Dogged Blog

A picture is worth a thousand words

When my dog Raven was diagnosed with osteosarcoma (bone cancer), I posted a note to the Deerhound-L email list.



Within hours, my mailbox was full of notes of sympathy and concern, and stories. Stories of dogs who'd beaten the odds, stories of dogs who hadn't but who'd had good quality of life after amputation, whose owners offered me a shoulder to cry on and hope, too.



And one special email from Jean at Circle of Grey, an email support list for the owners of greyhounds with cancer, mostly osteosarcoma. Attached to her email was a picture that changed how I felt about Raven's amputation and, in a way no words could have done, gave me hope.



This is a photo of a much-loved and much-missed greyhound named Lucky, used with the permission of the photographer, Gretje Ferguson, and Lucky's "mom," Meredith Holderbaum.



For all who think that a life on three legs will be hell for their hound -- who don't think this could be worth it, even to stop the pain and give them more time -- and for those few who, through ignorance I'm sure, wrote begging me not to "mutilate" Raven by amputating her leg, this image is why I didn't listen to any of them, and why I encourage those with a dog with osteosarcoma not to rule out amputation without good cause.



I maintain a page on my website with information about canine osteosarcoma, and there you'll find a link to Raven's story, the stories of other dogs, and also information on how to join the bonecancerdogs email list, which was the single most useful resource I found during Raven's illness.



And if you are hesitating about amputating your dog's leg, please read this, and then look at that photo again before you decide against it.

AB 1634: Are they even pretending anymore?

I was literally speechless when I read the recent revisions made to AB 1634, a proposed California law that would mandate spaying and neutering all dogs and cats by the age of 6 months (previously 4 months).

My fundamental contention is that the proposal is flawed at its core and no amendments, revisions and exemptions can "fix" it, because it won't reduce shelter deaths, which is what it's supposed to do.  And these actual revisions and exemptions only make that more clear.

First, it now specifically allows everyone to let their pets have one litter before being altered. Since the AKC reports that the majority of people who register litters with them never have another litter -- are, in other words, not people with an ongoing breeding program or part of the fancy --  and  (I choke when I type this, but it's true) puppy mills, pet stores, and mass commercial breeding facilities have always been, and still are, exempt from this bill's provisions, the vast majority of breeding that results in California pets will be unaffected by this bill.

In addition,  those who breed pit bulls for dog fighting, as well as people who just don't care about their pets or the laws and ignore licensing and leash laws now, will ignore this law. As will unowned cats, who in some areas are the majority of the animals euthanized in shelters.

So, who's left? Absolutely no one but small hobby breeders, who are the only kind of breeder you should be giving your money to in the first place, and who can never meet the least-discussed but most "poison pill" provision of this bill: the requirement that they obtain a business license.

Currently, small hobby breeders are treated like any sort of very occasional seller, such as someone who holds one or two garage or yard sales each year. They don't have to get licensed as a business, because they aren't a business, any more than someone who has a yard sale is.

Small hobby breeders, those who maintain breeding programs to preserve and improve their chosen breeds, who participate in showing and training their dogs, almost always have their dogs living in their homes and don't have kennels or any kind of commerical facilities, nor do they live in commercially or business zoned areas. They shouldn't be required to get a business license because they are not a "business" in that sense of the word.

The real problem with this bill continues to be that it won't work to accomplish its stated goal. The influx of irresponsibly bred dogs will continue to flow into California, over the Mexican border, from puppy mills, over the Internet, from the black market of dog fighters and irresponsible owners and  allowed "one litter" breeders, and out of the pet stores.

And that tiny portion of dog owners who don't contribute to the problem in the first place, the serious small hobby breeders, are the only ones who will get squeezed out of existence. And dogs and cats will continue to die in shelters just as they do today, because there is nothing at all in this bill to stop that.

Way to go, California.

Sex, boys, and video clips

Since apparently AfterElton.com has decided I'm the world's leading lesbian expert on gay male sex scenes, they assigned me to do a movie version of my earlier piece on the most groundbreaking gay male sex scenes on television.

I had a lot of fun with this, and am kind of amazed at how much ground I covered in the piece:

Once upon a time, there were no gay and lesbian sections in the video stores, no queer film festivals, no debates over whether or not showing gay men having sex was good for the gay community's image. There were definitely no major theatrical releases of big-budget films in which gay men had sex, and certainly no one ever dreamed a film like that could ever be nominated for an Oscar.

[....]

In the mid-'80s a kind of sea change hit American theaters. Far from being art house and gay film festival exceptions, foreign films with gay male protagonists and overt depictions of gay male sexuality began filling theaters in cities across the United States, earning rave reviews and doing well at the box office.

This "golden age" had its roots in the post-Code, post-Stonewall days of the '60s, when a number of films with gay male sex scenes were made. And prior to the late '80s, when the AIDS epidemic and the changing political scene sent many gay films back into the film festival closet, we saw a high watermark in terms of gay sex on screen.

It's all here. Have fun!

California spay/neuter proposal revised

The senate version of California's mandatory spay/neuter proposal, AB 1634, was published today, with a number of revisions. Additions are shown in italics, with removed portions struck through. The document (PDF) is here.



Probably two of the most notable changes are that people can now have one litter before being forced to spay or neuter their pets, regardless of whether the animals are purebred or not, being bred for a purpose such as work or not, being shown or not; also, the required age for altering has been increased to six months.



Given that the majority of litters registered with the AKC are from "one time only" breeders who are not actually maintaining a breeding program or part of the dog fancy at all, and that puppy mills, pet stores, and commercial breeding operations have always been exempt from this legislation, it is increasingly clear that the only people who will be impacted by this bill if it becomes law are small-scale "hobby breeders."



Who are the only breeders people should give their money to in the first place. But oh well.



I'll be back with more commentary when I've had a chance to look at it more thoroughly, but my first impression is that while some problems have been addressed (restrictions on veterinary exemptions have been loosened, more exemptions for police and assistance dogs are available, etc.), the gaping holes in this bill have just gotten larger, making it even more toothless at doing anything about the problem of too many shelter deaths of dogs and cats, and squeezing just as hard at the tiny portion of the intact-animal-owning population that is in fact not contributing to the problem in the first place.

It ' s good enough for your t-shirt, but not for your pet ' s food -- or yours

With a reminder that country of origin labeling is required on clothes, but not on the food you eat or feed to your pets, some thoughts from John E. Peck, executive director of Family Farm Defenders:

Back in early March, it was first revealed that pet food across the United States contained Chinese wheat and rice gluten laced with melamine. Many expected the Bush White House to take swift action, recalling the deadly products and tracking down the source of the contamination for prosecution.



Instead, the Food and Drug Administration deferred to industry and its dubious self-policing capacity.



The upshot was the death nationwide of thousands of dogs and cats, and the dumping of recalled pet food into livestock rations destined for human mouths.



By late April, federal officials were doing a second round of damage control, contacting pork and poultry producers in nine states about melamine-tainted feedstocks and culling suspected animals.



Unfortunately, some livestock could not be recalled, since they were already on their way to market and people's plates. Not to worry, says the FDA, there is no scientific evidence that eating melamine is bad for humans, so no grocery recall is necessary.



Consumers have now unwittingly joined their pets as subjects in a massive food safety experiment.

After reviewing other food safety problems, including the widespread use of imported milk protein concentrate in American processed foods -- an ingredient he says is imported for industrial use -- and contaminated seafood, he says:

Country of Origin Labeling, which was mandated in the last farm bill but has only been applied to seafood, should be fully implemented for ALL imported food immediately.



People may not eat T-shirts, yet one can read right on the tag where it came from.



Without country of origin labeling, consumers and farmers don't even have the choice to avoid products from those countries that have proven to be dangerous "free trade" partners.



Something as essential as food deserves at least as much truth in labeling as clothing, and certainly more serious government regulation -- not less.

Full commentary here.

China shuts 180 food plants

After rejecting two U.S. food shipments earlier this week due to concerns over bacteria, mold, and preservative contamination, China has now closed 180 food plants after finding illegal dyes, formaldehyde, and other contaminants:

The closures came amid a nationwide crackdown on shoddy and dangerous products launched in December that also uncovered use of recycled or expired food, the China Daily said.



Formaldehyde, illegal dyes, and industrial wax were found being used to make candy, pickles, crackers and seafood, it said, citing Han Yi, an official with the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, which is responsible for food safety.



"These are not isolated cases," Han, director of the administration's quality control and inspection department, was quoted as saying.



Han's admission was significant because the administration has said in the past that safety violations were the work of a few rogue operators, a claim which is likely part of a strategy to protect China's billions of dollars (euros) of food exports.

Full story here.

China impounds U.S. produce

In what's being seen as retaliation against the United States for a number of food safety scandals including the pet food recall, China has impounded two shipments of food from the U.S., saying that they are contaminated with bacteria, mold, and sulfur dioxide:

China has impounded two shipments of food from the US on the grounds that the produce is unsafe and warned that procedures for monitoring American food imports should be tightened.



Government inspectors seized separate shipments of orange pulp and apricots from the US because they contained excessive bacteria and mould, China's food safety inspectorate said on Tuesday on its website.



Coming on the back of a series of scandals in the US over the quality of imported goods from China, the announcement will be considered by many importers as a form of retaliation by the Chinese authorities.



The statement comes one day after regulators in the US announced a recall of up to 450,000 tyres manufactured by a Chinese company because of a potentially dangerous safety problem.



China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said it had impounded the orange pulp in the eastern province of Shandong and the apricots were seized in Shenzhen.



The shipments contained "excessive bacteria, mould and sulphur dioxide", the agency said, but gave no details about when they were impounded or how big the shipments were.



The agency's statement said local departments had been advised to "strengthen quarantine and inspections on food imports from America".

Full story here.



This is the second time since the pet food recall that China has impounded or rejected U.S. shipments; shipments of supplements and raisins were refused earlier this month.

Good breeders, and how to know

My pet column this week over on SFGate.com is about how to find a good breeder:

What's most important are not the questions you ask the breeder but the ones breeder asks you.

Being grilled about your suitability as a pet owner is the single best indicator that you're dealing with a reputable breeder. Why? Ask yourself this: Would you really want to bring a living, breathing creature into your home, to become a part of your family, who was born and raised in the hands of someone who didn't give a damn what happened to that animal?

Ethical, caring breeders want to know about your living situation, your past experience with pets, how other family members feel about a new dog or cat and if they can contact your veterinarian. Breeders are likely to want to know how extensive your knowledge of the breed is, and some of them have multipage questionnaires.

Those frustrating restrictions and contracts, and those intrusive questions, are your guarantee that the breeder of your pet is an ethical one. Or to put it more bluntly, the easier it is for you to get that puppy or kitten, the less careful the breeder of that puppy and kitten is.

Which is also why reputable breeders, those who are committed to improving and preserving their chosen breeds and bringing the healthiest possible puppies and kittens into the world, would never consider letting a third party, such as a pet store, place them in new homes. They care far too much about what happens to those puppies and kittens to let anyone else, let alone a stranger, take that decision out of their hands.

The whole thing is here. And you can now leave comments on my articles, so I have a new obsession to worry about... that's just great... eeek.

Does this count as a blog post?

Sorry for being absent. I took the weekend off to get my Pride on, and had deadlines Thursday, Friday, and today that ate my life otherwise. I promise to do better the rest of the week, in order to earn this:

86%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

Are there good breeders?

As a follow-up to my article on SFGate.com about the rescue of puppy mill dogs, I did a piece with tips on how to avoid getting a cat or dog from a source like that:

Pet stores routinely assure shoppers that their pets don't come from puppy or kitten mills, and Internet pet store sites certainly won't announce that theirs do. Instead, they use the phrases people find reassuring: "Family raised." "Private breeders." "Raised with love."



Despite those marketing slogans, the reality is that nearly all puppies and kittens sold in pet stores and on the Internet are mass-produced in circumstances that range from truly hellish to sterile, lonely and boring. The mothers and fathers of those puppies and kittens spend their entire lives in cages, bored beyond belief, sometimes kept in filth and misery, having litter after litter until they can't produce any more.



So how can you know whether a breeder or other seller's claims are true? And even if you could hook the breeder up to a lie detector, how do you know what questions to ask or what the answers should be?

The full column is here -- along with a new feature: Comments! Let me know what you think, here or there!