Happy Holidays!!

Please remember to keep your pups safe this holiday season.  There are many treats that we have aplenty this time of year which makes our pets very sick. 

This lists some, but it is certainly not limited to. 

Turkey (can upset their tummy)

Turkey bones (can perforate their stomach/intestines)

Chocolate

Alcohol

Coffee (drink and grinds)

Tinsel off the tree

Any fruit with pits or seeds

Onions

Garlic

Also plants such as poinsettia and mistletoe are poisonous to your pets. 

If in doubt, please err on the side of caution.  Better they go without than an emergency visit to the vet. 

 Copyright © 2016 Sandy Monk/K9HotSpot blog. All rights reserved. Revised: ALL PICTURES AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ~ K9HOTSPOT ~ ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF Sandy Monk, and may not be used, copied or reprinted without express permission from the owner. Copyrighted 2016

Animal Rights

Animal rights

What does that mean to you?  What do you think it means to most?  Just one more question for you to ponder before I actually get to the point.  Do you think those that are heavily involved in animals (dogs for example) such as rescues, shelters, reputable dog breeders, dog trainers, veterinarians, vet techs, members of dog sports teams (agility/fly ball etc) would think of Animal Rights the same as you?  Why or why not?

I know you can’t answer those questions for the sake of this article, but this is what I know of Animal Rights activists.

They aren’t what you think they are.

There.  I said it.  Animal Rights have nothing to do with saving any animals.  They’ve nothing to do to ensuring your pets will always be safe.  To give you a recent example, recently there was a “win” for animal rights groups as McDonald’s announces they are switching to cage free hens for their eggs. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mcdonald-s-switching-to-cage-free-chickens-for-its-egg-mcmuffins-1.3220487)

Yaaayyyy!!  Cage free!  Whoohooo!!  Sounds great doesn’t it?  Picturing all those lovely hens with lots of room outside, doing what chickens do every day.

Cage free.  What that means is no more room than if they lived in a cage.  What that means is they are crowded into warehouses.  What that means is if one of them should be sick, it could be pecked to death by the other hens (normal chicken behaviour by the way) and left to die a slow, painful death.  Due to sheer numbers, that dying (or dead) chicken could easily be missed for some time before the farmer notices.  That now means that those chickens are walking around and living near a dead carcass.  They means more chances for disease.  This is not something that happens rarely, but something that happens often.  You cannot have thousands of fowl living together without the occasional fight breaking out.  You know the term “pecking order”?  Where do you think it came from?  That’s right, the world of chickens.

So now what?  Now we’ve got an animal rights group that has fought to have McDonald’s use cage free hens as they are the more humane choice, but clearly that’s not true.  So why did they fight for this when it really wasn’t a win?  Did they not know the difference between cage free and caged?  If not, why not?  Why would they fight for a change that wasn’t really a change?  Because, like BSL, it sounds good and it sounds like they are making real change.

Why take this link for example:  http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/cage-free_vs_battery-cage.html

It is right from the Humane Society of the United States own webpage.  Their definition sounds wonderful doesn’t it?  Sounds like a great stride towards showing some humanity to these agricultural animals.

This picture shows what cage free means.  It doesn’t mean they are guaranteed access to outdoors.  It simply means they are not kept in battery cages.

farmedchicken (2)

Do you find this a humane way to live?  For any animal to live?  I sure don’t.  And by HSUS’s own admission, these places are audited to ensure they are up to specifications.  I don’t know about you, but the fact that something that looks like this is up to spec and is thought of as humane really scares the heck out of me.  Especially when HSUS is seen as the front runner for animal welfare.  Quite honestly, there is a clear and distinct difference between animal rights and animal welfare…as this picture shows.  This may be animal “rights” but it sure isn’t with their welfare in mind.

For a real glossary of terms regarding caged, free range and pasture raised, I’ve picked up another link that has nothing to do with animal rights or welfare.  She too was openly shocked as to the truth behind these terms.

http://www.livinghomegrown.com/decoding-the-terms-cage-free-free-range-pasture-raised-eggs/

 

With this in mind, maybe it’s time to rethink blindly supporting groups such as HSUS, as clearly either have something else in mind or they have no idea what animal welfare really is.  In either case, they are not someone I’d like to see dictate any sort of husbandry legislation regarding my pets, or anyone elses.

 

 

 

 

 Copyright © 2016 Sandy Monk/K9HotSpot blog. All rights reserved. Revised: ALL PICTURES AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ~ K9HOTSPOT ~ ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF Sandy Monk, and may not be used, copied or reprinted without express permission from the owner. Copyrighted 2016

Justice or a Quick “Fix”?

Breed Specific Legislation is still an ongoing fight.  Many (mostly non-dog folk) believe that it is an effective method of protecting the general public from so-called dangerous dogs.

I’d like to tell you that it’s not.  It’s not a fix, quick or otherwise.  Breed Specific Legislation is a people problem, not a canine one.  Once we’ve realized that, we’ll see, and quite clearly, that banning one particular type (it’s not a recognized breed here in Canada) of dog solves nothing.

Herein lies the real issue.  The statistics you hear about regarding seeing an increase in dog bites, particularly of those by the pit bull (or anything remotely looking like one) are not true.  By true, I mean they do not give you a proper outlook of those numbers.  They tell you there is a percentage increase over the last five years for example.  All is well and good, but what kind of numbers are we really talking about?  In what area was the poll taken?  Was it inner city where there are traditionally higher numbers of pits in small areas or was it state-wide with a variety of demographics taken into account?  If it was a small population of people then the percentage of pits vs bites would seem higher.  Whereas in a large population of people (inner city for example) with a higher number of pits per square kilometre, the percentage would seem lower, despite their being a larger amount of pits in that area.  So when there is a rise in pit bull bites (according to whom?) in said area, again, the geographic information can make a big difference to its significance.  Something that is not ever explained or shared.  It’s also something most don’t even think to ask about.

Now that we’ve got the truth behind the numbers being shown with the typical biased slant the media is known for, how about we tackle what Breed Specific Legislation actually does.

The reality is not so pretty as our government would like it to be.  It doesn’t lower dog bite rates.  It doesn’t lower the population of dogs in any one area, or any area for that matter.  What it does do is it puts to death hundreds of dogs that have not done anything wrong other than simply look like or be a pit bull.  It literally rips loving, friendly, non-aggressive pets out of the arms of their owners, straight into a shelter and disposed of.  A lot of times before the owner is actually able to do anything about it legally.  It sees children not comprehending why their beloved dog, who did NOTHING WRONG, killed simply because of what it looked like.

In humans that would be called racial profiling.  That would also go against our basic human rights.  It’s also something that is being fought against tooth and nail right now all over the world in light of the Paris bombings.  *holds my hand up* Yes, I know dogs and people are not equal.  But the same problem holds true for both.  With racial profiling in people, the reasons we have made it illegal is because you cannot, with good faith, condemn them all for the actions of a few.  Do you see where I’m going here?  So tell me why exactly are we allowing our governments to do that exact same thing to our loving pets?

The media.  The media “reports” dog attacks in such a way that in every case it is suspected to be that of a pit bull or pit bull mix or type that is to blame.  I have to ask.  Is it really the fault of the dog?  When children act out, do we look at the child and blame them?  Or do we look to the parents and wonder why they aren’t doing anything about it?  We blame the parents, of course and rightly so.  It is their job to teach their children how to properly behave etc.  It is the same with dog ownership.  Each dog owner is responsible in teaching their dog manners and how to properly behave in public.  It is for their safety as well as that of those around them.

So why, why are we blaming the dog for not having been shown what is rightly basic obedience and manners?  Should that not be the onus of owner?  Unless that animal has acted in an aggressive, non-provoked manner, they don’t deserve to die for their owners ineptitude.  The owner should be told to sign up for training to learn not only the skills necessary to teach and guide his dog in proper behaviours, but also how to become a responsible owner.  The trainer gives the owner and dog a pass or fail on whether they’ve (singularly or collectively) learned what they are supposed to out of the program.  If they fail, they (the owner) could face jail time or a second chance in the program.

Prisons are full of programs to rehabilitate inmates.  Why aren’t we doing the same to those that apparently don’t know any better?  Some just simply aren’t going to learn simply because they don’t want to.  But I’m betting others will.  I’m also betting the majority will.  I also think that their relationship with their dog will show them which is the better route to take.  Nothing strengthens a bond quite like working hard together towards a common goal.

I just wish we could implement this type of program instead of destroying the innocent and those that we can rehabilitate, which in all honesty is most, if not all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2016 Sandy Monk/K9HotSpot blog. All rights reserved. Revised: ALL PICTURES AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ~ K9HOTSPOT ~ ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF Sandy Monk, and may not be used, copied or reprinted without express permission from the owner. Copyrighted 2016

 

 

 

Animal lovers vs HSUS

Humane Society of the United States, or better known as HSUS is not, nor has ever been what people think it is. It doesn’t govern over all other humane societies across the US. It does not harbor homeless animals. It does not nor will it ever have anything to do with all other humane societies. It has allowed the misconception to continue and grow simply because it pays to. All their ads show sad little puppies or kittens and everyone simply throws their money at them. If people knew the truth, would they feel so inclined? Some would simply because that’s what they’ve always done. I’m hoping that the rest will see them for what they are: lobbyists that only want your money and want to do away with any and all domestic animals. They are not there to save your pets, they want to make them disappear.

And I love, love, love the very last line.

Animal Rights vs Breeders
By Diana Culp
I was the director of education and training at HSUS headquarters from 2006-2009 which has caused some confusion for my colleagues. My law enforcement partners have questioned my affiliation with activists who disregard the law. My shelter co-workers wonder if I sold out for the big bucks. My rescue friends wonder how I could associate with dog trainers and handlers since everyone knows that 4 million pets are killed annually in shelters because there are breeders, a common misconception. And my wildlife friends don’t know how I can embrace the No Kill movement if that means animals will just be warehoused.

Let me first address the usual concerns: HSUS is a private company with well over 500 employees that despite its name is neither a membership of humane societies or a government entity. “Humane society” appears in the names of many groups.

Another common misconception is that HSUS shares it’s hundred million dollars annually with animal rescue groups across the country. While they have given grants to groups that have partnered with them on publicity projects, the total amount shared with shelters amounts to less than 1% of their annual haul.

And finally, another misconception is that HSUS provides services for shelters such as training or marketing. HSUS publishes a magazine for shelter employees, holds an annual convention for animal care takers and advises shelter boards on industry practices but they do each of these things for a fee. Many shelters cannot afford to purchase these items and unfortunately many donors believe their financial support means shelters won’t have to pay for them at all.

So if HSUS sells training and advice what do they do with their donations? HSUS is an “advocacy” or “awareness” company. It’s more than a PR firm because it has a team of animal rescuers that assist in big cases used for campaigns. They do actually help (for a fee) local governments house animals involved in high profile cases involving animals. That use their massive amounts of donated money to frame issues they way they need to be seen to ensure that most people vote for politicians or laws that will restrict property rights and oversee care of animals with an eventual goal of ending the use of non humans by humans. Animal Rights activists, like president of HSUS Wayne Pacelle, would like to see an end to pets, wool, police dogs and hunting, even for food. But there are almost 800 employees with differing views on how radical an agenda to take on and how to get there.

In general, lobbyists are well funded extremists who fight for one side of an issue. In an ideal system, the opposing views are heard and the will of the people prevails. Unfortunately, in the Animal Rights arena the “other side”, the animal WELFARists, are not as well funded. (PetPAC and NAIA are trying to change this). Pet keepers and small farmers or ranchers, courted by both sides, are victims of this financial imbalance.

Most people mistakenly believe that seeking “rights” for animals means defending animals from cruelty by punishing humans for the wrong they have done. All good people would defend the “right” of an animal to live a life as free from suffering as possible (which we cannot guarantee to humans) but this is NOT what Animal Rights is about. Most people have no idea that pet ownership and animal rights are diametrically opposed, often donating time and money to the very organization that is lobbying to end the practice of sharing space with animals, for any reason. Many supporters of animal rights do not even know that PETA director Ingrid Newkirk, freely admits she has never sought a “right” to life for any animal. Abolitionists believe animals are better off dead than living as domesticated pets. This is the real reason for mandatory neutering laws. Eventually, no more pets will have to endure the torture of living with humans because it will be illegal to allow puppies or kittens to be born.

I have shared my life with non humans acquired from shelters, breeders, homelessness. I train dogs and horses and sometimes cats to do things that they might not do of their own accord, like come when called. I even have a parrot who lives primarily inside a cage for her own safety. I have rehabilitated wildlife under a proper state permit. All of these activities are to be frowned upon in the land of animal rights. Laws to restrict these activities are passed through the misinformation of one sided, well funded lobbying. We pet “guardians” support these efforts because we never hear the other side of the argument. I have no idea how this field can ever be balanced.

To truly respect animals (human and non human) we must respect the choice over generations to join forces as companions and work mates. Believing that humans engineered the dog is the epitome of arrogance. The animal rights argument that follows, to end their existence, is complete disregard for what nature has taken eons to perfect. Defending non human animals from human error has been my life’s work. Labeling the destruction of companion animals as “animal rights” is something I fight against. Get informed.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/animal-rights-vs-breeders#ixzz1LqiudzSC

 

 

 

 

 
Copyright © 2015-2016 Sandy Monk/K9HotSpot blog. All rights reserved. Revised: ALL PICTURES AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ~ K9HOTSPOT ~ ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF Sandy Monk, and may not be used, copied or reprinted without express permission from the owner. Copyrighted 2016