Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Dog Meat on Menu in Disfavor  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

South Korea's Appetite for Dog Meat is Fading

Young People Just Aren't into Eating Their Pets
By Newser Editors and Wire Services
Posted Aug 30, 2014
Preparing a Meal of Dog Meat in South Korea
(NEWSER) – For centuries, people have been eating dog meat – neither legal nor banned – in South Korea. Some 30 years ago, chef Oh Keum-il even traveled around North and South Korea, tasting everything from dog stew to dog taffy, to learn the craft of cooking dog. Today, however, customers aren't quite as interested in eating an animal many keep as pets. Oh, for example, served her last bowl of dog stew, or boshintang, this week, closing up South Korea's longest-running dog meat restaurant as young customers avoid the spot and animal activists protest her controversial meals.

Typical Dish of Dog Meat
Though an expert guesses up to 2.5 million dogs are eaten in South Korea each year, "there is too much generational gap in boshintang," says Oh. That's clear for a 30-year-old Korean woman who says she argues with her grandfather about the meal. "Whenever he saw my dog at home, he would say it's the size of one bowl of hot soup," she says. A butcher adds that "dog is not an industry with a long-term future," noting that about 800 restaurants serve it in Seoul, when 1,500 once did. It's sad to see the end of such a lengthy tradition, says Oh, who now plans to open a barbeque restaurant that serves beef instead.

Source: Newser
© 2014 Newser, LLC



Also, see:

Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
Read more...

Illinois Urgent Alert!  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is disastrous legislation for Illinois...please get involved and help us stop it! –Kim

Protect Shelter Pets in Illinois

SB 648 Would Result in More Killing at Illinois Animal Control Shelters
  
Senate Bill 648 is a disastrous bill for shelter pets. It would prohibit animal shelters from accepting stray dogs or cats unless they were released from animal control. Any strays who come in would have to be transferred to the county or city pound, greatly increasing the number of animals housed at local government facilities. Some of these facilities don't even have adoption programs. This is a huge waste of lives and also a waste of tax dollars.

The bill has other poorly thought-out provisions, such as requiring humane investigators to notify local law enforcement or the local animal control agency prior to investigating neglect or cruelty.

Please take action HERE and send an email or letter to your state representative to ask him or her to oppose this ill-conceived legislation. If you could also CALL your representative today and politely ask that they vote "NO" on SB 648, it would be greatly appreciated.

Together, we can Save Them All.

Sincerely,
Ledy VanKavage, Esq.
Sr. Legislative Attorney

Source: Best Friends
© 2013 Best Friends


Also, see:

Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
Read more...

New York State Devocalization Bill is Playing with Fire  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here's an important message from Animal Advocates of Western New York,
Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets and New York State Humane Association! –Kim


Lobbying for the New York State Devocalization Bill is Playing with Fire...

And It will Burn Animals

A proposed devocalization ban is now before the New York State Senate. Please do NOT ask your Senator to pass it (yet)!

New York lawmakers have repeatedly advised Animal Advocates of Western New York and Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets that:

The Senate will NOT step on the toes of the veterinary lobby, which is particularly strong in New York and is fighting to keep devocalization legal. Last year's experience with this legislation supports that.

If Senators are pushed to pass the devocalization ban, they may feel their hands are tied and do that.

But lawmakers warn they will ONLY pass it if amendments are added. Appeasing the veterinary lobby means these amendments will ALLOW and LEGITIMIZE DEVOCALIZATION, which would cause even more dogs and cats to have their vocal cords cut.

Once that happens, there's no turning back. Bad laws are worse than no law. And they never become good laws.

LEARN ABOUT LOOPHOLE AMENDMENTS THAT HURT ANIMALS

Loopholes are rarely obvious. And they can be added to a bill any time before it's signed into law – often during the final vote on the floor.


►CLICK HERE to learn about sneaky loophole amendments that turn devocalization bans into laws that sanction this cruelty.

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW

Because caring people consider devocalization a shameful practice, individuals who have animals devocalized and the vets they pay to perform it have kept it in the shadows. They pretend it's not happening or trivialize the great damage cutting even a little vocal cord tissue causes.

Here's how you can fight back to protect animals' vocal cords and lives:
  • Educate the public by sharing pages and videos from this website (with attribution to Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets), and posts from the United Against Devocalization Facebook page.
  • Bring your vet or vet tech or vet nurse on board by having him or her submit this online form. Even without legislation, it's important for vets to take this unequivocal stand against elective voice-altering surgery:

SMART LOBBYING 101

If you're serious about protecting animals, lobby with your eyes wide open. You must know exactly what you're supporting every step of the way – or you shouldn't support it. Even trusted animal organizations can get it wrong.
  • Always read the bill you're being asked to support directly from the legislature's Web site. Animal advocacy organizations can get it wrong. Have your lawmaker or his/her staff explain it if you don't understand it. That's part of their job!
  • Read the bill AGAIN before lawmakers vote on it, in committees and on the floor, to make sure sneaky language that hurts animals, including these loopholes, hasn't been added.
  • Then, read it ONE LAST TIME before it goes to the governor. If loopholes were added, urge the governor to veto it.

This takes a little more time than reading an action alert. But it's the ONLY way you can be sure you're lobbying for – not against – animals.

Source: United Against Devocalization
Copyright © 2014 Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets


CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Also, see:
Videos:

Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
Read more...

Don't Be Fooled! – Action Alert!  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here's an Action Alert for Maryland residents that I want to pass on...please get involved in the fight to protect animals! –Kim


UPDATE...
Maryland Becomes the Second State
With a REAL Devocalization Ban
Thanks to Grassroots Activists Like You!
http://stopdevocalizing.weebly.com/maryland.html



Proposed Maryland Devocalization Law Would ALLOW the Cruelty to Continue


On the surface, a proposed Maryland state law – now before the Legislature as House Bill 667 and the companion Senate Bill 660 – would seem to prohibit devocalization.

But look a little deeper: This legislation actually allows veterinarians to continue cutting dogs' and cats' vocal cords, just to stifle their voices.
Learn...then take 2 minutes to help protect animals from this cruel convenience surgery.
  

NOW'S THE TIME TO GET THE LEGISLATION RIGHT

On March 8, the Maryland Senate amended and improved SB 660, its version of the proposed law, by adding a definition of devocalization.

But the Senate left a fatal loophole, omission of the word "physical."

A devocalization law that doesn't define medical necessity as treatment of a "physical" illness would allow vets to cut vocal cords for barking or meowing--what the law is supposed to prohibit!

As of March 13, the companion House Bill 667 does include this crucial word, thanks to Delegate Benjamin Kramer. The two bills now must be reconciled in a joint House/Senate committee so their wording is the same.

It is vital that the final legislation retain the definition of devocalization...AND that it specifiy devocalization may be performed ONLY to treat PHYSICAL ailments...AND that NO other changes are made.

We hope Delegate Kramer stands firm. If he doesn't, this will be an empty law that does NOT protect animals at all.

Animals feel real pain. They need a real devocalization law.

BROAD OR NO DEFINITIONS = NO PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

Legislators know statutes must precisely define the actions being made illegal. The proposed Maryland devocalization law doesn't, rendering it completely unenforceable.
Any vet wishing to skirt the law can claim things like:
  • "I didn't de-bark (devocalize) my patient. I merely softened his bark; that's different.
  • "I didn't 'silence' my patient. This dog (cat) still makes vocal sounds."
  • "My patient had a 'behavioral' illness."
REALITY: No matter what it's called or how vocal cords are cut – through the open mouth or an incision in the neck – helpless dogs and cats face lifelong misery or a terrible death without any benefit, not even the claimed assurance of a home.  These animals are surrendered, abandoned and euthanized like any other.
  
WHAT THE LAW MUST INCLUDE: 
THESE THREE DEFINITIONS... EXACTLY AS WRITTEN
  1. As used in this statute, "vocal cord surgery" shall mean a procedure involving the vocal apparatus of a dog or cat that includes cutting, notching, punching, abrading, laser, suturing or otherwise physically altering the tissue regardless of the surgical route.
  2. "Devocalization" shall mean vocal cord surgery on a dog or cat, as defined above, performed with the intent of altering, reducing or eliminating vocal sounds produced by that animal. This includes procedures also referred to as debarking, devoicing, silencing, vocal cordectomy, ventriculocordectomy, bark reduction or bark softening.
  3. "Medically necessary" shall mean necessary to treat a PHYSICAL illness, disease or injury or correct a birth defect that causes the animal medical harm or pain that cannot be relieved or remedied by other veterinary care.
If all three definitions are not added to the bill exactly as written above, Maryland's dogs and cats will continue to have their vocal cords cut for communicating.
  
 THE LAW MUST NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER CHANGES

Loopholes that would hurt animals are not always obvious. For example, substituting "pets" for "dogs and cats" leaves animals used for breeding and animal testing without any protection. "Allowable as a last resort" is unenforceable, and worse, it legitimizes this act of animal cruelty.

Sneaky loopholes like these and others can be added any time before a bill becomes law. Don't let that happen to this one.
  
MARYLAND RESIDENTS
TAKE 2 MINUTES TO PROTECT ANIMALS NOW... 
BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
Animals can't advocate for themselves; they need your voice to protect theirs. Politely tell your Senator:
  • The word "physical" MUST be included in the final version of the legislation to describe conditions deemed "medically necessary" – its omission is a glaring loophole that enables vets to continue cutting vocal cords for any reason.
  • The definition of devocalization adopted on March 8 MUST be retained.
  • NO other changes should be made or the law could be rendered unenforceable.
Calls are best – and fast! But if you email, put this in the subject line: "Close the Loopholes in the Devocalization Bill SB660"

If you're a constituent, say so! Don't know? Click here to find out.

   
Sen. Lisa Gladden
Phone: 410-841-3697 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3697 | Fax: 410-841-3142
lisa.gladden@senate.state.md.us
 
Sen. Brian Frosh
Phone: 301-858-3124 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3124 | Fax: 410-841-3142
brian.frosh@senate.state.md.us

Learn about the subtle wording that would cause animals lifelong misery or a terrible death:
Got a few more minutes?

Call any or all of these committee members in addition to – NOT instead of – Senators Gladden and Frosh.

If you're a constituent, say so! Don't know? Click here to find out.

Sen. James Bronchin
410-841-3648 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3648,
jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Jennie Forehand
301-858-3134 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3134
jennie.forehand@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Stephen Hershey, Jr.
410-841-3639 | 301-858-3639 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3639
steve.hershey@senate.state.md.us
Sen. C. Anthony Muse
301-858-3092 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3092
anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Jamie Raskin
301-858-3634 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3634
jamie.raskin@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Christopher Shank
301-858-3903 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3903
christopher.shank@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Norman Stone, Jr.
410-841-3587 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3587
norman.stone@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Bobby Zirkin
410-841-3131 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3131
bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us
Copyright © 2014 Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets


CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Also, see:
Videos:

Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
Read more...

Is Your Dog Involved in a Sex Scandal?  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , ,

This is funny! –Kim

How to Tell if Your Dog is Involved in a Sex Scandal...

This is funny!

Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
Read more...

Ineffective Dog Laws  

Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here's a great video that I thought I would pass on...hope you find it interesting! –Kim

Interview on Ineffective Dog Laws

NCRC Interview with Officer Bill Bruce on Ineffective Dog Laws from Kara Gilmore.

Bill Bruce, Calgary's Director of Animal and By-Law Services, discusses ineffective dog laws such as breed-specific legislation, pet limit laws, and mandatory spay-neuter, and why these broad-based forms of legislation are ineffective. (Presented by the National Canine Research Council.)

Source: http://vimeo.com/26979893
 


Also, see:

    Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
    Read more...

    More on the Pit Bull Controversy...  

    Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Stray Pit Bull Saves Woman, Child from AttackerNovember 5, 2008

    A dog came out of nowhere and stopped a knife-wielding robber from accosting a mother and her young son.

    PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla. – The wandering 65-pound Pit Bull mix might have seemed menacing to some passerby, but one woman will always remember him as her "guardian angel."
    The dog, which authorities think is lost and not a stray, successfully thwarted a robbery attack on a mother and her 2-year-old son, who were held at knifepoint Monday afternoon.
    The Florida woman, who has been identified by authorities simply as "Angela," was leaving a playground with her toddler son in Port Charlotte when a man approached her in the parking lot with a knife and told her not to make any noise or sudden movements.
    Angela didn't have to do either to protect herself and her child – a dog mysteriously ran to the scene and charged the man, who quickly fled.
    "I don't think the dog physically attacked the man, but he went at him and was showing signs of aggression, just baring his teeth and growling and barking. It was clear he was trying to defend this woman," Animal Control Lt. Brian Jones told Pet Pulse.
    "I don't know what this man's intentions were, but it is very possible this dog saved her life."
    The exceptional part of the story, Jones said, is that the dog had never met or even seen the people it quickly jumped to defend.
    "You hear about family dogs protecting their owners, but this dog had nothing to do with this woman or her kid," Jones said. "He was like her guardian angel."
    After the alleged thief ran away, Angela quickly placed her son, Jordan, in the car and tried to drive off. Before she could, though, the dog jumped into her backseat, waiting with her for the police and animal control officers to arrive at the scene.
    The dog was transported to a local shelter and if his owners don't step forward within five days, Jones said, Angela and her family plan to adopt the savior she named "Angel."
    Animal control officers and shelter workers believe Angel is lost, and not a stray, because of his good health, sturdy weight and mild temperament.
    "It's funny, that someone's irresponsibility could have saved someone's life," Jones said of Angel's possible owners.
    For Angela, it doesn't matter where the dog came from, just that he was there when she needed him most.
    "I don't know what his [the thief's] intentions were – I don't know why he did it, but I'm glad that – we call him Angel – I'm glad that Angel showed up because I don't know what would have happened," Angela told NBC2 News.
    For a small town with a population of 46,452 animal control officers were kept busy Monday afternoon. Jones says they department also responded to a report about a boa constrictor in a church parking lot.
    The snake found its way into a car engine and was able to be removed without being harmed. It took three people to move the massive, seemingly random placed snake.
    "It's funny, because we aren't a big place," he said of the Gulf Coast town. "And we can go for four or five months without the media contacting us about a story. It's been a busy week."
    Officers from the responding county sheriff's office canvased the area and were unable to locate the suspect described as being in his 20s, tall and dark haired.
     
    Source: http://www.dontbullymybreed.org/StrayPitBull.php
     


    Also, see:

    Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
    Read more...

    Pit Bull Controversy  

    Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Here's an interesting "interview" that I thought I would pass on...what are your thoughts on this controversial topic? Comments welcome! –Kim
      
    Interview with a Pit Bull
    By Mike Danahey
    December 29, 2010

     

    Elgin, Illinois – Protesters march down the Chicago Street bridge in opposition to a proposed law to ban pit bulls.
     
    Animal lovers are a passionate bunch, as the debate here showed earlier this year concerning a proposal for a pit bull ban in the city of Elgin, Illinois.
    So just as at the end of 2009, when we interviewed Jeff, the Lords Park bison, shortly before he passed away about efforts to save the zoo where he stays, this year we talked to Petey XXXL, the offspring of the pit bull from "Little Rascals" and Buster Brown Shoes fame, about the doggone controversy in the city in the suburbs.
    Here is what Petey had to say in a Q&A.
     
    Q: Why the controversy?
    A: So, from what I recall, some city councilman wanted to ban my kind after a fellow pit killed a Chihuahua in late spring 2009. Now, I am certainly not excusing what happened, as I wasn't there. But first, let's admit it: Little dogs can be really annoying. It's like what you people call a Napoleon complex, typically with a high-pitched yap. But you don't hear about anybody wanting to ban pesky little dogs, do you? Sure, they might not be able to kill you, but be honest. You've probably visited some pals with some hyper beast that you at the very least wished would be away at dog obedience school for a long stay.
    Second, thanks to the likes of Michael Vick, street gangs, drug dealers and gangster rappers, some of my brothers and sisters became a symbol of thuggery and toughness and were raised specifically to fight.
    Folks forget that back in the day, my family hawked kids' shoes and hung out with those "Little Rascals." Now we're the ones TV has taught you to love to hate. We're the go-to dogs to fill time on newscasts and to scare folks.
    Anyway, here in Elgin, you've had a number of wannabe tough guys walking about with my kind at their sides, trying to intimidate people. Imagine how some of them raise their dogs. Nature versus nurture. Remember that debate from school? Which is to say, there has been trouble.

    Q: So how did things wind up in Elgin?
    A: From what I recall, the controversy reached its conclusion at a council session in March, held in the ballroom in The Centre downtown to accommodate a crowd of more than 250, many of them there to plead for my breed. One person even brought a stuffed toy pit bull muzzled and leashed and sitting in the front row for council members – and TV crews from Chicago – to see. That sort of freaked me out. It was getting a little too close to being a Springer-meets-Oprah show, and I should know because my owner watches way too much TV.
    After all the impassioned speeches from the audience, Councilman John Prigge, the most vocal proponent of a full-out pit bull ban, read from a prepared statement saying he was now ready to compromise.
    While still feeling pit bulls – however you define my type – are dangerous, Prigge was willing to give owners of such dogs a chance to show "they are every bit as responsible as they've assured us they are." Prigge promised that he would be vigilant and that if there was another "pit bull attack in this city or if circumstances otherwise warrant, I will request we revisit this issue and suggest we implement all of the proposed pit bull regulations to prevent any further attacks."
    It was very dramatic, like he was buddies with Batman or had watched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Hey, my owner has Netflix, too.

    Q: So what's happened since?
    A: There still have been incidents with pit bulls, most notably police shooting two dogs roaming Festival Park on Memorial Day weekend and Mayor Ed Schock and his German shepherd having a tussle with two unleashed dogs in late June. But Prigge hasn't revisited the ban.
    The city put its new laws into effect in June. The revamped ordinance allows an animal control officer to designate a dog as either dangerous or vicious in the case of an attack of either another dog or a human. It defines a dangerous dog as one that attacks and injures, and a vicious dog is one that attacks and causes severe injuries or death. A dog deemed dangerous or vicious has to register with the city for a three-year, $100 license. Such animals have to wear registration and rabies shot tags, and the owner must have proof such pets have been neutered or spayed, and microchipped.
    Vicious and dangerous dogs also must be kept locked when outside, in fencing at least 6 feet tall. Owners need to secure a minimum $100,000 liability insurance if they have a dog deemed dangerous, and owners of vicious dogs need at least $500,000 in liability insurance. Dangerous dogs on public property must be muzzled and on a short leash and with an adult, while vicious dogs are not allowed on public property.
    The new rules also help better protect pets from bad owners, with stiffer penalties given for mistreating an animal and for leaving a pet to bark outside and annoy neighbors.
     
    Q: What do you think about all of this?
    A: As far as I can tell, the city added bite to what it does, did it fairly, and didn't go all poodle on the town and act hysterically.
    With higher fines in place, this fall the city council even approved allowing people to work off doggie-related debts with community service. And in late November, Prigge spearheaded an event at the Hemmens Cultural Center where residents could get shots and microchips for their dogs and cats at just $35 a pet. Speaking of cats, why is it OK for dopey people to let them run wild to eat birds, but we get the bad rap? And by bad rap, I mean "Who Let the Dogs Out?"
    Now, where's that steak bone you promised? And I need my belly scratched.

    Source: The Courier News
    © Copyright 2010 Sun-Times Media, LLC


    Also, see:

    Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
    Read more...

    If Puppies Could Vote...  

    Posted by — Kim in , , , , , , , , , ,

    This is cute! –Kim

    Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
    Five ballot-wielding puppies weigh in on the U.S. Senate race in Illinois (2:35 minutes).

    Digg Delicious StumbleUpon Reddit BlinkList Furl Tumblr Facebook Google Bookmark Google+
    Read more...

    List of No-kill Shelters and Rescues

    List of No-kill Shelters and Rescues: 
    NATIONAL SEARCH
    Find local shelters near you! LOCAL SEARCH
    You can adopt or foster from any of these shelters or donate to support their efforts. Be sure to confirm that they are a "no-kill" shelter. Then, be a part of the solution!

    << – Newer Posts / Older Posts – >>
    CLICK HERE FIRST; THEN CLICK THE PAGE LINK BELOW.