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.

PETITION: "Stop the Dog Meat Festival" Campaign

Despite guidelines that recommend vaccinating dogs with key vaccines every three years, many veterinarians continue to push annual vaccinations, a CBC Marketplace investigation reveals. And when dogs get annual jabs, pet owners may be getting gouged. See the full-length investigation video (22 mins.).

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) shows TV commercials of abandoned and abused cats and dogs, raising money off of the confusion that it’s a pet shelter umbrella group. (It doesn't run a single pet shelter anywhere.) Maybe its commercials should instead show HSUS's lawyers paying a racketeering settlement with their tails tucked between their legs.

Recently, news broke that HSUS and its co-defendants, including two HSUS employees, have agreed to pay $15.75 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit filed against them under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act – a law that's been used to go after the mob.

The suit stems from litigation that animal rights activists, including an HSUS affiliate, pursued against the owner of the Ringling Bros. circus, Feld Entertainment. In that case, activists claimed that the circus was unlawfully harming elephants in its care, and their key witness was a former Feld handler.

However, as that case unfolded over a decade, a payment scheme was discovered going from plaintiffs and their lawyers to this witness. The court eventually threw out the lawsuit, finding that the witness was a "paid plaintiff" who was "not credible." This paid witness even "lied" to the court.

Feld then filed suit under RICO, alleging bribery, illegal witness payments, and other torts. The ASPCA settled in late 2012 for $9.3 million. And today, the other co-defendants have paid $15.75 million.

The animal liberation movement has long been associated with extremist, bullying, and sometimes even terroristic tactics in pursuit of its radical goal to institute prohibition on how we use animals, whether for food, fiber or entertainment. The FBI cracked down on the terroristic fringe over the past two decades. And the suit-wearing, lawyered-up part of the movement has now had its day in court. It comes up $15.75 million poorer, but with its inner workings exposed, the rest of society should feel better off.

Sadly, the real losers in this case are the thousands of individual donors who gave money to HSUS thinking that they were helping local animal shelters, only to find that their donations are footing the bill for HSUS's mismanagement (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats that needed that money for their keep and care).

By Deidre Grieves, Pet360.com
People make money buying houses for low prices and then reselling them for profits. It's a practice known as flipping – and it looks like this may be happening with dogs as well.

A Craigslist ad is sparking controversy after a woman who adopted a Jack Russell Terrier from a Hawaiian animal shelter allegedly put the dog up for sale just an hour after picking the pooch up from the shelter. According to a report from KHON2 News, the advertised rate for the dog was "$200 or best offer," which is more than double what the woman paid in adoption fees.

The 10-year-old Jack Russell named Sally Mae was adopted by a young woman, but an hour later, the same dog was offered up for sale in an ad on Craigslist that stated that the woman and her boyfriend were caught up working two jobs and couldn't take care of the dog. The posting immediately sparked outrage and sadness from the local animal community.

Christina Kam, the shelter's communications and event coordinator, told reporters, "It's really disappointing to think that animals are really seen as a commodity versus your loving pet that's part of your family, so that's really hard for us."

Sally Mae, the Jack Russell Terrier listed on Craigslist Immediately after Adoption

The shelter did attempt to call the new owner and get Sally Mae returned to the shelter so that they could find her a loving home. However, when reporters reached out to the woman who adopted Sally Mae, the woman explained that it was a misunderstanding. She told Hawaii News Now that she was selling Sally Mae because she was loud and energetic and wasn't fitting in.

Ultimately, the woman told reporters that her family would help care for the dog, and that she plans on keeping Sally Mae.

People that return animals to the adoption center within 30 days are given a full refund and Kekama Amona, who volunteers to make videos of the animals for the shelter, believes that is exactly what the woman should do. "I think she should return the dog and give it to somebody who really wants to keep the dog," he told Hawaii News Now.

Unfortunately, the Craigslist poster did not technically break any laws. There are no rules or regulations that make the reselling of adoptable animals illegal or punishable. The shelter does not have language in its adoption contracts preventing owners from "flipping" pets, but after this incident, the shelter is looking into making that a part of contracts in the future.

This is a truly sad story, and the victim here is undoubtedly Sally Mae. That Jack Russell deserves a loving pet parent, not one that tries to sell her for profit just because she is loud and energetic. If the woman had done any research beforehand, she would have known that Jack Russells have plenty of energy and need an active family. All we can hope is that Sally Mae manages to have a good life, whether she remains with the woman who adopted her or with a completely different family. Dog-flipping of any kind – no matter the circumstances – should absolutely be prohibited by law.

UPDATE: The Hawaiian animal shelter announced that the 10-year-old Jack Russell Terrier was returned and successfully placed with another family.

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

1. The only vaccine required by U.S. law is rabies. 15 states currently offer exemptions to animals with serious health problems and more are adding exemptions. Not all states require cats and ferrets to be vaccinated. Note: Because laws change with little fanfare, not all veterinarians know the current regulations. Click here to see a list of U.S. state laws. Double check with your city and county Animal Control.
   
2. There is little or no research showing that annual revaccination for core vaccines boosts immunity. Studies do show that core vaccines shouldn't be given any more frequently than every three years – not every three years.
   
3. Mature dogs and cats rarely die from vaccine-preventable infectious disease and thus may not need vaccinating.
   
4. A simple blood titer test can prove immunity for core vaccines. Though more expensive than vaccinating, titer tests need not be repeated often or perhaps even ever (according to many experts).
   
5. When cats, and small to medium-sized breed dogs, receive multiple vaccines in one visit (a common practice) they become "significantly" more likely to have a reaction. Each vaccine can increase risk by as much as 27%. A "7-way" canine vaccine plus Bordetella plus rabies means 9 vaccines at once!
   
6. Treatment for vaccine reactions can cost hundreds, even thousands, of dollars over the pet's lifetime and may ultimately prove ineffective. Who pays? You do! Only rarely will vaccine makers pay vet bills.
   
7. Groomers, trainers and boarding establishments may have vaccination requirements that have more to do with liability than pet health. Many of these caregivers haven't been made aware of the newest vaccination recommendations. Conversely, some enlightened proprietors accept titer testing in lieu of vaccination. It pays to shop around!

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

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.

• And They Call this "Bark Softening"?
• Devocalized: Kandi's Story
• Meet Duke: Needed More Surgery to Survive "Bark Softening"
• Jaxon's Story: Abandoned and Unable to Bark for Help
• More Videos of Some of the Victims

Some special interest groups have advanced misleading claims about devocalization for their own profit or convenience. Here's one – and the facts.

FICTION: "Bark softening" isn't devocalization. It's a different, non-invasive procedure.

FACT: "Bark softening" IS devocalization. The only way to alter the voice is by cutting the tissue of the vocal apparatus. Whether that's done through the oral cavity – spun as "bark softening" – or an incision in the neck, it indeed is invasive, painful and dangerous, with long-term consequences.

The term "bark softening" is also misleading in another way. No vet can predict the quality of the post-surgical voice: It may be hoarse. Or it could be shrill, wheezy or strange and disturbing. Most people say devocalized voices are far more irritating than those with which the animals were born. But once the vocal cord tissue is cut, there's no turning back.

Take a look at this brief video and meet Porter...

Newfoundlands like Porter rarely bark. But Porter's first owner had her vet, who'd performed many devocalizations, cut his vocal cord tissue just to stifle his voice anyway. Then, she no longer wanted Porter. He was given to a rescue group.

Though the devocalization was done through the oral cavity, the less invasive approach, scar tissue formed over 50% of Porter's airway. His new adopters paid for a $2,000 procedure to remove the blockage, but were told Porter still will never again breathe normally or bark like other dogs. Instead, his hoarse voice makes him sound like a chain smoker. His adopters say it's painful to hear.


But at least Porter is still alive. Other devocalized Newfies given to the rescue group weren't as lucky.

Get the whole story about devocalization and sign the petition below. For more claims and facts, visit: http://stopdevocalizing.weebly.com/claims-and-facts.html.

And, please visit this page on FACEBOOK and "Like" it! Thanks for your help!

Source: http://cprpets.weebly.com/devocalized-porters-story.html
Copyright 2012, Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Videos:

• And They Call this "Bark Softening"?
• Devocalized: Kandi's Story
• Meet Duke: Needed More Surgery to Survive "Bark Softening"
• Jaxon's Story: Abandoned and Unable to Bark for Help
• More Videos of Some of the Victims

Jaxon

Jaxon, a young, neutered Chinese Crested, and Foxie, a Pom, were found in an empty house, where they'd been abandoned without food, surviving by eating their waste.

If Jaxon were alone, he wouldn't have been discovered in time to save his life: That's because he was devocalized.

But with her vocal cords intact, Foxie could bark loudly enough to be heard, and the dogs were discovered. The rest is what happy endings are made of.

A dog rescue group called Bald is Beautiful pulled Jaxon and Foxie from the county pound, and a kind couple – veteran rescuers and dog bloggers (TopDogBlog!) – fostered them. Another couple drove from Maryland to Chicago to adopt Jaxon, Foxie and a third dog, Maddie.

Foxie

Now 4 years old, Jaxon is living the good life with his foster siblings in a loving home. And Jaxon is extra lucky: His adoptive mom, a nurse, knows how to manage the consequences of devocalization. Adopters who don't – or who don't even know their animals were devocalized – may unwittingly cause their deaths.

Becky waters Jaxon's food to ease swallowing so he won't die the terrifying way other devocalized animals have, choking on food.

And she monitors his play, because though he loves to do "zoomies" in the yard with Maddie, Jaxon becomes winded after a few minutes as a result of devocalization.

He coughs after drinking water and intermittently throughout the day and night, sometimes so badly, his family worries he won't be able to catch his breath.

Becky says, "No animal should ever be devocalized. It's especially odd to us that Jaxon was, because he barks only when one of our cats is near him. He doesn't even try in doggy park."

But that didn't keep someone from having his vocal cords cut.

(CNN) – The "lowest places in hell" are reserved for people who force animals to fight, an Alabama district attorney said Monday after announcing that more than 350 pitbulls have been rescued from a massive illegal dogfighting ring.

They rescued 367 pit bull terriers in Alabama and Georgia. Authorities arrested 11 people on Friday for violations of the federal dogfighting and gambling statutes.

Warrants were executed and arrests were made in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas. The dogs were taken to temporary shelters in undisclosed locations.

"It's really a sad day to me and a sad day of affairs in the state of Alabama to have to even indulge in this type of criminal activity and prosecution," said U.S. Attorney George L. Beck Jr.

"I believe if Dante were alive today and were rewriting 'The Inferno,' that the lowest places in hell would be reserved for those who commit cruelty to our animals and to our children." He was referring to "The Divine Comedy," the epic poem by Dante Alighieri.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery, Alabama; the Auburn, Alabama, police; and the FBI teamed up with the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to investigate the dogfighting and free the canines from captivity. The result, the ASPCA said, was believed to be the second-largest dogfighting raid in U.S. history.

"Today, we ended the torture of hundreds of abused and neglected dogs," said Matt Bershadker, president and chief executive officer of the ASPCA.

Many of the dogs appeared emaciated, the ASPCA said.

"In one yard, 114 dogs, the majority tethered to heavy chains, sat in 90 degree heat, scratching at fleas, with no fresh water or food visible anywhere on the property. Some appeared to have no access to water at all, and many exhibited wounds, scars and other conditions consistent with dogfighting," the ASPCA said in a statement.

"Makeshift, filthy doghouses – many improvised from plastic and metal barrels and others made of chipboard with rotting wood floors and rusted metal roofing – provided the only shelter in the sweltering heat and humidity.

Some dogs pulled at chains and cables that were tethered to cinder blocks and car tires. A female dog did her best to tend to six puppies, just weeks old, with no food or water, in a pen littered with trash and feces."

A 30-count federal indictment charges that from 2009 to 2013, the 11 suspects conspired to promote and sponsor dogfighting and to possess, buy, sell, transport and deliver dogs for fighting.

Agents seized $500,000 from dogfighters.

"These defendants were betting between $5,000 and $200,000 on one dogfight," Beck said. "These dogfighters abuse, starve and kill their dogs for the supposed 'fun' of watching and gambling on a dogfight. Their behavior is deplorable, will not be tolerated, and will be punished to the full extent of the law."

Beck said the suspects, if convicted, could face "lengthy" prison terms.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/alabama-dog-fight-ring/index.html

Dogs that chew on plastic training devices and toys may be exposed to hormone-altering chemicals, according to research at Texas Tech University.

The researchers found that Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) and Phthalates – ingredients of hard plastics and vinyl – readily leach from bumper toys, which are used to train retrieving dogs.

The new study is one of the first to examine dog products as a potential source of exposure for pets. No one knows, though, whether the traces of the chemicals pose any health risk to dogs. Previous research has focused on the risks to infants and toddlers from baby bottles, toys and other items that contained the chemicals.

"A lot of plastic products are used for dogs, so to understand the potential for some of the chemicals to leach out from toys is a new and important area of research," said veterinarian Safdar Khan, senior director of toxicology research at the ASPCA's Poison Control Center in Illinois. Dr. Khan was not involved in the current study.

Philip Smith, a toxicologist at The Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech, became interested in chemical exposures from bumpers after using them to train his own Labrador retrievers.

Retrieving dogs often are trained with plastic bumpers, which when chewed can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals.

"Some of the dogs are exposed to plastic bumpers from the time they are born until the day they die. We all want our pets to be healthy," said Smith, co-author of the as-yet unpublished study, which was presented this month at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference in California.

"A lot of plastic products are used for dogs, so to understand the potential for some of the chemicals to leach out from toys is a new and important area of research," stated Dr. Safdar Khan.

In humans and rodents, BPA, BPS and phthalates have been linked to a number of health issues, including impaired development of reproductive organs, decreased fertility and cancers. The United States and the European Union have banned some phthalates in children's toys, and in July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.

The researchers, led by Kimberly Wooten, a graduate student in environmental toxicology at Texas Tech, studied factors that affected how much BPA, BPS and phthalates leached from plastic bumpers into dishes filled with artificial dog saliva.

They tested orange and white bumpers from two unidentified makers. The bumpers subjected to simulated chewing leached more BPA, BPS and phthalates than brand new bumpers and those left outside to weather for a month.

Researchers said they suspect that the levels of chemicals observed from the bumpers would be considered very high when compared with children's toys.

Since simulated saliva was used, it is difficult to say how much actual leaching would occur in a dog's mouth, the researchers said. "We don't have enough information at this time to begin to estimate actual exposure," Smith said.

Smith said they suspect that the levels of chemicals observed from the bumpers would be considered very high when compared with children's toys.

Using artificial saliva, researchers simulated a dog chewing a bumper.

The researchers also looked at phthalates, BPA and BPS from pet toys sold through major retailers. They found higher concentrations leaching from bumpers than from other toys but preliminary results suggest some store-bought toys might have leached other hormonally-active chemicals.
A previous study by the Environmental Working Group found that dogs' blood and urine contained the breakdown products of several phthalates at levels ranging from 1.1 to 4.5 times higher than the average found in people.

"Dogs are closer to the ground than humans, so house dust is another potential source of exposure to environmental chemicals," Dr. Khan said.

But little is known about any potential health risks for dogs exposed to hormone-mimicking chemicals.

Since little toxicity data exist for dogs, it is difficult to evaluate risks, Smith said. Nonetheless, "consumer education about potential risk seems to be warranted based on our data," he said.

It's hard to believe, but some veterinarians actually cut the vocal cords of dogs AND cats just to suppress their voices. We know because it happened to our dogs before we adopted them. They're two very different breeds – a Newfoundland and a Chihuahua – and we live in two different states.

We joined with Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets, which led the successful campaign to ban devocalization in Massachusetts, to make sure no other dog or cat anywhere suffers as ours have.

But until the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) changes its position on devocalization, countless other dogs AND cats will be subjected to this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.

Though devocalization is so cruel it is illegal in many countries, the AVMA continues to condone it as a "final alternative" to manage barking.

That leaves animals vulnerable to and legitimizes devocalization. Here's why:

No vet can possibly know if devocalization is a "final alternative," and some won't ask. Even receipts from a trainer or behaviorist don't mean the advice was followed consistently or at all; devocalization is easier for lazy or impatient owners.

And just as devocalization didn't keep our dogs from becoming homeless, it hasn't prevented the abandonment and euthanasia of countless other dogs and cats.


HOW AVMA'S POSITION HURTS ANIMALS

Massachusetts currently has the only enforceable state devocalization ban in the US. Other state laws protect owners and vets but not animals, who are subjected to a dangerous surgery they don't need but are helpless to refuse.

We wish veterinary associations had supported legislation that truly protects animals by prohibiting vocal cord surgery except to treat a physical illness, injury or birth defect.

Instead, these associations have opposed enforceable humane laws, using the AVMA's "final alternative" position to justify cutting an animal's vocal cords just to deal with barking or meowing.

Why would any vet condone such cruelty? It's obvious that some devocalize dogs and cats because it's profitable. Others won't devocalize, but oppose banning it anyway. It could be they fear these laws would lead to prohibition of other unnecessary, mutilating [profitable] surgeries like declawing, cropping ears and docking tails.

HOW DEVOCALIZATION HURTS OUR DOGS

Please meet our dogs in the video on this page.

Though an experienced vet devocalized our gentle giant, Porter, in the least invasive way, scar tissue formed in his throat, making it hard for him to breathe and swallow. He rasps, coughs and gags throughout the day like a chain smoker. Because devocalization permanently damaged his larynx too, he's at great risk for inhaling food, liquids, even vomit into his lungs.

Tiny Lola struggles to force out a bark and doesn't always succeed. Like other devocalized animals, she coughs and gags a lot. One day, she may have to face the same $2,000 surgery Porter needed to save his life after he was devocalized.

That's brutal punishment for the "crime" of communicating!

Please don't let this brutality continue. Tell the AVMA: There is no ethical reason to cut vocal cords just to stifle an animal’s voice – ever. Devocalization is an act of cruelty that no animal deserves, no vet should perform, no veterinary association should sanction, and no civilized society should allow.

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION