SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen

  • March 2023
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for the ‘Animals’ Category

Proper Perspectives

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on June 15, 2010

In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come,” he told the US political website Politico

Finally a president with guts enough to put the WTC-attack in its proper perspective! A horrible incident in USonian history, but nothing more than that.

And again the world is faced with the USonian ignorance and arrogance that make the majority of USonians look dumb, self-centered and boorish:

He’s off-base,” said former New York fire department deputy chief Jim Riches, whose son died at the World Trade Centre. “These were terrorist attacks, not something caused by people trying to make money.”

From the perspective of the impact on the minds of normal, sane and thinking human beings, the leaking, burning oil-well that is spewing its deadly innards into the sea, unto beaches and wet-lands, is a disaster no less in magnitude for the sea-life, wild-life and ecology of the Gulf Coast, than “9/11” was for the citizens of NY.

The President is right on the money. Almost.

Considering the damage to the sea-life, wild-life and ecology of the Gulf Coast – including several species of animals and birds that live only there – in the wet-lands of Louisiana – and are either endangered or on the brink of being endangered – like the Brown pelican and the manatee, he is actually falling short in his ‘comparison’. More Wild-life will be lost as a result of the USonian short-sighted and egotistical use of fossil-fuels than the 2500+ human lives that were lost in the toppling of the WTC. While those humans are gone forever and their relatives have every right to mourn, they in no way make even a small dent in the human population on this planet. Yet every Brown pelican lost, every Manatee or other animal dead, either to the oil spill itself or to the ensuing starvation that will follow because feeding grounds are destroyed, will deprive the endangered birds, animals and sea-life of diversity in their gene pool, and in the end they will be extinct. Gone forever.

Now, that is a true catastrophe, a disaster that if not understood in its entirety is worthy of human grief and USonian shame. Jim Riches lost his son, true, but does that mean others have to suffer the loss of never seeing a Brown Pelican or a Manatee?

Jim Riches sees only himself and his loss. Barack Obama sees beyond all the Jim Riches, and realizes that the Deepwater Horizon continuous attack on the coast of the Mexican Gulf is an attack much more devastating to the USonian people living along that coast, in terms of having their environment, livelihoods, families and damaged, destroyed and decimated for YEARS to come, and for what? USonian greed, isolationism and arrogance.


Posted in 9/11, Animals, Barack Obama, Ecology, US Interests, US Politics | Leave a Comment »

Dogs, It’s Raining Dogs 3

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 14, 2008

Remember the dog owner who had his dogs seized after they attacked another dog – Dogs, It’s Raining Dogs 2? – well it turns out that he is even worse than I thought. His excuse for not keeping his dogs under supervision says it all, people, all:

“there was no leash law at the time”…

So not only has he failed his dogs by not establishing who is the pack-leader, he would only do so if there’s a law that tells him to!

This guy really doesn’t deserve his dogs back. Really. He also said:

“The people had just moved in across the street with their German Shepherd, my dogs went over”

Who the %#&!*% lets their dogs meet and greet a new dog in the neighborhood without supervision?!

His dogs might not be dangerous, but he sure is! This guy shouldn’t be allowed to have dogs, his attitude and his failure to understand simple dog etiquette is appalling.

Well, fortunately the State of Virginia and the Prince Edward County Circuit Court realizes that this guy isn’t fit to be a dog owner and have impounded the dogs. Whether he gets them back depends on whether he agrees to

“to register them as dangerous, keep them in a special kennel, pay fees each year, have them on a leash and muzzle when out, spay and neuter, and carry $100,000.00 liability or surety bond on each dog.”

or not after the case appeal has gone through the courts.

I initially felt for this guy and his dogs – I still feel for the dogs, but any sympathy I had for the owner is gone.

“there was no leash law at the time”…

It’s a pity it’s illegal to euthanize bad, irresponsible and moronic dog owners.

Posted in Dogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Dogs, It’s Raining Dogs 2

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 13, 2008

Why if the owner of the dog that my dogs injured feels compensated, I am paying the vet bill, his dog is o.k. now and says forget the whole thing are they trying to deem my dogs dangerous ? Please Visit my petition thank you and tell your friends.

Sorry, but I cannot sign this simply because I was raised with the principle that a dog that responds to aggression is aggressive.

I am sorry for you and for your dogs, but my principles and my dog ethics tells me that if it were my dogs, I would have to put them down.

I would hate it, I would cry all the way to the vet, but I would do it. Because in my book it’s the right thing to do.
I have very harsh and strict ethics that way.

Harsh and strict ethics???????  They are animals doing what comes natural!!!Why are you a member of a dog lovers group??? That is one of the dumbest damn statements I have ever read in my life. You should have just stayed out of this period.  These dogs need to be saved, and if you can’t see that, then you don’t know the first thing about love for an animal. How dare you!! Sickening!!

I was raised on a farm. I love animals, but I also recognize that as I am the human, I have certain responsibilities towards my animals and towards other humans and animals. One is to ensure that the animals I have are not put in a situation where they can do harm or be harmed.

First question – What were the dogs doing “off-property”?
Second question – Why were they there without full supervision?
Third question – Why were the responsibility issue resolved in favor of the other dog’s owner?

Something here isn’t kosher. And if you think I shouldn’t be asking these questions – then go thank S, as she was the one who taught me that what people say about situations like this are mostly lies. She said that in the Breeder thread. So I am asking questions.

You are humanizing the animals. Euthanasia must be avoided at all costs, no matter what the dog has done or how sick it is or how miserable…3 or 4 years ago someone here in this group spoke about their 11 year old, blind, arthritic and sick dog and how they had kept him alive for almost a year “so he would get the most out of life…”

If a 40lbs St Bernard attacks or responds to attack, the result could be deadly. Unfortunately we don’t get to euthanize the irresponsible owner, which is more my inclination here, so lets settle for disagreeing with each other. Here in Sweden the dogs would have been put down the same day, had the incident been reported to the police.

Animals are not humans and it’s time we stopped treating them as if they were. A human who attacks another or responds to provocation with violence is put in jail – we don’t jail dogs, we euthanize them.

If Boris ever attacks another dog, or responds to provocation with aggression, I will put him down too. Have no doubt about that – and I love that dog. But then I would never leave him without supervision, which means that he knows that his pack-leader will deal with trouble so he doesn’t have to.

That’s where this all originated – bad pack leadership. I think there should be a penalty for that, for abandoning one’s dog so it has to fend for itself in case of crisis – i.e unwanted attention from another dog.

“My animals are human to me”

Yes, and that’s the problem with most pet owners – they think their pets are humans.

Boris is a dog. He is also my best friend. For me not to treat him right, like a dog that is, give him good pack-leadership and care for his needs of supervision, would be equal to throw out any human kids on the street and tell them to fend for themselves.

Now, you disagree, fine – but that doesn’t make Boris “poor”, he is a perfectly happy dog, well-adjusted, non-aggressive even under stress and provocation, and well socialized. Nothing poor there, Judy. He is just as a dog should be.

I find it amusing that rather than just not sign the petition, you felt obligated to make sure everyone here knew why you didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t.

Just can’t resist those confrontations can you?

It’s not about the confrontation. It’s about what I consider right. Irresponsible owners are the reason dogs end up in shelters, pounds and rescues.

They abandon their dogs mentally and/or physically to take the responsibility [themselves as] best they can, and then they [the owners] complain or start petitions when the law catches up with them for their neglect.

As far as I am concerned, this owner left his dogs, one pregnant at that, without the supervision and protection they had the right to expect from him. The dogs responded to provocation, alternatively acted aggressively as a result of being left without supervision, what happened is the owner’s responsibility, and I think he should pay for it. Obviously, when left without supervision the dogs resorted to aggression. Safe, secure, stable dogs in their right minds don’t do that, so something is not kosher here, which was why I responded.

“where did you get this information from? what book? or was it something you came to the conclusion on all by yourself? Go to a dog training class one day..go see how “untrained” dogs or dogs in a large group interact or show dominance..if it was up to you..LOTS OF DOGS WOULD BE Deemed “DISPOSABLE”!!”

I haven’t said that dogs are disposable. I have said that dogs that show aggression are aggressive. And yes, I do believe that aggressive dogs should be put down. I really do. Why?

1. Because clearly there’s a lack in leadership on the part of the owner if a dog feels it has to respond with aggression instead of leaving the response to the pack leader. Putting the dog down is not to punish the dog, but to punish the irresponsible owner . If you do not know how to assert yourself as the pack-leader you shouldn’t have a pack, and the moment you have dog, you have a pack.

2. We have no way of knowing if a first offense is the result of bad leadership or a neurological problem. It’s either or. We cannot afford the risk of injury to humans or other dogs. Really we can’t. Dogs aren’t humans, however much some would like to think so. They are wonderful, they are many times better than humans in a lot of ways, but they are not humans. And we need to stop thinking of them as humans.

A dog that shows aggression does so because it’s been abandoned by the owner as the pack-leader. IME an owner who have abandoned their dog this way will do so again, and that will in turn cause the poor dog to respond to the stress of being without a pack-leader through aggression. Like I said above – I more inclined to have the owner euthanized, unfortunately that is illegal, so better remove the dog.

IMO unless a dog has been abused in some way, it’s cruel to re-home it, especially if it’s an adult, which is why I’d rather euthanize than re-home.

To me the owner posting first here doesn’t deserve to have his dogs back – because in the end he will abandon them again, and put them in a situation where they feel they have to respond with aggression as response to something they needed their leader to deal with.

Is it unfair to the dogs? Of course it is. But perhaps loosing his dogs or having them rated “dangerous” will teach him not to put his dogs in a situation where they are left to figure things out for themselves.

[Yeah, how do dogs show dominance? Well, the one loosing a “bid for dominance” sure doesn’t need veterinarian care afterwards. *lol* I have seen it in the dog yard that Boris and I visit daily. No dog in that yard has ever needed medical care as a result of ordinary dominance establishment.]

[I have two possible scenarios – 1. The other dog was male and the pregnant female attacked. There’s is the possibility that he attacked her, but then he would be mentally unstable and would need putting down, no mentally healthy male attacks a female  2. The other dog was female – in which case it’s either way on who attacked first. However, then the male St Bernard would not have attacked the other dog, unless he’s not right in the head, if he did, he will need to be put down. What he would have done if healthy, is place himself between the two females without violence – to cool down the situation. But it seems both are being implicated, they are the ones being charged with being dangerous, they together caused another dog to be injured in a way that meant it had to have medical care. So…well you do the math.]

[As for where I got the information – my mother, Jan Fennell and Cezar Milan, now there are opposing opinions about some of Milan’s methods, and from what I have read from AA’s {Animal Activists} some of his methods are violent, abusive and harmful and thus  I would not and have not used myself, however, he is 100% right that it is the human who is the pack-leader, and that the human who has to take control over the pack – in fact in this Jan Fennell concurs.]

What about when they are protecting their territory? Or protecting their owners? or protecting THEMSELVES!!!

The thing is, they shouldn’t have to do any of the above, if they have to it’s because the owner has stepped down as the pack-leader.

I have only ever once had an aggressive dog, which I also put down – she was an abused private re-homing that I didn’t know had a history of abuse. She was wonderful with people but couldn’t cope with other dogs. And yes, she was dangerous, really dangerous. Had I known her history I would not have accepted her, but the original owner gave me a song and dance about allergies in the family. I had her for about 6 months, thinking that if only she got a leader she would recover whatever it was that was ailing her. She didn’t. She eventually tried to kill a 4 months old puppy, who gave every sign of surrender – after ripping her leather leash in two, . Was I responsible for that? Of course I was. I took my responsibility.

with police dogs..who is the “pack leader”??? the officer or the dog? perhaps you should tell the officers since the dogs show aggression to PUT THEM DOWN!

Ever heard of something like “commands” – it’s what an owner or handler gives the dog to have it perform in a certain way [in certain situations]. Like chase down a criminal or growl – are those behaviors voluntary? Something the [police] dog does without the command to do so? No. Would a police dog that did so without having been given a command by its handler be out of a job on the spot? Yes.

I am sorry, but your examples are silly.

Silly??? my examples are Silly???

[Yes, they are silly, because they aim at distorting what I have been saying, you use specific examples to refute a general principle, you can of course do that, but it’s intellectually dishonest as well as a logical fallacy, but saying they are silly is the polite way of pointing out that your sense of logic is impaired.

For instance:

  1. Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
  2. Surgeons cut people with knives.
  3. Surgeons are criminals.

It is easy to construct fallacious arguments by applying general statements to specific incidents that are obviously exceptions.

I say: Dogs that show aggression are aggressive and should be put down.

From this you deduce that since police dogs show aggression [on command], I must be saying that police dogs should be put down.

A simple logical fallacy of refuting a general principle with a specific example that is obviously an exception. And yes, the seeing eye dog or guard dog is an exception too, because, as the police dog, they have been trained for a specific task, that [the training] in itself establishes the pack order. If you so wish, the police dog, seeing eye dog or guard dog has been trained to respond “as an alpha dog” under very specific conditions – the dog has also been trained to recognize when those conditions are being met. Should the dog respond with aggression out-side those very specific parameters, it is indeed responding aggressively where there is no need. Such a police dog, seeing eye dog,  or guard dog is unfit for their job, and in my mind should be put down like any other aggressive dog.]

[What is really interesting in this discussion is that NON-ONE has bothered to answer my valid questions – not the person posting the petition, nor any of his friends. Also, no-one seem to have even read any of my clarifying statements, that should make it clear exactly where I think the responsibility for the aggression lies – with the OWNER, not the dogs. Further no compassion or concern has been offered to the owner of the other dog or the dog, despite the fact that it was injured, and the owner of the  St. Bernards obviously assumed responsibility for the attack, or he would not have agreed to pay the vet bills, would he?. It was injured so badly that it needed the services of a vet! People, get real, there’re a lot of things that needs questioning here. What happens next time these two family dogs get in a fray? – They manage to kill another dog? Obviously this owner can’t ensure that he can be a pack-leader, so why should he have his dogs back? Because he loves them? The owner of the other dog loves his dog too, the owner of the next victim of this irresponsible dog owner and his leaderless dogs loves their dog too. Whose love is better than the other?

Posted in Dogs | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Dogs, it is raining dogs!

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 11, 2008

There was an on-line discussions about dog breeders, puppy-mills and the evils of purebred dogs.

Specifically breeders took a beating, because the (extreme) animals activists claim that the breeders are the cause of the horrible situations shelter and rescue dogs come from. I agree that the situations and backgrounds of many, if not all, dogs in shelters and rescues are horrible and that there need to be something done about it. But bashing responsible breeders, who are often part of the solution, rather than the problem, is not the solution.

My mother bred English Cocker Spaniels for 30 years. So I think I know a little about what it means to be a responsible breeder.

Responsible breeders make sure that the puppies they sell, to their knowledge, are healthy, from stable and sociable stock. There might be variations in legislation between Sweden and the US as to the details. But I doubt that responsible breeders differ very much from each other be they in the US or Sweden.

Normally puppies are checked by vets on at least two occasions – once when the mother is checked after birth and right before sale at 8 weeks. They are de-wormed twice, once at three weeks and once a week before sale, vaccinated and given a general check-up. They leave the breeder registered, certified healthy and, if the breeder is registered with the national dog-breeders’ association with a sales-contract that should say that if the pup/dog is ill at the time of sale or an illness crops up within the first year, that can be, but do not have to be “pre-existing”, the breeder will take the dog back and offer another puppy or the sales price in return. Most, if not all, registered breeders will also take back a dog at any time if the owner cannot care for the dog.

Four years ago I bought Boris, a Springer Spaniel male. If at any time I find that I cannot care for him, I was told by the breeder that I am to contact her first for re-homing. She would take him back, no questions asked.

With the receipt I also received a Clean Bill of Health Certification from a Registered Vet, written proof that he had been vaccinated, de-wormed and that his parents were healthy and free of any hereditary diseases. I also received food to keep him fed the first month, toys and vitamins. I also had to go through a screening – took 3 hours – in which I was interrogated about why I wanted a dog in general, why I wanted a Springer Spaniel, what my expectations of the dog were and how I had planned for his care, his daily routines, how I would take care of his keep if I couldn’t bring him with me on vacations etc, what additional vaccinations I had planned etc. The breeder also took me through a crash-course in basic Springer Spaniel care, including offering grooming at reduced rates the first year.

I paid $1350 for him and he is worth ever cent. Had he been cheaper I would have felt cheated.

That is a responsible dog breeder, and as a dog owner I would have it no other way.

Dogs are killed, abused and mistreated not because of responsible breeders, but because of irresponsible breeders and most of all because of irresponsible dog owners. Dog owners who buy a toy for their kids, or fall in love with those adorable puppies and just have to have one…

Dogs don’t go from the breeder (responsible or not) to the shelter or rescue – some thing happened between the breeder and the shelter. Guess what?

A dog owner happens.

Puppies are cute. But puppies grow up and when you suddenly find that you have a 10-80 lbs dog you have no idea on how to care for, give good leadership, training and teach good dog manners, that’s when you have a problem. The problem is with YOU, the dog owner, not the breeder. Dogs end up on the streets, in shelters and dog pounds not because responsible dog breeders put them there, but because the people buying the dogs, often from puppy mills (they are the cheapest and make no demands on the buyers) or from people who didn’t spay/neuter their females and ended up with a cross-breed litter, didn’t realize what being a dog owner means and who tire of the dog when it grows up and is no longer a cute little puppy.

Dog owners are SOLELY responsible for dogs ending up in shelters and rescues.

Springers are nice dogs, but 1350.? That’s why breeders, responsible or not, are in business…it’s is a business and they make $$$.

How then come that the breeder I got Boris from had to work a regular job and then some to make ends meet? She only breed one litter a year.

How come my mother spent more money on her dogs than she could get in on them and that for 30 years? She too only bred one litter a year on each of her two bitches. She never made any money off her dogs.

People don’t seem to realize that breeding a litter of dogs, registering them, having the vet checking them, vaccinating them, feeding them, and socializing them so that the future dog-owner will get a healthy, sociable dog, actually costs money, and lot of it.

Responsible breeders might break even, but most often they don’t.

Because RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS aren’t in it for the money, they are in it for the dogs and for the sake of making sure people, who want dogs they know where they came from, can have healthy, stable dogs that are good and nice with people as well as strong and reliable working dogs, making sure that the dog owners are responsible before they let them buy. They love their dogs.

For what ever it might be worth, a point was made elsewhere about this – if it wasn’t for responsible breeders there would be no seeing eye dogs, drug dogs, bomb dogs, search and rescue dogs, personal assistant dogs, dogs for autistic children, or other special needs, the list goes on and on.

Responsible breeders make sure that there are healthy, mentally stable and a line of proven reliability in and behind their dogs.
Rescue dogs are nice, most are good, fully functional dogs, but they are not generally good material for f.i police dogs, military dogs, earth-quake dogs etc.

One can work with a rescue dog that comes from a broken, abusive home, and it will turn out just fine, until one day, an unknown trigger is pushed and the dog will blow up in your face. If you are lucky no-one gets hurt, human or animal, but if you are not your wonderful rescue dog just turned killer. Not the fault of the dog, nor of the original breeder, but the fault of the original owner. You can never know a rescue dog’s entire history. Never. In order for a dog to be a good working dog in the above professions, its history and stability has to be guaranteed – responsible breeders make sure that there are such dogs available.

Also, breeders keep the breeds pure – each breed has been bred for its specific qualities, those qualities can be assumed with 90% accuracy in each dog.

People can’t drag the puppy mill breeders into this and bunch them together with responsible breeders. And people are doing that.

Get rid of the puppy mills.

Get your politicians to approve some legislation that makes it virtually impossible to be an irresponsible breeder.

Get the various Dog Registry Associations to work together to push for Federal laws that regulate dog breeding, such as a having a law that requires a breeder to be registered with the Federal Government to be allowed to work with dog breeding.

That’s how it is here in Sweden. Also here all dogs have to be chipped – it’s the Law. And yes, the police do check that dogs they see out are chipped, especially in areas of “ill-repute”.

Educate people about why they shouldn’t get dog from a puppy mill. Ands speak up positively for RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS, so it becomes attractive to get a dog from a REGISTERED, RESPONSBLE breeder, rather than from a dog factory.

My mother used to say that “there are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners”. I agree with that. It goes for purebreds as well as for mongrels.

Most dogs, whether purebred or not are absolutely wonderful dogs. Sure you can get a psychotic purebred – %#&!*% happens. Just as I can get a psychotic mongrel. %#&!*% happens in the best of families. Or the worst.

What I get with a responsibly bred purebred, that I do not get with a mix, is a guarantee that there is no inbreeding and no pre-existing medical or mental conditions. I get to see the parents, I get to see the parents’ medical records (responsible breeders will show you those if you ask.) and ancestry so I can see, for myself that there is no inbreeding. A responsible breeder will not breed on a dog unless it’s healthy both mentally and physically. When I buy a purebred I get a dog that is checked several times before sale, vaccinated, de-wormed, checked for other parasites and certified healthy by a registered vet.

As for the crap shoot – in a purebred dog one can pretty much predict what the puppies are going to be like mentally, physically and in terms of what line of work they are suitable for.

Responsible breeders do that every time they pair a specific dog and bitch for breeding. They breed for the specific characteristics in those dogs. Of course they cannot guarantee that every dog in the litter will have exactly the same characteristics, but if you breed on a dog with good hunting and search skills (as in f.i the bigger Spaniels) chances are that the majority of the litter will turn out with those same skills to some degree. If you breed on a dog with good working skills, such as search and specified obedience, f.i a Labrador Retrievers, chances are that the litter will be good at search and specified obedience. Search and specified obedience are skills needed in Search and Rescue Dogs.
Here it’s a law that if I buy a purebred dog, I get its ancestry (up to 10 generations) printed by the National Kennel Association along with a certification that all its ancestors are free of hereditary diseases, or other conditions that are known to crop up in some breeds.

The NKA also advice people not to buy unless one is shown those voluntarily by the breeder. Those records cannot be tampered with by the breeder, as they are only printed and sent “registered mail” when the breeder registers the litter with the NKA. A breeder can only register dogs with the NKA if they are healthy and this has to be verified in written form by a registered Vet.

In the sales contract, in order to stay in business, a breeder has to offer a new puppy, or a complete refund should the dog show any signs of breed-typical conditions or mental instability. So they take a great risk should they breed on dogs that are not stable, healthy and up to par, because sooner or later any of it will come back and bite them.

When I buy a mongrel puppy, I rarely get any verification of anything, the puppies are rarely checked by a vet, vaccinated, de-wormed or checked for other parasites. I might get to see and interact with the parents, if the puppy was home-bred, but I won’t know if there are chances for hip, elbow or knee problems (larger dogs) or heart and eye problems. In f.i pit bulls, any of them really, there is always the chance of severe skin problems, that might not be visible in the parents, but will crop up in a mix. Mental stability cannot be verified further tan one generation back (parents) and only if I get to meet the parents.

With a mix, especially if several breeds are involved, I can’t be sure exactly what it will be good at, and some breeds simply do not mix well. Example Border Collies are extremely intelligent and crave a lot of attention through work, such as herding, agility, and other mentally demanding tasks – a border collie NEEDS to work or it will literally go insane with stress. Mix that with another herding dog, like any of the Belgians and chances that you have a time bomb waiting to go off has doubled because the Belgians, in addition to being as needy in terms of work as the Border Collie, they are also nervous and fragile mentally. It’s like playing Russian Roulette, only you are playing not with your life, but that of the dog and that of others.

Pits are very good dogs, but they do have one little specialty that stem from them originally being fighting dogs. They have extremely strong jaws and necks and they tend to want to hold on to whatever they get hold of in a stressful situation, some more than others. Breed that with a Malinois (Belgian) which is way sharper mentally than f.i a German Shepherd, and tend to respond aggressively faster than most other dogs to provocations, and you have a potential disaster.

Couple the above with bad leadership, ignorance about dogs, too little attention and challenge in terms of work, and you have something that cannot be predicted in any way.

Most people do not know what are the up-side and down-side of each breed, and mixing what you do not know can spell an absolutely wonderful dog, but it can just as well turn out to be a complete nightmare.

Responsible breeders KNOW their dogs, and know what they are turning out to the public.

Disgusting – breedism at it’s worse!

I do BLAME the breeders – all breeders – there is no need to breed any more dogs.

Right back at you (Name Withheld), in fact YOU disgusts me.
For depriving the legally blind of Seeing eye dogs.
For depriving the Earthquake victims of a chance to be found.
For condemning special needs children to a life of low self-confidence and lower motor skills than they need to.
For depriving the legally deaf of service dogs that makes sure they function on their own in a society full of sounds.
For depriving the diabetic of help when they need it, the epileptic when they need help and the AD(H)D child a companion that trains focus skills and reduces fear and anxiety.
For depriving the wheel-chair bound of assistance with hard to do, hard to reach tasks, and condemning them to a life in dependence of others.

With your attitude towards “no more dogs needed”, there will be no dogs around in 8-15 years as all the shelter and rescue dogs are routinely spayed and neutered and dogs only live 8-15 years. What then? Who is going to be seeing eye dogs, military dogs, rescue dogs, personal assistance dogs? Are you going to import them from abroad? Are you aware of the costs of such an endeavor? Are you aware that the costs will be so high that only the rich will be able to afford seeing eye dogs, military dogs, rescue dogs, personal assistance dogs, because no NPO’s will have the money to GIVE away imported seeing eye dogs, military dogs, rescue dogs, personal assistance dogs?
Name Withheld

Yes, a dog from the shelter may be just what is needed, and will be a wonderful dog, and if you are so inclined – get your dog from the shelter, get several – good, shelter dogs need homes too. *yes* By all means enroll young dogs (mongrel or not) in training programs that will train them to be all sorts of service dogs. That will only be good for the dog, and it will give someone a much needed companion tailored for their needs.

However, responsible dog breeders are still needed, or there won’t be any dogs in 15 years.

Outlawing responsible dog breeding or harassing responsible dog breeders and their dogs isn’t going to do change how potential dog owners see their dogs or treat them once the dog is no longer wanted. It won’t give a home to a dog who has had a rough start in life and it won’t end the dog slavery of puppy mills. Education and Legislation will.

Posted in Dogs | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

ALL is not Crap in China

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 26, 2008

Panda with Cub

(CNN) — Animal handlers in China have developed a “sexercise” program to try to encourage extinction-threatened pandas to overcome their notoriously low sex drives.

Featuring hip and pelvic-strengthening “dances” for male pandas, the program also sees inexperienced pandas watching their older relatives make love to learn a few moves.

The handlers hope to encourage mating among the sex-shy-but-endangered animals, the Chinese state media reported Tuesday. They work at the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding in the southwestern Sichuan province, the China Daily said.

Keepers teach male pandas a dance-like routine to strengthen the pelvic and hip area — it also boosts the animal’s stamina, the paper said.

In the wild, pandas are solitary animals, coming together only in the spring to mate.

Keepers place a male panda in a female’s den when she’s not there and vice versa. This allows them to smell each other’s odors. And if the pandas get randy at the same time, keepers bring them together, the report said.

“We arrange love-making between two excellent pandas in front of inexperienced pandas, which have never had sex. It does work,” the reserve’s deputy chief, Fei Lisong, told the newspaper.

The unusual measures are aimed at increasing the population of captive giant pandas. They have famously low sexual desires — and that threatens their future.

Fewer than 1,600 giant pandas survive in the wild, along the edge of the Tibetan plateau in China, according to the .

Finally some good news from China. We need that, my friends, we really do.

While we work hard to make the Chinese Government see sense, let’s also celebrate that which is GOOD about China – if it had not been for the dedicated work by Chinese panda handlers and animal preservists, there would be no Great Pandas left in the world. Much is BAD in China, but this is GOOD. Please keep that in mind.

Posted in Animals, China | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Today a Puppy, Tomorrow a Baby?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on March 5, 2008

They said his name and showed his face. He and his buddy ought to get arrested by the military police and have the book thrown at them.

Sign the Petition: Fight Puppy-Killing Soldiers

All hairs on my body is still standing on end, my wife claims that I am ash-colored and have a halo of out-rage and shock. I knew many US soldiers are callous and indifferent to HUMAN life. But now I know that the American Military just has to be prevented from going anywhere in the world.

The hapless little puppy had absolutely no way of knowing what was about to happen to it, or to defend itself. You can see on the picture that it’s in the position it would be if it’s mother was carrying it to another location, a position of calm and surrender, as is the nature of very small puppies being grabbed by the scruff.

This grown man is about to do the indescribable cruel thing of throwing this little puppy over a cliff rim, some 90-100 feet into the stony rubble below, to die (hopefully instantaneously).

Then he turns to the camera and says “That was Meeeaaan!” with a wide grin.

What will it be next to entertain this piece of human offal? A human baby? A woman? Perhaps an “insurgent”?

Please sign the petition.
These Soldiers need to be STOPPED and sent home to the US in dishonor.

Posted in Animals | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

People, rats, cats and dogs…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on July 17, 2007

BEIJING, China (Reuters) — Live rats are being trucked from central China, suffering a plague of a reported 2 billion rodents displaced by a flooded lake, to the south to end up in restaurant dishes, Chinese media reported. Rat vendors had been doing a roaring trade thanks to strong supply over the last two weeks, the China News Service quoted vendors as saying.”Recently there have been a lot of rats… Guangzhou people are rich and like to eat exotic things, so business is very good,” it quoted a vendor as saying, referring to the capital of Guangdong province, where people are reputed to eat anything that moves.”

Needless to say this article caused all kinds of reactions when posted in a Public Forum’s News Section. The Chinese are BAD people, because they eat rats, cats and dogs…

What people seem to forget is that cultural differences not only vary from country to country – but from time to time, and is very much dependent on circumstance and opportunity. Humans are basically opportunistic omnivores, and very versatile in terms of adaptation to their environment and available resources. We will scavenges for survival.

There is nothing to indicate that this in any way is a matter of morals, ethics or “development”.

There really is nothing that says that “our” way of doing things is the better way – just imagine how many poor and destitute would/could get a meal if rat was accepted as a food source in the West…or cats, dogs or pigeons, that would be caught and euthanized anyway, because we do not want them in our cities…

It seems to me that the Chinese have a good idea here – and though it seems repulsive to us – it seems to work for them, so why be morally self-righteous about it and show how culturally imperialistic we in the West are?

Feeding their poor on rat is a small issue, compared to the violations of human rights and civil rights going on in China. Nuh?

Now, this article should actually cause more ruckus, funny enough it didn’t…

Olympics highlight human rights in China

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer

“Child labor. Forced abortions. Religious persecution. Jailed dissidents. Cultural cleansing in Tibet and ethnic cleansing in Africa. For China, the run-up to next summer’s Olympics in Beijing is looking like a marathon through a human-rights minefield.

It’s been decades since the games focused on which athletes were faster or stronger. But the Olympics have not been this politicized since the U.S.-Soviet boycotts of the 1980s.

China sees a chance to wow the world as it hosts its first event watched by billions of people. The increasingly image-conscious country will measure success both with medals and whether the 2008 Olympics burnish its rising star. That gives activists, governments and celebrities with a cause an opportunity to influence policies they’ve long assailed.

It’s tragic – rats, cats and dogs take precedence over humans and their rights not to be violated. I am not saying that we shouldn’t care about animals and their conditions. I truly think we should. But to me a news item about China, human rights violations and the Olympics is heavy-weight news in comparison to an article about how a Chinese Province tries to solve a problem that is a result of a natural disaster.

But then, what do I know, perhaps those rats, cats and dogs were humans in a former life…

Posted in China, Dogs, Human Rights, Olympics 2008 | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Selective Obedience

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on May 17, 2006

Boris, my dog, is a very well behaved dog. He is kind and open, always willing to please and be at his best – except when… well, we’ll get to that. He knows all the usual tricks of a dog – sitting, lying down, fetch, coming when called etc. He even knows how to ‘do his business’ on command for those cold and rainy days. In fact he is much like a human. He is opportunistic when it comes to food – i.e if it’s there he will eat it, even if it, strictly speaking isn’t his or if it’s in the garbish bin. He likes warm, soft places to sleep, and he enjoys playing and cuddling. So what’s about the “Except when…” Well, if anything more interesting comes along, he will loose his focus on what he is doing right there and then and chase down this new interest. Like rabbits or moles. No matter of yelling, treat-waving, cooing will help, he is completely deaf to any of that. “But Dad, there’s a RABBIT over here!” Selective Obedience. He also knows that if he eventually comes he will not be punished, he will be praised for coming. That is my Rule. Positive re-inforcement.Much the same as with us Humans and G-d. We generally are very well behaved – we know all the tricks, even some not so common ones and we do them gladly and willingly – until something more interesting comes along, distracts us, take our focus. Then all we have ever learned is lost to our minds and souls. Selective Obedience. It seems to me that we do this a lot – and it needn’t be something ‘positive’ like the eqvuivalent of a RABBIT to get us unfocused – some times it’s the deepest, blackest and coldest depression that makes us not hear, see or feel that G-d is out there, talking to us. I hate Depression – it is so Life-negating.

Quite opposite to Boris.


Posted in Boris, Dogs | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: