Growing Up Puppies

A Dog Lover's Prayer

I'm reading Sheltie Talk right now, and it has a couple of poems at the very end of the book that I'd like to share.

A Dog Lover's Prayer
Lord, you know that there would be times when man would need another kind of friend--one who would not criticize, nor blame, nor make demands, nor question. One who would only listen and love.
And so you gave us the dog. Not just one dog, but a dog to suite every temperament and personality.
Lord, we thank you for man's best friend. Help us to remember that he also belongs to you.
Therefore, while we are to enjoy him, we are not to mistreat him, nor alter his health and ability to function by breeding to suite our foolish whims. We are not to thwart his purpose by keeping him isolated where he cannot learn to function in our world.
Teach us, Lord, not to inflict pain and suffering to gain our selfish ends--sometimes as frivilous as a purple ribbon, and not to breed so many of his kind that homes cannot be found and he is left homeless and starving, or sentenced to death in a shelter.
Help us, Lord, to love our friend, the dog, in such a way that it reflects your love and compassion for mankind, whom you have called your friend.

WHAT AM I TO YOU?
M. Kummer
As a pup I dreamed and wondered
What life could hold in store:
For ME, I thought, there's something GREAT
Beyond that kennel door.

Out there are needy people
And I have much to give:
Love, and wit, and gentleess,
To help them learn to live.

I'd be someone's protector,
Keep little ones from harm,
Or guide an old man's weary steps,
Or help to run a farm.

I'd run and bark and jump and play
With friends along a sandy shore.
I'd roll in meadows thick and green
That lie beyond that kennel door.

I lay here waiting--longing,
As the days and years crept by;
My owner kept me fed and brushed,
But inside, let me die.

I do not think of greatness now,
I'm old and filled with pain.
My owner has some ribbons,
But I have lived in vain.

I cannot think what could have been,
My dreams are filled with hope no more,
Just floor and walls and broken heart
For me behind this kennel door.
CCA "Bulliten"
Feb 1984

To Whom It May Concern

I post in Dogster Answers a lot, mainly to questions about dog breeding. The responses I sometimes get are often very unaccepting. They either tell me (and the others who posted with me) that we were being rude, or that we were being judgmental, or other such assumptions. They seem to think that we are out to hurt their little feelings.

1. This is the internet. Perfectly friendly posts can come across as rude, brash, and mean since what is being said cannot be heard, nor the writer's expression be seen. The person's mood also effects how they interpret a post. And often times a post seems rude simply because you are being told what you do not want to hear. The truth hurts. But it's good for you.

2. I do not like to sugar-coat. I try to be blunt and honest with people when answering questions, yet I also try to sound friendly and courteous.

With all my info on responsible breeders, I have found that many don't accept what I say. That's fine. It's your right to believe what you want. However, please do not insult me or anyone else just because we disagree with you. Read what I have to say to you, consider it, read up on it, and decide for yourself. That's all I ask.

I don't always agree with the way others who share my view respond to people who want to breed their dog, but our motives are pure. Driven by our love for dogs. It is why I have answered nearly 4,000 questions, not all of which were about breeding.

And to those who resort to calling me anti-breeding, I'm not anti-breeding, just anti-irresponsible-breeding. There is a difference.
If you have a problem with the way I deliver my answers or my opinion, I request that you directly confront me about it through paw-mail or the guestbook on my website. Thank you.

Crosspost about PETA

Thanks to Dutch for posting this from another website:
This just in: PETA’s 2007 kill numbers
By Gina Spadafori
May 12, 2008

Yes, yes, yes, The Center for Consumer Freedom is front group with a fancy name supported by a lot of industries with some practices I don’t agree with, especially with regards to factory-farming. But that doesn’t change the information they got from the state of Virginia:

Last year, PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2006 (containing its official “kill” numbers) didn’t show up on the website of Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) until nine months after it was supposed to. So this year, we pressed the issue. And in response to our written public-records request, VDACS delivered the goods. PETA’s 2007 “Animal Record” still isn’t available online through the Virginia government, but we’re making it available today at PetaKillsAnimals.com.

Here’s what the report shows. Not including the animals PETA spayed and neutered, the group had possession of 1,997 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” in 2007. And PETA — which professes a belief that animals should never be slaughtered for food, used for medical research, or killed for clothing, nonetheless put 90.9 percent of them to death at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. And despite its official status as a “humane society” and a pet “releasing agency” in Virginia, PETA found adoptive homes for only 17 animals all year. Just 17.

Look. I’m not donating money to the Center for Consumer Freedom, 501(c)3 status or no. But a lot of people who donate money to PETA would be surprised to read the state of Virginia report. Which means they need to see the state of Virginia report and make up their own minds about what it means.

PETA, by the way, doesn’t seem to like this information being shared. They have argued that the animals they kill are not “in search of new homes” but rather were so unadoptable that being killed was the only kind solution for them.

They have, incidentally, threatened to sue people who say otherwise. Except, well, the state of Virginia has pointed out to them — in a letter, copy and explanation here – that the law requires them to report animals taken in “for the purpose of adoption.”

I’ve make it clear that I believe PETA has a right to advocate for animal rights. I’ve also made it clear that I don’t agree with their point of view, which, if taken to its simple, logical conclusion, would mean the extinction of nearly all domestic animals, pets included.

If someone agrees with that position, that’s fine, too. I just want to make sure people know what they’re supporting before they send a check to any advocacy group.

Some humor today

Where Do Pets Come From?

A newly discovered chapter in the Book of Genesis has provided the answer to “Where do pets come from?”

Adam said, “Lord, when I was in the garden, you walked with me every day. Now I do not see you any more. I am lonesome here and it is difficult for me to remember how much you love me.”

And God said, “No problem. I will create a companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you so that you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself.”

And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and it wagged its tail.And Adam said, “Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal.”

And God said, “No problem. Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him Dog.”

And Dog lived with Adam and was a companion to him and loved him. And Adam was comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail.After a while, it came to pass that Adam’s guardian angel came to the Lord and said, “Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and he believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but perhaps too well.”

And the Lord said, “No problem. I will create for him a companion who will be with him forever and who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration.”

And God created Cat to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat’s eyes, he was reminded that he was not the Supreme Being. And Adam learned humility.

And God was pleased. And Adam was greatly improved. And Dog was happy.

And Cat didn’t care one way or the other.

HSVMA, a new PETA-like organization

This heads-up was posted in the GSD forum by Dutch:
Dr. Khuly blogs regularly at www.dolittler. com

If you graduated from vet school after 1981, you’ve heard of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. The AVAR is an organization of 3,000 vets dedicated to the protection of the rights of animals in laboratory, agriculture, wildlife, shelter and in-home settings.

On Jan. 14, the Humane Society of the United States launched a new organization in conjunction with AVAR inviting veterinarians to participate in an amalgamation of the two groups. It’s calls the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Assn., or HSVMA.

In case you believe this alphabet soup has nothing to do with your life as a veterinarian, you may want to reconsider. The HSUS wants you to join the HSVMA. It entreats all vets to reject the AVMA’s milquetoast stance on crucial animal-welfare imperatives, such as sow confinement, force-fed foie gras production and other practices that impinge on the basic rights of animals to live their lives free of human subjugation.

Come join the alternative movement to better the lives of animals beyond the scope of your daily practice, it urges. Specifically, the HSVMA has set its sights on young veterinarians who may elect not to walk lockstep with the AVMA on hot-button animal-welfare issues and for whom the AVMA looks more like a lineup of stodgy, white good ol’ boys than the vets they looked up to in school.

On these grounds alone, I might consider myself a prime target for recruitment. In fact, many “new-generation” vets share my more “liberal” views on animal welfare and some frustration with the AVMA’s slow acceptance of animal stewardship imperatives. In particular, we oppose many of the harsher animal industry practices. To us they seem seriously out of step with our profession’s approach to small-animal medicine.

Inexorably increasing standards of care in pet medicine make for an ever more cavernous divide between companion animal and agricultural animal practitioners. The variously heralded and fretted “urbanization” and “feminization” of the profession arguably enhances this division.

The time is right for organizations like the HSUS to recruit veterinarians into its rank and file, essentially growing its power base through the prestige of veterinary professionals, even appropriating the “VMA” acronym we’ve historically owned to make its point clear: The AVMA does not represent you on these issues. We do. This is your VMA.

Predictably, the AVMA opposes this organization on the grounds that science must direct its positions rather than the reactionary aims of certain groups that would reject its conclusions. In a Q&A regarding HSVMA published on the AVMA’s website, its position is clarified: “[In making decisions on animal welfare issues], the AVMA regularly communicates with a broad range of stakeholders, including individuals and organizations associated with the animal protection community, the animal industries and governmental agencies.”

Most of us in the welfare camp might urge the AVMA to look to its member constituents and the general public, two invested groups notably absent in this declaration. In fact, statements like this seem to fan the flames of those of us against the AVMA’s chronically conciliatory approach to industry and government. Yet it’s clear that representation of views now emerging from its own membership is not forthcoming.

Why should we not lock fists with the HSUS in its bid to win our hearts and minds through this nascent splinter group?

It’s my belief that veterinarians disposed to such lures may want to more carefully consider shifting their allegiance. Though most of us may not be aware of it, the HSUS is increasingly wedded to the goals of organizations like PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), especially as the HSUS’s leader, Wayne Pacelle, is widely regarded as an emergently militant voice with respect to animal rights.

Despite his indefatigable drive to promote the image of the HSUS as a moderate one in tune with mainstream welfare groups, he is rejected by most of these.

Furthermore, Pacelle’s successful courtship of AVAR in forming the HSVMA speaks against this public relations strategy. That’s because AVAR’s mission is very much in line with that of PeTA’s.

While the AVAR and HSUS’s tactics are more moderate and their approach infinitely more disciplined, the values they espouse are otherwise on par with PeTA’s. A comparison of published position statements for all three organizations readily confirms this.

For those of you unaware of the details of this issue, let me explain that “animal rights” and “animal welfare” are two separate movements. The more moderate animal welfarists urge that animals should be cared for by veterinarians as stewards of their safety, health, comfort and general wellbeing.

Meanwhile, animal rightists consider animals morally indistinguishable from humans and deserving equal treatment with consideration for their limited cognitive abilities, much as children are regarded under our current laws.

The difference between these two camps is vast. One allows for “animal use” in agriculture and as companions while the other deems both conditions morally untenable in the long run.

Veterinarians viewed in the context of the rightist’s paradigm are ideally suited for wildlife and public health concerns—not for pet medicine and certainly not for the propagation of the animal agriculture industry. The AVAR and HSUS might dispute this, but for this vet and the vast majority of truly moderate animal-welfare groups across the country, their actions and position statements speak louder than their refutations.

While the HSUS may publicize more moderate positions with respect to animal cruelty in general, which welfarists like myself support, they also oppose all pet breeding, lab animal use, feline trap-neuter- return programs and animal product consumption.

Furthermore and most egregiously from the small-animal vet’s perspective, they reject the agenda of no-kill shelters in actively seeking better ways to save the lives of homeless animals, despite the recent success of many well-run municipal facilities in achieving these previously unrealized goals.

In fact, they actively support the principle that animals might be better served through euthanasia than placed in homes where their suffering and servitude might be exacerbated.

You may be surprised to hear that HSUS opposes the very existence of no-kill shelters and that PeTA shelters euthanized 97 percent of their charges in 2006 (by their own count). Compare that to the 34 percent average euthanasia rate in shelters nationwide and it becomes clear that PeTA and HSUS are not the blanket defenders of animals we may have expected.

Moreover, the HSUS has gone to great lengths to distinguish itself from the militancy of PeTA, but nonetheless defends the same hard-line agenda—albeit without the violence and lawless behavior. It seeks its goals more insidiously through under-the-radar political activities, primarily because it still serves moderate and militant wings of both pro-animal movements in the U.S. through its broad agenda.

While it courts dollars from its largely moderate welfarist base, the HSUS continues to promote its rightist agenda disingenuously. This approach has earned Pacelle the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” reputation among conventional animal-welfare organizations.

While HSUS (and now the HSVMA) may champion the laudable values many more idealistic vets are inclined to agree with, thus garnering our support based on mutual goals, it’s my view that too much of its less-publicized agenda diverges from our mainstream views.

The AVMA officials who still represent veterinarians’ moderate welfarist voices would be well advised to consider that tides are shifting in our profession and that it may be increasingly difficult to straddle the chasm between the stalwart agricultural and companion-animal contingencies it currently serves. Viewed in that light, it would seem to be in AVMA’s best long-term interest to look to the burgeoning ranks of its traditionally less-consulted constituents and our values.

Very soon, it may no longer be enough for AVMA to offer PLIT (Professional Liability Insurance Trust) to maintain our membership. Predictably, the HSUS will soon offer up its own version as its coffers bloat with the cachet veterinarians contribute to its causes.

And these colleagues cast adrift through ideological disparities would be a bad thing indeed for the AVMA, our profession and animal welfare in general as we know it.

Crosspost

This was in a group that I am in from another member:
Was just alerted to this study today. It explains the CDC dog bite/fatality statistics...including explaining how those statistics can't really be used to support BSL. If it's too long for you...at least read the Discussion section at the end. I've pasted some bits of it here... Please alert others to use this study in their anti-BSL activities or even just for their own knowledge to understand what's going on with today's laws. Notice the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS mentioned??? I think I'm going to print this out and mail it to my legislators!

Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks
in the United States between 1979 and 1998
Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH; Leslie Sinclair, DVM; Julie Gilchrist, MD;
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM; Randall Lockwood, PhD
Vet Med Today: Special Report
JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

www.cdc.gov
Conclusions—A lthough fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)

Finally, it is imperative to keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds.

When a specific breed of dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second, because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is prohibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process. Despite such concerns, a number of breed-specific ordinances have been upheld by the courts. 14-16

Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.

An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior

PETA. Why they're not a reputable organization

This info from our pal Daddy, quotes from PETA books:
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear by neutering until our pathetic version…ceases to exist. Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles—from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."

- Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982

"We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

- Wayne Pacelle (HSUS President), Animal People News

"PETA supports legislation that bans the breeding of pit bulls. We do advocate a ban on breeding potentially dangerous breeds. We also support pit bull bans" - PeTA's official website, 2008

"They [Pit Bulls] are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol".

- Stated in a letter to Metro City Council by Pam Rogers head of HSUS' legislative coordination pushing for BSL against American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and "pit bull type dogs" (which would include at least 25 different pure breeds of dog who resemble the "Pit Bull" breeds).

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."
- PeTA's official statement on Pets/Companion Animals

"I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal...there's no special bond between me and other animals."

- Wayne Pacelle (quoted in 'Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt', 1993)

"I despise 'animal welfare.' That's like saying, 'Let's beat the slaves three times a week instead of five times a week'."

- Gary Yourofsky, PeTA's national lecturer

"Human care (of animals) is simply sentimental, sympathetic patronage."

- Dr. Michael Fox, HSUS, in a 1998 Newsweek interview

"We do not advocate 'right to life" for animals"

- Ingrid Newkirk wrote on a postcard to Nathan Winograd, no-kill shelter consultant feral cat TNR advocate, and founder of the No Kill Advocacy Center.

"Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe."

— PeTA's Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot
PETA KILLS ANIMALS IN THE NAME OF "JUSTICE". PLEASE DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME SUPPORTING THIS JOKE OF AN ORGANIZATION!

All gone

The puppies are all gone now. My uncle wants to breed India in a year, this time on purpose. Please pray that he doesn't!

Princess

The one of us that went to Cookie's mistresses pastor was renamed Princess.

Update. Sorrwe, it's been awhile

Hi. I'm the only puppy left now. The rest have all gone to their homes. *whimper...*

Tagged by Lyrik

Name 4 jobs that you have
1. Playing
2. Sleeping
3. Going to our new homes today
4. Say goodbye to our momma

Name 4 places you have lived at (or stayed at):
1. Inside our momma (BOL)
2. Inside our momma's crate when we were real little
3. At our human's house
4. Nowhere else yet. Unless you count Bear, who our human gave away way too early. Our human isn't a very good dog person. *whimper* Why can't he understand that puppies aren't supposed to go to their new homes until they are 8 weeks old?

Name 4 places that you have been:
1. Front yard
2. Living room
3. On Cookie's mistress's lap.
4. Nowhere else...yet.

Name 4 places you'd rather be:
1. With our momma until we are completely 8 weeks old.
2. With Cookie's mistress or her brother or anyone who is nice and will play with us.
3. Eating
4. Playing

Name 4 furiends you wish to tag:
1. Smokey
2. Max (Mr.Sniccerdoodle)
3. ♥Kendra♥
4. Jovi, NPC

What's going on?

A few days ago, one of our sisters left us for it's home...but wait a minute! We're not even 7 weeks old yet! Puppies aren't supposed to leave their momma until they are at least 8 weeks old! The rest of us will be gone to our new homes just a few days shy of 8 weeks...when will our human ever understand? Cookie's mistress all but begged him not to sell us till we were 8 weeks old...

Wow!

Us four wittle puppies are Diary of the Day! We were supposed to meet Cookie's mistress again today, but her gwandma said that we that couldn't come over. *whimpers*

Update, Bear here

Cookie's mistress's dad decided no.

Bear is the only puupy who doesnt have a home lined up yet

Cookie's mistress's dad is considering letting Cookie's mistress have Bear! Oh, this is Sheba talking here. He asked Cookie's mistress. Cookie's mistress said that even though sghe considers my current human a BYB, he does need the money to take care of India's (my momma's) medical problems. She knows that my human is honest and that that is what he will use the money for. So, Cookie's mistress's dad will pray about it and sleep on it. Maybe by morning he will decide. If he does, either me or Bear will post an update and let you know. I hope thast he decides to get Bear!
Oh, and on Wednesy we'll be 6 weeks (42 days) old.

We had FUN today!

Today Cookie's mistress and her brother come over to play with us and get pictures! We had so much fun! We even got to play with uncle Snoopy. Snoopy could play with us all day. We just wish that our momma would allow us to any time we want not just when they take us out into the yard and leave our momma behind.
We're 37 days (5 weeks) old now. We think that our human was going to sell us before we were even 8 weeks old (which is NOT a good thing to do), but we think (and hope) that Cookie's mistress talked him out of it.
Bark at you Dogsters later!

Pictures of Bear are up

Today, Bear was brought out for playtime and pictures. My uncle is just getting over a cold and only felt like bringing one out
Today, I got out to meet Cookie's mistress once again! And I got to play with Snoopy! He's awesome! Except, he seems to never get tired and will try to keep playing with me even when I don't want to, but he's a grrreat guy. My momma doesn't seem to like me meeting Cookie's mistress. I wonder why? She's really nice, I wuff her! And her brother too!
I heard that some lady wants to buy me. Aww, I want to stay here furever, I don't want to leave...

There should be more pictures of us tonight

Sorry that Cookie's mistress didn't meet the Friday afternoon line, she couldn't come over.
We can all run and walk and wrestle now!
Cookie's mistress will be coming over tonight to take pictures of us, and they should be more interesting now that we can do things. The pastor of our human's church will probably have buy one of us when we are old enough. There is also a lady that is willing to pay a high price fur one of us, and our human needs the money because our momma is sick with heartworms and he needs to treat her. It will cost $300.
We'll be back tonight with updated pictures and pawsibly a diary update!

Update

We are all playing with each other now.

We went to see a doctor today

Our human brought us to what he calls "the vet". Don't know what that means, but it sure wasn't a place we'd want to live in! The vet said that we are purebred. Cookie's mistress should have more pictures of us to display by Friday afternoon.

18 days old!

Today Bear and Sheba were brought out so that I could take pictures of them. Now, Bear and Sheba will tell you about it.
We can all walk now. Bear is developing faster than the rest of us. He tries to wrestle with us and we don't even know how to yet! Our owner brought Bear and I out to see Cookie's mistress again. She got about 10 pictures. Our owner's decided that if he keeps any of us, he'll keep Bear. Cookie's mistress could only stay for 10 minutes.

Photo Shoot

The 2 other girls were brought out today for Cookie's mistress to take pictures! These two puppies will be talking about it.
All our eyes are open now. We can almost walk too! We play a little sometimes by rolling over. Cookie's mistress was holding us and taking pictures and videos. She caught one of us rolling over on film. We were sucking on the human's fingers. We thought that they had milk in them. But they didn't. We did a lot of yawning so Cookie's mistress got some pictures of that too. Then our momma started howling to be let back inside, so we got put back in our bed and our momma was let inside.

4 little puppies

This diary is the place fur us to tell you how we're doing and growing and learning. Our eyes opened yesterday. We'll be able to show you more picture hopefully once a week. As some of you have pointed out, yes it is sad that our momma was chained out on a cold night. But our human wasn't going to leave her out all night. His other dog is afraid of our momma. It's warm the past few days, so our bed is outside on a shelter porch. We have lots of heat and our momma can go in and out of our bed as she pleases. Sometimes she accidentally lays on one of us. We just squeal and she gets up. And our human's room is right next to where we are, and he can get to us very quickly if he needs to.