by Kenn Bell
April 28, 2011 in Dog Safety, Health & Science News, News, Pit Bull
As you can see in the videos, Patrick is getting better and better.
In the first video, we get to see the endoscopic procedure where they pull a big rock out of his mouth. Truly unbelievable.
The second video is Patrick playing with all the toys he’s received in the mail from well-wishers and the last video is Patrick with his vet, Dr. Scavelli. Enjoy!
by Kenn Bell
April 28, 2011 in Endangerment, Government, Inhumane Practices
chained white dog
Texas resident Vanessa Harris is every dog’s new best friend.
Harris, a pet owner from Kyle, Texas, approached the Kyle, Texas, City Council to try to ban chaining dogs outside homes.
Harris, who just moved from Houston, Texas to Kyle, Texas in November, said she could not believe her eyes.
“I never thought that a chained dog is an abused dog,” she said. “But these dogs are perpetually chained.”
?The ban, which sailed passed its first reading in the council, is now headed to a second reading on May 3, when members will take a final vote. The ban would force dog owners who let their dogs outside either to have the dogs fenced in their yard or to keep them inside a pen at least 150 feet wide.
Texas already has a law making it illegal to have dogs tied for more than three hours or overnight. But the city of Kyle, which sits to the south of Austin, Texas runs on a small budget, so its animal control team is made up of just one officer who works 9-to-5, Monday through Friday. This makes enforcing the three-hour ban difficult and the overnight ban nearly impossible.
The new ban would make any unattended chained dog a violation.
“This chain ban would make enforcement a lot easier,” Mayor Lucy Johnson said. “All (the animal control officer) would have to do is see a chained dog alone, and she could react.”
The crime would be a misdemeanor that comes with a fine of $500 to $2,000. The city said it intends to educate residents before the ban takes effect.
“We’d be happy to never write a ticket on this,” Jerry Hendricks, Kyle’s communications director, said. “We will offer our residents every opportunity to be in compliance here.”
Johnson said the overall reaction in the city has been positive, except for a few citizens who want the city government to stay off their leashes.
Some caveats of the ban would be people with disabilities or if they stay outside with their pet tied up.
“We just saw the problem and tried to make a solution,” Johnson said
by Kenn Bell
April 28, 2011 in Government, News, Pit Bull, Service Dogs
It’s a big triumph for a very misunderstood breed.
The Aurora, Colorado City Council voted Monday to allow Pit Bulls back into the city on a very limited basis.
The Council voted 6-3 to allow disabled residents to use the dogs as service animals. The Council also reduced the number of banned dog breeds from 10 to 3.
Under pressure from residents who were angry about Pit Bull attacks, Aurora, Colorado banned Pit Bulls in 2006.
But a federal change to the Americans with Disabilities Act now forbids communities from banning any type of service dog. Both Denver, Colorado and Aurora, Colorado have been sued over their Pit Bull bans.
Three Pit Bull breeds, the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, will continue to be outlawed in Aurora, Colorado except for disabled residents who meet the city’s licensing requirements.
At Monday evening’s City Council meeting, a handful of residents weighed in on the proposed ordinance. Several said the dangers of Pit Bulls have never been proven and that the ban should be tossed out entirely.
Councilman Bob Fitzgerald, who has clashed with Pit Bull advocates in the past and voted against the ordinance, said the new A.D.A. mandate effectively junks the Pit Bull ban.
He questioned whether Pit Bull owners would take advantage of the looser restrictions by bringing dogs into the city to which they’re not entitled.
by Kenn Bell
April 27, 2011 in Celebrity, Charity, News
Kristin Chenoweth and Maddie
We love Kristin Chenoweth for her amazing talent. Now we love her even more for how much she loves her dog!
Chenoweth spent her Easter weekend frantic with worry after her dog fell sick.
The Glee star rushed her puppy Maddie to a veterinary practice in Los Angeles, California on Saturday and spent hours by her pet’s side as animal experts diagnosed the pooch with pancreatitis, an inflammation of the pancreas.
In a series of posts on her Twitter.com page, she writes, “Everyone please pray for Maddie. Rushing her to doggie hospital. Throwing up. Maddie is getting bloodwork done. So glad we are at vet hospital. She has a fever but looks to be OK. Doctors are caring for her. Thank God. People who help animals do God’s work.
“Bloodwork just showed pancreatitis. Not great. Not horrible. We will be here awhile getting meds (medication) and fluids. Thanks for praying everyone! She will be OK. She just is sick. Poor thing. Pancreatitis.”
Chenoweth was eventually allowed to take Maddie home and she is ensuring her beloved pet gets plenty of care and attention.
She tells her online followers, “Home now. Maddie and mama are tired. She is gonna be OK. Lots of rest and a watchful eye for her. I have been a wreck all day. You know how it is with our babies. A long stressful day but she is gonna be OK. I have to watch her like a hawk for a bit. She is exhausted and just so tired.”
Kristin Chenoweth has a non-profit called Maddie’s Corner.
by Kenn Bell
April 27, 2011 in Endangerment, Government, Inhumane Practices, News
It’s an issue that’s pitting Missouri dog lovers against Missouri dog breeders. And the outcome is all in the hands of the governor.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has received thousands of letters and emails urging him to sign or veto legislation rolling back new voter-approved restrictions on dog breeders.
Many of the emails ask Nixon to abide by voters’ wishes and veto the legislation that would repeal and replace key parts of Proposition B, which passed last November with 51.6 percent of the statewide vote. Others urge Nixon to sign the legislation, because the puppy breeding industry creates jobs in rural Missouri.
The voter-approved law limits the number of breeding dogs that business can own and sets new requirements for cage space, feeding and veterinary care. A bill recently passed by the Legislature would repeal the dog limit and rewrite other requirements on caring for dogs. After lawmakers passed their measure, Nixon’s administration brokered a compromise proposal that would give businesses more time to comply with some of the dog-housing requirements, but that plan has not yet received legislative approval.
Some emails, such as one written by Chesterfield, Missouri resident David Dean, criticized the state’s House and Senate, which each approved the repeal measure by large margins. “It’s hard for me to fathom how our legislature could vote for a bill that effectively guts Proposition B,” Dean wrote on April 13, the day the House gave final approval to the legislation. “It appears to be the height of arrogance on the legislators(‘) part.”
Others said the new restrictions of the ballot initiative would help the state’s breeding businesses, by setting higher standards that would improve the industry’s reputation.
“If animals are helped by this law requiring reasonable space, food, medical care for animals, that can only be good” for the breeding business, wrote St. Louis, Missouri resident Paula Hanssen in a April 14 email.
But Nixon also received letters urging him to sign the repeal measure. Supporters of that legislation argue that the puppy breeding industry creates many jobs in rural parts of the state, jobs they say would be lost if Proposition B were to take effect as scheduled this November.
The governor has not said if he will sign the legislation pending before him. Instead, he’s urging lawmakers to pass a new, compromise bill that would lift some of the voter-approved restrictions.
Nixon spokesman Scott Holste declined to say Monday whether the letters and emails would have any influence on Nixon’s decision to sign or veto the repeal legislation.
by Kenn Bell
April 27, 2011 in Endangerment, Environment, Inhumane Practices, News
The game creators site their first amendment rights. They say it’s just a game and they love animals. They talk about how you can pick up a million different shoot ‘em up games and kill scores of people in them and that “Dog Wars” is no different.
But it is different and I’ll tell you why. Their Google/Android App is about abusing defenseless creatures that do what they are told or suffer the consequences. It is no different then creating a videogame about how to abuse children. And that is a game that NO ONE would stand for.
This game just teaches kids the in and outs of an abusive form of entertainment for sociopaths called dogfighting, a much more realistic aspiration for a child then running down a street with an uzi in a shoot ‘em up game.
Instead of condoning animal abuse and stating your rights, wouldn’t it be nice if Kage Games thought less about profits and more about what is wrong and what is right?
– Kenn
The idea is so sickening it even has Michael Vick, the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback who went to prison for dog fighting, up in arms.
Dog Wars, a free videogame app from Android phones where players train a virtual Pit Bull to fight other dogs, earn virtual street cred and money in the process, has many dog lovers and humane organizations fighting mad.
Marketed by Kage Games, the game’s website encourages players to “Raise your Dog to Beat the Best! Feed, water, train and FIGHT your virtual dog against other player’s.“ Elsewhere it’s noted that players also get a “gun for police raids and can inject the dog with steroids.”
Among those voicing their concerns over this atrocity is Paul M. Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, who said he was very concerned the game would be embraced by local gang members and encourage them to engage in dog fighting.
“It’s sickening, absolutely sickening,“ Weber said. “They should take it down immediately. These animals are defenseless. It’s absolutely the wrong message to send to our children,” he said.
The Humane Society of the United States released a statement urging Android to drop Dog Wars from its applications and calling the game “a step backward.”
Michael Vick weighed in via the HSUS website saying, ““I’ve come to learn the hard way that dog fighting is a dead-end street. Now, I am on the right side of this issue, and I think it’s important to send the smart message to kids, and not glorify this form of animal cruelty, even in an Android app.”
So just how is Kage Games responding to all this negativity? They’ve defended the game, saying it’s all in good fun. “Just because something is illegal in real life in certain countries, does not mean it is illegal to make a song, movie, or video game about it,” their statement reads. The game’s website also deflects criticism, saying “If you have a bug up your b*tt about the game concept, remember: It is just A VIDEO GAME.”
The Android website goes even further in attempting to quell the public’s concerns by stating they “DO NOT CONDONE violence towards animals or humans“, and that they “are confident in humankind’s ability to distinguish between a rudimentary game and the consequences of real life.”
The website also states that a portion of the proceeds of the game will be donated to animal rescue organizations as well victims of the Japanese tsunami.
by Kenn Bell
April 26, 2011 in Dog Rescue, Dog Safety, Entertainment, News, Working Dogs
It looks like it may finally be the end of an era…and that’s a good thing.
Thanks to the troubling economy, Greyhound racing appears to be in a steep decline.
Racing fans blame the loss of interest not only on the economy but also on competition from instant gambling like slot machines. Activists however, just say it’s time to end the races altogether.
For years, fans of greyhound races have faced off against animal welfare activists who say the dogs are kept muzzled in small cages, fed inferior food, injected with steroids and frequently injured at the track. Dog breeders, owners and racing lobbyists counter that the dogs are well-tended and love to run.
Greyhounds live an average of 12 years and run between 42 and 45 mph, making them the fastest dogs in the world. Most racing dogs are between 1 1/2 to 5 years old.
Ann Church, senior director of government relations for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has been fighting the industry since the 1970s when dogs were “trained on live rabbits, kittens and other small animals,” she said.
“Racing is dangerous,” she said. “As they go around the different turns, they are prone to crashing into each other. Their legs get mixed up and they go down and when they go down, there are often broken bones, punctured lungs and other problems.” Church also says the dogs are fed a low grade of food not fit for human consumption.
As the industry has lost money, Church claims conditions for the dogs have degenerated. “Dogs are confined, often with their muzzles on, for 20 hours a day because there are not enough people to care for them,” she said. “The irony that a dog that so much likes to run is kept in a cage 20 hours a day is heartbreaking.”
But Gary Guccione, executive director of the National Greyhound Association says kennel crates are “very comfortable and plenty big enough. They jump into them gladly.” They are padded with carpeting or shredded paper and the “crate is their home, their room, their happy place.” He also says the chance of injury per race start is less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
Guccione also says Greyhound farm inspections have been conducted since 1987 through a joint effort of the NGA and the American Greyhound Council, “We find the vast majority of farms to be in great condition and the greyhounds on those farms are in great condition,” he says.
by Kenn Bell
April 26, 2011 in Animal Control, Breed-Specific Legislation, Government, News, Pit Bull
My first question would be, “what exactly constitutes a vicious dog? Are we back to breed specific legislation?”
– Kenn
A bill being circulated by Senator Dave Hansen of Green Bay, Wisconsin would make it a misdemeanor for someone convicted of a violent or drug-related felony to own a dog that has been declared vicious by law enforcement or a humane officer.
The misdemeanor could carry up to nine months in prison. If that dog attacks another person and the owner didn’t try to control the dog, the owner could be charged with a felony that carries a maximum sentence of up to six years in prison. The prohibition would last 10 years after the felon is released from prison or until the end of the felon’s extended supervision.
A dog could be determined “vicious” if it caused serious injury or death to a person or another animal, bit a person without being provoked or is seen as reasonably threatening by another resident. Hansen introduced versions of the bill in the last two sessions, with both bills dying at the end of the Legislative sessions. ?
The bill includes a provision allowing felons to apply for an exemption based on their livelihood. Hansen said the language was added to protect those who may run breeding operations or require a guard dog for their business. It also allows a felon to appeal the determination of viciousness.
Green Bay Police Lt. Bill Dongle said vicious dogs are being used mostly by felons involved in drug trafficking and those involved in dog fighting operations. Dongle cited one incident in which a SWAT team on a local drug bust was attacked by a Pit Bull, which police then had to shoot.
??The department’s animal control officer, Sharon Hensen, said drug task force and probation officers have encountered dogs in at least half of the visits they make. Hensen said felons who use their dogs as weapons should be punished.
The Dog Federation of Wisconsin, an advocacy group for dog owners and breeders, opposed the bill in past sessions. Tracey Johnson, the group’s vice president, said previous versions prevented a felon from owning a dog that was not spayed or neutered and that such a law ignored the fact that the felon has “served their debt to society.”
??Johnson said the group had not yet decided whether to support the latest version, but said she thought the definitions of vicious were difficult for a humane officer to interpret.
??”In order to have a credible finding, the person observing and or testing the dog would have to be knowledgeable about canine behavior,” Johnson said. “The current State of Wisconsin Humane Officer training does not begin to provide those officers with the necessary education to make a vicious dog declaration.” ??
