The animal rights con-job

In the late 1970's, the main focus of the anti-sealing industry was to stop the harvest of harp seal pups. For the last 20 years, the main focus by the anti-sealing industry is the making of money. In North America, each and every year, ten times as many deer are shot and killed compared to harp seals. More then 600 thousand deer are killed by vehicles alone in the United States last year. Add to that figure the two million white-tailed deer which are shot by hunters every year in North America (according to the New World Encyclopedia). The two million does not take into account all the other deer species either.

The 2009 Canadian sealing season brought in only 59 500 seal pelts worth approximately 1 million dollars. Animal rights groups, during 2009, earned approximately 300 million dollars worldwide protesting against the Canadian seal hunt. The majority on the money raised by animal rights groups, unfortunately, is not put to good practical use. One campaign by PETA for example ( People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), wanted all of us to only eat ice cream made from human breast milk rather then cows milk. This would be a real good example of how animal rights groups spend their donation dollars.

Animal rights today for the most part is a internet hoax.They do little or nothing at all for the environment, protection of animal species or animal welfare. Their job is to lay this guilt trip on us all in the hopes of getting you to donate money. The HSUS ( Humane Society of the United States)International Fund for Animal Welfare) earned a hefty 91 million dollars. Fundraising, not the care of animals in the objective here with these groups.

does exactly that and does it very well. In 2008, the HSUS earned 107 million dollars sucking in people with big hearts for donations. IFAW ( IFAW is one of the worst animal rights propaganda machines to have ever been in operation throughout history. No lie or deceit is to big to line their pockets. In fact the founder of the IFAW sold his name and affiliation to the IFAW when he retired for 2.5 million dollars even though he was making more then 3 hundred thousand dollars a year as their employee for years. The amount of money these so called non-profit animal rights groups throw around is just staggering.

HSUS in their 2008 taxes showed $5,454,258 had been set aside for retirement benefits. Nearly 5 and a half million dollars for retirement and this is what your donations are used for. And all of you thought the money was going to help out animals. Another good example of animal rights groups wasting your donations occurred when Peta tried to sue The California Milk Advisory Board in 2002 over a commercial they made showing "happy cows adds". "A lawsuit filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals challenges whether the California dairy industry's award-winning ad campaign featuring "Happy Cows" frolicking in verdant pastures is false advertising." PETA believed the cows were in fact "not happy" and spent 10's of thousands of donated dollars to prove it. One must really question the sanity here.


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

IFAW -International Fund for Animal Welfare

In 2008, IFAW worldwide funding was down to 99 million dollars from 111 million dollars in 2007. Afraid of another funding drop this year (2009), IFAW has cranked up their fundraising efforts early this year. The Canadian seal hunt is IFAW's biggest money earner and inspite of it's being more then 4 months away, the IFAW is on the fundraising trail. Protesting against the Canadian seal hunt is big business today. It is estimated that in 2007, three hundred million dollars was raised.

From the beginning, the seal hunt controversy has been a staged affair. Photos and videos of a bloody abattoir on the ice have been powerfully exploited to build comfortable financial empires for the IFAW. The Canadian seal protest movement is a sophisticated and very profitable industry. Their aim is publicity and revenue just like any other business. Every year they mount their seal hunt campaign, and the money rolls in. Honesty is not a requirement.

The once-a-year harvesting of predatory seals in a limited, controlled and monitored situation is no different than the slaughtering of beef cattle for our steaks or lobster for our plates. Why are people so sympathetic to seals and so indifferent to their legitimate balance-of-nature hunters? Because they've been duped. IFAW has conned you.

Sheryl Fink is a Senior Research and Projects Specialist working out of the Guelph (Canada) office of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Trained and schooled in the effective use of propaganda, she specializes in using images and video of animals in distress for the purpose of soliciting donations. Emotional pitches and half truths are their bread and butter of IFAW and they do not want anyone tampering with their cash cow. According to the Canadian government, the harp seal population, as of last year, sits at 5.6 million seals off the east coast of Canada with close to 8 million worldwide. With such a huge amount of harp seals in the world, I will expect that Sheryl Fink is going to make a great deal of money this year for IFAW.

One of the first things you will learn is that IFAW is blatantly misleading the public on the topic of the Atlantic seal hunt. Seal hunt becomes seal slaughter, 8 million harp seals becomes harp seals are going extinct. Now this is how one effectively uses propaganda to make money. This is what IFAW is taught. All over the net one can see people holding a white seal pup. It's against Canadian law to hunt the white seal pups. But once again, the white seal pup photo is used to get people's wallets to fly open and donate. Young harp seals are cute, have large eyes, are fluffy, white and cuddly. They can trigger the empathetic and infant-protection instincts easily in people. The photographs of the white seal pup has to be used to fundraise. How many are going to donate if a grey colored seal photo is used? The scandal about all this is that so many nice old ladies, so many well-meaning animal lovers, so many decent people have been suckered into sending cash and to organizations like IFAW that thrive on this misplaced concern for big-eyed, fish-eating seals.

In short, Sheryl Fink's job is to use people's emotions against them in order to fleece them out of money. How this lady can sleep at night is beyond me. In 2007, a seal species was officially declared extinct. Caribbean monk seal is gone forever. Sheryl Fink and the IFAW said and did nothing about it. In fact they are not ever aware of it. You can't make any money out of a extinct seal species so instead they protest for Canadian harp seal, the most numerous marine mammal on the planet.

Toby the bunny

Just how easy is it to con people out of money under the ruse of animal cruelty? How about we hold a bunny rabbit as ransom?

Even when it sounds totally out to lunch, just the mention of perceived animal cruelty is enough to set off the animal rights crowd, no doubt getting more donations as well. Taking a cue from Bonsai Kitten, a site called Save Toby used a creepy premise to throw animal rights activists into a tizzy.

The Save Toby saga began in the early days of 2005, when the site announced that its owners had found a wounded rabbit (which they named Toby) and nursed it back to health--but then declared that if they did not receive $50,000 in donations for the care of Toby by July 30, 2005, they would be forced to cook and eat the rabbit.

The owners asserted that the site was not a hoax: They would, indeed, cook and eat Toby if they did not receive the money. Animal rights activists cried "animal cruelty," to which the owners responded that they were doing nothing cruel to Toby--in fact, they were trying to save him. Supposedly, the site collected more than $24,000 before Bored.com bought it, and Toby was saved. But holding a bunny hostage for ransom?

And you think that no one would take the "Save Toby" seriously?? Well, guess again. Here is a response:

"yeah, you sick bastard, I took the liberty in notifying PETA of your actions, cruelty to animals as well as demanding money for for a life.And trust me, you can expect hell to be raised for you and your sick friends from the law and the largest animal rights groups soon.Have fun with the activist's and the courts, asshole! If you were smart, you hand over the bunny to a shelter and refund all of the money donated to you before you get yourself into a world of hurt."
-Jason

PETA already knows all too well how to con people out of money. They are experts at it.
In 2008, PETA made 31 million dollars.

A book was released in September 2005. The book made a new threat: if 100,000 copies of the book were not sold, Toby would be eaten at Thanksgiving dinner. A sucker and his money is soon departed.

http://www.savetoby.com/


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

Peta only tells half the story

As usual peta is only interested in half the story. They don't mention that products containing gluten, a vegan product can have exactly the same effect.

"The jury is still out on whether or not diets free of gluten and casein can reduce autism, but the little evidence that there is suggests it's possible that it could help some children."

Autistic children often have gastrointestinal tract disturbances such as abdominal pains and diarrhea which make it hard for them to digest certain milk proteins properly.

Many people, including doctors, nutritionists and parents of autistic children believe that this can be somewhat relieved by eliminating certain foods from the diet.

A casein-free diet is an eating plan in which milk protein (casein) is eliminated by removing all dairy products from the diet. It is often, if not always, used in combination with a gluten-free diet, which calls for the elimination of wheat, barley, rye, oats, and any products made from these grains which would include food starches, semolina, couscous, malt, some vinegars, soy sauce, flavorings, artificial colors and hydrolyzed vegetable proteins.

There are different possibilities for ways in which this could affect children with autism. The most studied theory is that eating or drinking milk protein leads to high levels of protein by-products, called casomorphines, in some children with autism. These by-products may then affect behavior like a drug would. Specifically, in these children, casomorphines could reduce their desire for social interaction, block pain messages, and increase confusion. If milk protein is taken out of the diet, the idea is that this will reduce the level of casomorphines, and behavior will improve as a result.

The effectiveness of elimination diets in improving the behavior of children with autism has only recently been scientifically researched. This research has almost always examined diets that are both casein- and gluten-free. The tested diets were both casein- and gluten-free, so it is not clear whether it was the elimination of casein, gluten, or both that resulted in any improvements.

According to one theory, some people with autism cannot properly digest gluten and casein, which form peptides, or substances that act like opiates in their bodies. The peptides then alter the person's behavior, perceptions, and responses to his environment.

Medical tests can determine if your child has a sensitivity or an allergy to gluten, casein and other foods such as eggs, nuts and soybeans.

There is also a wide range of web sites and parent support groups exist that provide advice and support to parents trying to follow gluten-free and casein-free diets for their children with autism.

Do not, under any circumstances take nutritional advice from peta. They do not consult with doctors or researchers and much of their information is based on hearsay.


http://www.autismcanada.org/glutensugar.htm

http://www.autismweb.com/diet.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9875.php

http://www.informedhealthonline.org

Advocates of exploitation

Submitted by Broken record

It is often said that we should understand the other side’s viewpoint in disagreements. I think we can agree that this is good advice in all disagreements, regardless of the topic or the participants. In this essay, I explain my general understanding of animal exploitation advocates’ viewpoint. I limit the essay to the viewpoint of advocates of exploitation as opposed to those who exploit, but generally remain silent on the issue of whether we are justified in exploiting, harming, and killing innocent nonhuman beings. There are additional considerations regarding those who exploit, but do not actively advocate exploitation, which I will not address here. I believe these years of experience provide me with a reasonable basis for understanding and assessing the exploiters’ viewpoint, whether advocated for or not.

Almost all animal exploitation advocates like to consume and are in the habit of consuming the flesh (i.e. meat) and bodily fluids (e.g. milk, cheese and eggs) of nonhuman beings. Many animal exploitation advocates also like to shoot nonhuman beings for fun, experiment on them for money (ostensibly also for “scientific” reasons), hang on the wall or wear parts of nonhuman beings, use them for entertainment, or make money off the numerous ways we exploit them. These uses, individually and collectively, are doubtlessly the primary, if not the only, motive driving the arguments of animal exploitation advocates. Exploitation advocates all have one thing in common: self-interest and personal gain, no matter how great or trivial.

Animal exploitation advocates start with the notion, “I want to [fill in the blank: hunt, eat meat, consume dairy products, profit from exploitation, etc.]” and work from that self-interested idea to search for premises to support a conclusion "justifying" the desired use. Included in the premises found by exploitation advocates are some of the common cultural prejudices handed down to us from philosophers such as Rene Descartes, who told us that nonhumans are literally “automata” or “God’s machines” and Immanuel Kant, who told us that, because nonhumans are not as “rational” as us, nonhumans are “things” (never mind how irrationally humans often actually think and behave; and not to mention the complete irrelevancy of rational capacity in distinguishing beings from things). The cultural prejudices are even embedded in our language when we refer to nonhumans as “it” (even when we know the gender) instead of he or she and “that” instead of who. Well, obviously if nonhumans are really mere “automata” or “things”, then we certainly have no moral obligations to them. Under this distorted view, nonhuman beings are no different from rocks, tables, and trees. There are other dubious, even absurd, premises selected for their fine fit with the desired self-interested conclusion that nonhuman beings are morally irrelevant, but status as “things” is the most common and popular, both implicitly and explicitly, when animal exploitation advocates are working backwards from the assumed conclusion to the “premises.”

Why do people sometimes hold onto such distortions of reality as the notion that nonhuman beings are “things”? Why do some of us so blatantly ignore the evidence of sentience and moral worth? I think part of the reason can be described by an extreme form of the doctrine of William James called The Will To Believe. “The Will to Believe” is derived from James’ pragmatism whereby the epistemological standard of truth of a belief, when we lack evidence, is measured by how well it benefits us to hold the belief as true. If this is our standard of truth, then according to James’ pragmatism, we can ignore a lack of evidence regarding a self-benefiting belief and “will” ourselves to hold that belief. Animal exploitation advocates take James' "will to believe" further than James by ignoring contradictory evidence regarding a self-benefiting belief. How much we are willing to ignore contradictory empirical evidence, such as the morally relevant similarities of human and nonhuman beings, or the similarity of dogs to pigs, to hold a belief that personally benefits us is a fairly good measure of how radical our self-interested dishonesty is.

Intellectual honesty is what has led and will lead to greater social justice and moral progress in the world, whether the victims of injustice are human or nonhuman beings. If animal exploitation advocates embraced intellectual honesty by placing themselves in the inevitable and unenviable position of being thrown into the world as a nonhuman being subject to the cruel and exploitive whims of humans through no fault of their own and worked from that premise, applying a fair version of the Golden Rule and letting the conclusions result from the intellectually honest premises instead of letting bogus premises result from preconceived conclusions, then many animal exploitation advocates would change their minds, go vegan, and stand on solid epistemological and moral ground.

So it is not difficult to see the world from the exploitation advocates’ viewpoint, or the violent criminal’s viewpoint, or the tyrant’s viewpoint. All we need to do is place our self-interest at the center of our criteria for “determining” truth and reality to the exclusion of others’ interest, contradictory evidence, and intellectual honesty, and we’ve arrived at the essence of the exploitation advocates’ viewpoint.

Greenpeace is protesting the oilsands again

Twenty-one Greenpeace activists were at Ft. McMurray, Alberta again protesting what they claim is dirty oil. Would you believe they floated down the Athabasca River 20 miles to the oils sands plant. The point I am going to try and make here is that Ft. McMurray is a 5 hours drive north of Edmonton. Did Greenpeace drive some environmental friendly bus all that way or did they take their 8 cylinder SUV's like they normally would? Several of the activists were from Europe. Did they fly to Canada as they usually would or use a sailboat that used no fuel??

Here comes the Greenpeace is a hypocrite part. Greenpeace should be setting the example for all of us (you would think) by cutting back on their carbon footprint instead of making things worse. Money people donate to Greenpeace is going into oil company coffers. Greenpeace is protesting against an oil company while at the same time they are using the very product their protesting about. Where is the sense in that? Go figure. Lately it seems as though "environmental activist" has become synonymous with "hypocrite."

Post submitted by "No Picture."

Feminists are pissed at PETA

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ) has gotten women showering together in public, making love to vegetables, in cages and appearing naked all over the place. As a red blooded male, I just love to watch some hot girl-on-girl action, but I do understand what the feminists are talking about. The billboard seen below is what set the feminists off.


Calling women who are overweight "whales" and inferring that their bodies are like blubber, is fat hatred. In response, the Portland Feminist Action League decided to organized a "flash protest." Where you ask? At Ingrid Newkirk's (fearless leader of PETA) book signing held at Powell's Book Store. As Newkirk prepared to speak at the store on Tuesday, August 18, a dozen Portland feminists were crouched on the sidewalk a block away, drawing up large protest signs, with messages like "Stop fat-shaming women," "Stop disrespecting women," and "Cut it out with your mistreatment of women." Newkirk says that shaming fat women would be a good thing because it would wake them up to vegetarianism and veganism. No joke. One feminist spoke to Newkirk: "I approached Ms. Newkirk a few minutes later as she was speaking to another [person] in our group, who was emotionally telling her history of supporting PETA from the age of 12 until she came to realize their hurtful, embarrassing approaches to promoting animal rights. Ms. Newkirk, in short, responded with the idea that "these obese people are hurting their children," and spoke again about meat eating leading to fat bodies. As, I walked up, [being] clearly the chubbiest in the room, Ms. Newkirk looked me in the fucking eyes and said, "I'm not okay with the fat positive movement," and began to personally lecture me about obesity, heart disease, and the ills of eating meat and fast food. I told her that I'm a vegetarian with a healthy diet, which she glossed over as she said, glibly, "We love whales, and we love women - we'd just like to save them both." I told her I didn't need saving, and she again threw out some bogus information about how all fat people are more unhealthy than all thin people."

...and you wonder why the feminists are mad at PETA.


Post submitted by "No Picture."

The case for Lucy the elephant

A lot of drama has been centered around an old lonely Asian elephant in the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Her name is Lucy and she is over 30 years old. As of now, she is the only elephant at the zoo, her last companion, Samantha, having been moved to a North Carolina zoo in 2007.

As with all zoo-related conundrums, Lucy’s case has been the centre of an animal rights frenzy, with a variety of AR groups, from PAWS to PeTA, having made cases for Lucy’s removal from the zoo. The case has gained momentum, now, with several celebrities pleading for her to be transferred to a California elephant sanctuary. Other sanctuaries in the U.S. have also made offers to take in Lucy, including the Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, Tenn. William Shatner, Bob Barker, and Margaret Atwood alike have all expressed concern over Lucy’s condition, arguing that she would do much better living in an environment with other elephants.

PAWS has offered to pay the $200 000 transport costs, and Bob Barker is working in conjunction with The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to file a lawsuit against the city.

It certainly sounds like a nice prospect to move Lucy to a new home with other elephants in sunny California, but the zoo staff and vets have rejected the idea. Lucy has been plagued with a variety of conditions, most prominently a misplaced molar, which has in turn affected her sinuses and contributed to her breathing difficulties. The molar has since fallen out, but Lucy continues to have difficulties breathing. The stress of such a move could severely impact her, zoo officials say. Twice before, Lucy has commuted to the Calgary zoo for a breeding program, and both times Lucy suffered stress during transport. Now, as she nears old age, her vets are increasingly worried about the risks of transporting her. Carol Buckely, director of the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee has brushed off these concerns: “it's not that she's ill. She has a tooth problem, which is common in elephants, and it can be rectified," she said.”

However, zoo officials say there are too many risks in moving her, and not enough benefits. Other vets agree. Dr. James Oosterhuis, principal vet at the San Diego Wild Animal Park in California examined Lucy under sedation and reported that “To move her at the (limit) of her respiratory capacity, her ability to breathe … is tantamount to signing a certificate of her death…it is my opinion that it would be unethical for any veterinarian to recommend moving her, and in fact would be malpractice to sign a (transportation) health certificate for her at this time.” As well, Dr. Milton Ness, vet at the Valley zoo, affirmed that "going into a multi-elephant environment in my mind is going to create more stress and with this respiratory problem, I'm very concerned that that would create a deteriorating health cycle."

However, animal rights groups continue to overlook these reports and insist on the elephant’s well-being best served in another Sanctuary. Although Lucy is the only elephant at the Valley Zoo, she still has a team of caregivers that work to improve her health every day. She is given walks daily and physiotherapy to help alleviate her mild arthritis. More care is going into her respiratory ailments. Many consultations and examinations have been made on Lucy, with vets coming in from other areas and many animal experts weighing in. The zoo affirms that it in the elephant’s best interests as of now to stay at the zoo and continue receiving treatment.

An AW guide for parents and kids

Photo by Natasha Gudermane

Your children have a right to know about animal issues. They should not be shielded from the many instances of animal abuse that occur around the world every day. They have right to formulate their own thoughts and opinions. However, education is vital. One cannot make an accurate and informed opinion without grasping the issue at hand: examining it from all perspectives and views. It is easy to jump onto the bandwagon and form an opinion based on one-sided information, but it is crucial to know that animal issues affect not only animal rights activists, but others as well: industry workers, animal owners, animal welfarists, and more. Here are ways to inform your child, and give them a well rounded base of knowledge about animal issues:

• Educate yourself: You can’t be a teacher without the knowledge! To prevent spreading incorrect information to your children, educate yourself! For help, peruse different animal related sites, go to the library and take out some books, or talk to other animal owners. But don’t be afraid to admit you don’t know something. If your child asks you something you yourself don’t know, try and find the answer together, from books, websites, and other sources.

• Encourage them to visit animal related websites: Educating your kids about animal welfare doesn’t mean discouraging them from visiting animal rights sites! Allow them to peruse all sorts of animal related sites, from animal welfare, to animal rights, to industry websites. This allows them to see the issue from all perspectives, and see that there are many sides, not just one “right” one.

• Explain different media tactics: Animal rights organizations (and even some welfare organizations) have a lot of tricks up their sleeves to attract children, so it is important to make sure your child knows these. Explain how articles, pictures, and videos can be deceiving and not provide the whole story. This will make them more aware of fallacious advertising, and misleading details.

• Visit animal facilities, and talk to animal experts/owners: These are places and people made out by animal rightists to be ‘evil,’ and ‘cruel.’ People who criticize animal industries often have very limited experience in the industry themselves; therefore it is easier for them to be misled by faulty information. The best way to learn about an animal industry is to get firsthand knowledge. Some great places to visit are zoos (see if you can find a program that gets you closer to the animals), farms (some farms have special tours for kids), conservation centers, animal training facilities, and animal shelters.

• Allow them to care for animals in their own way: Animal issues are often very important to children. It is important to them that animal abuse is stopped, and that animals are taken care of and given respect. A great way for children and teens to help animals if for them to get involved personally. Volunteer at an animal shelter, take dogs for walks, form animal welfare clubs, take animals to visit the sick at hospitals, and much more!
  

Sometimes you may feel uneasy about all the things your child is exposed to, from graphic animal abuse videos to misleading advertising. Building a strong foundation of trust with your child is vital to help them navigate their way through the many things they will encounter in the animal-related world. Let them know that if they have any questions or concerns, they can come to you, and that you can help them when it comes to explaining different ideas and concepts.

Before you get that dog...a potential dog owner's guide

So you've seen the neighbor's cute little puppy and you want one too? You have the money for the initial purchase, but are you really ready? Before you go and grab Fido, consider these things:

Time: All dogs take time, but some dogs take more than others. And not just for the exercise, but also for grooming, training and socialization as well. For instance, though they can be roughly the same size, you are going to spend much more time in the care of a Yorkshire Terrier than you are on a shorthaired Miniature Dachshund.

Money: After the initial purchase is made there is still money to be spent concerning your pet. After all, Fido's going to need food for the rest of his life and veterinary care when he's sick. Also remember to factor in the cost of vaccinations, spay/neuter, and deworming. Not all dogs come fixed or with their shots, and it will be your responsibility to make sure these are taken care of.

Family/roommates: If you have others living in your household, are they okay with the idea of a dog?


If that's managed not to scare you off, there are some things to consider, such as the breed of the dog. Different breeds have different purposes and these purposes play a large role in how your dog will act within environment. So when thinking about a dog to obtain, please consider these important points:

Energy levels: Some breeds of dog are naturally couch potatoes, but many breeds enjoy a lot of activity. This is when it's time to do a little research on the background of your breed. Working and hunting breeds are two categories that were bred for a lot of activity so it's not uncommon for them to require large amounts of exercise and activities. Dogs with large requirements of actives often become bored in houses or yards with nothing to do. This often causes the dog to resort to destructive measures for amusement.

Size: Dogs come in many shapes and sizes. Just because Sparky's a cute little puppy now, doesn't mean he'll necessarily stay that way if you didn't check out the typical adult breed size beforehand. Always check the average height/weight of the breed you'd like.

Grooming: Some dogs need a few minutes a week, some need a few minutes a day. A few need much more. Keep in mind that if you get a dog with long hair, it is possible that you will have to cut it yourself to keep it manageable or you will have to pay someone else to do it. A note on shedding is that it is untrue that long haired dogs shed more. It depends on the breed in question and the weather. A short haired dog like a Lab will probably shed much more over the course of it's life than a dog like a Brittany. The key is a good brushing. Bathing often is more likely to make shedding problems worse than better as your dog's skin dries out.

Warning: Don't buy into the hype you hear. There is no such thing as a 100% shedless dog. Even poodles shed but it is much, much less often and in tight curls. There's no such thing as a 100% hypoallergenic dog either. If you have very severe allergies to dogs then it is likely that dogs named hypoallergenic are still going to cause you some irritation.

Inside or Outside: Where will your dog spend most of it's time? While it's possible for all dog breeds to live indoors (provided the housing is adequate), there are certain breeds of dogs that don't fare well outside due to being prone to certain health problems. "Smush-faced" breeds like English Bulldogs and Pugs will probably have difficulty in hot weather due to breathing problems, while thin or "hairless" breeds like the Chinese Crested don't do well in the cold.

Trainability: Over the years dogs have been bred for different roles. While some are bred to work with constant directions from a handler, others are bred for the ability to move independently of their masters on a regular basis. And while all dogs are trainable, the latter tends to to be more difficult to the beginner. It is best for a new dog owner obtain a dog with ease of trainability.


Prey Drive: Basically, these are the motions a predatory animal goes through when killing prey. In dogs however, prey drive has been modified to suit human purposes. All dogs have some level of prey drive, and it's likely that you've seen it. A dog chasing its ball is exhibiting prey drive. So is a dog that chases a squirrel or a Border Collie that's herding. Prey drive in breeds can be anywhere from high to low, with non-working and lapdog types generally being low and working/hunting breeds generally being high. The level of prey drive can also affect trainability and what can be used to motivate the dog during training. Prey drive may also aid in determining how your dog acts with any other pets you may have or just other animals in general.

Breed purpose: Whether or not you intend to use the dog for it's original purpose or not, you must still be aware of the purposes of the dog you want to obtain if you want to avoid clashes in his personality and yours. For instance, if you were a person who doesn't enjoy noise, then it would be a bad idea to get a dog like a Beagle. While Beagles are cute, they are a breed of dog that is bred specifically bred to make sound as they trail interesting scents, so they cannot be blamed for doing what comes naturally.


Still haven't managed to scare you off? Then let's check out places to obtain a dog.

Shelters: Today, shelters are a popular place to obtain a dog. Dogs present at shelters vary in size and breed. Most dogs at shelters today however, are mixed breeds. Dogs end up at shelters for a variety of reasons, such as seizure from abusive homes and abandonment. The pros of shelter dogs is that they tend to cost less than a dog from a breeder, and they usually come fixed and with shots. The cons are that dogs taken from abusive situations tend to require training beyond the scope of the new owner's capabilities. A dog that is overly nervous may injure a person. Puppies also, must be taken into consideration. While they may be cute, you may never know how large a mixed breed puppy will get or what the temperament is likely to be. However, don't let that scare you off. Shelters have proven excellent places to get yourself a furry friend.

Breed Rescues: Breed rescues are different from shelters in the fact that they tend to deal with the rescuing of one breed and possibly their mixes. They come from several of the same situations shelter dogs can come from. The pros of rescue dogs is that breed rescue dogs tend to be fostered, which can give greater insight to the personality of each dog. They also tend to come with shots and are fixed. The cons of a breed rescue lie mainly in cost of adoption, which is generally much more than found in shelters.

Breeders: Breeders are people that may breed one type of dog or possibly several breeds. Pros of breeders lie in the good breeders. A good breeder knows the personalities of his animals and breeds for temperament along with the physical standards he or she is trying to maintain. A good breeder also knows his breed well and may give you tips in care you hadn't known before. A good breeder will also carefully oversee the selection process and may even help you match a puppy to your personality. Cons lie in bad breeders who are more into breeding for the money, rather than the continued existence and health of the breed. These breeders will allow dogs to go to anyone with little question, so long as the price is right and this can mean a number of bad traits in your dog. Be VERY cautious in breeder selection.


All in all, make sure that you don't rush into getting a dog, and take the time to examine your resources. Communicate freely with the people you are receiving your dog from, and don't be afraid to ask questions or seek alternate opinions.


Good luck with Fido!


-Post submitted by "Good Beef"

Balancing Elephant

An elephant reaches out its long trunk to gently grab the food from a toddler who was being held up by his father. Photo: BNPS

According to animal rights activists it is unnatural for an elephant to balance like this and they only do so because of "cruel training methods."

Well I don't see anyone in the photograph coercing the elephant to balance on the edge of his enclosure, it looks very much to me as though he's doing it of his own free will.

So who taught the this elephant to balance on it's tiptoes like this? Probably no one.

The animal spotted a curious toddler holding a snack and clambered up onto a narrow wall on the edge of its enclosure to snatch it.

Balancing on its tiptoes the elephant teetered precariously on the four inch wide ledge. It then reached out its long trunk out to gently grab the food.

The moment was captured by amateur photographer Tobias Haase, during a visit to Hamburg Zoo in Germany.

A-WAG is looking for contributors!

Got something on your mind? Have an idea, story, opinion, or recommendation to share? Submit it, and A-WAG will be happy to post it! We will accept a broad range of submissions, including:

-Links to websites, references, magazine/newspaper articles, etc that have anything to do with animals

-News stories, opinion essays, journals, any written piece of work about animals that you may have come across on the internet, or that you have written yourself

-Pictures, videos, slide shows, any type of media from the internet

-News and nonsense from AR groups: PeTA, HSUS, ALF, etc (or AW groups!)

-Animal welfare news and legislation

-Know someone who's an "expert" in some animal related activity? Are you somewhat of an "expert" yourself (breeding, pet shop worker, zookeeper, pet owner, shelter volunteer...)? We're always looking for interview candidates. Get your story out there by allowing us to interview you!

-Practical animal advice: dogs, cats, horses, reptiles, insects, anything. Your favorite breeds, why you like them, advice for pet buyers, etc.

-Reviews for pet products: What do you recommend for dog treats? Got a home made recipe? Favorite chew toys? Brushes? Got a review for a new toy, cage, whatever? Post em here.

-Articles from other blogs

-Articles pertaining to biology, ecosystems, animal conservation

-Recipes, cool activities, kids activities, fun things to do with animals, clubs, networks, forums, etc

-Musings, facts, thoughts, interesting tidbits about animals

Submissions guidelines

All ideas are welcomed, and there will be no censorship, unless your post is extremely offensive or otherwise ill-fitting. Post acceptability is under the discretion of A-WAG's admin.

Please keep your posts as concise as possible and include any relevant images/links. Cite any sources that you have used.

A-WAG reserves the right to edit posts for coherency and clarity.

If you wish to see the final edit before we post your work on our site, please indicate so in your email.

All posts, media, and contributions will be credited to the author.

Submit all work, questions, or concerns to awagadmin{at}gmail{dot}com

It sucks to be PETA

PETA has been giving McDonald's a good going over in the last year with their Unhappy meal. How did all this pan out when we look at the figures...well here they are: sales for McDonald's went up in Canada and the U.S. in 2008 and 2009.

"The Canadian unit has enjoyed double-digit customer growth in recent months and sales will top $3-billion in 2009, up from $2.91-billion in 2008, another record year for the company. We are in excess of 15 million more guests than we had last year at this time, which is a very substantial number considering that the industry is under pressure,” reported John Betts, President of McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited.

On Monday, McDonald's said its 2008 net profit soared 80 percent from a year ago, lifted by growing demand from consumers seeking low-cost meals in a deepening global recession. Net profit for the full year totaled 4.3 billion dollars, compared with 2.3 billion in 2007, the Oak brook, Illinois-based company said in a statement.

One must really question the effectiveness of PETA and animal rights when in the mighty words of PETA themselves " "This (McDonald's) is our No. 1 campaign and we're going to fight it until we win," spokeswoman Lindsay Rajt said Friday. Well they seem to be losing the battle. In spite of all PETA's protesting about McDonald's, the figures are up across the board.
And what about KFC? This fast food chain has been under PETA's guns for at least 5 years. They are still expanding their restaurants and menu. Has PETA given up on protesting against KFC? I guess it would suck to be PETA.


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

Are you capable of keeping an animal?

-Photo courtesy of Ami's Ambles

Remember, keeping an animal does not just mean keeping him or her alive. You have the responsibility to commit your time and efforts towards the animal and give them the best quality of life you can give. Consider these points before adopting, purchasing, or accepting an animal:

-Are you in the mindset to seriously take in an animal? Keeping a pet is a huge commitment. Animals can live for years, if not decades. Do not only consider your feelings now, but think of what they could be in the future.

Ask yourself these questions:

Am I getting a pet on a whim or because I think the animal is “cute” or “cool”?
Am I getting a pet because I saw a friend, stranger, or celebrity with one?
Am I considering all of the negatives of pet ownership: like vet bills, worry, messes, travel hassles, etc?
Am I getting a pet with the intention of keeping him or her until the rest of his/her days?

-Do you have the funds to keep a pet? Owning an animal does not come cheap. Along with veterinary bills, you must consider food, bedding, training devices, toys, travel accessories, housing expenses, pet sitting services, grooming accessories, and more. If you do not have the sufficient funds to care for an animal, remember that the animal must suffer along with you.

Ask yourself these questions:

Am I currently in debt?
Do I have sufficient funds to take care of myself (and my family)?
If my pet were ever to get into an accident and need extensive treatment, would I be in the position to pay the bills?

-Does your current lifestyle suit an animal? Animals have specific needs to stay healthy and happy. A pet should not have to bend to suit your conveniences, like a car or a fitness program. You must consider the animal you want to obtain, and imagine them in your home, living with you, in your life.

Ask yourself these questions:

How much time can I spend with my pet a day?
Does my pet need a lot of attention (like a dog) or does my pet dislike human handing (like most reptiles).
How much time do I spend away from my home?
Does my pet need someone to look after him/her while I’m away?
Is my pet safe in my home while I am gone?
Do I travel a lot?
Am I able to fill in the specific needs of a pet (grooming, exercise, etc)?
Is my pet prone to destructive behavior if not cared for properly?
Is my pet going to be safe and happy around my other pets/family?

-Do you have arrangements should your pet outlive you? Although this is morbid to think about, think of your pets as young children. If you should pass, you need to make sure they can be put into good hands.

Ask yourself these questions:

Do I have a family member or friend who can care for my pet or else make arrangements for someone else to?
Who is going to take care of my pet in the flurry of funeral/inheritance arrangements?
Will I have to put my pet into a pound or animal shelter?
Have I left instructions on what my wishes are for my pet’s insurance, possessions, care, medical care and possible arrangements after he/she dies?

Take your time when deciding to keep an animal or not, don't let it be on a whim. Many animals today are abandoned or taken to shelters because their owners have realized that they cannot keep them. Make sure you can make a commitment for your pet.

Extinction Of Bat Highlights Critical Animal Rights Failure

As animal species continue to go extinct, the animal rights people of the world sit on their couches and do nothing. Last year a seal species went extinct and animal rights did not even know about it; much less did they care. In addition, "The rare Chinese river dolphin has gone extinct," according to scientists who could not find a single animal during a six-week search on the Yangtze River. Now, the Christmas Island Pipistrelle Bat is nearing extinction, reports the Australasian Bat Society, which could not net a single animal during a four week trapping program to breed the endemic species. With the hundreds of millions of dollars raised each and every year by the animal rights groups, should they not be even a little concerned? Last year alone, the Humane Society of United States earned 107 million dollars. Was even 10 cents of that money spent on protection of animal species? Why are animal species at risk of so little importance to Animal Rights? With the vast resources of manpower and money that animal rights groups have at their disposal, should they not, more then anyone else, raise the alarm? Fund raising, not protection of species, seems to be their prime objective.

The total number of known threatened species in the world today (2009) stands at 16 938 according to Endangered Species International. Of the 44 838 species assessed, 16 928 are listed as threatened with extinction. Millions of species still need to be assessed to know their status. As a result, the number of threatened species is definitely much higher than the current estimate. Threatened species are those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable.

As we continue to destroy our environment and as more and more animal species go extinct, the animal rights groups in our world continue to scream about how much chicken I eat, that I put honey in my tea, keep a pet goldfish and how much milk our children drink. All the while 16 938 species of animals are in trouble. Go figure.


-Post submitted by "No Picture"

Welcome to the beginning of A-WAG!

There are a lot of animal welfare sites and blogs out there, and now A-WAG (Animal Welfare Advocacy Group) has joined their ranks. We are happy to start this new venture, and we hope you enjoy our site.

What is A-WAG?

A-WAG stands for "Animal welfare advocacy group," a group of people concerned about the treatment and welfare of animals around the world, and a group that is dedicated to making a difference in the way we treat and think about animals. Animals are deeply ingrained in our society; they are almost interwoven into humankind. A-WAG is made up of people who seek to strengthen the bond that exists between humans and animals.

Mission statement

A-WAG seeks to emphasize and strengthen the bond that exists between humans and animals. We also serve as a medium through which animal enthusiasts of all kinds can communicate and share information freely and easily. A-WAG strives for open communication, research, and education in all that we do.

Goals

A-WAG strives to:

-Promote responsible animal use

-Provide reliable, informative, and interesting information about a large variety of animal industries and animal activities

-Provide a platform for people to ask questions to professionals from various animal industries

-Provide information, opinions, and research about the various stances on animal use, from animal welfare to animal rights, with an emphasis on welfare

-Clear up misconceptions, misinformation, and propaganda that has confused the public on animal issues and animal ethics.

-Raise awareness on a broad range of animal issues, from legislation, to conservation efforts, to practical advice

-Entertain and inform with interesting stories, events, pictures, videos, anecdotes, and more

-Always provide quality and high calibre information

-Provide a friendly, welcoming, and convenient platform for animal enthusiasts of all kinds from all lifestyles to communicate, express their views, and feel welcomed

We hope that you enjoy browsing our site as we continue to add to it, and hopefully you can voice your thoughts too! Leave a comment, submit your own post, or contact one of us.