Such philosophies certainly explain the fine hunting dogs from Arab countries. How do you keep a breed "pure" for thousands of years? Not by trotting him around a show ring! No. Having a god that forbids turning him into a pet is a much better bet.
While it might be an extreme position for most of us, it doubtless gives meat to the dictum 'form follows function'.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Allah hates show breeders.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Dog Shortage
Pet overpopulation? What pet overpopulation? On the contrary, it seems like the shortages are already beginning.
A new report from the National Academy of Sciences says there is a serious shortage of dogs and cats required for medical research.
New suppliers of random-source cats and dogs for medical research are needed to replace Class B dealers, according to a report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
"Immediate action" is needed to identify and develop new suppliers of these animals to avoid disruptions in research activity, according to the American Physiological Society (APS) in an Oct. 26 statement endorsing the NAS report.
"These animals remain critical for health research to alleviate serious and life-threatening conditions that afflict humans and animals," the APS says.
Well, I'm not going to suggest that anyone run out and volunteer, though, perhaps some of the dedicated environmentalists could see this as the opportune solution for their carbon-hogs?
I have no objections to animal research, if it is done humanely, but this post is more about the interesting fact that there is a lack of available animals. It sounds like they used to be able to source animals from shelters, but now some states have passed laws against that. Hmm. Does that mean unwanted dogs and cats just go straight to fertilizer in those states, without any other contributions to society? Or do the laws reflect a reality in which the numbers of unwanted pets has fallen off dramatically? It's hard to say. I certainly couldn't put it past a peta-tic to prefer killing a dog or cat to doing anything else with it.
What about the vast colonies of feral cats we still hear about? Are none of the 100 million available for research?
The shortage could simply be a sign of the times, Class B dealers (those licensed by the USDA to sell animals they have not bred themselves)are rarities in this day and age when every breeder is a "puppymill" and pet stores are routinely harassed. Unfortunately, governments have gotten in on the act too, siding against individual freedom in favor of the latest political screamers, putting additional squeeze on animal research.
If it were societal pressures alone prompting a shortage, I would say so be it. Some of that animal research isn't worth the excrement the research dogs leave behind.
Still, one wonders. Government forces and screamers combined, is this the beginning of the end?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dog, It's what's for dinner.
This could turn into the most entertaining conflict of the decade. After years of spewing hate on those cultures that eat dogs, animal rights activists, who were often the first to jump on the green bandwagon, are suddenly coming face to face with their conflicting emotions.
Bluntly put by a New Zealand writer:
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
For some time now, we have waited (but breathing comfortably) to see which of the environmentalists would be the first to stop talking about population reduction and start practicing it. Perhaps now, the possibility of a slightly less harsh radical approach to planet salvation will appease the conscience of many.
We shall see, eh? Who among them will love the planet more than Fido?
How do you get out of the conundrum that your useless pet is a bigger Gaia rapist than a Land Cruiser? The moral dilemma must be tearing them apart.
Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living....
Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.
"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."
Just a shock tactic, eh? More like a moral beat down between the holy factions of the religion of global warming.
NEWSFLASH - People don't eat their "pet" chickens.
Still, perhaps they will learn a little tolerance for cultures that have used dogs sustainably for millenia?
Any bets?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
How to make a dog insulin resistant
Overfeeding kibble is a good place to start.
Blog Hyperlipid recently reported on a study done with dogs in an attempt to prove that saturated fat causes insulin resistance.
The goal of the study seemed noble enough:
the development of peripheral and hepatic insulin resistance relative to one another in the context of obesity-associated insulin resistance is not well understood. To examine this phenomena, we used the moderate fat-fed dog model, which has been shown to develop both subcutaneous and visceral adiposity and severe insulin resistance.
and the authors concluded:
Our results indicate that a diet enriched with a moderate amount of fat results in the development of both subcutaneous and visceral adiposity, hyperinsulinemia, and a modest degree of peripheral insulin resistance.
How did they achieve these results? To quote Peter (of Hyperlipid)
Cr@p in a bag: Total calories 3,885kcal/d
For "less cr@p in a bag but plus 2g/kg bacon grease": more like 3,945kcal/d
This is for a 27kg dog sitting in a cage.
Go on, read that again; 3,945kcal/d. I'm not joking.
The real trick of course, is to blame the subsequent insulin resistance on saturated fat.
Peter writes:
So this is another study where the introduction and discussion are utterly divorced from the methods and the results (and from reality). It's worth just flicking through the methods and, in your mind's eye, look at how much money was used on these dogs. A clinical MRI was around about £1000 a shot in the UK Home Counties in 2009.
This study was funded in the US of course, guess we all look forward to such sterling research with our tarp funds.
Where's PETA when you need them?
Posted by Ms. X at 8:54 PM | DiggIt!| Del.icio.us|
Labels: Feeding the Beast, Healthy Dog
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Art imitating life...
This Onion story is almost to scary realistic to be funny. Enjoy it anyway :-)
Dog Humiliated In Front Of Entire Park
AUGUST 24, 2009 | ISSUE 45•35
CONCORD, NH—Banjo, a local border collie mix and loyal human companion, was utterly humiliated Tuesday, when his owner, 34-year-old Michael Ingram, loudly scolded the dog right in the middle of Cold Brook Park.
. . .
"I just find the whole thing really awkward," said Douglas Lax, who takes his 6-year-old yorkshire terrier every morning to play in the park. "Sometimes Michael and I will be talking about baseball or whatnot, and out of nowhere he'll make some weird joke about Banjo 'being lazy' or 'shedding his hair all over the couch.'"
. . .
"I used to go over to their place all the time for dinner, but I always felt so uncomfortable," said acquaintance Janet Schrump. "All those comments Michael would make about how 'we'd better keep our food away from Banjo' were rude enough, but when he decided to lock the poor thing inside the bathroom one night, I just couldn't take it anymore."
"Honestly, if my husband ever did that to me, I'm not sure what I'd do," Schrump added. "Probably shit in his bed."
Read the whole story here.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Get Happy?
Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) is a nauseatingly titled bill making its way through the halls of CONgress. Is that how they're burning through our money, making aides come up with cute names (and sappy acronyms) they can all sign on and say "hey! look how much we love pets!"
According to WashingtonWatch.com, "H.R. 3501 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses."
Evidently the text of the bill has not been released yet, so the details are completely unknown. At face value, I tend to support anything that puts limits on how much of my money they steal. But a bill like this could easily turn into something that expands the pet health insurance industry, or uses the "companion animal" language and further undermines our property rights with pets. The more I think of it, the less optimistic I am. I mean, what is the motivation for a bill like this? The government desperately needs all the tax money it can get. Sure, there are a lot of pet owners, but they spend a lot of money on pet health care, and the tax loss could be significant. Would it really buy that much favoritism with the pet owner voting blocs? Somehow I don't think so. So what's the motivation? Any good ideas?
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
4 Day Old Infant Survives, Barely.
"A father was frantically calling 911 to report his missing newborn when he spotted the baby, bleeding from the mouth and clutched in the mouth of a family dog who had carried him from his crib to the heavily wooded backyard."
Another baby, another family dog. This infant, luckily, has survived (so far).
"Smith said he and his wife, Chrissie, had just put Alexander James (or A.J.) in his crib Monday afternoon in their Nicholasville, Ky., home and were preparing for a baby shower. When Chrissie returned to the bedroom minutes later, one of the doors was ajar and both the baby and their Native American Indian dog — a breed that looks similar to a husky — were gone."
Apparently the Native American Indian dog is a mixed breed of sorts, with some wolf in the lineages.
According to this video, the baby was born 3 weeks early. But the video also says that "according to experts" the main reason dogs turn on babies is out of fear.
Yeah right. That old fear excuse. It's way overused, in my opinion. One of Ms. X's furry companions is afraid of balloons. Well, that's anthropomorphic. Let me put it this way. One of Ms. X's furry companions refuses to be in visual range of a ballon. When she (the furry companion, not Ms. X) sees a balloon, drifting gently overhead, she arises and exits the room and or the house, as needed. Even if dinner is on the floor.
That's what I call fear. If she grabbed the balloon and dragged it into the woods for an afternoon nibble, I would not call that fear. But what do I know? I'm just a dog owner.
Ray Coppinger, noted biologist and author, is quoted in the Seattle article -
The Smiths made a "classic mistake, out of ignorance, and now they're suffering badly for it," he said. Dogs like Dakota don't recognize infants as people, Coppinger said. "It's no more of an act of violence on the dog's part," he said, "than you eating a steak."
Ms. X sides with him.
In the end it doesn't matter what the dogs motivation is. In true behaviorism perspective, all that matters is what the behaviors actually are. And that is what only parents can prevent.
Here's some more idle conversation about the Native American Indian dogs, including discussion of the Michigan breeder that bred this one.
