Shepherd named Leo, passed away soon after Ellie’s surgery.

GWP Samantha and Shelby County: Please read this story from our friend Mary at GWP Rescue. The tale of a terrific Missouri shelter and a brave German Wirehaired Pointer named Samantha (and those who love her) makes you believe there’s hope for all.

Biodegradable options: It’s problematic when good points are made by people with issues. Another piece from the L.A. Times has merit, but the author is a bit, shall we say compromised. Let’s start with the observation that she clearly doesn’t have any use for pets. Also, she was allegedly bitten by a breed that doesn’t actually exist. Ms. Carpenter, there are Afghan Hounds, and there are Greyhounds. Two different breeds.  In spite of that, the article on pet waste disposal is worth reading.

Reviews R Us: Recently posted product reviews from our intrepid tester Ericka Basile: IPad or IPaw’d, and testing the Halti.

Cats with thumbs: I love this video, (sent by four different friends) though it terrifies me something awful.

The face of freedom: It’s Monday, so you need a chuckle, right? Please, before you do anything else, go check out the photo on this Daily Mail page. You’ll smile, guaranteed, or your money back.

I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories.  Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an e-mail.

Photo credits: Terriers on the beach, myfriendagain.com.

View the original article here

Stop, read the label and think before you buy

Someone had a bright idea, and I got no beef with that, I really don’t. Someone read in any number of places that canned pumpkin is a good thing to keep in the pantry if you have a pet. That it’s good for constipation, for diarrhea, for hairballs … and heck, if your pet ends up without any of those conditions, you can always make a nice pie.

So someone took that idea and decided that it would be a great idea to put pumpkin in a can with oatmeal, add some other stuff with lots of syllables, give it a cool name and sell it in pet-supply stores.

For $4 and change.

That’s $4-plus retail for pumpkin, which you can get for a less than half that for a can of organic pumpkin, with nothing else in the can, and for even less than that if you watch for a sale and don’t insist on organic. And for oatmeal, which you can buy in bulk for pennies a serving, and not a hecka lot more than that if you insist on some fancy-pant steel-cut oats in a pretty metal can.

As I said, I got nothing against the person who had the idea, and I’m sure the product is fine, even with all those multi-syllable ingredients I generally pass on.

But why spend for the cute name and the label? It’s “clinically proven”  (to steal the language from the label on the left, ha!) that you don’t to spend a lot of money to  feed either your pets or you a healthy diet.  Here’s what I laughed at in the feed store today and put back on the shelf, left, and what I have a case of in my garage, right:

View the original article here

New veterinary oath: What do you think?

December 22, 2010

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has changed the language in the oath all veterinarians take.

Here’s the wording of the new oath: “Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.”

From DVM360.com:

“The message is we as the AVMA and veterinarians in general do recognize that protecting animal well-being is what we’re all about,” (AVMA Executive Board Chair John R.) Brooks says.

“From today forward, every graduate entering our profession will swear an oath not only to protect animal health but also welfare; to not only relieve animal suffering but to prevent it. That’s a powerful statement defining ourselves and our responsibilities, not a vague symbol,” adds Dr. J. Bruce Nixon, chairman-elect of the (AVMA’s) Animal Welfare Commission.

[....]

The oath previously made no mention of animal welfare and, while the revision does not include definition of what animal welfare means, the result of deliberations on the language addition was that it already is past the time to act if AVMA is to be seen as a leader in animal welfare—a goal the group stressed at the Joint International Educational Symposium on Animal Welfare it co-sponsored last year

I think it might surprise a lot of people that language like that wasn’t part of the oath all along. But growing up as an Idaho farm boy who went on to become a veterinarian, I know that historically farm work — keeping healthy work animals such as horses and food animals such as cows and pigs — was once the primary focus of veterinary medicine, along with protecting public health. A lot has changed in how society cares for and about animals in the last couple of centuries (veterinary medicine as a profession is 250 years old) and veterinary medicine has changed, too.

What do you think about this addition to the oath?

View the original article here