I need to protest a pet store that sells puppies, and get a city ordinance put in place that prohibits the sale of puppies within city limits.

...Any tips on where to start? I'm going to contact St. Louis Animal Rights Team, who was instrumental in getting Petland to close there, for tips on organizing a protest, and ask Mark, Rob's roommate who is a law student, on how to change city ordinance. But there's probably something better I can do, so please tell me what it is.

My coworker and I went to get ice cream at Baskin-Robbins the other day. He got two scoops--one of the Republican flavor (Red State Crunch), and one of the Democratic flavor (Whirl of Change). You couldn't tell them apart, except that Red State Crunch had nuts in it.

True story.

I (my abortion protest videos) was linked to.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2006/05/restraining_ord.html

Biscuits, Not Rolls
Why you should never use the "alpha roll" (and what to do instead).

By Pat Miller, in the July 2006 Whole Dog Journal

Teddy's owners were distraught as they explained to me on the phone why they had called. Their veterinarian had told them that their nine-week-old Golden Retriever puppy was "dominant aggressive" because he was biting their hands. He had advised them to alpha-roll the pup every time he tried to bite or otherwise challenge their authority. They'd been following the vet's instructions for a week, and Teddy's aggression was getting seriously worse. They feared the would have to euthanize their pup. We made an emergency same-day appointment for a behavior consultation. ( Read more... )

( Oops, you lose! )

Tags: animal welfare, dogs, public reference

From the March/April 2006 issue of The Bark
By Patricia B. McConnell, PhD
( That was then, this is now. Beyond the 'dominance paradigm' )

Tags: animal welfare, public reference

Myth Busters
by Sydney Bleicher & Peggy van Dam

( from the Winter 05 issue of The Bark )

This was posted by Pam Dennison on her positive dogs yahoo group. (Elegy, I apologize for lifting things from your journal, but couldn't find a damn web link to the article.)

From Andrew Luescher, DVM, Veterinary Behaviorist

Animal Behavior Clinic

Purdue

"I reviewed the four preview-videotapes kindly submitted to me by National Geographic. I very much appreciate having gotten the opportunity to see these tapes before the program goes on the air. I will be happy to review any programs that deal with domestic animal behavior and training. I believe this is a responsibility of our profession. I have been involved in continuing education for dog trainers for over10 years, first through the "How Dogs Learn" program at the University of Guelph (Ontario Veterinary College) and then through the DOGS! Course at Purdue University. I therefore know very well where dog training stands today, and I must tell you that Millan's techniques are outdated and unacceptable not only to the veterinary community, but also to dog trainers. The first question regarding the above mentioned tapes I have is this: The show repeatedly cautions the viewers not to attempt these techniques at home. What then is the purpose of this show? I think we have to be realistic: people will try these techniques at home, much to the detriment of their pets. Millan's techniques are almost exclusively based on two techniques: Flooding and positive punishment. In flooding, an animal is exposed toa fear (or aggression) evoking stimulus and prevented from leaving the situation, until it stops reacting. To take a human example: arachnophobia would be treated by locking a person into a closet, releasing hundreds of spiders into that closet, and keeping the door shut until the person stops reacting. The person might be cured by that, but also might be severely disturbed and would have gone through an excessive amount of stress. Flooding has therefore always been considered a risky and cruel method of treatment. Positive punishment refers to applying an aversive stimulus orcorrection as a consequence of a behavior. There are many concerns about punishment aside from its unpleasantness. Punishment is entirely inappropriate for most types of aggression and for any behavior that involves anxiety. Punishment can suppress most behavior but does not resolve the underlying problem, i.e., the fear or anxiety. Even in cases where correctly applied punishment might be considered appropriate, many conditions have to be met that most dog owners can't meet: The punishment has to be applied every time the behavior is displayed, within ½ second of the behavior, and at the correct intensity."

"Most of the theoretical explanations that Millan gives regarding causes of the behavior problems are wrong. Not one of these dogs had any issue with dominance. Not one of these dogs wanted to control their owners. What he was right about was that calmness and consistency are extremely important, but they don't make the presented methods appropriate or justifiable."

"The last episode (compulsive disorder) is particularly unsettling because compulsive disorder is related to an imbalance in neurotransmitter levels or receptors, and is therefore unequivocally a medical condition. Would it be appropriate to treat obsessive compulsive disorder in people with punishment? Or have a layperson go around treating such patients?"

"My colleagues and I and innumerable leaders in the dog training community have worked now for decades to eliminate such cruel, ineffective (in terms of true cure) and inappropriate techniques. "

Tags: animal welfare, public reference

Ms. Grandin acknowledges that Labrador retrievers have been bred for a solid, low-fear temperament and a high tolerance for pain, but still demonizes "vicious" dog breeds by saying that because they have been bred for a certain look, they have also inherited aggression and "dominance" along with that look (pg. 237). This is to completely ignore the fact that a big component of selection criteria for backyard breeders of pits and Rotties and other "vicious" breeds is temperament--the dogs with terrible, aggressive temperaments are the ones who get to breed. If the dogs who kill people were all purebred show dogs who had been bred for appearance, then I would grant her that point, but until someone gives me a better reason, I would say that breeding FOR aggression is the major reason for aggression in certain breeds.

In fact, Ms. Grandin even says that other dogs have had the high-popularity, high-aggression correlation in the past (pg. 149), yet doesn't make the connection between the selection criteria and their popularity. When GSDs became popular, it was not because a large number of people decided that they wanted a protective-yet-friendly companion dog that was intelligent and had pointy ears; it was because a segment of people decided that GSDs looked scary, were big, and could be trained to bite other people. Once an original group had the desired aggression, these people bred the most aggressive dogs to sell to other people who wanted aggressive dogs, and the cycle continued. But the major selection criterion was not "pointy ears," or even the collection of traits that make a shepherd a shepherd, it was "Will this dog bite at the slightest provocation?" That is why, if we were to go look at dogs that present with aggression (say, let's go to St. Louis city and walk past peoples' dogs, noting which ones snapped at us), I am certain very few would meet any semblance of their breed standard. They were bred mostly for temperament, not looks.

Where this converges is at the point where we get pit bulls who look like ugly lumps of muscle AND are aggressive, or where we get Labs with big blocky heads AND low reactivity. Those dogs are bred for both looks AND temperament, and those dogs combine the best or worst aims of their breeders. What I would like to know is why a Lab can be bred for a certain look AND a certain personality/temperament, and a pit bull cannot. In Animals in Translation, it seems as though Ms. Grandin is saying that as people bred Rottweilers (for this is her chosen scapegoat breed) for big frames and blocky heads and orange eyebrows, they totally ignored temperament and wound up with "dominant" dogs, yet as people bred Labs, they considered temperament as important as looks and wound up with "good" dogs. Whatever kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to believe this, I want no part of it. Is it so unthinkable that people would deliberately backyard-breed dogs for aggression?

Ms. Grandin's specialty, however, is farm animals, so I don't really hold it against her as much that she doesn't acknowledge the idea of breeding for temperament. However, this is a place where I think she should have stuck with what she's good at (and she is wonderful about farm animals) and just not spread the myth that because an animal has physical attributes similar to a pit bull or Rottweiler, it will automatically be a "dominant" dog. I won't even touch the "dominance" thing, because I think it is SO overblown, but I am pleased to see that she does not advocate nonsense like "alpha rolls" and advocates positive methods in her book. There are some stupid methods recommended (nipping a puppy on the muzzle when correcting a behavior? I think not.) but overall, her concern with animal welfare is evidenced in most of what she says.
( Read more... )

Tags: animal welfare, public reference

From an article by Gary J. Patronek, VMD, PhD, in Vol. 219, No. 7 (October 1, 2001) of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association:

"After adjustment in a multivariate *, declawed cats were at an increased risk of relinquishment (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.00 to 3.58)."

*In a multivariate analysis, extraneous factors are controlled for with statistical methods of analysis--basically, when factors other than clawed/declawed were not considered, declawed cats were at greater risk of being surrendered to shelters. When all possible factors were considered, the opposite was indicated. Frankly, I think that a solid study on this matter would wholly confirm what shelter workers have said for decades.

And although Dr. Patronek came to the conclusion that current research does not support most of the proposed negative effects of declawing, he also indicated that the long-term effects of onychectomy have not been thoroughly researched, and I concur. Where we differ is that I think this is a place to use the precautionary principle, since onychectomy is generally elective, not medically necessary, and the author of this article does not.

From an article by Elizabeth A. Clancy, MS; Antony S. Moore, BVSc, MVSc, DACVIM; Elizabeth R. Bertone, ScD in Vol. 222, No. 11 (June 1, 2003) of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association:

"A higher percentage of cats acquired from shelters was kept indoors; persons who adopt cats from shelters may be better informed, or shelter placement policies may preferentially favor persons who will keep cats indoors. Because of previous outdoor access of stray cats, their adoptive owners may believe that their pets continue to require an outdoor lifestyle; perceptions of previously stray cats’ preferences may play a role as well. In addition, when a cat is acquired as a stray, owners may have minimal or nonexistent access to information regarding cat health, safety, and population issues as they relate specifically to outdoor access. Such topics are not necessarily part of a routine veterinary examination, and educational outreach by humane groups may not be reaching these owners. Therefore, outreach and educational efforts directed toward owners that obtain cats as strays may prove to be beneficial in reducing the number of cats allowed outdoor access. Veterinarians performing physical examinations of cats that have been recently acquired as strays could be influential educators in this regard as well, as they may be the only resource on cat care and welfare to which some owners of stray cats are exposed."

"Owners of chronically ill cats that are allowed outdoor access may believe that exposure to the outdoor environment does not constitute a risk to the health status of these cats or that illness is not a valid reason to deny outdoor access. Furthermore, these owners may believe that outdoor access is an important part of quality of life for their cats. In addition, many may not be aware of the potential health and safety issues associated with outdoor access of cats that are ill, are receiving medication, are not vaccinated against FeLV, or are declawed. Results of our survey indicated that the percentage of cats bitten by other cats was greater for cats with outdoor access than those without, and cat bites are a considerable health risk for cats receiving immunosuppressive medication, for example. Transmission of infectious disease via cat bite is another concern; education of cat owners about such issues may help to minimize outdoor activity of owned cats. It also highlights the importance of continued data-gathering efforts regarding cat owners’ beliefs about what constitutes a good quality of life for owned cats."

Tags: animal welfare, public reference

January 015
Protestor: "Aren't you a little old to be making babies with these girls?"
Daddad: (unintelligible)
Protestor: "Shame on you. Shame on you. Just like the getaway driver in a robbery."
Daddad: "Jessi..." (about to tell me to turn off the camera and go inside)
Protestor: "You shouldn't have brought her."
Daddad: "Oh, just blow it off."
Protestor: "She looks like a freeeak."
Daddad: (sarcastically) "Thank you."
Protestor: "That's wroooong."
Daddad: (sarcastically) "Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thanks."
Protestor: "Yeah, now you're going to be the grandfather of a dead baby."
Daddad: (unintelligible, but I remember he told me to turn off the camera.)

January 016
Protestor: "Is that yours? Is that your baby, grandpa?"

January 017
Protestor: "She's just crying out for help. You're crying out for help, honey."
Me: (to the patient standing beside me) "It's actually just to distract from the fact that I don't get a haircut very often."
Protestor: "How many piercings do you have? How many tattoos? Because you need help."
Me: (to the other patient) "I actually have none of either."
Patient: (laughing) "Don't worry about it. They're the freaks, standing out there."
Me: "Ugh, I know."
Protestor: "Let's take her picture. Let's put it up on the website. And the car, let's run that plate, let their neighbors know what they're up to." (They REALLY didn't like being videotaped.)

January 018
Protestor: "When you see my picture, remember what I saiiid. Every time you see my picture."
Daddad: "Jessica, let's go."

January 020
Protestor: "Jeeeeesus is the only way. You're dying your hair because you lack love--"
Me: "Ha!"
Protestor: "--that's not going to get you love, looking for love in all the wrong places, you need Jeeeeeesus."
Daddad: (derisively) "Okay."
Protestor: "Daddy--"

I dunno why I stopped it there, but it might have been me involuntarily squeezing the camera.

January 021
Protestor: "I know this isn't the first time that you've crawled up on that table. I know that. Many women regret their abortions, that's why they're out doing what you do. Looking for attention.."
Daddad: "Jessica. Jessica, come on."

Tags: abortion, public reference