By Cynthia Hubert: chubert@sacbee.com
Published Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009: The Sacramento Bee
Animal shelters across the nation are overloaded with pit bulls, muscular terriers with a reputation for violence and fighting.
Media reports on pit bull maulings are commonplace.
Yet rescue groups are rallying around hundreds of "pits" seized from a dogfighting operation in Missouri, vowing to "rehabilitate" as many as possible and find them new homes. More than two dozen of the animals have been trucked to Sacramento to be placed in "foster homes" and, eventually, adopted.
Can they be trusted as pets? And considering their overpopulation, does it make sense to rescue pit bulls, especially those that have been raised in fighting environments?
The answer to the first question is yes, said Rick Johnson, executive director of the Sacramento branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "There are many success stories" of pit bulls being safe and trustworthy pets, as long as they are properly trained and controlled, he said.
The second question is more complicated.
Johnson believes every animal deserves a chance at a good home. "But I'm not sure why you would want to bring additional dogs of that kind into the region when we can't find homes for the ones that we have," he said.
On any given day, Johnson said, about 30 percent of dogs available for adoption at the SPCA are pit bulls or pit mixes. At least half of the Sacramento city animal shelter's dogs fit that category, said director Penny Cistaro.
"I am startled, shocked by the volume of pit bulls in this shelter and in the community," Cistaro said.
Even animal advocate Patty Letawsky, who runs a Web site on behalf of pit bulls, said she has mixed feelings about the effort to bring the Missouri dogs to California.
"We really don't need to be importing pit bulls into the area," Letawsky said. "But I've seen these dogs, and I'm looking at dogs that have a great chance to live. So I go back and forth on it."
The animals are among more than 400 seized from a dogfighting ring for which 26 people are facing federal and state criminal charges.
Best Friends Animal Society, a rescue group based in Utah, coordinated and funded the effort to bring 28 of the dogs to the Sacramento area. Various animal groups across Northern California will place them in foster homes.
John Polis, a spokesman for Best Friends, said the organization has found homes for many pit bulls, including a few formerly owned by football star Michael Vick, who served 19 months in prison on a dogfighting conviction.
"These were deemed the toughest, most problematic dogs," but after many months of care and training they no longer are threatening, Polis said.
The pit bulls that arrived in Sacramento on Monday, including several puppies, are healthy and friendly and suffer mostly from a lack of socialization, Polis said.
"We feel that every animal deserves a fair shake," he said.
Jennifer Fearing, a Sacramento representative for the Humane Society of the United States, said pit bulls have strong jaws and powerful bodies but rarely are vicious unless they are mistreated or trained to be fighters.
The breed has paid a price, Fearing said, for a "macho" dogfighting culture that has taken advantage of one of the dog's most endearing qualities: loyalty.
"The pit bull has become the breed du jour preferred by those in our society who see dogs as a tool to enact their own aggression and machismo," she said. "One of the saddest things about all of this is that their very desire to please humans is what people exploit to get them to fight."
Some pit bulls can be docile when they are young but become aggressive when they mature, causing them to suddenly lash out at other animals or people, Cistaro said.
"I worry more about puppies and younger adolescents than the adults," she said. "What are they going to be like when they grow up?"
Pit bull aggression has been widely documented, with several cases reported in the Sacramento area in the past few months. A week ago, a Placer County judge ordered four pit bulls killed for mauling a teen in Auburn. A day earlier, authorities said two pits "went on a rampage" near an elementary school in a Sacramento County neighborhood and were shot. In August, a man in south Sacramento shot and killed a pit bull that was mauling a woman's smaller dog, according to reports.
All big, strong dogs, regardless of breed, need intense monitoring, said Johnson of the SPCA. "Pit bulls are terriers, and terriers can be very focused," he said. "That combination of strength and energy is important. People who adopt them need to understand it."
Studies have found that other dogs, including cocker spaniels, are more prone to bite than pit bulls, Polis noted. But the power of the pit bull should be respected, he agreed.
"When people adopt pit bulls from us, we spend a great deal of time with the dogs and the families interested in them," said Johnson. "Sure, they can be great pets. But it requires a lot of work and a lot of diligence."
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
To Declaw or Not to Declaw
I have been asked to explain my comments at a recent Santa Monica City Council meeting. The Council was deliberating over whether or not to enact a Ban against Cat Declawing within the city limits of Santa Monica. A similar measure was defeated in Malibu two weeks earlier.
My position is a difficult one, but an honest one and I think my comments speak for themselves. I don't stand alone in my position, it is shared by the San Francisco SPCA who released the following statement, "Our mission is to save animals’ lives and we understand that, in some instances, [declawing] may be the only way to prevent abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia."
The San Francisco SPCA issued the above statement denouncing San Francisco's move to ban declaws even though the group advocates against the procedure. Being against a Ban is NOT being for declawing. I share the SF SPCA's concern that frustrated owners with no option to declaw cats will be forced to decide to abandon or relinquish their pet.
“Keep it legal, keep it rare” is the position of virtually every national animal welfare and veterinary association. It is also the position of most shelters committed to reducing the number of animals killed in their communities. The suggestion that most European countries have already enacted a ban is disingenuous.
Click on this link to read the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Report to the LA City Council. The CLA busted three myths propagated by Ban Proponents. He found that declawing is "not cruel" (a position I am not prepared to take). He found that declawed cats relinquished to LA shelters are "a rarity". And he called into question the City's authority to oversee the practice of veterinary medicine, and said that even if the City has this authority, it does not have the resources or staff to do so.
To further clarify my "last resort", and I do mean LAST RESORT position, I am sharing my comments from the recent Santa Monica City Council meeting with links to documents that help explain and support my position. Again, I do NOT support declawing, however, I don't support a Ban either because of the unintended consequences that are sure to follow:
"Good evening. My name is Ed Boks and I am here as an animal welfare advocate with nearly 30 years experience in animal care and control and over 12 years experience managing three of the largest animal shelter systems in the United States, including New York City and Los Angeles. As an experienced shelter manager, I can tell you that an uncompromising ban on cat declawing in the City of Santa Monica will result in more cats abandoned on your streets and more cats relinquished and killed in your shelter.
Like Ban Proponents, I abhor the practice of Declawing, but I abhor the abandoning, relinquishing and killing of cats even more, and I’m here to tell you that is what a Ban will lead to.
It is interesting that you are told that Declawing is mutilation by the same people who embrace other forms of mutilation! Some Ban Proponents approve cutting the tip off the ear of otherwise healthy feral cats for the convenience of being able to identify them in a colony.
Other Ban Proponents promote invasive surgery for the convenience of reducing dog and cat populations; another form of mutilation in the minds of some.
And probably everyone in this room, on both sides of this debate will agree that these forms of “mutilation” are acceptable. Why? Because we know they save lives!
In the same way, when a veterinarian performs a declaw surgery as a last resort she is saving a life! You take that life-saving option away from a cat guardian and you will force them to relinquish their pets to a shelter, who, at a cost to the City, will try to re-home them, and if they can’t - these cats will be killed. Why, when we are all trying so hard to end the killing in our shelters, would we want to create another reason to kill?
In Malibu, Mayor Stern voted against a Ban explaining that he would have taken his cat to the Pound if he couldn’t have her declawed because his wife’s health is at serious risk to a cat scratch. Thank God he had this option!
Please don’t limit the life-saving tools available to licensed veterinarians or second guess their professional judgment.
When performed as a last resort, declawing is a life saving remedy that keeps cats and people together, cats who might otherwise be subject to abuse, abandonment, or death.
Please vote NO to a Ban. A No Vote is a life saving vote. Thank you."
For more information on this difficult issue, visit: http://www.advocatesforfacts.org/Cat_Declawing.html
My position is a difficult one, but an honest one and I think my comments speak for themselves. I don't stand alone in my position, it is shared by the San Francisco SPCA who released the following statement, "Our mission is to save animals’ lives and we understand that, in some instances, [declawing] may be the only way to prevent abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia."
The San Francisco SPCA issued the above statement denouncing San Francisco's move to ban declaws even though the group advocates against the procedure. Being against a Ban is NOT being for declawing. I share the SF SPCA's concern that frustrated owners with no option to declaw cats will be forced to decide to abandon or relinquish their pet.
“Keep it legal, keep it rare” is the position of virtually every national animal welfare and veterinary association. It is also the position of most shelters committed to reducing the number of animals killed in their communities. The suggestion that most European countries have already enacted a ban is disingenuous.
Click on this link to read the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Report to the LA City Council. The CLA busted three myths propagated by Ban Proponents. He found that declawing is "not cruel" (a position I am not prepared to take). He found that declawed cats relinquished to LA shelters are "a rarity". And he called into question the City's authority to oversee the practice of veterinary medicine, and said that even if the City has this authority, it does not have the resources or staff to do so.
To further clarify my "last resort", and I do mean LAST RESORT position, I am sharing my comments from the recent Santa Monica City Council meeting with links to documents that help explain and support my position. Again, I do NOT support declawing, however, I don't support a Ban either because of the unintended consequences that are sure to follow:
"Good evening. My name is Ed Boks and I am here as an animal welfare advocate with nearly 30 years experience in animal care and control and over 12 years experience managing three of the largest animal shelter systems in the United States, including New York City and Los Angeles. As an experienced shelter manager, I can tell you that an uncompromising ban on cat declawing in the City of Santa Monica will result in more cats abandoned on your streets and more cats relinquished and killed in your shelter.
Like Ban Proponents, I abhor the practice of Declawing, but I abhor the abandoning, relinquishing and killing of cats even more, and I’m here to tell you that is what a Ban will lead to.
It is interesting that you are told that Declawing is mutilation by the same people who embrace other forms of mutilation! Some Ban Proponents approve cutting the tip off the ear of otherwise healthy feral cats for the convenience of being able to identify them in a colony.
Other Ban Proponents promote invasive surgery for the convenience of reducing dog and cat populations; another form of mutilation in the minds of some.
And probably everyone in this room, on both sides of this debate will agree that these forms of “mutilation” are acceptable. Why? Because we know they save lives!
In the same way, when a veterinarian performs a declaw surgery as a last resort she is saving a life! You take that life-saving option away from a cat guardian and you will force them to relinquish their pets to a shelter, who, at a cost to the City, will try to re-home them, and if they can’t - these cats will be killed. Why, when we are all trying so hard to end the killing in our shelters, would we want to create another reason to kill?
In Malibu, Mayor Stern voted against a Ban explaining that he would have taken his cat to the Pound if he couldn’t have her declawed because his wife’s health is at serious risk to a cat scratch. Thank God he had this option!
Please don’t limit the life-saving tools available to licensed veterinarians or second guess their professional judgment.
When performed as a last resort, declawing is a life saving remedy that keeps cats and people together, cats who might otherwise be subject to abuse, abandonment, or death.
Please vote NO to a Ban. A No Vote is a life saving vote. Thank you."
For more information on this difficult issue, visit: http://www.advocatesforfacts.org/Cat_Declawing.html
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Truth About Black Cats and Holloween
Black cats are awaiting adoption from local shelters this Halloween. Yet some shelters do not adopt out black or white cats in October for fear they will be tortured or used as a Halloween decoration or part of a costume.Each year animal shelters are faced with either holding the cats until after the holiday or euthanizing them. Because there is little documentation of animal tortures and a growing number of cats, animal shelters should adopt them out.
In the entire history of humane work, no one has ever documented or demonstrated any relationship between adopting out either black or white cats, or cats of any other color, and cats being killed or injured. There are no studies of the matter, and no relevant data. According to ANIMAL PEOPLE the belief that adopting out black or white cats to "witches" will result in ill consequences for the cat may be traced to three sources:
"1) Ignorance of the actual beliefs and practices of paganism. Witches do not harm their ‘familiars,’ who are supposed to be their eyes and ears in the spirit world. To harm a familiar would be to blind and deafen oneself, regardless of whether one is a ‘white’ witch, a ‘black’ witch, a purple witch, or any other kind of witch.
2) Misunderstanding predator behavior. Alleged sadists and Satanists were sought for purportedly stealing, killing and dismembering cats and dogs in at least nine states as Halloween 1998 approached. The supposed crimes drew sensational media coverage, lent emphasis to humane society warnings against letting pets run at large, and rewards of up to $10,000 were posted in some cases for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killers.An accurate description of the suspects, however, in all but a handful of the animal deaths and disappearances, would include either four legs and a tail or wings, and none would be either werewolves or griffons.
Similar panics have developed each summer since. They coincide with the emergence of young foxes and coyotes from their mothers' dens and with the first hunting by newly fledged raptors. The panics gain momentum approaching Halloween as public attention to witches, ghouls, goblins, and other things that go bump in the night rises toward a crescendo. The panics virtually stop each year after Halloween distinctly unlike cases involving actual human sadism.
Trained to investigate human-inflicted cruelty, police detectives and humane officers typically have little background in predator behavior. Veterinarians tend to expect --wrongly--that injuries done by coyotes, the most frequent wild predator of pets will resemble those done by domestic dogs. Forensic evidence is thus misread by sincere people, acting in good faith, who incite witch-hunts at possible expense to professional credibility.
Predators, in contrast to human sadists, are astonishingly quick and efficient. Except in instances when predators take disabled but still living prey back to a den or nest to teach young how to kill their own food, predation victims tend to make little sound, if any, rarely even having time to know what hit them.
Predators try to avoid wasting time and energy inflicting unnecessary injuries.Their teeth and claws usually cut more cleanly than any knife. Predators don't leave much blood behind: that's food. If interrupted in mid-attack, they run or take flight with the parts they most want to eat. If able to eat at their leisure, they consume the richest organs, such as the heart, and leave what they don't want.
Coyotes and foxes typically attack small prey such as cats and rabbits from behind and to one side, with a scissors-like jaw snap to the backbone and midsection that frequently cuts the victim in half. If startled, they tend to flee with the larger back half and whatever internal organs come along, leaving the head and forepaws. These are among the cases most often misread by investigators, who mistake the discovery of the head as an indication of ritualistic crime.
Coyotes have an entirely different attack pattern against prey larger than themselves, such as sheep and deer. Against these animals, they go for the throat and belly. They then consume the viscera first.Cats, both wild and domestic, tend to leave inedible organs in a neat pile.
Cats also have the habit of depositing carcasses, or parts thereof, at the doorsteps of other cats or humans they are courting. When cats kill much smaller animals, such as mice, they consume the whole remains, but when they kill animals of almost their own size, such as rabbits, they may leave behind heads, ears, limbs, and even much of the fur.
Tomcats, especially interlopers in another tom's territory, often kill kittens. Instead of eating them, however, kitten-killing toms sometimes play with the carcasses as they would with a mouse, and then abandon the remains in an obvious place, possibly as a sign to both the mother and the dominant tom.
Coyotes, foxes, and both wild and domestic felines often dispatch prey who survives a first strike with a quick skull-crunching bite to the head. ANIMAL PEOPLE actually resolved several panics over alleged sadists supposedly drilling mysterious parallel holes in the skulls of pets by suggesting that the investigators borrow some skulls of wild predators from a museum, to see how the mystery holes align with incisors.
Any common predator, but especially coyotes and raptors, may be involved in alleged ‘skinned alive’ cases. The usual victims are dogs who--perhaps because parts of their bodies were hidden in tall grass--are mistaken for smaller prey. The predator holds on with teeth and/or claws while the wounded victim runs. The result is a set of sharp, typically straight cuts that investigators often describe as "filets." The editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE once witnessed a cat pounce and nearly skin a rabbit in such a case, and unable to intervene in time to prevent the incident, euthanized the victim. The attack occurred and ended within less than 30 seconds.
Raptors tend to be involved in cases where viscera are draped over cars, porches, trees, signs, and mailboxes: they take flight with their prey, or with a road kill they find, and parts fall out. They return to retrieve what they lose only if it seems safe to do so.
Birds, especially crows, account for many cases in which eyes, lips, anuses, and female genitals are removed from fallen livestock. Sometimes the animals have been killed and partially butchered by rustlers. Others are victims of coyotes or eagles. The combined effects of predation and scavenging produce ‘mutilations’ which may be attributed to Satanists or visitors from outer space, but except where rustlers are involved, there is rarely anything more sinister going on than natural predators making a living in their normal way.
3) Fan behavior during some of the first World Series games ever played. Early 20th century New York Giants manager John McGraw was notoriously superstitious, so fans (especially gamblers) would sometimes pitch black cats in front of the Giants' dugout to jinx him. In response to this, some early humane societies suspended adopting out black cats during the World Series, which was and is played just before Halloween.
An informal baseball rule was adopted during this time against continuing a game if an animal is on the field. Major League Baseball, Inc., made this rule official in 1984, after then-Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield threw a ball that killed a seagull during a game in Toronto. The rule has multiple purposes, one of them being to keep expensive ballplayers from getting hurt.”
THE MORE YOU KNOW... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Keep your pets safe, indoors, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t dress them up or feed them candy.
In the entire history of humane work, no one has ever documented or demonstrated any relationship between adopting out either black or white cats, or cats of any other color, and cats being killed or injured. There are no studies of the matter, and no relevant data. According to ANIMAL PEOPLE the belief that adopting out black or white cats to "witches" will result in ill consequences for the cat may be traced to three sources:
"1) Ignorance of the actual beliefs and practices of paganism. Witches do not harm their ‘familiars,’ who are supposed to be their eyes and ears in the spirit world. To harm a familiar would be to blind and deafen oneself, regardless of whether one is a ‘white’ witch, a ‘black’ witch, a purple witch, or any other kind of witch.
2) Misunderstanding predator behavior. Alleged sadists and Satanists were sought for purportedly stealing, killing and dismembering cats and dogs in at least nine states as Halloween 1998 approached. The supposed crimes drew sensational media coverage, lent emphasis to humane society warnings against letting pets run at large, and rewards of up to $10,000 were posted in some cases for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killers.An accurate description of the suspects, however, in all but a handful of the animal deaths and disappearances, would include either four legs and a tail or wings, and none would be either werewolves or griffons.
Similar panics have developed each summer since. They coincide with the emergence of young foxes and coyotes from their mothers' dens and with the first hunting by newly fledged raptors. The panics gain momentum approaching Halloween as public attention to witches, ghouls, goblins, and other things that go bump in the night rises toward a crescendo. The panics virtually stop each year after Halloween distinctly unlike cases involving actual human sadism.
Trained to investigate human-inflicted cruelty, police detectives and humane officers typically have little background in predator behavior. Veterinarians tend to expect --wrongly--that injuries done by coyotes, the most frequent wild predator of pets will resemble those done by domestic dogs. Forensic evidence is thus misread by sincere people, acting in good faith, who incite witch-hunts at possible expense to professional credibility.
Predators, in contrast to human sadists, are astonishingly quick and efficient. Except in instances when predators take disabled but still living prey back to a den or nest to teach young how to kill their own food, predation victims tend to make little sound, if any, rarely even having time to know what hit them.
Predators try to avoid wasting time and energy inflicting unnecessary injuries.Their teeth and claws usually cut more cleanly than any knife. Predators don't leave much blood behind: that's food. If interrupted in mid-attack, they run or take flight with the parts they most want to eat. If able to eat at their leisure, they consume the richest organs, such as the heart, and leave what they don't want.
Coyotes and foxes typically attack small prey such as cats and rabbits from behind and to one side, with a scissors-like jaw snap to the backbone and midsection that frequently cuts the victim in half. If startled, they tend to flee with the larger back half and whatever internal organs come along, leaving the head and forepaws. These are among the cases most often misread by investigators, who mistake the discovery of the head as an indication of ritualistic crime.
Coyotes have an entirely different attack pattern against prey larger than themselves, such as sheep and deer. Against these animals, they go for the throat and belly. They then consume the viscera first.Cats, both wild and domestic, tend to leave inedible organs in a neat pile.
Cats also have the habit of depositing carcasses, or parts thereof, at the doorsteps of other cats or humans they are courting. When cats kill much smaller animals, such as mice, they consume the whole remains, but when they kill animals of almost their own size, such as rabbits, they may leave behind heads, ears, limbs, and even much of the fur.
Tomcats, especially interlopers in another tom's territory, often kill kittens. Instead of eating them, however, kitten-killing toms sometimes play with the carcasses as they would with a mouse, and then abandon the remains in an obvious place, possibly as a sign to both the mother and the dominant tom.
Coyotes, foxes, and both wild and domestic felines often dispatch prey who survives a first strike with a quick skull-crunching bite to the head. ANIMAL PEOPLE actually resolved several panics over alleged sadists supposedly drilling mysterious parallel holes in the skulls of pets by suggesting that the investigators borrow some skulls of wild predators from a museum, to see how the mystery holes align with incisors.
Any common predator, but especially coyotes and raptors, may be involved in alleged ‘skinned alive’ cases. The usual victims are dogs who--perhaps because parts of their bodies were hidden in tall grass--are mistaken for smaller prey. The predator holds on with teeth and/or claws while the wounded victim runs. The result is a set of sharp, typically straight cuts that investigators often describe as "filets." The editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE once witnessed a cat pounce and nearly skin a rabbit in such a case, and unable to intervene in time to prevent the incident, euthanized the victim. The attack occurred and ended within less than 30 seconds.
Raptors tend to be involved in cases where viscera are draped over cars, porches, trees, signs, and mailboxes: they take flight with their prey, or with a road kill they find, and parts fall out. They return to retrieve what they lose only if it seems safe to do so.
Birds, especially crows, account for many cases in which eyes, lips, anuses, and female genitals are removed from fallen livestock. Sometimes the animals have been killed and partially butchered by rustlers. Others are victims of coyotes or eagles. The combined effects of predation and scavenging produce ‘mutilations’ which may be attributed to Satanists or visitors from outer space, but except where rustlers are involved, there is rarely anything more sinister going on than natural predators making a living in their normal way.
3) Fan behavior during some of the first World Series games ever played. Early 20th century New York Giants manager John McGraw was notoriously superstitious, so fans (especially gamblers) would sometimes pitch black cats in front of the Giants' dugout to jinx him. In response to this, some early humane societies suspended adopting out black cats during the World Series, which was and is played just before Halloween.
An informal baseball rule was adopted during this time against continuing a game if an animal is on the field. Major League Baseball, Inc., made this rule official in 1984, after then-Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield threw a ball that killed a seagull during a game in Toronto. The rule has multiple purposes, one of them being to keep expensive ballplayers from getting hurt.”
THE MORE YOU KNOW... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Keep your pets safe, indoors, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t dress them up or feed them candy.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Trap, Neuter, Return Catching on for Stray Cats according to ABC News
Advocates report success with trap, neuter, return approach to stray catsBy LINDA LOMBARDI
The Associated Press
Stepping onto the back porch of Suzanne Des Marais's row house in Washington, D.C., a visitor might be skeptical about the colony of feral cats she supposedly feeds.
There isn't a feline in sight, until she points to a pair of yellow eyes peeking between boards at the top of a fence. The black cat keeps its distance, apparently alone, then she picks up food dishes and suddenly three cats are watching from the next yard.
"They know the sounds, like the clanging of the dishes," Des Marais says.
These are authentic alley cats — an alley runs past her backyard gate — but they're far from the raggedy specimens the term brings to mind. And Des Marais's loving care of her "regulars" stretches well beyond food.
Des Marais is a volunteer advocate of the Trap-Neuter-Return approach to managing stray cats. The tips are missing from the left ears of those she feeds, identifying them as cats that have already been captured and returned to their home territory, with vaccinations thrown in as well.
The approach, known as TNR, used to be close to an underground movement but is now standard policy for major animal welfare organizations like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the United States. More than 250 nonprofit TNR organizations operate nationwide.
The District of Columbia has about 400 cat colonies with almost 2,000 cats that have been spayed, neutered and vaccinated by the CatNiPP program of the Washington Humane Society, says program director Bridget Speiser.
Neighbors are often skeptical at first: Why trap the cats and then put them back instead of finding them homes?
The TNR programs generally do try to adopt out friendly strays. But true feral cats, born and bred on the streets, missed out on a crucial period in their lives (before about 8 weeks of age) to become socialized to humans, according to cat advocacy organization Alley Cat Allies.
While some might become accustomed to living with people after a long period of adjustment, shelters don't have the resources to rehabilitate them. With so many adoptable cats already looking for homes, the result is that stray cats brought to shelters join millions that are euthanized each year.
Sadly, that doesn't eliminate the original problem due to what's called the vacuum effect: The vacated cat habitat simply attracts more cats, and you're right back where you started.
In contrast, the TNR strategy has been shown to reduce stray cat numbers. Because cats are territorial, new cats rarely move in to a managed colony. Because they are neutered, no kittens are produced, and nuisance behaviors are reduced as well.
In Newburyport, Mass., for instance, about 300 cats lived along the Merrimack River. An exterminator was brought in to remove a group of 30, but within two years they had been replaced by 30 more. When a TNR program was started in 1992, the numbers began to decline. There's just one cat left, a senior named Zorro.
"He gets sardines every Sunday," says Stacy LeBaron, president of the Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society.
Jenny Schlueter of the Tree House Humane Society in Chicago says it's important for a community to understand that stray cats would be there even if no one fed them.
"These cats are not created because the person fed them. The person fed them because they were there," she says. Without TNR, "they'd still be there but they would be sickly, they would be fighting, they would be knocking over your trash can."
Des Marais sees signs of health among her feline crowd. There's a tabby she calls Target whose thick coat has a rich sheen. "Once they eat regularly, they just look so different," she says.
Rescue advocates differ, however, on whether the ultimate goal is for all cats to live indoors, or to accept that stray cats will always be with us.
In Newburyport, LeBaron says, it was critical that an effort to get all pet cats neutered was under way, but it's unclear whether that approach could be scaled up to work in a larger community.
All agree that without dedicated volunteers like Des Marais, there'd be no TNR.
"I don't even call them feral cats, I call them community cats, " says Cimeron Morrissey of the Homeless Cat Network in San Francisco. "Feral cats are no one's responsibility, so therefore they're everyone's responsibility. People have to step up and do the right thing."
———
Alley Cat Allies National Feral Cat Day: http://www.alleycat.org/NFCD
Washington Humane Society CatNiPP: http://bit.ly/2Ss08Y
Tree House Humane Society: http://bit.ly/19XnaE
Homeless Cat Network: http://bit.ly/84tsM
Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society: http://www.mrfrs.org/
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Supreme Court to weigh depictions of animal cruelty
In a case that pits free-speech defenders against animal rights activists, the justices will consider whether the 1st Amendment should protect depictions of animals being hurt.
By David G. Savage
September 23, 2009
Reporting from Washington
The video images were disturbing -- a tiny white kitten singed with the flame from a lighter; a gray cat struggling beneath a woman's spiked heel; pit bulls tearing into a trapped animal.
The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment.
The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.
Book publishers, movie makers, photographers, artists and journalists have joined the case on the side of a Virginia man who was convicted of selling videos of dogfights. They argue that any new exception to the 1st Amendment, no matter how laudable the goal, poses a danger to free expression.
"The road to censorship is paved with good intentions," said Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.
But animal rights advocates say no one should be able to profit from the abuse and torture of animals for entertainment.
"This is not about speech, but about a commercial activity of a sickening type," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.
The society said it had seen a resurgence of horrific "crush videos" for sale on the Internet in the last year, ever since a U.S. appeals court struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law that banned the selling of videos of animals being maimed and tortured.
These underground videos, said to appeal to a bizarre fetish, typically include tiny animals being crushed by a woman's shoe.
Investigators for the Humane Society said hundreds of such videos could be purchased online. They showed clips of them to reporters this month.
Laws in all states
All 50 states have laws against animal cruelty, including bans on dogfighting and cockfighting. The 2007 dogfighting case against NFL quarterback Michael Vick prompted a new round of laws, including a California measure that added penalties for attending a dogfight.
Ten years ago, Congress made it a federal crime to market videos or other depictions of live animals being illegally "maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed." Its sponsors made clear they did not intend to interfere with legal hunting, fishing or the slaughter of animals for food.
More recently, the law was used against the underground dogfighting industry, which utilizes videos and magazines.
The case coming before the Supreme Court involves Robert Stevens, 69, a Virginia pit bull breeder. Stevens ran a business called Dogs of Velvet and Steel, which provided books and other materials about handling pit bulls.
Among the videos he had for sale was one about using the dogs to hunt wild boar and pigs. Others included scenes of pit bulls fighting each other in Japan, where the activity is legal.
Stevens had advertised several of the videos in "Sporting Dog Journal," an underground publication that reports on dogfights. After federal agents bought three of his videos, he was indicted in 2004 under the animal cruelty law.
Stevens was the first person to be prosecuted under the law. He was convicted by a jury in Pittsburgh.
The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia decided to strike down the law last year on free-speech grounds. Its judges said that although those who put on dogfights could be punished, the 1st Amendment protected "depictions of animal cruelty."
The appeals court stated in its decision that the government did not have a "compelling interest" in limiting such depictions.
In the past, the high court has said speech can be restricted when the government has a compelling reason. It is illegal to threaten the president's life or to solicit a bribe or a contract murder. The court has also said obscenity and child pornography are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
But in striking down the law against animal cruelty videos, the appeals court said the government's compelling interests had been "related to the well-being of human beings, not animals. . . . It is difficult to see how [a law banning depictions of animal abuse] serves a compelling interest," wrote Judge D. Brooks Smith.
Free-speech advocates agree, saying that the Supreme Court should look away from the ugliness of the animal torture videos and uphold the principle behind the 1st Amendment.
"The 1st Amendment is most necessary when unpopular speech is at issue," said David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition.
Some media lawyers worry the law could be used against movies, TV shows or books that show bullfighting or hunting with bows and arrows, or documentaries exposing conditions in a slaughterhouse.
The value of speech
Government lawyers counter that the law has been used rarely, and that it exempts from prosecution any image that has "serious religious, political, scientific, journalistic, historical or artistic value."
More recently, government lawyers set off alarms with their legal brief saying the court should uphold the law by "balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs."
"It would be a dangerous departure if the court endorsed that idea. It would open the door to legislation restricting many kinds of 'low value' speech simply because some people find it offensive," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
Bertin said the 1st Amendment has stood as a shield for free expression, not just a legal rule that calls for a balancing of interests in each case.
"Think about flag burning or video games or rap music. Would you want a jury to decide the value of this speech balanced against its perceived social cost?" she asked.
But Joyce Tischler, a co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Northern California, said she was disappointed that free-speech advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union had urged the justices to strike down the law.
"The 'crush videos' involve torture. There is no other way to say it. It is intentional abuse of a defenseless animal. . . . People who do that should not be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment," she said.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
By David G. Savage
September 23, 2009
Reporting from Washington
The video images were disturbing -- a tiny white kitten singed with the flame from a lighter; a gray cat struggling beneath a woman's spiked heel; pit bulls tearing into a trapped animal.
The Supreme Court has often said that freedom of speech includes ugly and foul language. But this fall the justices will be looking at video clips like these to decide whether selling films of dogfights or animal torture is protected from prosecution under the 1st Amendment.
The dispute, expected to be heard in early October, has driven a wedge between traditional free-speech advocates and defenders of the humane treatment of animals.
Book publishers, movie makers, photographers, artists and journalists have joined the case on the side of a Virginia man who was convicted of selling videos of dogfights. They argue that any new exception to the 1st Amendment, no matter how laudable the goal, poses a danger to free expression.
"The road to censorship is paved with good intentions," said Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.
But animal rights advocates say no one should be able to profit from the abuse and torture of animals for entertainment.
"This is not about speech, but about a commercial activity of a sickening type," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States.
The society said it had seen a resurgence of horrific "crush videos" for sale on the Internet in the last year, ever since a U.S. appeals court struck down on free-speech grounds a federal law that banned the selling of videos of animals being maimed and tortured.
These underground videos, said to appeal to a bizarre fetish, typically include tiny animals being crushed by a woman's shoe.
Investigators for the Humane Society said hundreds of such videos could be purchased online. They showed clips of them to reporters this month.
Laws in all states
All 50 states have laws against animal cruelty, including bans on dogfighting and cockfighting. The 2007 dogfighting case against NFL quarterback Michael Vick prompted a new round of laws, including a California measure that added penalties for attending a dogfight.
Ten years ago, Congress made it a federal crime to market videos or other depictions of live animals being illegally "maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed." Its sponsors made clear they did not intend to interfere with legal hunting, fishing or the slaughter of animals for food.
More recently, the law was used against the underground dogfighting industry, which utilizes videos and magazines.
The case coming before the Supreme Court involves Robert Stevens, 69, a Virginia pit bull breeder. Stevens ran a business called Dogs of Velvet and Steel, which provided books and other materials about handling pit bulls.
Among the videos he had for sale was one about using the dogs to hunt wild boar and pigs. Others included scenes of pit bulls fighting each other in Japan, where the activity is legal.
Stevens had advertised several of the videos in "Sporting Dog Journal," an underground publication that reports on dogfights. After federal agents bought three of his videos, he was indicted in 2004 under the animal cruelty law.
Stevens was the first person to be prosecuted under the law. He was convicted by a jury in Pittsburgh.
The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia decided to strike down the law last year on free-speech grounds. Its judges said that although those who put on dogfights could be punished, the 1st Amendment protected "depictions of animal cruelty."
The appeals court stated in its decision that the government did not have a "compelling interest" in limiting such depictions.
In the past, the high court has said speech can be restricted when the government has a compelling reason. It is illegal to threaten the president's life or to solicit a bribe or a contract murder. The court has also said obscenity and child pornography are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
But in striking down the law against animal cruelty videos, the appeals court said the government's compelling interests had been "related to the well-being of human beings, not animals. . . . It is difficult to see how [a law banning depictions of animal abuse] serves a compelling interest," wrote Judge D. Brooks Smith.
Free-speech advocates agree, saying that the Supreme Court should look away from the ugliness of the animal torture videos and uphold the principle behind the 1st Amendment.
"The 1st Amendment is most necessary when unpopular speech is at issue," said David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition.
Some media lawyers worry the law could be used against movies, TV shows or books that show bullfighting or hunting with bows and arrows, or documentaries exposing conditions in a slaughterhouse.
The value of speech
Government lawyers counter that the law has been used rarely, and that it exempts from prosecution any image that has "serious religious, political, scientific, journalistic, historical or artistic value."
More recently, government lawyers set off alarms with their legal brief saying the court should uphold the law by "balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs."
"It would be a dangerous departure if the court endorsed that idea. It would open the door to legislation restricting many kinds of 'low value' speech simply because some people find it offensive," said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
Bertin said the 1st Amendment has stood as a shield for free expression, not just a legal rule that calls for a balancing of interests in each case.
"Think about flag burning or video games or rap music. Would you want a jury to decide the value of this speech balanced against its perceived social cost?" she asked.
But Joyce Tischler, a co-founder of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Northern California, said she was disappointed that free-speech advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union had urged the justices to strike down the law.
"The 'crush videos' involve torture. There is no other way to say it. It is intentional abuse of a defenseless animal. . . . People who do that should not be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment," she said.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
New rabies vaccine may require only a single shot... not 6
A person, usually a child, dies of rabies every 20 minutes. However, only one inoculation may be all it takes for rabies vaccination, according to new research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases by researchers at the
A replication-deficient rabies virus vaccine that lacks a key gene called the matrix (M) gene induced a rapid and efficient anti-rabies immune response in mice and non-human primates, according to James McGettigan, Ph.D., assistant professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University.
"The M gene is one of the central genes of the rabies virus, and its absence inhibits the virus from completing its life cycle," Dr. McGettigan said. "The virus in the vaccine infects cells and induces an immune response, but the virus is deficient in spreading."
The immune response induced with this process is so substantial that only one inoculation may be sufficient enough, according to Dr. McGettigan. In addition, the vaccine appears to be efficient in both pre-exposure and post-exposure settings. Currently, the World Health Organization standard for rabies infection is post-exposure prophylaxis. The complex regimen in the
The current standard vaccine is made from inactivated rabies virus, whereas the experimental vaccine is made from a live rabies virus. The virus is modified by removing the M gene, thus inhibiting its spread within the vaccine recipient.
"Developing countries do not have the resources to vaccinate people six times after exposure, so many of these 10 million do not receive the full regimen," Dr. McGettigan said. "Therefore, simpler and less expensive vaccine regimens are needed. The alternative may also be to treat people pre-exposure, as they are with many of the current vaccines used. Although our vaccine was tested primarily to be a post-exposure vaccine, the data we collected show it would be effective as a pre-exposure vaccine as well."
Monday, September 21, 2009
Animal activists celebrate judgment that will force New York City to build animal shelters
BY Lisa L. Colangelo
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Animal welfare groups are hailing a decision that puts pressure on the city to follow its own law and construct full-service animal shelters in all five boroughs.
The decision, handed down last week by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer, gives the city 60 days to come up with a plan for "immediate implementation" of the law signed in 2000.
It also opens the door for a financial settlement between the city and an animal rescue group that takes animals from shelters.
The nonprofit group Stray from the Heart sued the city in January, saying the city's neglectful policies resulted in "needless suffering and death of homeless cats and dogs." Powerhouse law firm Kay Scholer LLP handled the case for the group pro bono.
"Homeless dogs have been dying in unconscionable numbers because the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has not provided the shelter space required by statute," the group charged in its lawsuit.
The law originally required full-service animal shelters in all five boroughs by 2002. That deadline was extended by four years through additional legislation.
The city does not directly provide animal control. The Department of Health contracts with New York City Animal Care and Control, which has full-service shelters in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island.
Plans to put full-service shelters in Queens and the Bronx have faltered over the years. Both boroughs have part-time receiving centers only, with staggered hours.
"Respondents have blatantly failed to comply with mandatory requirements of the act, which unambiguously requires shelters in each borough, not three out of five, open 24 hours per day not 12 or 'as needed,'" Justice Shafer wrote. The city is preparing to appeal the decision.
"We believe that the court misapplied some fundamental legal principles in reaching its decision. We'll be seeking permission to have the case reviewed by an appellate court," said city lawyer Gabriel Taussig.
Beth Silberg, president of Stray from the Heart, said the group is confident the "animal welfare community will prevail to defend and protect homeless animals from the neglect of the New York City shelter system."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
