Dogged Blog

How many shoes do you bring to a No-Kill conference?

Kim Campbell Thornton and I have a lot in common. We're both dog lovers, pet writers, and fellow bloggers here at Pet Connection. And we'll both be at the No-Kill Conference this coming weekend in Washington DC.



But we share one other bond, and it may be the deepest one of all: we both love shoes. When we were covering Global Pet Expo together a couple of years ago in San Diego, we made poor Gina's eyes cross with boredom as we rhapsodized over the shoes we brought, the shoes we'd had to jettison because we couldn't get our suitcases to close, and the back-up flats we both had in our purses. Ah, good times.



I promise, though, that we won't be blogging about shoes while we're there. (Well, I might, but it will be at my own blog, not here.) We'll be sticking to the topic that's bringing us to DC in the first place, the  no-kill movement in America.



This has been without question a sea-change year for no-kill. One year ago, no-kill was the scrappy underdog, nipping at the heels of the status quo, demanding better solutions for America's homeless pets.



Now, no-kill is what everyone is falling all over themselves to react to. Whether they're embracing it, justifying why they haven't tried it, insisted it might work in some places but it can't work here, or tying themselves in rhetorical knots to re-define it as "warehousing" to suit an ideological agenda that thinks animals are better off dead or never born than living as companions to human beings (yes, I'm talking to you, PETA), no one is able to ignore or dismiss it any more.



And why wouldn't that happen? Americans who aren't inside the shelter industry or animal welfare movement may not understand the byzantine politics that have had animal lovers fighting bitterly over their differences for years now, but they definitely know they don't want to see dogs and cats die if there's any way to save them.



Kim and I will report on what this movement's leaders think it will take to guarantee a home for every treatable and healthy dog and cat that enters an American shelter, and if and when we'll reach that goal.



I'm not sure what kind of wireless access we'll have during the conference, but if we can blog live, we will. If not, watch Pet Connection for recaps.  You can also watch #nokill on Twitter, or the No Kill blog and community at Ning.



Animal Wise Radio also plans to webcast from the conference, and will be interviewing some of the presenters, including Nathan Winograd, this weekend.



Now, allow me to disclaim: In addition to being a born-again no-kill advocate, I've also recently been doing some editorial consulting for Maddie's Fund, an organization that is one of the major forces working for a no-kill nation, and a presenter and sponsor of the conference. Pet Connection, too, is one of the event's sponsors. I'm not going to pretend to be disinterested or impartial about this issue; I'm not.



I want to see an end to the use of killing for animal population control, and I believe that day will come, and sooner than we think now, or could have imagined a few short years ago.



But that said, when it comes to how to do it, I'm all about the "show me." I don't think we'll reach a no-kill goal without a lot of hard work, determination, and passion. I think there is still a great deal of ego and propaganda on all sides of this debate, and that we haven't found the right way to unite around what we all believe in because we're so busy fighting about the things we don't. So when I'm reporting on those things, you'll have Christie the journalist.



When I'm talking about the goal, though, you're going to get a true believer.



No-Kill America? Yes, we can. And we will.

Sit. Stay. Heel. Come. (No pedigree required)

I just know my Chow mix Colleen, currently sitting on a cloud in dog heaven watching over me while angels brush her shiny red coat and feed her little bits of carrot (her favorite treat), would have been the greatest obedience champion ever... if only AKC had not been too intimidated by her beauty and perfection to allow her to set one single non-pedigreed toe on their sanctified show grounds.



So even if it is a form of second class citizenship -- the "civil union of the dog world," as I told Gina at the time -- I'm kind of warming up to the AKC's new mixed breed dog program. So of course, I wrote about it in my column at SFGate.com today:

First, while mixed-breed obedience events are fairly common in some places, AKC is the only choice in many parts of the country. And even if there are other venues in which dogs and owners can compete, opening up AKC events to mixed breeds means more opportunities for dogs to compete. That means more time for having fun and getting exercise at the agility course with us, and less time sitting on the sofa waiting to go for a walk.



Purebred dog folks who never venture outside the safe confines of AKC shows will also have the chance to get to know mixed-breed dogs and their owners, allowing dog lovers to be even more united in efforts to make the world better for us and our pets.



Those same purebred dog owners may suddenly realize that they can have fun and even win with mixed-breed dogs. Maybe they'll start scouring the shelters for great agility dogs, and all those hyperactive Border collie mixes and ball-crazy adolescent Lab crosses will go from being dime-a-dozen behavior problems to obedience trial champions in the rough.



Of course, it will also be good for the AKC, which will cash a $35 check for every mixed-breed dog it lists with the new program. And while I know that aggravates a lot of people with mixed-breeds, I think that's good for dogs, too. I'd much rather the AKC got its income from opening up dog sports to all dogs than being dependent on registration dollars from massive commercial puppy farms, especially if that means more people will be getting their pets from responsible home-based breeders and shelters instead of pet stores and over the Internet.

I also told one of my favorite dog training stories ever, which just happened to involve both of my mixed breed dogs, Colleen and my cattle dog/Chessie cross, Scarlett -- the smartest dog ever. Check it out here!



Photo of Tinker by the very talented Amy Jo Mork.

Seven secrets to successful canine weight loss

I always have trouble writing headlines on my posts, but this one was worse than usual. That's because I'm normally allergic to headlines about the secrets of human weight loss that I see on the covers of magazines while standing in line at the market.



The thing is, weight loss for dogs really does appear to be a secret, because somewhere around half of all pet dogs are fat. Why is that?



Conventional wisdom tells us it's because we feed them too much and exercise them too little, and certainly that's a factor. I sometimes think it's as much symptom as cause, though, of a bigger problem.



Modern life doesn't just turn us and our dogs into couch potatoes and snackers. It feeds us chemically enhanced foods designed to make us eat larger portions, more frequently; it does this with both "natural flavorings" concocted in a food lab in New Jersey somewhere, and also with that old stand-by, sugar.



It surrounds us pretty much 24/7 with light and noise, making true deep, restful sleep almost impossible.



Our schedules rarely permit us to go on long walks with the dogs, and our lifestyles are usually sedentary and hectic. We're stressed out, our dogs are bored -- its own kind of stress -- and our hormonal systems (by which I mean the whole, complex endocrine system) are out of whack as a result of all those things.



Our dogs' hormonal systems are even more out of whack than most of ours, because we've sterilized them. And however little we want to admit it, altered pets are more likely to gain weight while eating fewer calories than intact pets.



And, as Dr. Patti Khuly pointed out the other day in her post on the topic, pet food labels make very little sense to humans used to the kind of labels we see on our food. You can't even tell how many calories are in a serving of commercial dog food from the label. It's absurd.



Fine, you say. You've totally depressed me. Now what?



Let me tell you how to make your dog lose weight.



First, if you're someone who wants to dump some kibble in a bowl twice a day and not think about it, then nothing I say here is going to help. Simply switching to a "lite" food isn't going to change anything, no matter what the pretty TV ads say. The claims those foods make are based on tests using strict portion control, and with little relevance to how most people live with their dogs.



So let's talk "portion control."



A healthy wild animal won't over-eat or become obese under normal circumstances. Their bodies evolved with a precise mechanism for storing fat, building muscle, and using stored fat when times are hard. That system might still be working perfectly well in most dogs; almost all my dogs have self-regulated without the slightest help from me. That's true of more than half the dogs in America, too.



But for the rest, not so much. Some breeds of dog have a high propensity both to over-eat and to pack on the pounds -- yes, I'm talking about you, Labrador retrievers. This is genetic. It really is. Which doesn't mean your Lab has a free pass to all the food he can eat (which will be infinity times two) and as much weight as he can gain (ditto). It means if you have a Lab, odds are very good you're going to need a strategy to maintain or regain his ideal body weight.



In fact, anyone with a fat dog is going to need a strategy. And look! I haz one!



First, for the love of dogs, go to the vet. Have her weigh your dog, have her establish your dog's goal weight, have her clear your dog for increased exercise and most critically and urgently and importantly and any other words like that you can think of, have her test your dog for hypothyroidism and Cushing's.



I have had three dogs with a weight problem in a very long life with many dogs. Two of them were diagnosed with Cushing's, a disorder of the adrenal glands, and the third was never diagnosed but almost certainly had it anyway.



Both of my diagnosed dogs immediately lost all their excess weight within a few months of being treated for their Cushing's.



Remember: normal, healthy animals in the wild won't get eat too much and won't get fat. Our dogs are not living in the wild, and we've altered them genetically, so you can't always count on that (see Labrador retriever), but if your dog has gained weight, there's possibly a reason for it that has nothing to do with calories and exercise. Please rule out those reasons before putting your dog on a diet and exercise program.



If your dog doesn't have an underlying health problem, the rest is uncomplicated but difficult.



Determine your dog's caloric needs. Dr. Patti covers that in her post, and your vet should be able to do those calculations, too.



This isn't quite as straightforward as Dr. Patti makes it seem. Or it is, but only if your dog is merely slightly overweight. If your dog is extremely overweight, my experience is that it's counterproductive to reduce calories too much at the start. I've seen dogs gain weight on reduced calorie diets when the switch was too drastic. (Probably a lot of women reading this are nodding their heads right now, too.)



If your dog is very fat, just calculate his current caloric intake. Measure how much you're feeding him -- and please be honest -- and figure out how many calories he's eating per day. You can get this data for commercial foods on the manufacturer's website or by calling them; you can calculate it for homemade diets the same way you'd calculate your own caloric intake.



Reduce his caloric intake by no more than 5 percent the first week.



Weigh your dog every week. If you have a small dog this isn't all that hard. Just weigh yourself, then pick him up and weigh the two of you together, then deduct your weight.



Those of us with bigger dogs need to find a veterinary scale. Many pet supply stores have them, and of course, nearly all vet's offices do. Whether you have to travel to your vet's office or the local feed supply store once a week, it's an essential part of your dog's weight loss. Find a way.



If your dog was very heavy and is losing slowly -- no more than 1-2 percent of his body weight per week -- great. Don't do anything different. When he stops losing, drop calories another 5 percent that week. Rinse. Repeat.



If your dog wasn't very heavy and you put him on the calorie level obtained from the formula Dr. Patti gave, as long as he's losing slowly, just stay the course. If he's losing more than 1-2 percent of his body weight per week, up his calories by 5 percent.



If he's not losing, drop him by 5 percent, but don't go below his base caloric requirement. If you're being honest and accurate, and your dog is not losing on his base caloric rate, it's almost certain he has an underlying health condition. Go back to your vet, and if necessary, ask to be referred to an internal medicine specialist or a vet school for a more complete work-up.



That last paragraph is the real reason I wrote this. Because I've seen way, way too many dogs whose owners gave up trying to help them lose weight because it didn't seem to work.



Yes, some of those owners are not really trying. I'm not talking about them. If you aren't being honest, aren't weighing and measuring, then you've got a psychological problem, not a factual one, and I don't know what to say about that.



But if you go a week or two sincerely measuring your dog's food, limiting his calories but not slashing them drastically, and he gains or maintains his weight? Something's wrong. And whether it's the epidemic of endocrine disorders caused by food additives, excessive ambient light and noise, disrupted sleep cycles and stress, or a disorder like hypothyroidism or Cushing's, it's going to need more than just a little calorie reduction to fix.



Foods for active weight loss. Some commercial foods and homemade recipes are calculated for what is called "active weight loss." I don't mean "lite" foods; they're just marketing gimmicks. "Active weight loss" on the label or in the recipe description means the food provides more nutrients at lower calorie levels. "Lite" just means each serving has fewer calories -- which might come at the cost of required nutrients.



Can you just feed less of a normally-formulated diet? Probably. Most people should start there, in fact, because many dogs are simply being over-fed or allowed to over-eat. Portion control of a normal recipe is usually enough. But if not, get a food or homemade recipe calculated for "active weight loss," and give that a try.



Exercise. You'll notice I've said fairly little about exercise. I believe in it. I think it's good for dogs and people, and I agree with the old saying, "If your dog is fat, you're not getting enough exercise." I'd love to see every dog in America getting ten times more exercise than he is right now, and think they and we would be much healthier, stronger, and leaner if that happened.



But your dog can lose weight without getting exercise, and sometimes cranking up the activity level makes him hungrier. By all means, if your vet says it's okay, give him ten or fifteen minutes of extra heart-pumping play every day. But calculate his caloric needs, and what levels he gains and loses at, before changing his exercise regimen. Then you can adjust them upward to make sure his weight loss stays slow and steady.



In other words, don't change multiple variables at one time.



All that said, if your dog's weight loss is all or partly caused by disrupted light explosure, boredom, and stress, there's nothing like walking and running in the natural sunlight to get the metabolism functioning properly. You're going to have to really think about your dog and his lifestyle, and use your intuition and your vet's advice to decide how much exercise to give him during this process.



But if your dog has physical limitations and can't exercise, don't give up. I've seen dogs crated after ACL surgery lose weight. It really is possible.



Dance with the one that brung ya. When you find what works, stick with it. Losing weight isn't something you do and then are done with; it's a permanent change. Think of obesity as a condition that can be put into remission with a therapeutic diet, but never cured. Your dog's caloric requirements may change as he ages, but the underlying principles of calculating caloric needs and not exceeding them will never change.



And neither will all the other things that impact what those caloric needs are, and how our dogs' bodies handle the food they eat. The endocrine disruption caused by surgical altering, too much artificial light, disrupted sleep patterns, and stress are very real, and every year we know more about how they affect different species and their metabolic health.



Prevention. Fresh air, sunshine, play, companionship, the right amount of wholesome foods -- and for once, yes, I'll just say it: a lifetime of processed foods is no healthier for our dogs than it is for us. Make your dog's food at least some of the time, if at all possible -- all those things will ensure your lean dog stays that way. And they're all many slightly overweight dogs need to get back to a healthy weight.



I have a few more tips and stories about canine weight loss, along with an interview about canine fitness with Dr. Marty Becker that I did a year or so ago, here.

Does your pet snake need a federal identity card?

I liveblogged the Congressional hearing on H.R. 669 over on PetHobbyist.com this morning... you can check it out here.



A few thoughts: First, several of the representatives mentioned that they'd heard from a lot of concerned pet owners on this issue -- well done. We have to make sure our voices are consistently heard on all issues that relate to our relationships with our animals.



Second, some of these folks seriously don't get it. This legislation as proposed puts all non-native species on earth on a blacklist, with the exception of a very few farm animals and three kinds of pets: dogs, cats, and goldfish, which are on a white list.



Blacklisted species -- which is every non-native species' default -- cannot be imported, bred, sold, or transported across state lines, but people who already own these pets will not be forced to give them up. Those animals will be "grandfathered in."



For a species to get from the blacklist to the white list will require a Fish and Wildlife Services risk assessment process. A similar process right now for certain species under the federal Lacey Act takes four years to complete. The cost of this process was not specified but was acknowledged to be currently enormous, and expected to be even higher under the new regulations.



In light of that, consider the comments of Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.). Saying she wanted to debunk some misconceptions, she asked that a few questions and answers be put "on record." (Note: This is from my liveblog; only things in quotation marks are direct quotes. The rest is simply a paraphrase, but a very close one):

Rep: Capps: Concern among pet owners. Yes or no, does this legislation take away pets that people currently own? No.



Will this legislation place every non-native animal on unapproved list? No.



Will this legislation only target those species that are non-native AND invasive? Yes.



Interstate transport of grandfathered animals -- people moving, vet care, etc. Suggestions to address this concern?



Dr. Lodge: We could explore a permitting function. Would require complex procedures to establish ownership, track that. It's not an insignificant process.



Rep: Capps: If we could guarantee some sort of registration or identity card it would go a long way to reassure pet owners.

Really? Seriously? People who own already-stigmatized pets that are blacklisted in the United States will be happy to know they can register them with the government and thus keep them when they move, or take them to another state to see the vet?



Have you missed seeing my head explode?



I have to agree with PIJAC's Marshall Meyers (which I don't often do, especially on his defense of the large-scale commercial breeding of dogs and cats) that this grandfather clause is "imaginary."



A hamster and many kinds of aquarium fish might live only two or three years; even if they don't make you give up an existing pet, you won't be able to get another one, unless someone has taken that species through the lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome process of moving it from the blacklist to the white list.



It doesn't matter that the intent of this bill is only to go after species that are both non-native and invasive. The default on every non-native species other than those already exempted -- and again, of species kept as pets, right now that's just dogs, cats, and goldfish, no matter how many reassurances the committee members might utter -- is "unapproved." There are over a million non-native species, and they'll all be presumed harmful until proven otherwise.



And proven where, and how, and under what circumstances? Will a fish that's a hazard in Hawaii or Florida be outlawed from the pet trade in Nebraska?



And speaking of fish -- how exactly do you refrain from letting your fish breed? Based on my reading of the current proposed law, if I have some non-native tank fish and they have baby fishies, I just violated its provisions.



I also got very tired of hearing about kudzu. While I'm not stupid and do recognize that the issues of invasive non-native plants and animals are very similar, this law actually doesn't include plants -- something one of its co-sponsors didn't even know, as evidenced by a question he asked. I find it extremely misleading to see photos of forests being strangled by kudzu used to put hamsters and angelfish on a blacklist. It's manipulative.



I was struck, however, with the respectful way that the representatives and witnesses spoke about the human/animal bond, and particularly with this comment from Lawrence Riley of Arizona's Game and Fish Department (again, this is a paraphrase from the liveblog, not a direct quote):

Says now with people losing their homes, we have to deal with pet surrender program to minimize effects of surrender of pets. People are reticent to surrender their pets if they know they'll be euthanized -- adoption? long term care? Also part of the ethical aspect of the bill.

No-kill; it's not just for dogs and cats anymore. When is the last time you heard anyone express the slightest concern about how someone might feel seeing their snake, lizard, or fish be killed?



Several folks have asked what's going to happen now, and my guess is that various stakeholders are going to meet with the committee and the author and sponsors of the bill to revise its language. They'll try to get rid of some of the most problematic language and concepts, add in lots and lots of stuff about permitting, perhaps introduce a bit more flexibility into the process, increase the numbers of exempted/white listed pet species, and then try again.



Oh yay. More liveblogging for me. My cramped aching hands can't wait.

Liveblogging the Congressional hearing on H.R. 669

I got my start liveblogging government hearings and media conferences right here on Pet Connection, during the pet food recall -- good times.



I'll be doing it again, this time over on PetHobbyist.com, where I'm liveblogging the Congressional Committee on Natural Resources hearing on H. R. 669, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act." The hearing starts on Thursday morning, April 23, at 10 AM Eastern/7 AM Pacific -- which is my time zone. So, yeah... early.



If you're not sure what that H.R. 669 is all about, here's my take, Gina's take, and Dr. Patti Khuly's take.



I hope you'll drop by!

Equally fashionable: Plus-sized clothes, deceptive marketing, and why I'm returning a skirt

If you've known me or been reading my blog for a long time, you might know that I lost a great deal of weight a few years ago -- more weight than most people weigh, period. I pretty much hate the way we talk about weight in this country, and it's very hard to discuss this topic without pissing me off, so although I'm always glad when I accomplish any goal I set for myself, I still tend to get annoyed when people congratulate me on my weight loss. Consider yourself warned.

I also think the visceral disgust with fat in this country is a fucking social disease, and that being fat is no worse for our health than sitting on our asses in front of the computer all day, or breathing the crap stale air in an office building, or eating processed foods. So if someone is fat, I have no agenda to judge or change that, but I also ask that they respect my right to do what I want with my own body, including lose weight.

Disclaimers aside, let's get to the part about clothes.

Although I've lost all this weight, I'm still "big and tall" by fashion standards -- I'm 5'10" and wear a size 18 Tall, 20 in some styles of pants. (It was actually hard to type that; I'm not as liberated as I would like to be.) So I mostly shop in the department known euphemistically as the "women's department" -- which must make size 3 women wonder WTF they are -- or, somewhat more descriptively, the "plus sizes."

Some stores, like Nordstrom, have a dedicated department for plus sizes, and other stores cater exclusively to sizes 14 and up.

Plus-sized clothes at Nordstrom are around the same price and quality as smaller sizes, although not always as fashion-forward. Companies like J. Jill, one of my favorite places to buy clothes, make the exact same fashions across all size categories, including tall sizes up to 20, bless them, although they don't always make everything in all sizes.

Among the "plus sizes only" stores/catalogs are some moderately expensive ones, like Silhouettes, and many, many really inexpensive ones, most notably the entire family of catalogs sold at "One Stop Plus," a retail aggregator of Woman Within, Jessica London, Roaman's, Avenue, and several more.

And after that very very long lead-in, which would no doubt make my editors and journalism instructors have heart attacks, we get to the main point.

Why are so many plus-sized clothes so badly made?

Look at the photo at the top of this post, and the skirt in the photo to the right. Set aside the issue of whether or not these clothes are to your taste or things that would look good on you.

But do consider this: Both images are promoting and depicting a new line of slightly higher-priced clothing with a fancy French designer tag, Taillissime, marketed as a more fashionable, slightly edgier, brand of plus-sized fashions through a group of companies that normally target a lower-end market.

To understand what I'm saying, compare these images with a couple of the same company's non-Taillissime images:

Now go Google "OneStopPlus coupons" and see how extremely aggressive these brands are with their discount policies. Their marketing is a heat-seeking missile for cost-conscious plus-sized women.

Because I'm lucky enough to have a fairly decent clothing budget, when I shop from these types of catalogs it's for basics like sweat pants and jeans, you know -- dog walking clothes, lie around the house clothes. I've known for years that their "fashionable" or "career" clothing  is of  poor quality -- not well constructed, and of cheap materials, as well as not being expensive. But I recently gave the new Taillissime line a try. And I bought that black skirt in the photo, because it really looks cute to me.

And it's a piece of crap that's going back as soon as I can slap some tape on the package.

I wouldn't normally care, but I do today. Because large-sized women should be able to freaking buy a skirt that at least looks close to how it does in the photo and not have to spend a hundred dollars on it -- because their smaller-sized peers can do that, easily. There are many, many places to buy reasonably priced, fashionable clothes in non-plus sizes. While they may not last beyond a single season -- the "cheap" has to come from somewhere -- they at least won't be made of glaringly tacky fabrics, as this skirt was, or have uneven hem lines, as this skirt did.

Large women on a budget are at the mercy of some pretty crappy choices for clothing. I'm sure this is a problem for women of any size, but when you're doing your best to look sleek and professional in a world that judges you on first impressions and how put together you are, and that's already assessing you negatively because you defy the mandate that all women must maximize their physical attractiveness for the viewing pleasure of the general public... you can see the problem.

If only Taillissime and the companies that sell it had put as much care into the execution of these clothes as they did into their marketing, photography, and even their design. Because some of these things would be cute if they actually looked like their photos.

And if they know their customers want more stylish clothing -- which would be why they created this line in the first place -- doesn't it logically follow that we''ll also be able to tell when we get the stuff out of the package that it's not really more stylish clothing, and certainly not worth even the slight premium it costs?

In re-reading this, I know I'm likely to set off a storm of, "You can buy inexpensive plus-sized fashionable clothing here and here and here," and I'm always happy to have new places to buy clothes recommended to me, so go for it.

But don't let the availability of inexpensive cute clothes at one group of stores or catalogs obscure the fact that the brands sold at One Stop Plus absolutely dominate the budget-conscious plus-sized clothing industry, and have for years. Large-sized women should have more choices at a lower price point, but more importantly, I think we should be treated with respect.

Winn Feline Foundation: Saving cats ' lives, one research study at a time

If you have a cat, chances are she'll have a longer and healthier life thanks to research funded by the Winn Feline Foundation. They're the folks who, more than two decades ago, sponsored Dr. Paul Pion's lifesaving research into taurine deficiency, leading to the reformulation of commercial cat foods and saving countless cats' lives and vision.



Winn was founded in 1986 by the Cat Fanciers' Assocation, which continues to support the foundation. Winn has funded more than $30 million in feline health studies since then, into subjects including nutrition, vaccination, genetics, cancer, diagnostic testing, infectious disease, and emerging pathogens that can affect cats.



They've just announced their latest grant awards, which include research into a genetic test for the severity of feline polycystic kidney disease, and another to help determine which cats might be at increased risk for feline infectious peritonitis.



Researchers at the University of Tennessee will be examining the effect of raw diets on kittens, and Winn will fund a study by Dr. Philip Fox at New York's Animal Medical Center into the most common of the feline heart diseases, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.



A Colorado State University study will be examining treatment for a devastating form of feline cancer:

Feline oral squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) account for approximately 10% of all feline tumors. Cats will often have mucosal ulceration and bone necrosis that is painful and interferes with eating and drinking.  Cats with these devastating tumors are often euthanized with progression of local disease. The historical failure of treatment of this disease with surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy discourages owners and veterinarians from pursuing treatment.

In another funded project, researchers at Oklahoma State University will be using archived samples of tumor tissue both to see if there is any predictive value to pre-treatment biopsy evaluation, and if therapies other than chemo and radiation will be more effective in treating affected cats.



In all, a total of 36 applications were submitted; 12 projects were funded in the total amount of $127,411. You can see all of them -- and donate to projects still in need of funding -- here.



***



If reading about cat health research doesn't do it for you, maybe the incredible roll Dr. Patty Khuly's been on the last couple of weeks will. (Or, as Gina said, "You mean she's been saying stuff we agree with a lot lately." Well, yes. Yes, that's what I mean.)



First, she weighed in on H.R. 669:

Keep a ferret? For many, a ferret is every bit as lovable and bond-worthy a pet as any cat or dog, despite the naysayers (who’ve obviously never met a well-raised ferret). How about a Cockatiel? I never knew a more lovable bird than my first male Cockatiel, “Sydney.”



Now enter the US government with its proposed stipulations on who can own what kind of animal. Its H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, aims “to prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species’ or human health, and for other purposes."



Make no mistake, for all its grandiose verbiage this is a bad bit of law––and not just because of its grammatically challenged legalese.



Its goal? To keep any non-native wildlife species out of our homes, out from under our ability to set them free to multiply, out of the trade in sensitive species, out of our native species’ habitats where they can wreak havoc. It proposes to make all wild, non-native pets illegal across the board––save for cats, dogs, common economic (livestock) species, and, of course the biggest native habitat home-wreckers of all...humans.

I couldn't have said it better myself -- and by the way, the bill has its first hearing before a Congressional committee tomorrow... go tell your law makers it's a stupid idea.



Dr. K has also caught chick fever from Gina, shares my hatred of the term "people food," and just in general writes one of the best pet blogs out there.



And via Terrierman, an amazing Washington Post story about the love of a man and a dog... and their skeletons:

Diane Horton had last seen her late husband two days after his death in 2002, so when they were reunited at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History a few weeks ago she asked for a few private minutes with him.



He was standing under spotlights in a huge display case -- all 6 feet 3 inches of him except for a few bones missing here and there. His head was thrown back and his mouth was open, as if in a big laugh, and his arms were around one of his favorite dogs.



Here was professor Gordon S. "Grover" Krantz, and all, or almost all, of the phalanges, tarsals, metatarsals and the other 200 or so bones that made up his skeleton. Reassembled with wire, glue and metal.



It was an emotional moment, Horton, 66, said.



"Wow," she thought. "You had really [an] impossible last wish. And it's been granted."



Indeed, it has.



The skeletons of Krantz and his beloved Irish wolfhound, Clyde, make up the striking display that comes at the end of the museum's current forensic anthropology exhibit, "Written in Bone."

Great story... read it here. And what a way to go.



Noted in passing: The pet health insurance industry, which struggled for years to find enough interested clients to keep just one company afloat, is getting pretty crowded now, with the expansion of PurinaCare pet health insurance into California.



And speaking of pet health, I just added the Veterinary Information Network's VIN News Service to my feed reader -- they've got some great current coverage of animal health news and an RSS feed!



I mean, how can you not love a story called "What to do with the seal in your bathtub"? And you'll love it even more when you read it:

At the western edge of Russia, on the shores of the Baltic Sea, the nearest sea mammal rescue group is located in another country. So when someone brought a seal pup, apparently orphaned, into a clinic there, the veterinarians — more accustomed to seeing dogs, cats and the occasional hedgehog — were unsure what to do.



About two hours after the pup arrived, Dr. Kirill Skomorovski started his shift at the 24-hour clinic. Until that day, Skomorovski had never held a seal in his hands. For the next 12 hours, he and his assistant struggled with the 25-pound animal, trying to persuade it to sit calmly in a box or a bathtub with water, to eat fish or something else. Though the pup had little energy, it would not cooperate.



Unwilling to give up, Skomorovski took the pup home to the two-room apartment in Kaliningrad where he lives with his wife. There, he discovered that help was as near as his computer.

It gave me chills. Go read the rest.

Own a dog, lose your privacy? Battle rages over dog license data in Minnesota

It's not just responsible breeders getting caught in the machine of government regulation. Now it's responsible pet owners, too.



Although to be fair, in this particular instance at least one local government agency is fighting to protect the privacy of law-abiding dog owners in Duluth, Minnesota. From the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune:

For the past seven months, the city of Duluth has been fighting a request for what would appear to be warm and fuzzy data - information about city pet license holders. This month, it took the extraordinary step of asking the state for a “temporary classification” of the data - saying that allowing the data to become public “could adversely affect the public interest or the health, safety, well being or reputation of the data subject.” It would remain secret until the Legislature made it so permanently, or decided not to.

The deputy city attorney, M. Alison Lutterman, offered this as part of the rationale behind the action:

“Any legitimate need to know what the government is doing does not include a need to have access to the name, address and phone numbers of persons who obtain pet licenses, nor does this need to know outweigh legitimate privacy concerns of pet owners.”

The reporter didn't give a damn, apparently; he made fun of the idea that people who don't want their names and addresses offered up with the names, numbers, and types of their pets have any kind of legitimate beef.



I'd love him to tell that to the dog fancier told by her local animal control that it was their mission to drive every last breeder in their county out of existence. Or run it past the person doing rescue who ignored her local limit laws and squeezed in those dogs from the puppy mill raid that the local pound didn't have room for.



Or tell it to to any regular pet owner with one two many cats, or a yardful of strays she's feeding. Or maybe someone with a vindictive neighbor or ex who knows most pet owners will capitulate over just about anything if you threaten their dogs or cats.



Setting aside the civil liberties argument for a minute -- you know, the one where we have a right to privacy and oh yeah, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- anyone who can't see the very real implication of making dog licensing records public hasn't done his homework, or even spent ten seconds really thinking about it.



But by no means should the civil liberties argument be set aside. As at least a couple of commentors on the story point out when someone says that any information we give to the government is public, that's nonsense. My driving record isn't public, my taxes aren't public, and my social security number isn't public. Plenty of government information is private, and when it's not, there's usually at least some pretense of a state or public interest to justify it. There's nothing about simply owning a pet that even comes close to passing that test.



Besides, if my choice is to obey the law and lose my privacy or break the law and keep it, then I'll choose the latter every time. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Let's hope the city of Duluth isn't alone in how they see this issue, either.

I'm just not that into you, PR hack

Why do PR people not take hints? I don't reply because I'm not interested. It's just that simple. Stop emailing and calling me!

Also, some people are really not as famous as they think they are.

Let's see, who else can I attack tonight?

Friday: Netroots Nation New Media Summit, and Day of Silence

On Friday, I'll be at the Netroots Nation New Media Summit here in San Francisco, but I won't be liveblogging it or updating about it on Facebook or tweeting about it, because tomorrow is the Day of Silence in support of LGBT youth and their safety in school.

The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Each year the event has grown, now with hundreds of thousands of students coming together to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior.

See you Saturday!