http://www.prweb.com/releases/Cass-Sunstein/Animal-Rights/prweb1868134.htm
http://tinyurl.com/83pu42
Obama 'Regulatory Czar' has Secret Animal-Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group
Washington, D.C. (Vocus/PRWEB ) January 15, 2009 -- The nonprofit Center
for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard
University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to
push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein
supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file
lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.
In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of
entirely "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating." He also
proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose
other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."
Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New
Directions" that "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human
beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring
suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe
guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those
obligations, on their clients' behalf."
The Center for Consumer Freedom's Director of Research, David Martosko,
is available to discuss Cass Sunstein's likely impact on typical
elements of American life that involve the use of animals. Sunstein's
work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and
dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership,
zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things
Americans take for granted.
Mr. Martosko said: "Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of
his animal rights agenda as America's top regulator. Americans don't
realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives
plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about
every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States
have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law.
This doesn't look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical
researchers, or ordinary pet owners."
For an interview with Mr. Martosko about how Cass Sunstein's appointment
will serve the radical animal rights movement's agenda in the White
House, or for more information, contact Sarah Kapenstein at 202-463-7112.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
News from the House Agriculture Committee
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Media Contacts:
April Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
WASHINGTON - Agriculture Committee Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
announced the Members of Congress selected to serve on the
House Agriculture Committee for the 111th Congress today.
The House Democratic Steering Committee, including 11 freshmen Members and
17 returning Members, to serve on the House Agriculture
Committee. The House Republican Conference has named 17 Republicans to serve
on the Committee and has left one seat vacant.
"The Agriculture Committee is responsible for issues as varied as farm
programs, commodity markets, nutrition, conservation,
renewable energy, and rural development, so the diverse experiences of these
Members will bring new ideas and energy to our work on
these important issues," Chair Peterson said.
The 28 Democrats who will serve on the committee are:
. Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
. Representative Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
. Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
. Representative Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa
. Representative Joe Baca of California
. Representative Dennis A. Cardoza of California
. Representative David Scott of Georgia
. Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia
. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas
. Representative Jim Costa of California
. Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
. Representative Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota
. Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York
. Representative Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
. Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
. Representative Deborah L. Halvorson of Illinois
. Representative Kathleen A. Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania
. Representative Eric J. J. Massa of New York
. Representative Bobby Bright of Alabama
. Representative Betsy Markey of Colorado
. Representative Frank Kratovil, Jr. of Maryland
. Representative Mark H. Schauer of Michigan
. Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina
. Representative John A. Boccieri of Ohio
. Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi
. Representative Walt Minnick of Idaho
The 17 Republicans (with one additional vacant seat) who will serve on the
Committee are:
. Ranking Member Frank Lucas of Oklahoma
. Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
. Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas
. Representative Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois
. Representative Sam Graves of Missouri
. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama
. Representative Steve King of Iowa
. Representative Randy Neugebauer of Texas
. Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
. Representative K. Michael Conaway of Texas
. Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
. Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio
. Representative Adrian Smith of Nebraska
. Representative Robert E. Latta of Ohio
. Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee
. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
. Representative Glenn W. Thompson of Pennsylvania
. one vacancy
The House Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of
agriculture and rural development issues. These areas include
renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition, crop insurance,
conservation, international trade, futures market regulation,
animal and plant health, agricultural research, bioterrorism, forestry, and
others.
Congressman Peterson has served as chair of the Agriculture Committee since
2007.
###
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site
http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and
other subjects.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Media Contacts:
April Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496
Agriculture Committee Chair Peterson Announces Agriculture Committee Members
WASHINGTON - Agriculture Committee Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
announced the Members of Congress selected to serve on the
House Agriculture Committee for the 111th Congress today.
The House Democratic Steering Committee, including 11 freshmen Members and
17 returning Members, to serve on the House Agriculture
Committee. The House Republican Conference has named 17 Republicans to serve
on the Committee and has left one seat vacant.
"The Agriculture Committee is responsible for issues as varied as farm
programs, commodity markets, nutrition, conservation,
renewable energy, and rural development, so the diverse experiences of these
Members will bring new ideas and energy to our work on
these important issues," Chair Peterson said.
The 28 Democrats who will serve on the committee are:
. Chair Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
. Representative Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
. Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
. Representative Leonard L. Boswell of Iowa
. Representative Joe Baca of California
. Representative Dennis A. Cardoza of California
. Representative David Scott of Georgia
. Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia
. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota
. Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas
. Representative Jim Costa of California
. Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
. Representative Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota
. Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York
. Representative Steve Kagen of Wisconsin
. Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
. Representative Deborah L. Halvorson of Illinois
. Representative Kathleen A. Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania
. Representative Eric J. J. Massa of New York
. Representative Bobby Bright of Alabama
. Representative Betsy Markey of Colorado
. Representative Frank Kratovil, Jr. of Maryland
. Representative Mark H. Schauer of Michigan
. Representative Larry Kissell of North Carolina
. Representative John A. Boccieri of Ohio
. Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota
. Representative Travis W. Childers of Mississippi
. Representative Walt Minnick of Idaho
The 17 Republicans (with one additional vacant seat) who will serve on the
Committee are:
. Ranking Member Frank Lucas of Oklahoma
. Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia
. Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas
. Representative Timothy V. Johnson of Illinois
. Representative Sam Graves of Missouri
. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama
. Representative Steve King of Iowa
. Representative Randy Neugebauer of Texas
. Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina
. Representative K. Michael Conaway of Texas
. Representative Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
. Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio
. Representative Adrian Smith of Nebraska
. Representative Robert E. Latta of Ohio
. Representative Phil Roe of Tennessee
. Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri
. Representative Glenn W. Thompson of Pennsylvania
. one vacancy
The House Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of
agriculture and rural development issues. These areas include
renewable energy, disaster assistance, nutrition, crop insurance,
conservation, international trade, futures market regulation,
animal and plant health, agricultural research, bioterrorism, forestry, and
others.
Congressman Peterson has served as chair of the Agriculture Committee since
2007.
###
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture web site
http://agriculture.house.gov has additional information on this and
other subjects.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
An "Overpopulation" Problem? Maybe, but not with dogs
by Cadie Pruss
“The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country”- 2008 James E. Casorio, Jr. Pennsylvania state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County
Have dogs reached the point of Overpopulation in this country? No. “Overpopulation” occurs when a species has grown beyond its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can be sustained without depleting the resources necessary to maintain the population. When carrying capacity has been exceeded, overpopulation of that species has occurred and the subsequent changes in the environment begin to limit the population, thus causing a reduction in the population.
Some may argue that the mere fact that animals in shelters are put down is a sure sign that overpopulation has occurred, but that test dose not meet the accepted biological definition of Overpopulation. There are plenty of resources such as food, water and shelter, (the only true necessities of life) to sustain the current population of all dogs, including a feral population of Carolina Dogs living in remote areas of South Carolina and Georgia.
If an Overpopulation problem was occurring nationwide, feral populations such as the Carolina Dogs would be subject to pressure from domestic dogs. This pressure would include fighting for resources such as food and suitable shelter. With increased pressures on limited resources, the Carolina Dog, and all domestic dogs vying for the resources would suffer from an increase in disease outbreaks. This is not occurring and to date, the Carolina Dog has not hybridized with other domestic dogs, indicating that this population has remained isolated. In an Overpopulation scenario, no contiguous population would remain uneffected.
Money is not one of the true necessities of life, but it seems that there is no shortage of that either when it comes to dogs in America. According to WikiAnswers, the average American dog owner spends $2000 per year on their dog, and charitable organizations working to “save unwanted dogs” are raking in donations. According to statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), pet ownership is at an all time high with 63% of all households owning a pet (“pets” refer to more than just dogs in the APPMA statistics). Nope, there is no shortage of the “resource” money when it comes to dogs.
But seriously, lets talk about Overpopulation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population division, as of December 1, 2008 there were 6,740,604,309 people in the world with 305,786,924 of those people in the United States. The APPMA estimates there are 73,000,000 dogs in the United States, which is only 1 dog for every 4 people in this country. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the United States is currently 77.8 years. The average life expectancy of a dog living in North America is 12.8 years. One person’s life span is equal to the life span of 6 dogs.
The average American (over the age of 4) needs about 2,350 calories per day. To determine the number of calories a dog needs, they are generally grouped into 3 categories of small, medium and large. In general, a small dog needs about 40 calories per pound of body weight per day, while a medium sized dog needs about 30 calories per pound per day and a large dog only needs about 20 calories per pound per day. So using a thirty-pound dog (considered “medium” size) as an example, 30 calories/ pound/ day x 30 pound dog= 900 calories a day, so the average thirty pound dog needs about 900 calories per day. Strictly from a calorie consumption standpoint, each day 1 person = 6 small dogs, 3 medium dogs or 2 large dogs. Over a lifetime, 1 person = 35 small dogs, 16 medium dogs, or 13 large dogs. According to the Center For Science in The Public Interest, food is still considered abundant in the United States. The Center For Science in The Public Interest claims there are 3,800 calories available in the food supply for each person each day. That is an extra 1,450 calories per day, per person (or an extra 1.6 medium dogs, per person). The amount of “available calories” we just calculated didn’t even take into account the food sources that are “available” to those 73 million dogs, because what they are fed is generally not considered fit for human consumption. So, if we added the 1.6 “extra” dogs/per person (305,786,924 x 1.6= 489259078.4) and then add the existing 73 million dogs, we get 35,715,912,723,200,000- and this is the number of dogs we have enough calories to feed in the U.S. currently. That is a lot of dogs. It appears that in the U.S., food is not the dog limiting resource.
Average lifespan in years: Person 77.8 Dog 12.8 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 6
Calorie needs per day: Person 2,350 Dog 900 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 35
Water use in gallons per day: Person 123 Dog 0.25 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 492
trash produced in pounds per day: Person 4.6 Dog 0 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 4.6
Dogs don’t need to live in houses. The Carolina Dogs and a thriving population of Coyotes and foxes prove that dogs can do just fine with the shelter that Nature provides, but if we feel that dogs do need to live in a human home, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey in 2001, there are 119,117,000 housing units in the United States. Although this number has increased since 2001, it won’t match the thirty-five quadrillion, seven hundred fifteen trillion, nine hundred twelve billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, two hundred thousand dogs we can caloricly care for in this country- so our dog carrying capacity has been reduced by the availability of shelter, but even still, 119,117,000 homes is still greater than the 73,000,000 dogs in this country. So shelter is not the limiting factor so far.
The average American uses about 123 gallons of water each day! People use water for more than just drinking, people shower (15-30 gallons), wash the dishes (9-12 gallons if you use a dishwasher, 20 gallons if you wash them by hand), flush the toilet (5-7 gallons) and the list of uses goes on and on. Dogs typically drink about 1 quart of water a day (depending on size of the dog of course). So once again we convert people to dogs, and we get 1 person equals 492 dogs. Water is not the limiting factor either.
An outbreak of Zoonotic Diseases from dogs to humans has not occurred in recent U.S. history, nor has a dog-dog outbreak occurred. Disease outbreaks are typical in populations reaching carrying capacity. It is one of natures ways of limiting populations. Clearly Overpopulation of dogs is not occurring in this country. How ever, people may need to begin to limit the human population expansion.
In 2002 the National Wildlife Federation stated the population of the United States was 282,000,000 and that equated to 31 people per square Kilometer (sq. Km) (or 50 people per square mile). According to consumption figures distributed by the National Wildlife Federation in that year, for every 100 humans in the United States, there are 489 cars. Americans consumed 1,688 liters of motor gasoline per capita each year. The average American household produces 100 pounds of trash each week and our demand for wood and forest products has resulted in the loss of 96% of our country’s original forests. Dogs don’t buy cars, use gas, produce trash, or use wood and forest products. Even 100 dogs don’t equal the resource consumption of 1 American. People might do all of these things FOR their dog, but feral dogs do not do any of those things themselves.
The land area of the United States is 9,158,960 sq. Km (or 5691,114sq. miles), so in 6 short years the American population expanded 23,786,924 people, while the United States land area expanded 0, and we now have 33 people per sq. Km (or 54 people per sq. mile).. At this rate, American’s may be experiencing an Overpopulation problem- but not dogs.
Sources:
National Wildlife Federation, Population & Consumption https://secure.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/popandconsumption2002.pdf
Center For Science in The Public Interest Nutrition Policy- http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/food_advertising.html
ABC News: What’s Your Dog’s Eating Habits http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=1905511&page=4
Pimentel, D. et. al, 1999 Will Limits Of The Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?
http://www.dieoff.org/page174.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm
Decline in Pet numbers blamed on shrinking backyards
http://www.vetclick.com/news/view_article.php?ArticleId=272
Netscape Home & Living- It’s Reigning Cats and Dogs: How many pets are in the U.S.?
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/homerealestate/feature.jsp?story=rainingcatsanddogs
US Census Bureau American Housing Survey
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
Science Fact Finder- How much Water Does An Average Person Use Each Day
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-water-does-an-average-person-use-each-day
Yukon Quest Sled Dogs
http://www.yukonquest.com/site/water-water-everywhere/
“The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country”- 2008 James E. Casorio, Jr. Pennsylvania state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County
Have dogs reached the point of Overpopulation in this country? No. “Overpopulation” occurs when a species has grown beyond its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can be sustained without depleting the resources necessary to maintain the population. When carrying capacity has been exceeded, overpopulation of that species has occurred and the subsequent changes in the environment begin to limit the population, thus causing a reduction in the population.
Some may argue that the mere fact that animals in shelters are put down is a sure sign that overpopulation has occurred, but that test dose not meet the accepted biological definition of Overpopulation. There are plenty of resources such as food, water and shelter, (the only true necessities of life) to sustain the current population of all dogs, including a feral population of Carolina Dogs living in remote areas of South Carolina and Georgia.
If an Overpopulation problem was occurring nationwide, feral populations such as the Carolina Dogs would be subject to pressure from domestic dogs. This pressure would include fighting for resources such as food and suitable shelter. With increased pressures on limited resources, the Carolina Dog, and all domestic dogs vying for the resources would suffer from an increase in disease outbreaks. This is not occurring and to date, the Carolina Dog has not hybridized with other domestic dogs, indicating that this population has remained isolated. In an Overpopulation scenario, no contiguous population would remain uneffected.
Money is not one of the true necessities of life, but it seems that there is no shortage of that either when it comes to dogs in America. According to WikiAnswers, the average American dog owner spends $2000 per year on their dog, and charitable organizations working to “save unwanted dogs” are raking in donations. According to statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), pet ownership is at an all time high with 63% of all households owning a pet (“pets” refer to more than just dogs in the APPMA statistics). Nope, there is no shortage of the “resource” money when it comes to dogs.
But seriously, lets talk about Overpopulation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population division, as of December 1, 2008 there were 6,740,604,309 people in the world with 305,786,924 of those people in the United States. The APPMA estimates there are 73,000,000 dogs in the United States, which is only 1 dog for every 4 people in this country. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the United States is currently 77.8 years. The average life expectancy of a dog living in North America is 12.8 years. One person’s life span is equal to the life span of 6 dogs.
The average American (over the age of 4) needs about 2,350 calories per day. To determine the number of calories a dog needs, they are generally grouped into 3 categories of small, medium and large. In general, a small dog needs about 40 calories per pound of body weight per day, while a medium sized dog needs about 30 calories per pound per day and a large dog only needs about 20 calories per pound per day. So using a thirty-pound dog (considered “medium” size) as an example, 30 calories/ pound/ day x 30 pound dog= 900 calories a day, so the average thirty pound dog needs about 900 calories per day. Strictly from a calorie consumption standpoint, each day 1 person = 6 small dogs, 3 medium dogs or 2 large dogs. Over a lifetime, 1 person = 35 small dogs, 16 medium dogs, or 13 large dogs. According to the Center For Science in The Public Interest, food is still considered abundant in the United States. The Center For Science in The Public Interest claims there are 3,800 calories available in the food supply for each person each day. That is an extra 1,450 calories per day, per person (or an extra 1.6 medium dogs, per person). The amount of “available calories” we just calculated didn’t even take into account the food sources that are “available” to those 73 million dogs, because what they are fed is generally not considered fit for human consumption. So, if we added the 1.6 “extra” dogs/per person (305,786,924 x 1.6= 489259078.4) and then add the existing 73 million dogs, we get 35,715,912,723,200,000- and this is the number of dogs we have enough calories to feed in the U.S. currently. That is a lot of dogs. It appears that in the U.S., food is not the dog limiting resource.
Average lifespan in years: Person 77.8 Dog 12.8 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 6
Calorie needs per day: Person 2,350 Dog 900 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 35
Water use in gallons per day: Person 123 Dog 0.25 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 492
trash produced in pounds per day: Person 4.6 Dog 0 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 4.6
Dogs don’t need to live in houses. The Carolina Dogs and a thriving population of Coyotes and foxes prove that dogs can do just fine with the shelter that Nature provides, but if we feel that dogs do need to live in a human home, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey in 2001, there are 119,117,000 housing units in the United States. Although this number has increased since 2001, it won’t match the thirty-five quadrillion, seven hundred fifteen trillion, nine hundred twelve billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, two hundred thousand dogs we can caloricly care for in this country- so our dog carrying capacity has been reduced by the availability of shelter, but even still, 119,117,000 homes is still greater than the 73,000,000 dogs in this country. So shelter is not the limiting factor so far.
The average American uses about 123 gallons of water each day! People use water for more than just drinking, people shower (15-30 gallons), wash the dishes (9-12 gallons if you use a dishwasher, 20 gallons if you wash them by hand), flush the toilet (5-7 gallons) and the list of uses goes on and on. Dogs typically drink about 1 quart of water a day (depending on size of the dog of course). So once again we convert people to dogs, and we get 1 person equals 492 dogs. Water is not the limiting factor either.
An outbreak of Zoonotic Diseases from dogs to humans has not occurred in recent U.S. history, nor has a dog-dog outbreak occurred. Disease outbreaks are typical in populations reaching carrying capacity. It is one of natures ways of limiting populations. Clearly Overpopulation of dogs is not occurring in this country. How ever, people may need to begin to limit the human population expansion.
In 2002 the National Wildlife Federation stated the population of the United States was 282,000,000 and that equated to 31 people per square Kilometer (sq. Km) (or 50 people per square mile). According to consumption figures distributed by the National Wildlife Federation in that year, for every 100 humans in the United States, there are 489 cars. Americans consumed 1,688 liters of motor gasoline per capita each year. The average American household produces 100 pounds of trash each week and our demand for wood and forest products has resulted in the loss of 96% of our country’s original forests. Dogs don’t buy cars, use gas, produce trash, or use wood and forest products. Even 100 dogs don’t equal the resource consumption of 1 American. People might do all of these things FOR their dog, but feral dogs do not do any of those things themselves.
The land area of the United States is 9,158,960 sq. Km (or 5691,114sq. miles), so in 6 short years the American population expanded 23,786,924 people, while the United States land area expanded 0, and we now have 33 people per sq. Km (or 54 people per sq. mile).. At this rate, American’s may be experiencing an Overpopulation problem- but not dogs.
Sources:
National Wildlife Federation, Population & Consumption https://secure.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/popandconsumption2002.pdf
Center For Science in The Public Interest Nutrition Policy- http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/food_advertising.html
ABC News: What’s Your Dog’s Eating Habits http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=1905511&page=4
Pimentel, D. et. al, 1999 Will Limits Of The Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?
http://www.dieoff.org/page174.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm
Decline in Pet numbers blamed on shrinking backyards
http://www.vetclick.com/news/view_article.php?ArticleId=272
Netscape Home & Living- It’s Reigning Cats and Dogs: How many pets are in the U.S.?
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/homerealestate/feature.jsp?story=rainingcatsanddogs
US Census Bureau American Housing Survey
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
Science Fact Finder- How much Water Does An Average Person Use Each Day
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-water-does-an-average-person-use-each-day
Yukon Quest Sled Dogs
http://www.yukonquest.com/site/water-water-everywhere/
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thank You Vice-President Elect Joseph Biden
Thank You Vice-President Elect Joseph Biden for choosing a purebred puppy from a BREEDER!
AP Malia and Sasha Obama apparently aren’t the only ones who were promised a puppy if they stuck it out through the presidential election.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden picked out a German shepherd pup last weekend from a breeder near his Delaware home, according to a local newspaper report.
Biden was reportedly promised the post-election dog by his wife, Jill, who would tape pictures of different dogs on the back of the seat in front of Biden on his campaign plane.
The vice president-elect picked out a month-old male German shepherd from a breeder in Chester County, Pa., according to the Daily Local News. The breeder told the paper Biden wanted a family dog that was social and obedient and said Biden's granddaughters will name him.
The puppy will be delivered to the Bidens at the vice presidential residence after the Inauguration and after the breeder trains him, the paper reports.
AP Malia and Sasha Obama apparently aren’t the only ones who were promised a puppy if they stuck it out through the presidential election.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden picked out a German shepherd pup last weekend from a breeder near his Delaware home, according to a local newspaper report.
Biden was reportedly promised the post-election dog by his wife, Jill, who would tape pictures of different dogs on the back of the seat in front of Biden on his campaign plane.
The vice president-elect picked out a month-old male German shepherd from a breeder in Chester County, Pa., according to the Daily Local News. The breeder told the paper Biden wanted a family dog that was social and obedient and said Biden's granddaughters will name him.
The puppy will be delivered to the Bidens at the vice presidential residence after the Inauguration and after the breeder trains him, the paper reports.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Unintended Consequences
When laws are enacted based on emotion, and not on necessity, there are often unintended consequences. If you are a proponent of the new dog law, was it your intention that hobby breeders "put down" older dogs just to keep the numbers down? I think not. I think it was your intent that breeder would stop having young dogs. Well, one unintended consequence may just be fewer older dogs.
Here is a question that was posed on a list the other day from a hobby breeder in PA. "Where does that leave us who have Hobby Kennels who are not commercial.... . We breed for show. What should we do with our older dogs who add to the numbers but have lived here for 10 to 15 years? They are neutered, should we put them down to reduce our numbers? They have a right to live out their lives the way they were used to living."
No matter what your good intention (you person who insisted that Numbers of dogs are the manner for which Kennels should be defined)- all actions come with consequences. For one, the consequence of feeling pressure to keep the number of dogs within some arbitrary number (determined not by the person is is actually caring for the dogs, but by someone else who is judging that person by the number of dogs they have) is fewer older dogs.
Here is a question that was posed on a list the other day from a hobby breeder in PA. "Where does that leave us who have Hobby Kennels who are not commercial.... . We breed for show. What should we do with our older dogs who add to the numbers but have lived here for 10 to 15 years? They are neutered, should we put them down to reduce our numbers? They have a right to live out their lives the way they were used to living."
No matter what your good intention (you person who insisted that Numbers of dogs are the manner for which Kennels should be defined)- all actions come with consequences. For one, the consequence of feeling pressure to keep the number of dogs within some arbitrary number (determined not by the person is is actually caring for the dogs, but by someone else who is judging that person by the number of dogs they have) is fewer older dogs.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Good Pet colum gets bad comments from a Law Maker
This good article was pulished in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Abandonment is not just a dog and cat issue
By Cadie Pruss, Humanitarian and animal lover
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
See how people are! When the behaviors become intolerable, just give the beast to a shelter (or the Hospital). No, I am not talking about dogs- I am talking about CHILDREN.
THANK YOU NEBRASKA. You have clearly demonstrated that if it is made legal, people will even give up THEIR OWN KIDS. On July 18, 2008 legislation was passed in the State of Nebraska (Bill 158) "For an Act relating to children; to prohibit prosecution for leaving a child at the hospital; .....
Section 1. No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child." Well there you have it.
Nebraska Lawmakers had NO IDEA that people would ABANDON "children"- they were thinking BABIES! "Safe Haven" laws have been enacted in 47 states and Puerto Rico. The focus is on Newborns, but poor Nebraska- their well-intentioned lawmakers didn't want to appear to be protecting 2 day old babies, but not 3 day old babies, so they made their law a little vaguer than other States.
From July 24 (when the law was enacted) to October 31, 24 children- NONE of them Newborns- were abandoned in Nebraska hospitals. Parents from three other states have traveled great distances to abandon their children without prosecution. One of those abandon children was 17 YEARS old!! Don't worry- it will soon be illegal in Nebraska too. Lawmakers will be meeting November 14 to revise the law and set an age limit (tired of your children?, moving?, can't pay for college?- better abandon them quickly- time is running out!)
Answer quick now: Wayne Parcel is to shelter dogs as ______________ is to children in the welfare program?
Don't know? Yeah- me either.
Seriously- MILLIONS of dollars are donated to support HSUS. THOUSANDS of people give small amounts of money at a time to "help homeless dogs and cats". What are those same people doing for unwanted children? I am not talking about the $5 you gave to "feed the starving child in Africa"- I am talking about the children right here in our country who are doomed to poverty, jail, drugs, crime, and other social problems because they were not wanted or cared for.
You want to make a difference for People AND animals- lets talk about RESPONSIBILITY! Abandonment is NOT responsible. We don't talk about "having babies" as irresponsible (unless you are an Animal Rights activist talking about people who breed animals). The act of bringing new life is not what is irresponsible. The act of no longer caring for that life is what is irresponsible. Abandonment of all kinds is Irresponsible- animals or people. That is the TRUE and ONLY issue.
Caring for people makes for a "Humane Society".
Sources:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/father-leaves-n.html
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/10/31/abandon.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2203780/entry/0/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)