Dog Magazine dot net - free online dog magazineby K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers

An official report filed by People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) with the Virginia government shows that the organisation put to death more than 90 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption during 2007. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 17 animals.

A non profit group, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), has called on PETA to stop its routine condemnation of Americans who believe it’s perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and medical research.

This comes on the heels of last week’s Newsweek report, which revealed that since 1998 PETA had killed, “more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.”

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 1,997 “companion animals” during 2007, of which it killed 1,815. According to Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 36.2 percent in 2007. PETA killed 90.9 percent of the animals it took in.

“Pet lovers should be outraged,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “There are thousands of worthwhile animal-welfare organizations that deserve the support of compassionate Americans. PETA is not one of them. This is the kind of cold, heartless behavior that would draw a naked PETA protest if anyone else were doing it.”

In January, CCF petitioned VDACS to consider officially reclassifying PETA as a “slaughterhouse” instead of a “humane society” and an animal “releasing agency.” VDACS Commissioner Todd Haymore responded in a January 25, 2008 letter that while PETA’s rate of killing animals is “extremely high,” the state’s laws “do not provide the authority for [VDACS] to ’strip’ PETA of its designation as a ‘humane society’ or ‘releasing agency.’”

“It’s horribly ironic that PETA kills so many animals” Martosko added. “PETA raised over $30 million last year, and it’s using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA’s hypocrisy is simply staggering.”

Popularity: 7% [?]

Bans For Greyhound Suffering

Rebecca Hagger (20) and Rosemary Hagger (51) both received 10-year bans at Peterborough Magistrates Court on 28 April after previously pleading guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to three greyhounds and failing to meet the welfare needs of another four greyhounds.

Rosemary Hagger was banned from keeping dogs for 10 years and her daughter Rebecca was banned from keeping all animals for 10 years.  Rebecca was also ordered to do 200 hours of community service and Rosemary was given a 12-month conditional discharge.  The pair from Edgerley Drain Road, Peterborougn, were each ordered to pay £250 in costs.

The RSPCA was contacted in September 2007.  Inspectors found three greyhounds which were emaciated and had infected sores, contrary to section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act, 2006.  The remaining four were underweight and had flea infestations and were living in dirty conditions with no food or water available, contrary to section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act, 2006.

A vet estimated that two of the dogs had been made to suffer unnecessarily for at least two months and one dog for at least one month.

In mitigation the defendants said that the dogs had belonged to Rosemary’s husband (Rebecca’s father) who had passed away.

The court heard that both defendants had worked in the greyhound racing industry and decided to impose a ban, despite Rebecca still having a job in the industry.

RSPCA inspector Kat Parfitt said:  ”Animals deserve much better than the conditions these dogs were kept in and should have access to veterinary treatment when they need it.

“The RSPCA believes that the government must introduce effective national standards to ensure the welfare of racing and ex-racing greyhounds.  We also feel that those in the industry must be compelled to ensure provision is made for retired dogs.”

Three of the dogs from the case still need new homes.  White and black Boris and Tyler and Wilson, who are both black with white chests, are lovely, friendly dogs who are happy to laze around with just short bursts of exercise.  Anyone who feels they can give a greyhound a good retirement home should call the RSPCA Peterborough & District Branch on 01733 248116.

Popularity: 5% [?]

A recent article in the Ealing Times mentions that Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) in the Acton area of London have been speaking to dog owners about keeping their dogs on leads and muzzled.Since when have Staffordshire Bull Terriers needed to be kept on leads AND muzzled?

Has a new law been passed by government and they have not told the rest of us?

Apart from those legally and lawfully prohibited breeds that have to be muzzled, of which the SBT is certainly not one, the only dogs that have to be muzzled in public are those that have a Magistrates Court imposed control order. These dogs can be of any breed or crossbreed, from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane to a ‘Heinz 57′.

The difference is that a recognised legally composed gathering of Magistrates, Legal Advisor and lawyers have listened to evidence, formed an opinion and reached a verdict based on the evidence.

Where has this occurred with PCSO’s simply ’speaking’ to dog owners about their dogs being muzzled, where is the legally imposed requirement here?

By focusing on the SBT, the Metropolitan Police demonstrates the breed specific targeting of a dog that is not on any prohibited list. However in accordance with the law of the land, like all other dogs in the UK the SBT may be subject to any dog control restrictions in designated areas.

If there is a requirement for dogs to be excluded from a specific place, it applies to all dogs and does not mean, all other dogs apart from your own.

If an irresponsible dog owner fails to comply with such an order, then quite rightly they risk enforcement action for failing to comply.

The specific targeting of one breed of dog by PCSO’s appears to show a breed specific slant towards SBT, do the PCSO’s ’speak’ to the owners of other dogs too?

Until such time as the UK becomes a police state and the police instead of upholding the law start making it, would the PCSO’s of Acton please stick to it and remember that the SBT does not have to be muzzled in public.

Popularity: 7% [?]

A skinny dog with a horrific leg injury was thrown from a moving car and abandoned by the roadside.

A member of the public came to the lurcher’s aid after he saw it ejected through the open door of the vehicle as it travelled at about 20mph along a busy road in Coventry last Monday (28 April).

Staff at the RSPCA’s Coventry Animal Centre took the dog, which has since been named Storm, to a vet who said that he is underweight and he has a painful sore on his rump which is so deep that bone is visible.

Glenn Mayoll, manager of the Coventry RSPCA Animal Centre, said: “It is disgusting that someone could treat a dog like this.

“At first we thought the injury might have been caused by being thrown from the car but a vet said it is an old injury.

“Storm needed to see a vet for the horrific wound he has on his leg. But instead of being treated he was just chucked out of a car and abandoned.

“Perhaps the owners felt that they couldn’t afford to take him to a vet. But the RSPCA and other charities help animals whose owners are hard-up so there’s no excuse for this.

“The wound is awful and is leaving the bone exposed. Storm is not very well at the moment but we are hoping he’ll make a full recovery and we can find him a good home to go to.”

The dog was thrown from a Ford Fiesta near the traffic lights on Longford Road near Longford Park in Coventry on Monday 28 April between 4.15pm and 4.45pm. Anyone with any information can call the RSPCA’s 24-hour Cruelty Line in confidence by calling 0300 1234 999.

RSPCA Inspector Kate Garton said: “I find it amazing that someone had the nerve to do this at rush hour on a main road. We need people to call us to help us find who did this.”

Popularity: 6% [?]

Fears have been raised today about a trade in stray dogs being sold after it emerged a company charged with the task of reuniting lost dogs with their owners actually sold a much loved family pet forcing a distraught owner to have to fight to gain his own dog back.

Earlier in the year warnings were given that a change in stray dog laws could spell an animal welfare crisis as councils pick up full responsibility for dealing with lost or strayed dogs.

Now it has come to light that a personal disaster has hit home for Adrian McCollin after his Husky, Kiss, ended up being sold by Animal Wardens Ltd, a firm given a local authority contract to deal with strays.

The sorry story gets murkier.

It is reported that Animal Wardens Ltd actually informed desperate Adrian that they had not found his dog at all when it eventually transpired that Kiss had actually been sold onto another family.

K9 Magazine understands that many pet industry professionals had privately expressed great concerns to the local authorities who had contracted out their dog collection responsibilities to Animal Wardens Ltd, to be aware of this type of incident several weeks before Mr McCollin’s upsetting experience.

Mr McCollin is furious and upset and is seeking legal advice after learning that Kiss was sold to a new family after spending 7 days in kennels. The new family is now unwilling to return the dog.

Kiss went missing on April 10th after being taken for a walk on the beach. She ended up in the town centre of Hastings St.Leonard.
Her desperate owner searched high and low for her and reported her missing to the local council immediately. They were directed to speak to Animal Wardens Ltd who had control of the stray dog contract for the local authority.

“We called the service every day and were told ‘nothing of that description has been in whatsoever’, ” said Adrian.

After a week Adrian spent time and money postering in a desperate attempt to be reunited with his much loved companion. Having seen one of the posters, a town hall employee called Adrian to inform him that Kiss was handed in on or around the time that Adrian says she went missing a week earlier. The town hall employee told Adrian that the dog had been passed on to Animal Wardens Ltd.

“Even after calling them and informing them of the date and location of where my dog was picked up, they still denied having any knowledge of a Husky, Adrian explains”

It was after being told of what had happened to Kiss by a town hall official that Adrian confronted Animal Wardens Ltd again, insisting that they DID have his dog as he had been told as much by someone at the town hall. It was at this time that Animal Wardens Ltd admitted that they did indeed have the dog.

A drained and emotional Adrian revealed, “It has been so stressful, I am constantly thinking about it. I haven’t been able to eat or sleep properly.”

Animal Wardens Ltd is run by Paul Dunne. Mr Dunne has admitted his firm made a catalogue of errors, stating that Kiss was unidentified initially and sent to Viking Oaks kennels were strays are routinely taken. He told the Hastings Observer:

“Kiss was rehomed after the statutory seven day period that people have to reclaim dogs had expired. As Kiss is a friendly dog she has settled into her new home with a woman and her two-year-old child very well and, having purchased Kiss she does not want to give her back. We therefore have a stand-off situation that we are trying to resolve. We have offered recompense for the error but neither party wishes to give up rights of ownership to Kiss. As part of that compensation we have offered to purchase a pedigree Husky pup, but unfortunately both owner and keeper are attached to Kiss. This is a one off error that came about through a series of six mistakes, precautions have now been put in place to prevent a reoccurrence.”

A Hastings Council spokesman is quoted: “This is a very unfortunate incident. We know staff at our contractor, Animal Wardens Ltd, are working very hard to resolve this and we hope they will be able to reunite Kiss with her original owners as soon as possible.”

Popularity: 21% [?]