Monday, April 30, 2007

Owners thing press gives pit bulls a bad yap

It's obvious Kerry Dougherty wrote this article for her own purpose of reactions and I'm sure she'll get them as she mocks responsible owners and their dogs.

She writes about how Pit bull are dogs of choice as fighters and you never hear of Poodle rings. While this part may be true, it has nothing to do with responsible owners raising their dogs. Even responsible owners are appauled by dog fighting rings and only want them as loyal family pets.

So Ms. Dougherty, my question to you is why do you want to unleash a storm rather than writing an article that doesn't sent you tons of angry emails and write about something of importance? I am not impressed by your article and the way you try to get responses. It sound like very unprofessinal journalism to me.

Owners think press gives pit bulls a bad yap
The Virginian-Pilot © April 28, 2007

What do you say we unleash a storm today?

Time to talk pit bulls.

Every time I write about this, ah, feisty breed of dog - it's been about a year now since my last column on them - I'm quickly reminded that the only thing more aggressive than a pit bull is a pit bull owner. They love their dogs.

Almost as much as they love shooting indignant e-mails my way.

These sweet animals are misunderstood, they insist. Gentle as kittens. Why, a baby could play with my pit bull, they write.

Pit bulls are the whipping dogs of the press, they whine. Just let one high-spirited pit bull maul a toddler and it's headline news. When toy poodles go on a rampage, no one writes a word.

Several e-mailers have told me they wished a pit bull would gnaw off my head.

Pit bull lovers blame vicious dogs on bad owners, bad breeders and bad press.

They must say this, because if the public begins to believe all pit bulls are unpredictable and potentially dangerous, the breed will be banned.

So when pit bulls make the front of the local section of my paper, I feel compelled to say something.

In Friday's Pilot, we learned that deputies in Surry County came upon what appears to be a dog fighting farm.

The fact that 54 pit bull "type" dogs were removed from property owned by football star Michael Vick makes it all the more interesting.

Vick doesn't live on the land, we're told.

I don't blame him. I wouldn't go near the place.

This may surprise pit bull fans, but I feel sorry for fighting dogs.

Dog fighting is a savage blood sport. Animal cruelty at its worst. No need for the gory details, but the life of a fighting dog is unpleasant and short.

It's also lucrative. Owners breed fighting dogs for their tenacity and ability to withstand pain. The qualities that make a dog a fierce fighter also make it a menace to society.

When these temperamental misfits find their way into the community's canine gene pool, they can create all manner of mayhem.

This raid originated, as many do, with a drug investigation. Earlier this week, in separate drug busts, cops in Kentucky and Mississippi came upon a total of more than 70 fighting pit bulls.

In Surry, authorities were looking for dope when they discovered dozens of chained dogs. Some were scarred, some were tethered to car axles. Others were in concrete pens surrounded by tall fences.

Police say they recovered various dog fighting aids, including treadmills, scales, supplements and meds to treat wounds.

Dog fighting is a felony in Virginia, which means the people close to whatever was going on in Surry will no doubt be hiring legal pit bulls to defend them, should charges be pressed.

All this news makes you wonder. If this breed is as gentle as any other, why is it that pit bulls and pit bull mixes are the fighting dog of choice?

Someone please tell us why there are no French Poodle fighting farms.

Here comes the mail.

Reach Kerry at (757) 446-2306 or at

Canton aims to muzzle pit bulls

It seems as if more and more are now aware that it isn't the breed of dog themselves, but the owners and how they are brought up.

They understand the victims are the responsible owners and the 'cupcake' bullies or other dogs that are on the Dangerous Dog Lists, yet the bans keep coming even though they understand the amount of money involved in upholding such laws.

I believe this is where we are receiving our edge, knowing that gang bangers, and other undesirables are laughing and mocking the laws. It's these very people that we need to do something about, not the dogs. These people are going to continue all types of unlawfulness without any considerations to their dogs. They are the ones using their dogs as weapons and by removing their weapon, they will only go and get another, so what will a ban accomplish?

We need law enforcement to go after these criminals and quit blaming the dogs. Guns and weapons don't harm unless someone is pulling the trigger or using it to cause harm. On it's own, it's not dangerous when used correctly.

Many people are talking the statement that Pit bulls require specific training in the wrong way. Because these dogs are highly intelligent and loyal to a fault, it is for this reason that they be raised in a positive and loving envirement, well socialized and become a part of the family. It's the trait of these dogs that many of us responsible owners go for when deciding on a breed of dog we want for ourselves and families.

If these places would put in place an extensive educational program to teach children, parents and the general public on dog bite prevention ran than all their resourses into a ban, they would see less dog bites by all dogs and the costs would be less.

Dog bite prevention and education makes a whole deal of more sense if what they are preaching about making their cities safer.

You can find this article in Patroit Ledger.

Canton aims to muzzle pit bulls

South Shore towns are considering steps, including euthansia, to prevent pit bull attacks. (GARY HIGGINS/The Patriot Ledger)

By L.E. CAMPENELLAThe Patriot Ledger

If you own a pit bull, Canton might not be the town for you.

Tonight’s town meeting will decide whether to impose strict restrictions, such as mandatory confinement, special licenses, muzzles and insurance requirements, and create a limit of one pit bull per family.

Initially, selectmen planned to ban the breed, exempting dogs that already live in town.

Selectman Avril Elkort said a situation about a year ago, when three pit bulls kept getting loose and roaming a neighborhood, prompted the new bylaw.

‘‘People are totally petrified by these dogs,’’ Elkort said.

Canton isn’t alone in its attempt to rein in problem dogs, but animal control officers, experts and even those who have survived pit bull attacks say Canton is barking up the wrong tree.

Ban stand

Scott Giacoppo, deputy director of advocacy for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said a pit bull-only ban gives residents a false sense of security and will cost the town in the end.

‘‘What do you do when a German shepherd, Dalmatian, Rottweiller or a cocker spaniel attacks someone?’’

Giacoppo said breed bans have been overturned by courts across the country, costing cities and towns thousands of dollars.

‘‘What you’ll see is pit bull owners lining up to test the constitutionality of the law,’’ he said.

Canton’s animal control officer, Ellen Barnett, said she was not invited to help draft the new code and will argue against it.

In Randolph, town meeting voters next month will decide a vicious dog law ordinance that would put the bite on dogs that attack humans or other animals. The ordinance calls for penalties ranging from muzzling, keeping the dogs in fully enclosed cages and sterilization to tattooing, implanting a microchip to identify the dog as vicious and euthanasia.

Hingham voters last week decided to prohibit any dog that has been banned or removed from any other city or town.

Marshfield, which has been plagued by attacks on people and other dogs over the last two years, has formed a committee to draft a dangerous dog law. So has Brockton.

Boston, New Bedford and New York are among cities that have strict rules on pit bulls and other vicious dogs.

Denver banned the breed in 1989. It is rounding up the terriers and has killed hundreds each year, which has forced owners to turn to an ‘‘underground railroad’’ to get their pets out of the city.

Problems with dog attacks, especially pit bulls, are not just a U.S. problem. The breed was banned in England in 1991 and in 2005 in Ontario.

Aggressive breed

The pit bull has a broad chest, a big head and powerful jaws. The breed has gained notoriety for vicious maulings and sometimes fatal attacks on other dogs and humans.

Popular culture has made them a status symbol and the favored breed of gang-bangers, drug dealers and dogfight trainers.

Nicholas Dodman, an animal behaviorist and head of the Animal Behavior Department of Clinical Sciences at Tufts University, said pit bulls, like many other breeds, have blood lines going back generations that make them more aggressive than other types of dogs.With proper training, care and a responsible owner, Dodman said they can be ‘‘cupcakes,’’ but countless are trained to be vicious, or stroke an ego, especially for young men.

‘‘It’s an extension of their masculinity,’’ Dodman said. ‘‘It’s almost like packing a gun.’’

Dodman said the main problem in a pit bull attack is that the dogs go for the throat of their prey and don’t let go.

Pit bulls, Dodman said, are not a breed but a mix of bulldogs and another breed, such as a boxer or mastiff.

He said for centuries bulldogs were trained in Spain for use in bullfighting.

‘‘They bite into the nose of a bull and don’t let go,’’ Dodman said.

‘‘The bull could whip them around like a rag doll and they wouldn’t let go.’’

Problems arrive

The MSPCA’s Giacoppo points to Denver as an example of chaos from a breed restriction.

He said it has made criminals out of normally law-abiding residents and monsters out of hundreds of loving and non-violent pit bulls.

Meanwhile, Giacoppo said, the gang-bangers, drug dealers and dogfight trainers - leading owners of vicious pit bulls - relish the ban.

‘‘There’s nothing cooler than having a dog that breaks the law,’’ Giacoppo said.

Some of the Denver problems have already arrived in South Shore towns.

Last year Marshfield selectmen ordered the destruction of a pit bull owned by Marshfield’s Louis Carpenito after several biting incidents.

Carpenito said he will fight the order ‘‘all the way to the Supreme Court.’’

Thomas Rolls’ two pit bulls were condemned last year by Marshfield’s selectmen after an attack on a Labrador retriever.

Rolls packed up and moved with the dogs and hasn’t been heard from since.Terrence Callahan, who was watching the Labrador for his sister-in-law, said communities have every right to enact dog laws, but limiting them to pit bulls or other breeds is short-sighted.

‘‘If a dog is a problem, look at the situation, not the type of dog it is,’’ Callahan said.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Biting Mad at the Liberals

Way to tell them Diane and well written. Too bad you weren't in the government. We NEED honest, outspoken, intellegent people to run our country.

You can read Diane's comment in the Guelph Tribune.

Biting Mad at the Liberals
(Apr 27, 2007)
Re: Dog scares boy in park (Tribune, April 24)

It must have been a slow news day in Guelph. Why was the headline not, "Boy hits dog withbaseball bat"? And let's be sure to include "pit bull" in there somewhere - that always helps sell papers regardless of the fact that "pit bull" is not a breed, regardless of what the dog actually turns out to be.

The fact that this dog was roaming is an indication that leashing and containment bylaws are not being enforced in Guelph. Further, although nothing is a guarantee, it appears that the teen did not put any bite prevention tactics into play. Of course, the Ontario Liberals rejected bite prevention education for children, so the teen probably has not had any bite prevention training. In fact, the Ontario Liberalsrejected all of the common-sense recommendations made by canine experts that have been proven to improve public safety with regards to dogs.

Instead, the Ontario Liberals turned responsible, law-abiding dogowners into second-class citizens and demonized their unoffending dogs. Breed specific legislation affects only responsible owners, and Ontario's law has caused good people to move out of the province to keep their unoffending dogs safe. The last few years have proven that all we can expect from theMcGuinty government is knee-jerk reaction, government by crisis control, and continual "spin" on issues. The Ontario Liberals do not have a plan for governing this province, they only flail about. Remember the Liberals' long list of pre-election promises and how many of them have been broken when you go to the polls in October.

Dianne Singer, Toronto

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Neighbours want pit bulls out; Essex Street residents say keep the breed away

There was an incident in Sarnia about a Pit bull attack that has spread right across Canada. If this were any other breed of dog, it might have made the local papers. Each article has basically the same wording except for the condition of the woman. Some stated she was taken to hospital with minor injuries while others reported she was in severe injuries.

When they talk of Pit bull attacks as high profile, it only stands to reason that since it's make the headlines throughout Canada, it becomes high profile. You're not going to spread the news country wide if it was Lassie.

As everyone knows, if police are involved, they will have an ambulance come to take you to hospital just to make sure you are alright.

The woman had two Pit bulls, yet it doesn't say anything about the other one or why she was trying to get this one inside. We're the two fighting and she tried to get one inside? Questions such as these are never mentioned. What caused this break out in the first place? What took place prior to the incident?

The other is when it says they (the woman and police) had the dog cornered in the kitchen. It doesn't take a genius to understand that any dog cornered is dangerous, especially with running police pointing weapons at the dog and all the hollaring and screaming going on. I can only imagine the scenerio.

This article is from The Sarnia Observer in response to this recent iccident.

Neighbours want pit bulls out; Essex Street residents say keep the breed away
Poirier, Jack / The Observer Local News -
Thursday, April 26, 2007

There is a place for pit bull dogs, just not in a residential neighbourhood, say a group of Essex Street residents.

Following the vicious attack of an Essex Street woman Tuesday that ended with police shooting the dog with a shotgun, residents on this quiet, central city street say the incident justifies calls to keep the breed out of communities.

"I think there is a place for all animals, including pit bulls, just not in a residential area," said Joe Goertz. Goertz, who lives just down the street from where the attack location, called himself a dog lover.

"I love pets but these dogs were bred for fighting," he said. "How can you trust them when even their owners aren't safe?"

Following a number of high-profile attacks Ontario passed legislation in 2005 making it illegal to acquire a new pit bull. The law also stipulates that pit bull owners who don't muzzle their dog in public can face charges and have their dog put down.

Essex Street homeowners George and Christina Padazis said Tuesday's mauling has raised fears in the neighbourhood.

"I'm afraid of them," Christina said of the breed. "They look mean. They're vicious dogs."

Although the couple no longer have pets, George said he and his wife once owned a doberman. Known for their unpredictable temperament, their doberman was just like any other dog only as bad as the owner, George said.

"It comes down to how you treat them."

Sarnia police say they are continuing to investigate whether Tuesday's attack violated city bylaws, the Criminal Code or the provincial pit bull ban

While the attacking dog was killed after police taser shots had little effect, a second pit bull was removed from the home and taken to the humane society. The female owner was transported to hospital with what are described as severe injuries.

Critics of the provincial law say it ignores the reality that any animal can turn vicious and bans one breed unfairly.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said he is not in support of the pit bull ban, adding that pit bulls rarely appear on the annual list of dog bites in Sarnia.

"Trying to ban by species is very difficult," he said. "I'm against it."

Tami Holmes, shelter manager at the Sarnia & District Humane Society, said every pit bull is different, just like every dog is different.

"What people forget is that every dog is an animal ... just like some people are vicious, so too are some animals."

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Officials explain pit bull decision

In the Argus Observer, how in the world could Schuller have watched a Pit bull fight, unless it was legal in the state he was in. Then of course you are looking for trouble by allowing such a thing and he's talking of public safety?

If it wasn't allowed, how did he manage to find out where it was and no authorities called?

He also spoke of owning a Pit bull when his daughter was young for protection. Was his dog trained as a guard dog, rather than a family pet?

So many questions unanswered, yet it bases a decision.

Officials explain pit bull decision
By Julie Engel - Argus Observer
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:15 PM PDT

Payette County - Many Payette County residents already know that the Payette County Commissioners approved a breed-specific dangerous dog ordinance recently, but many may not understand why the decision was made and the circumstances leading up to it. Payette County Commissioners Larry Church and Marc Shigeta said Fruitland City Councilman and Payette County Coroner Keith Schuller was instrumental in researching and presenting the ordinance to the board. In an interview Tuesday, Schuller described multiple attacks, all within a year, in Fruitland that pushed the issue to the forefront for him.

“We agreed with his (Schuller’s) information,” Church said. “His concern was for public health and safety.”

Schuller said one incident involved a Fruitland police officer who was attacked by a pit bull that was running loose. Another incident occurred when a pit bull attacked 4-H pigs and threatened a police officer, Schuller said. In both instances, Schuller said the dogs were shot to prevent further harm to the officer. According to a handout from Schuller, “dangerous dogs can impair a neighborhood’s quality of life,” and he said it is important for city and county residents to always feel safe while jogging, riding bikes or playing in parks.“

All dogs bite, but when a pit bull bites, it’s different,” Schuller said. “Most dogs bite and let go.”

Those incidents brought the issue of pit bull attacks to Schuller’s attention, but the pit bull attack on an Ontario resident early last year caused Schuller to take the next step. Schuller presented a pit bull ordinance — based on a similar mandate in Denver, Colo., — to the Fruitland City Council, which it passed in May. The city of Payette then passed an ordinance similar to Fruitland’s in October.

Shigeta said it was practical to follow suit with the two largest communities in the county.

“I think they are going to talk to the city of New Plymouth,” Shigeta said. “They’re going to try to make it countywide within our municipalities as well.”

The ordinances require pit bull owners to register their dogs for $500 per year ($475 if spayed or neutered), acquire a $1 million public liability insurance policy, have the dog microchiped and spay or neuter the animal. Also, no new pit bulls can be brought into the county or city limits of Fruitland or Payette. Schuller said the county or sheriff’s office may present a similar proposal to the New Plymouth City Council in the future

It doesn’t seem quite right — when owners don’t provide all the resources and the person bitten ends up footing the whole bill,” Shigeta said.

Schuller owned a pit bull when his daughters were young to protect them, but said one day the dog turned on one of his daughters and attacked her face. After that incident, Schuller said he began to research the breed, and even attended a pit bull fight as part of that research.Schuller said in his research, he found that pit bulls have been bred to kill for many years, have very strong jaws and usually do not let go until the thing being attacked is dead.

Schuller referenced No. 9 of the defining characteristics in the ordinance as a major factor in presenting a breed-specific mandate. No. 9 in the county ordinance states: “a combination of agility, stamina, and strength, together with a genetic predisposition to aggressiveness, that makes pit bulls uniquely dangerous, even to their owners, among all breeds of dogs, especially where improperly raised or trained.”

Denver’s breed-specific ordinance the Payette County ordinances are based on has stood up many times in court, Schuller said. If a suit was ever filed against the county, Shigeta said the liability insurance the county carries would cover legal expenses.

The city of Denver’s ordinance is again in the court system — this time three women have filed a federal lawsuit claiming the procedures used to enforce the ordinance violate owners’ rights against self-incrimination, according to information from the Rocky Mountain News Web site.

“There’s no way you can tell by looking at the dog when it’s going to someday attack someone,” Schuller said.

FDA to begin testing human food supply for melamine

Here's a devilish twist to the pet food recalls. What is really going on? Could this be that humans are the targets and who would be behind such a plot if that were the case? Makes you wonder.

FDA to begin testing human food supply for melamine

The Food and Drug Administration says it will, for the first time, test ingredients imported for use in the human food supply in connection with the nationwide pet food recall that has killed, by some estimates, thousands of pets.

In addition, the FDA on Tuesday announced plans to expand testing of the animal food supply after hogs on farms in three states were quarantined after testing positive for the substance at the center of the recall, the toxic agent melamine.

A poultry farm in Missouri is also being investigated, federal officials said.Wheat gluten, corn gluten, corn meal, rice bran and rice protein are among the imported products being tested in both the animal and human food supply.

--From CNN's Richard Davis

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Canada NEEDS Bill C-373

In the CBC News I've decided to show the full horrendous story thus far of an innocent, victim named Daisy Duke and how amimal abuse cases are basically a slap on the hand as per our Canadian law.

To see statements that put empathy on the boys for trying to put his dog out of misery doesn't work for me. This was suppose to be his beloved pet. Would he have done the same if it were a sibling?

Shouldn't abusers of all animals pay for their evil deeds or is our government just too slack to use anything that works?

This won't change a thing if Bill S-213 is passed as the government wants it. It's only a new name for an old bill. To make drastic changes it is imparative to get Bill C-373 passed.

I have links on my sidebar that shows you how you can get involved. PLEASE! The animals need us!

Youth charged with abuse of Alberta dog pleads guilty
Last Updated: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:58 AM MT
The Canadian Press

A 17-year-old Alberta youth pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of animal cruelty in a horrific case of abuse that made national headlines.

A Lab-border collie cross named Daisy Duke was found barely alive and had to be euthanized by a veterinarian in October 2006 after she was dragged behind a car with a rope around her neck, a bag over her head and all four legs bound.

She suffered injuries including a broken neck, back and pelvis.

Tamara Chaney, an outraged animal lover in Didsbury, collected 110,000 signatures from across Canada on a petition calling for new legislation on animal abuse. The petition was later presented to Parliament.

Sentencing arguments for the youth's conviction on the animal cruelty charge will be heard May 10, the same day that a second charge against the youth of causing death or injury to an animal will be dealt with.

Another male accused, Daniel Charles Haskett, 19, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial May 23. The dog had been a family pet in Haskett's home.

Current laws allow for a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine for a conviction under animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code.

Two competing bills in parliament

Earlier this year, the federal Conservative government announced it would support a bill introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden, known as Bill S-213, which would raise the maximum jail term to five years and the maximum fine to $10,000.

However, many animal-welfare groups oppose that bill, complaining that it continues to treat animals as property and doesn't address cruelty to wild or unowned animals.

Many such groups have put their support behind Bill C-373, a private member's bill introduced last fall by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, who has complained the animal cruelty laws haven't been modernized for 100 years and are "woefully inadequate."

The final hour of second reading debate on Bill S-213 has been tentatively scheduled for April 24. Bills need to go through three readings before becoming law.

Didsbury man pleads not guilty in dog's death
Last Updated: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:59 PM MT
CBC News

Police say Daisy Duke had duct tape around her muzzle, front and rear legs and was likely dragged behind a vehicle.

An Alberta man accused of animal cruelty in the dragging death of a dog has pleaded not guilty.

Daniel Haskett, 19, of Didsbury did not make an appearance in court Monday. Instead, his lawyer, who has told his client to stay away from court because of threats from animal lovers, made the plea on Haskett's behalf.

In October, a Labrador retriever-collie cross named Daisy Duke was found bleeding on a road, its muzzle and legs bound with duct tape and a tow rope around its neck. The dog had to be put down.

Police said the dog was Haskett's family pet.

Haskett and a 17-year-old, who can't be named because of his age, have been charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. Haskett has also been charged with obstructing justice.

He is to be back in court in May.

In another development, a man charged with mischief in connection with a protest outside the courthouse during Haskett's previous appearance also appeared in court Monday.

The man, 34, will return to court later this month to enter a plea.

Threats keep animal cruelty suspect from court
Last Updated: Thursday, November 23, 2006 11:14 AM MT
CBC News

A young Didsbury, Alta., man accused of animal cruelty in the dragging death of a dog stayed away from the local courthouse Wednesday on the advice of his lawyer.

"I was concerned for his safety to be honest with you," lawyer Mark Takada said of Daniel Haskett,19, who was surrounded by jeering protesters at his first court appearance.

Daisy Duke was wounded so severely, a veterinarian had to put her down.

"I have no problem at all with people standing out here demonstrating ... But you cross the line when you try to intimidate a person and try to impede their right to come and go freely."

Haskett's lawyer also said threatening letters have been sent to his client and one person has been sentenced to a day in jail for making threatening phone calls.

A small group of protesters were waiting outside court Wednesday.

Last month a Labrador retriever-collie named Daisy Duke was found bleeding on a road with its muzzle and legs bound with duct tape and a tow rope around its neck. The dog had to be put down.

Haskett and a 17-year-old, who can't be named because of his age, have been charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. Haskett has also been charged with obstructing justice.

'Ticking time bomb'

Robin Reesal, a Calgary based psychiatrist, said there is reason for Takada to be concerned.

"When you raise anger and emotion to that level you may be taking a ticking time bomb and just lighting the fuse of someone out there that you are unaware of," he said.

People become more emotional about animal cruelty cases than those involving people because they see animals as helpless creatures, said Reesal.

Online threats against accused

RCMP said Wednesday they were not aware of any threatening comments about the accused online, but would investigate if complaints were made.

An online search turned up a site full of profanity, threats and other postings suggesting the accused should be bound and dragged behind a vehicle.

Protesters surrounded and heckled Daniel Charles Haskett as he left the Didsbury courthouse.(CBC News)

One writer asks for a description of one of the accused, his address and phone number. The person writes: "Justice will not be served in court. These people should be tortured..."

Another says: "I would like to slowly torture both of them." The writer goes on to say: "If he doesn't get punished properly by the law, he may get punished properly by the people."

Not 'sadistic brutes,' says lawyer

Both of the accused are expected back in court next month.

Takada said the case is complicated and he's not sure how Haskett will plead.

"He's got a lot of regret about what happened. This is a very sad situation and he feels very badly about that."

The two accused aren't the "sadistic brutes" they've been made out to be, he said.

The dog was initially accidentally hit by a vehicle, he said. Takada says his client is not responsible for dragging the dog behind a car.

Dog's beating draws protesters to courthouse
Last Updated: Monday, November 6, 2006 4:05 PM MT
CBC News

Protesters, some with dogs, shouted and jeered outside an Alberta courthouse Monday as a 19-year-old charged with animal cruelty appeared in court.

As many as 100 people from across the province surrounded and heckled Daniel Charles Haskett as he left the Didsbury courthouse.

Haskett was whisked away in a waiting minivan but not before angry protesters kicked the vehicle and pounded on the hood. Others from the crowd looked on in tears.

Protesters surrounded and heckled Daniel Charles Haskett as he left the Didsbury courthouse.

"The Canadian government is not taking animal abuse cases seriously. If this kind of support comes from a town as small as Didsbury, can you imagine how people feel all over Canada?" said Kim McDonald, who drove from Edmonton for the protest.

Last month, a badly beaten Labrador retriever-collie cross was found bleeding in Didsbury. Police say the dog, named Daisy Duke, was Haskett's family pet.

Haskett and a 17-year-old have been charged with injuring or endangering an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. Haskett has also been charged with obstructing justice.

Dog bound in duct tape: police

The dog had duct tape around her muzzle, front and rear legs, according to Didsbury RCMP. She also had a tow rope around her neck and was likely dragged behind a vehicle for three blocks, police said.

Police say Daisy Duke had duct tape around her muzzle, front and rear legs and was likely dragged behind a vehicle.

The dog was wounded so severely a veterinarian had to put her down.

Word of Monday's court appearance had been spreading through internet animal rights chat rooms and websites.
The case inspired Didsbury resident Tamara Chaney to organize a cross-Canada petition calling for more serious penalties in animal cruelty cases.

A maximum of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine is not strong enough punishment, she says.

However, she decided not to attend the demonstration.

"I think their hearts are in the right place. They want some better punishment for animal abusers, but a lot of times they're so radical in trying to get their point across that the actual message is lost, unfortunately."

Chaney says she may attend the trial.

Meanwhile, she says she's hoping to collect at least 10,000 signatures on her petition. She plans to give it to her MP, Conservative Myron Thompson, to take to Ottawa at the end of November.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Payette County bans residents from owning pit bulls | KTVB.COM | Boise, Idaho News, Weather, Sports & Traffic | IDAHO NEWS

In is another example on how 3 commisioners have the power to scream BAN PIT BULLS! Please visit this article to see the video.

Payette County bans residents from owning pit bulls
April 20,2007
By Ysebel Bilbao

Payette County has had enough, no more pit bulls.

That after commissioners passed an ordinance banning dogs deemed "vicious."

The ordinance says that any vicious dog, a dog that's attacked people or livestock without being provoked could face following the ordinance.

That includes pit bulls, but goes one step further with that particular dog, saying no more in Payette County.

"He is like my little buddy he keeps me company, he's my companion, he goes everywhere I go," said pit bull owner, Jesse Lawellan.
Payette resident Jesse Lawellan is the proud owner of this red nose pit bull.

He adopted him eight months ago and Jesse says the dog is a part of the family.

"Very well mannered, he'll jump on you to smell you but other than that he's excellent," said Lawellan.

But now Lawellan faces loosing his puppy if he doesn't follow new rules set in Payette County.

Recently the county's three commissioners unanimously passed an ordinance that defined dangerous dogs and officially banned new ownership of pit bulls.

"We thought it was in the best interest of the public safety truthfully," said Larry Church, Payette County Commissioner.

Church says for months he and the other two commissioners have been debating the issue, but ultimately decided to go with the ban. The same ban is already in place in Payette and Fruitland.

The ordinance says residents were not allowed to buy, or acquire a pit bull after March 28th. For people who already own them, there are rules and regulations that must be followed.

For instance pit bull owners have to get a license that costs $500 annually and they're required to carry a minimum of $1 million insurance policy.

Church admits that's a large chunk of change but says recent attacks in Fruitland and Ontario prove it's a necessity for his community.

"Even when you think they are pets and the best friend of the family, you never know because they were bred to fight, they were bred to fight," said Church.

Lawellan disagrees, "I have seen cow dogs meaner than pit bulls, I have seen poodles meaner than pit bulls, it's a lot of it has to do, just like having a child, it's how you raise them."

While Jesse doesn't agree, he says he'll have to obey the ordinance. But he says its discrimination, and doesn't believe the decision is fair.

"I just wish they'd think about it before they judge a dog, there are bad people that shouldn't be in society and they are still in society," said Lawellan.

Commissioner Church says the ordinance was copied from one already established in Denver.

Denver's ordinance has been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. There is still pending litigation there regarding the issue.

MPPs would quietly pass law to ban pink elephants

In the Hamilton Spectator I find this article exactly on how the government works. I think you will find it interesting too.

Personlly, I think Bryant and his Liberal cronies need a good swift kick to their butts, because their brains aren't in their heads. I've made a quick picture to show you a glimpse of where Bryant's brain may be.

MPPs would quietly pass law to ban pink elephants
By Chantelle Marcotte,
HamiltonThe Hamilton Spectator
(Apr 20, 2007)

Re: 'Ontario blasts feds for quietly extending amnesty for gun registry' and 'Ontario MPPs get 2 per cent raise on top of 25 per cent at Christmas' (both April 18)

Give me a break!

Ontario's provincial government has passed several pieces of legislation within the last two years with barely a whisper, or with very little consultation or recognition of those in opposition.

Yet they are angry with the federal government about the gun registry amnesty?

The provincial Liberals passed the controversial "pit bull ban" while the majority of "dog experts" opposed breed-specific legislation as a way to deal with the issue of dangerous dogs.

The provincial Liberals wanted to quickly pass the amendments to the Endangered Species Act, without consulting and respecting the farming and forestry industries.

The provincial Liberals quickly and quietly passed the bill at Christmas to give themselves a raise, and then quietly gave themselves another one within four months.

Premier Dalton McGuinty and Attorney General Michael Bryant need to look in their own back yard and look at the pink elephant sitting there.
But then their logic dictates they would quietly pass a law to ban pink elephants.

Friday, April 13, 2007

What is the fate of Dozzer?

There are two articles regarding Dozzer. How the province can get at him once he is in safe hands in Quebec doesn't make sense. This article is from the Ottawa Citizen.

City doesn’t give up on destroying dog
Ottawa moves forward with case against Dozzer, despite the fact pit bull-like canine is out of reach
Katie Daubs and Chris Lackner, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, April 12, 2007

The City of Ottawa is moving forward with its case to destroy an allegedly violent pit bull, despite the fact the dog is out of its reach and awaiting adoption at a Gatineau animal shelter.

Dozzer, a pit bull-mix accused of attacking an Ottawa woman walking her dog in November 2005, had his day in court set yesterday for July 11.

His former owner, Jeff Hickey, faces charges under Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act. The trial will determine whether the dog will be condemned to death through a court order.

Mr. Hickey was supposed to turn the dog over to the city in December 2005.
The city offered to drop the fines and a possible jail sentence if Mr. Hickey handed over his pet, but Mr. Hickey chose then to keep Dozzer, according to his lawyer Cedric Nahum.

Yesterday, after a brief hearing at the provincial offences court to set the trial date, Mr. Nahum said the city will have to determine whether Dozzer fits the provincial definition of a pit bull-type dog, and whether Dozzer attacked the claimant.

But even if the city proves its case, Dozzer may remain out of reach in Quebec.
He is currently in the care of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Western Quebec, under the name Dozer, awaiting adoption, and has garnered a reputation as one of the most beloved and well-behaved dogs at the Gatineau shelter.

“We have no authority to take it and seize it,” said Christine Hartig of the City of Ottawa’s bylaw services.

“With the cooperation of the SPCA, we could try to obtain the dog, but my sense is they wouldn’t co-operate.” Dozzer may have already avoided a death sentence once in early December, when Mr. Hickey’s mother dropped off the dog at Travelling Paws, a kennel and pound in Carleton Place.

Unlike Ottawa, Carleton Place does not have a municipal bylaw requiring shelters and pounds to euthanize pit bull-type breeds. But the business does contact the area OPP to find out whether the animals they take in have been involved in any violent incidents.

In Dozzer’s case, no such record was found — likely because the case was based in Ottawa, said Travelling Paws owner Connie Murphy, adding the pound also went on the “the family’s word that there was no problem.”

“We had no idea about his case history,” she said. “He was a nice dog and got along with everybody here. There was no reason to believe he couldn’t be re-homed.”

Dozzer was sent to the Gatineau shelter because Travelling Paws was over-filled, and he had a better chance of being adopted in Quebec, she said.

Pit bull-type dogs were banned in Ontario in 2005 under revisions to Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act. However, existing pit bulls were “grandfathered” through the revised law as long their owners followed new stringent rules on their care.

According to the law, “grandfathered” pit bulls like Dozzer can still be adopted in Ontario — but only by people who were pit bull owners when the laws came into effect and only to replace a pit bull they owned when the law was passed.

But the law also allows such dogs to be moved to other provinces, Ms. Murphy said.
Jennifer Montague, director of adoptions at the Gatineau shelter, said it is common for pit bulls from Ontario to be sent to Quebec for adoption — where laws don’t restrict ownership and there are more potential adopters. Ms. Hartig said the city has no way of keeping tabs on dogs like Dozzer.

While both shelters have confirmed Dozzer is in Gatineau, Mr. Hickey’s lawyer refused to confirm the dog residing in the shelter once belonged to Mr. Hickey.

“I can’t even confirm it’s the same dog. It’s a very common name for a pit bull,” Mr. Nahum said. He also argued Mr. Hickey’s animal may not have committed the attack in question.

But Dozzer’s alleged victim, Cheryl Hume, has no doubts about what happened in their 2005 run-in — or what the dog’s fate should be.

“If the law says euthanize him, I’m waiting for the law to work,” she said.
Ms. Hume received 13 stitches and broken bones in both of her hands after a morning walk with her dog, Chico, turned sour after a meeting with Dozzer, and still suffers from arthritis related to the injuries.

The court case against Mr. Hickey has been adjourned for more than a year as a similar case questioning the constitutional validity of the provincial legislation was ongoing.

In Cochrane v. Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled the Ontario Dog Owners’ Liability Act was too broad in its definition of pit bull-type dogs. Mr. Hickey was not in court yesterday. His lawyer said the City of Ottawa is not seeking any fines or jail time for Mr. Hickey — only the euthanization of Dozzer.

In the OttawaCitizen.Com comes this article of Dozzer. Let's hope Dozzer is safe.

Dozer laps up good life in Quebec
Ottawa wanted to put pit bull-type dog down
Chris Lackner, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, April 12, 2007

A dog the City of Ottawa wanted destroyed for its violent behaviour has become the most beloved, well-behaved resident of a Gatineau animal shelter and awaits adoption.

Dozer, a pit bull-mix formerly owned by Jeff Hickey of Ottawa, bit a woman walking her dog in November 2005. The attack broke a bone in the victim's hand and her injuries required 20 stitches. Afterwards, city officials called for Mr. Hickey to turn over the animal to be put down and charges were laid against him.

Pit bull-type dogs were banned by Ontario in 2005, but are welcome in Quebec, and Dozer is no exception.

His violent past doesn't fit the behavioural profile of the canine that has won over hearts at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Western Quebec.

In an adoption notice, Dozer is described as "a gentle boy who walks very well on a leash. He is friendly and affectionate. Dozer absolutely loves to play ... Dozer is truly a people dog."

Jennifer Montague, the non-profit organization's director of adoption, said she has "never met a more well-tempered dog" than Dozer.

"He is just so gentle -- he's like a pug or a poodle in a pit bull's body," she said. "He just wants to cuddle, and climbs up your body and wants to kiss you."

Dozer arrived at the shelter on Dec. 31, after spending a month at Travelling Paws, an Ottawa kennel and pound where he was dropped off by Mr. Hickey's mother, Ms. Montague said.

In 2005, Ontario passed legislation banning the purchase, breeding or ownership of pit bull-type dogs -- while current owners were allowed to keep their animals under a grandfather clause. Since then, Ms. Montague said pit bull-type dogs from Ontario are commonly brought to shelters in Quebec, where they can be legally adopted.

Dozer's new residence comes with a lot of perks. In the summer, the dogs spend at least six hours a day outside -- with the option of playing with one another or sleeping in cushioned dog houses.

While the shelter's dogs are walked an average of two times a day, Dozer benefits from his popularity among the society's volunteers.

"On any given day, he usually gets four walks -- and, on Saturdays, he gets as many as 10," Ms. Montague said, adding Dozer even accompanies the staff on coffee runs.

Ms. Montague said she supports a ban on pit bull-type dogs only because they often end up in "the hands of bad owners." But she said existing pit bull-type breeds should be allowed to lead their lives and be given good homes.

"My God, let someone like Dozer have a second chance," she said.

The Gatineau shelter houses between 15 and 30 dogs at any given time -- acting as an animal "rescue" organization and providing medical aid in addition to finding new owners.

Unlike many shelters, the operation does not put animals down -- an advantage to pit bull-type dogs who often take much longer to be adopted.

"Dozer never would have had a chance anywhere else -- he would have been euthanized," she said.

"We don't look at the breed. We just look at the four paws, and the spongy nose, and that's all we need to know."

Mr. Hickey, Dozer's former owner, was unreachable yesterday, and his lawyer refused to offer comment on Dozer's future.

Mr. Hickey faces charges under Ontario's Dog Owner's Liability Act. A trial date is expected to be set today.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

New Pet Food & Treats Recalls

Thanks to Paula James for all these new updates on new pet recalls.

See new pet food recall info, updated lists, sorry no complete one, including cat and dog foods, wet, dry, specialty, treats, etc. Check other blogs also for older info and symptoms, etc.

MSNBC has a lot

CNN - Note especially 'Recalled Dog Foods and Recalled Cat Foods'

FDA list doesn't include as much but more specific on some

AVMA has some info

Consumer Reports list

Food Consumer - Answers general questions

More CNN info

Food Consumer Info

Food Consumer Specialty foods

Post Chronicle added treats, but there's way more out there remember

OK Good luck sorting through all that, I'll try to organize more when I have time, but there's the info I can find. CNN had tons of new ones I can't find here, supposed to be on their site, can't find, so check bottom news scroll bar on CNN on TV for more on more brands like..

Bloom, Cadillac, Companion, VP, Giant Companion, Great choice, Hannaford, Hill Kounty Fare, Iams, Laura Lynn, L'il Red, Loving Meals, Meijers Main Choice, Mighty dog, Alpo, Mixables, Nutro, etc.

Nutra and Tetra Fish food is fine. And remember if you can get it, Acana is safe and has great food for cats or dogs. A lot of popular treats are included now as well included Bully Sticks, Jerky, Pupp Sticks, Punce treats, etc.

So I'm still not feeding anything with wheat gluten until I know wheat gluten is not from China or has been tested.

Many dates have changed as well and including much longer periods.

Salmonella has been found in many new recalls, so check for those also.

OK good luck, I'll try to find ONE COMPLETE list somewhere, no luck so far.

Keep your pets healthy!

Monday, April 09, 2007

So easy to just say, 'Ban it'

In the Winnipeg when I read this article, I thought about all the different ways the goverment has not given us the freedom of choice in so much of our life. It's either for the benefit to our health, safety or so on, but however you call it, choice and freedom plays no role.

Because I am on ODSP, I MUST take generic drugs whether they work for me or not. The only way I can use the medications that I was on is pay for them out of my pocket. Not an easy thing to do with the income I get.

Smokers have to pay a hefty price for a pack of smokes that the government makes a fortune from. They state it's to prevent the youth from smoking, but then decide to 'try' to take the rights of smokers from smoking in their own homes or vehiles. Does that sound like they are targetting the youth?

We know how they have targetted the Pit bulls and in some places the rotties. So we are told what breeds of dogs we are allowed.

When will we the voters tell government we want our right to choice back again or are we going to keep letting the government dictate to us how we spend our lives?

So easy to just say, 'Ban it'

The path to hell is often paved with good intentions.

It's a cliche, but we are living in times where that saying is not just a cute retort.

The community of Leaf Rapids has opted for political showmanship to deal with environmental challenges, rather than embrace solutions respecting freedom and responsibility.

The community's town council passed a bylaw prohibiting retailers from providing or selling plastic bags. There is no room for any middle ground or creative solution.
The idea of the ban is not new. It has been used for different causes. The Ontario government "banned" the whole pit bull canine breed from the province. They are starting to see how difficult and oppressive this law is. We also see it in the movement to ban transfat and fatty foods.

This is becoming very common and it heralds a dangerous time when belief in promoting the "good" is used to justify increasing levels of personal oppression. Just look at our laws on "hate speech." Sure, it is easy for those who hold orthodox views on these subjects to support these laws, but for dissenters it means financial and professional ruin. It is so easy to "ban" offensive speech rather than challenge it and defeat it through debate.

It is always someone's particular vision of the good that is being imposed on everyone. Philosopher Isaiah Berlin spoke about the tendency of governments, including democratic ones, to use their conception of the good as a pretext to commit atrocities. Witness the French Revolution.

In Leaf Rapids, the legitimate right of retailers to sell whatever they choose to whomever they wish seems to have been thrown out the window for someone's misguided belief they are saving the planet. Also ignored is the concept that attacking the rights of some is not justified by appealing to the "good" of the majority.
So much for discussion where dissenting voices can be heard. Banning is not about rational debate. It is the triumph of someone's will over the many.

It is so easy for the legislator to ban. It does not require creativity or innovation. It does not require forethought on whether it will achieve the legislative goals for which it was intended. This is something the authors of the national gun registry missed.

It certainly makes for good politics. Pass this law and you look like you are tough on that issue. If bans worked, we would be living in a drug- and illegal-firearm-free utopia.

These policy decisions do not require the collaboration, compromise and accommodation that define our society as liberal and democratic, not to mention reasonable. Free individuals should be treated as adults possessing dignity. What makes the Leaf Rapids case insidious is that it precludes the idea that people need to be convinced of solutions. Who needs convincing of the correctness of your cause when you have the big stick of government regulation?

While the Leaf Rapids situation is a small example, it is up to people to stand up now before the state misreads complacency as approval.

Letters to the editor should be sent to

Sunday, April 08, 2007

American Staffordshire Terrier Involved in Incident with Child at AKC Event

APRIL 5 2007

Police were called today to the Clarke County Fairgrounds to investigate an incident involving an American Stafforshire Terrier dog and a 9 year old child. The American Kennel Club sanctions the event, held by the Clarke County Kennel Club annually. Thousands of exhibitors and spectators attend yearly.

According to witnesses, the child was walking near the show rings unsupervised when she suddenly came face to face with the 70 lb American Staffordshire Terrier dog. The child threw her arms around the dog's neck, reports say, when the unthinkable happened. The dog began enthusiastically licking the girl's face as his tail wagged briskly.

"It was awful", said one bystander, "there was nothing we could do. That dog was just giving that child every ounce of love he had and no one did a thing to stop it".

Another witness, who took video of the event, said "This happens all the time, I don't know how it hasn't made the news before now".

One spectator, who declined to be named in this interview, told reporters, "The sounds were just heartwrenching, all that laughing and giggling. It made me smile so hard my face hurts. I plan to sue for pain and suffering".

The handler of the dog admits this is not the first time such an incident has occurred, and that the owners were "well aware of the stable, loving and patient temperament of this dog".

The owners were unavailable for comment. Police state that the handler, who was noticeably unrepentant, was cited for Reckless Entertainment. The dog was given roasted chicken treats and was not taken into custody.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Pit bull owner takes fight over city dog law to court

Fights like this will continue and innocent dogs will die all because of breed. It's sad that one owner has to make his fight alone. This is where an American Dog Coalitions should be taking part in fighting this challenge, just as we are doing here in Canada and ridding the U.S. of BSL.

This article is in the

Article published Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Pit bull owner takes fight over city dog law to court
Ohio justices to hear challenge of Toledo rule

Former Toledo resident Paul Tellings, with Chance, left, and Justice, is fighting city and state laws governing vicious dogs. ( THE BLADE/JETTA FRASER )


COLUMBUS - A challenge to Ohio's law that deems pit bulls to be inherently vicious is drawing national attention as animal-rights organizations side with a dog owner who was prosecuted under a similar ordinance in Toledo.

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow in a case that claims the state law and the Toledo ordinance based on it unconstitutionally deprive dog owners of their right to a hearing.

The laws prohibit owners from having more than one "vicious" dog, generally defined as one that has killed or bitten a human, killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull."

Sol Zyndorf, attorney for dog owner Paul Tellings, will cede part of his 15 minutes of argument time before the court to a California attorney who represents the American Canine Foundation.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has weighed in with a legal brief supporting Mr. Tellings.

"They are fighting these laws throughout the country, and they would like a win here," said Mr. Zyndorf. "These organizations also condemn dog fighting, but they feel there's another way of controlling the situation."

The organizations argue the law should instead target owners who train dogs to be aggressive or fail to properly train or socialize them.

The state attorney general and the city of Cleveland, meanwhile, are coming to Toledo's defense.

Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann's office will take up half of Toledo's 15 minutes to defend Ohio's law, while the city of Cleveland, which has a similar ordinance, has filed a brief supporting Toledo.

"I'm surprised other municipalities didn't weigh in," said Victor Perez, Cleveland's chief prosecutor.

"Last year we had a mailman attacked by a pit bull that broke through a door," he said. "There were no warning signs. He is still going through physical rehabilitation."

Mr. Tellings, formerly of East Toledo and now living in Petersburg, Mich., owned two American pit bull terriers and a mixed breed fitting the description of a pit bull when a health inspector conducting a routine lead-paint home inspection reported him in 2003.

Mr. Tellings was convicted in Toledo Municipal Court of one count of owning more than one vicious dog and two counts of failing to obtain at least $100,000 in liability insurance for the dogs. He kept one dog and gave a second away. The third, Baby Girl, was confiscated and destroyed.

"My dogs have never attacked anyone," Mr. Tellings said.

"They say people with pit bulls are drug dealers or gang-bangers," he said. "I work for Edison. They stereotype somebody because of the type of dog they have, which is wrong. I was doing nothing but sitting at home with my dogs."

On appeal, the 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo declared the city ordinance "unreasonable" for failing to provide an opportunity for an owner to challenge a dog warden's determination that a family pet is a pit bill or vicious.

The Supreme Court issued a stay allowing Toledo to continue enforcing its ordinance while the appeal continues.

Last year, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon's office confiscated a record 998 pit bulls. He said many of those that did not show signs of dog fighting, were not picked up in drug raids, or were not involving in biting incidents were ultimately returned to their owners.

In 2004, the state Supreme Court struck down much of Ohio's vicious dog law on due-process grounds in Portage County. Cities like Toledo and Cleveland, however, have continued to enforce their ordinance as it applies to pit bulls, determining there were no due-process problems when state law specifically singles out the breed as vicious.

Contact Jim Provance at:
or 614-221-0496.

Banning One Breed of Dog Will Not Solve Problem

I found this article very interesting and on a subject I've never written about. This article is in the New West Boise.

In Ontario, we have to tag our cats and bylaw prevents them from roaming. If they happen to venture off your property, the owner is in violation although I've never heard of anyone being issued a fine.

Banning One Breed of Dog Will Not Solve Problem
By Dawn Capp, Guest Writer, 4-03-07

I’m writing to respond to Cari Elmore’s drive to have pit bulls banned from the city because, sadly, her beloved cat was attacked by a pit bull. It’s always hard to lose a pet that’s part of one’s family, or to watch it suffer. My own 45-pound pit bull, a certified service dog, was mauled in our own backyard by a neighbor’s cat that jumped the fence. The cat escaped unharmed.

After all, my dog, Tauri, has grown up with cats and adores our own black kitty, Jax. The story of Tauri being mauled by a loose cat made local and national news. Many laughed at the pit bull, who has never harmed a creature in her seven years of life, being viciously attacked by a cat, yet no one laughs when a pit bull attacks another animal.

Breed discrimination, it is quite apparent, runs rampant through communities.

Elmore believes that because her cat weighed as much as a small child that a child may be the next victim.

Certainly all animals, cats and dogs alike, are capable of harming a small child. In fact, my 45-pound pit bull weighs more that Elmore’s unfortunate cat, and yet I wonder how many people worry that a cat will jump into their backyard and attack their child.

These types of attacks happen quite frequently as it turns out. As a child, my good friend went into the garage to see what her dad was working on and a cat jumped from the rafters and attacked her. Just recently, in Fairfield, Conn., a crazy cat named Lewis made news when he terrorized residents.

Laws should focus on owner responsibiilty and individual animal temperaments, regardless of breed.

In Ontario, Canada, a German Sheperd and boxer-husky mix killed a pit bull that was also someone’s beloved pet. Within minutes of the attack, the unfortunate pit bull, Dayton, lay dying in the street, his intestines spilling onto the snow.

No one called for a ban on German Shepherds, boxers, and huskies, even though, surely, if these two dogs could so easily kill a pit bull then they could certain kill a child.

All dogs and all cats have the potential to be dangerous. Trying to exterminate one breed of dog will do nothing to solve the problem of dangerous animals, as Tauri and Dayton have learned first hand.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Lab Gets New Attention in Pet Food Case

I can imagine the calls coming in just by the way the stores and animal hospitals are. I myself, when I saw the Hill's Prescription dry feline cat food contacted my vet to see if the food my sick cat, Petu was on could have been the reason he died. I was assured he was on the Hill's W/D formula which wasn't on the recall list and once they told me, it jarred my memory recalling they were right.

To lose him was stressful enough, but thinking he might have gotten better if not poisoned make me feel really terrible. Knowing that wasn't the case means we did everything possible to save him and I feel much better with that, but the panic that took over when I thought it a possibility, upset me to no end.

It wouldn't have brought Petu back, but suddenly I wanted to be compensated by the food company for not only the loss of my beloved pet, but all the expense I paid on medication that I was paying out for his illness. Now I can definitely relate to those who have lost their pets to the tainted foods. It's such a horrible feeling that just by feeding your pets (something you just take forgranted) is now such a frightening thing as more foods are being recalled.

The Animal Hospital that I take my fur-family to says they get so many calls daily regarding foods.

Lab Gets New Attention in Pet Food Case
By Mark Johnson
April 2, 2007 7:36AM

Scientists at the New York State Food Laboratory have long gone about their business with little fanfare, analyzing about 20,000 food samples a year in a facility that looks more like a high school chemistry lab than cutting edge workplace. The lab has been around for decades, but became part of FERN after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of the government's effort to protect the nation's animals and food supply.

Tucked away in a nondescript state office park, scientists at the New York State Food Laboratory have for years quietly gone about their business testing products destined for grocery store shelves.

The obscurity, however, ended abruptly last week as the lab, with 10 of its researchers on the case, made a crucial breakthrough in the testing of pet food believed to be responsible for animal deaths across the country. Using sophisticated drug screening panels, the lab determined a banned rodent poison called aminopterin might be killing the household pets.

The lab is part of Food Emergency Response Network, a federally supported group of state and federal facilities with expertise in testing food for chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. With a staff of about 40 chemists, microbiologists and technicians, the lab is one of a few dozen state-level facilities capable of doing such tests and regularly screens foods for pesticides.

Unable to pinpoint what was wrong with the pet food with their own equipment, scientists at Cornell University sent samples of the tainted pet food to Albany. Chemists there quickly got to work, three days before a nationwide recall of 95 pet food brands manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario, Canada. Numerous tests eliminated hundreds of possibilities, from heavy metals to deadly fungus.

In a matter of days, the researchers zeroed in on aminopterin, a derivative of folic acid that was once used to induce abortions and is also used in cancer research. It can cause cancer and birth defects in humans and kidney damage in dogs and cats.

"We brought about 100 years of combined expertise to bear on this," said lab Director Daniel Rice. "Trouble shooting with each other was a real asset in this case."

Scientists there have long gone about their business with little fanfare, analyzing about 20,000 samples a year in a facility that looks more like a high school chemistry lab than cutting edge workplace. The lab has been around for decades, but became part of FERN after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of the government's effort to protect the nation's animals and food supply.

Now the lab's scientists have gotten more attention than they bargained for.

"It's been very stressful," said Virginia Greene, an associate food chemist. "We were triple checking our methodology. There are some skeptics and we have to fend them off. ... When you have a result like this, it starts casting more doubt than enthusiasm. It's bizarre how science works like that."