Consumer Affairs website has a list of complaints from people whose dogs have been affected by this product.  The company can’t be in the dark about this, as there are reports of problems dating back to 2008 there.  Statistically speaking, there are always a given number of incidents to be expected, which is why you should always supervise your dog when you give them bones (or chew toys), but I think triggering an FDA review warrants notification.

There are claims on the consumer affairs’ site that the company’s insurance refuses to pay for surgical procedures ranging roughly from $3500 to $14,000.  The insurance company informed at least one of the dog owners that it was their own fault for buying the dog bones in the first place. Caveat emptor as far as they are concerned. Good to know! And yes, we all know the insurance company’s client is who they serve, but really– someone’s dog dies, they have a $14K surgical bill, and this is the flippant response?

According to Jill Rosen at the Baltimore Sun, the Better Business Bureau of St Louis has been taking complaints since Thursday:

“concerns arose after the bones splintered, then ulcerated or obstructed the dogs’ intestines. Consumers reported their dogs had become lethargic or were vomiting. One man came home to find his dog dead, bleeding from the mouth.”

No official notification has yet been made by the FDA.

It seems a fisherman took too long to reel in the 22lb Pike in question.  Ten minutes of struggling on the other end of a fishhook was thought to be case-worthy and was prosecuted.  The angler didn’t know he would have to answer to the court for his fishing skills, and ate the evidence with friends. Probably with wine. Turned out to be a laughing stock throughout the country, and some think we can blame the case of the battered fish for the outcome at the polls.

If you’d care to take a look, the Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance of 1981 (translated) is quite a document, covering animal husbandry, transport and slaughter, companion animals, breeding, research with a focus on avoiding pain and injury as an overarching principle.

In that principle’s spirit, the transfer of ownership can be made only to people who provide proof they have gone through four hours of class before being granted special authorization to keep animals, according to the law.  Another fours hours of training is required after ownership is transferred. 

Like a license to drive, you get permission to keep an animal(s) when you prove you understand what is required to do so humanely and legally. The Animal Protection Ordinance was updated two years ago and is even more stringent now, with very specific size cage requirements for animals deemed appropriate to  keep caged, as just one example.

Leo Hickman of the UK’s Guardian provides a quote from Attorney Goetschel that wraps things up nicely:

“”The 2008 law was good for animal protection,” says Goetschel, who can even represent the best interests of a pet in any custody battles resulting from a (human) divorce. “I think the fight about the level of protection is now probably over in Switzerland. We have the ‘dignity of the animal’ recognised in Swiss law. But there is a struggle between the idealism of the ethics and the realism of the application of the law. Ethics should be there like a lighthouse to show where to go.”

What do you think, does this sound like the difference between theory and practice to you? The fish story may be amusing on one level, but the ethics can’t be ridiculed. As Goetschel himself said, how would we react if it were a puppy on the other end of the fishing rod? Do we only save what’s cute? Do we stick with what might be the outdated idea that only vertebrates can feel pain? Which way are you leaning?

Related article: Christian Science Monitor

Here’s the video report by Nancy Pender of Fox News. Look how well-attended that meeting was:

There was the threat of revisiting breed specific legislation should there be further pit bull incidents, but what we know is that it is the people who own the dogs that are responsible for dogs off  leash and whatever happens as a result.  

I think the Swiss have it right–you get a dog, you sign up for mandatory training.  It is something that has to be done in any case; it keeps the dog safe, you bond through the experience, and you have a good doggy citizen that won’t be seeing the inside of a shelter again when training is satisfactorily completed. 

As I had mentioned in another post, since the reason often cited for dogs being turned in or returned to shelters centers on behavior, maybe a well-heeled foundation or two would target a group of shelters and provide funds for training purposes for adopting families.  It would really make a great study and become one of the defining tools keeping dogs out of the shelter system…oh, but I digress;-)

I know it’s an absurdity, how many ordinary things we seem to be compelled to turn into prerequisites, ordinances, or legislation.  New rules are everywhere we turn. But when it comes to averting an injustice for animals, especially for a breed type so unfairly battered from both those eluding the law and those handing down judgement, I think it’s the least we can do.

This article from the Daily Herald was brought to my attention by twitter pal @doggysmama, a resident of Elgin, who suggested a much bigger problem: Elgin can’t seem to deal with the “gangs of illegals” that have moved in to that city and are targeting the dogs is an attempt to quiet angry residents. Conjecture? Maybe. Maybe not. 

The inequity is as clear as the onerous requirements laid at the feet of any person who owns a pit bull “type” dog. Whatever that is supposed to mean.  No insurance company will insure a “dangerous dog” once it has been labeled as such, unless of course it’s an impossibly high premium to meet with a long list of restrictions on where and how the dog must be handled outside your four walls.

The other point I have to mention is the fact that, according to Steve Dale’s article linked at the beginning of this post, there’s someone visiting from Denver advising the town council on his experience in handling objections to this BSL travesty.  There was a lawyer in that Denver panel who was actively soliciting cities and towns proclaiming that he could show them how to jam this through and get the law established.  For a price, no doubt. And above the objections of the citizens.  Isn’t that quite the recommendation?  If anyone knows the Denver advisor’s name, please give me a shout?

Dale has a series of posts on Elgin and their BSL efforts against pit bulls–all great, factual and with other expert’s input if you’d like to gather some facts for your files…just in case your town is next.

How about you? Do you have any stories to relate on this issue?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Lincoln, NE, March 8, 2010 – Nature’s Variety has expanded its voluntary recall of Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diets for dogs and cats to include the “Best If Used By” dates of 10/29/10 and 11/9/10 because these products may be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products. People handling pet food can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the product or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, or vomiting. Some pets may experience only a decreased appetite, fever, or abdominal pain. If your pet has consumed any of the affected products and is experiencing any of these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The recall includes the following products with a “Best If Used By” date of 10/29/10 or 11/9/10:

UPC#7 69949 60131 9 – Chicken Formula 0.75 lb trial sized medallions

UPC#7 69949 60130 2 – Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions

UPC#7 69949 60120 3 – Chicken Formula 6 lb patties

UPC#7 69949 60121 0 – Chicken Formula 2 lb single chubs

In an abundance of caution, Nature’s Variety has also chosen to expand this voluntary recall to include all Chicken Formula and Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diets for dogs and cats with any “Best If Used By” date on or before 2/5/11. Nature’s Variety has elected to clear the market of raw frozen chicken diets as it implements a state-of-the-art new food safety process called High Pressure Pasteurization for use on all Nature’s Variety Raw Frozen Diets.

The products included in the expanded recall are any Chicken Formula or Organic Chicken Formula Raw Frozen Diet with a “Best If Used By” date on or before 2/5/11, including:

UPC#7 69949 60131 9 – Chicken Formula 0.75 lb trial sized medallions

UPC#7 69949 60130 2 – Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions

UPC#7 69949 60120 3 – Chicken Formula 6 lb patties

UPC#7 69949 60121 0 – Chicken Formula 2 lb single chubs

UPC#7 69949 50121 3 – Chicken Formula 12 lb case of chubs

UPC#7 69949 60137 1 – Organic Chicken Formula 3 lb medallions

UPC#7 69949 60127 2 – Organic Chicken Formula 6 lb patties

The “Best If Used By” date is located on the back of the package above the safe handling instructions. The affected product was distributed through retail stores and internet sales in the United States and Canada.

No other Raw Frozen Diets are involved in this expansion other than chicken, and no other Nature’s Variety products are involved.

Nature’s Variety now uses High Pressure Pasteurization on their Raw Frozen Diets as a unique process to kill pathogenic bacteria through high-pressure, water-based technology. Having incorporated this state-of-the-art technology on a portion of their raw product offerings in late 2009, Nature’s Variety was able to confidently implement the process universally on all Raw Frozen Diets after the 2/11/10 recall in order to enhance food safety. Nature’s Variety also utilizes a test and hold protocol to ensure that all High Pressure Pasteurized Raw Frozen Diets test negative for harmful bacteria before being released for sale.

“Nature’s Variety believes replacing all raw frozen chicken products on the market with new raw frozen chicken products that use High Pressure Pasteurization is an important and responsible step in order to reinforce consumer confidence and trust,” stated Reed Howlett, CEO of Nature’s Variety. “By recalling all raw frozen chicken products with ‘Best If Used By’ dates on or before 2/5/11, we can provide our pet parents with new raw frozen chicken products that have been processed through High Pressure Pasteurization. Adopting High Pressure Pasteurization is an important step to ensure that our products meet the strictest quality and food safety standards.”

Howlett stated, “Our commitment to consumers in the future is the same as it’s been in the past – to offer Raw Frozen Diets made from the highest quality ingredients, made in our own plant in the Midwest, by people who care deeply about pet nutrition, health, and happiness.”

If you are a consumer and have purchased one of these products, please return the unopened product to your retailer for a full refund or replacement. If your package has been opened, please dispose of the raw food in a safe manner by securing it in a covered trash receptacle. Then, bring your receipt (or the empty package in a sealed bag) to your local retailer for a full refund or replacement.

Consumers with additional questions can call the Nature’s Variety dedicated Customer Care line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 800-374-3142. For additional resources about High Pressure Pasteurization or other Nature’s Variety food safety protocols, visit their website.

Not long ago, a Chicago pet shop prosecuted protesters who allegedly became a little strident in their attempt to educate the public about the source of pet shop animals.  Protesters accused the place of buying their dogs from puppy mills.

The owner took great exception to being portrayed as a seller of puppy mill puppies, proclaiming their shop bought from a USDA approved facility…as if that granted him a clean bill of health, especially in Illinois. There has been no activity in either suspended or revoked breeders licenses for the last five years; funds are not assigned for proper oversight.

Federal laws do not sufficiently protect the welfare of animals, and have been fashioned to make things easy for the commercial breeders, even to imposing unfair taxes on good family breeders. I’m talking about those who socialize their dogs in their home, and who can provide you with a good look at the mom and the dad of the litter. Because these breeders don’t raise pups for profit, they struggle to make ends meet.

Puppy mills are not just the barns in the middle of vast tracts of land run by unqualified or disinterested, sometimes unlicensed owners looking to make a financial killing on the backs of suffering dogs and cats.  Puppy mills are any facility that mass produces animals destined to be companion animals.  This includes commercial breeders whose only interest is to perform a monetary transaction and transfer of ownership of puppys and kittens.  Just like puppy mills.  No good breeder is interested in just the money–they want meet you, your family, and find out all about you to ensure you are a suitable fit for their pups. And they sure don’t raise dogs in wire cages outside the norms of everyday home life experience.

The Tribune article seemed to hitch one of its arguments to the fact that commercial breeders are legal, implying that therefore they should not be lumped in with puppy mills who mistreat animals. I would caution that legal status does not guarantee ethical behavior, nor does it confer legitimacy in business practices.

As to Ryan Rauch, the 40-year-old commercial breeder, I would say, even with eight employees, he can’t believe he is properly socializing and caring for 200 animals to be family pets.  In wire cages. In a commercial barn.  Where he won’t allow photographs, fearing trouble from animal activists, as if interior photos would give away location.  This sounds like denial to me, so let me help.

Mr. Rauch, you did not make your case.  We are not just pot-stirring “trying to get uneducated individuals seeing everything their way.”  We are trying to stop the madness.  4-5,000,000 pets killed per year.  How many puppys and kittens are farmed in facilities like yours per year? They are sold without any questions asked by the pet shops you sell to, then a  percentage are dumped in the laps of shelters when the puppys are young dogs and people find them difficult to control and too expensive to train?  Not to mention illness and genetic defects. If we take it on its face that we have a pet overpopulation problem, do you see a possible connection here?  Any questions?  We welcome your comments.

Related Posts: Beat Puppy Mills at their Own Game; Ben Stein Against Puppy Mills; AKC Partners with Hunte; Dog Law News

Dog blogs, best of the week is a roundup of posts I’ve read and want to share with you, to be enjoyed during a moment of weekend leisure, or whenever you can steal a few minutes.  Some are funny, some serious, but all are worth a look! If you see a post you feel is share-worthy, just send me the link in the comments and I’ll try to include it.

Amelia Glynn at SFGate’s pet blog Tails of the City posted her piece on the Pawscars, and there are plenty of movies sanctioned by American Humane designated no animals harmed, among them Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as best newcomer, referring to the Neopolitan Mastiff who came from an abusive home only to blossom with all the kindness and attention received on set. The choice for best chase scene was that from Hotel for Dogs when the most dogs ever in an American Humane approved film ran through the streets of the set.  It took a couple of weeks of rehearsing–how about those smart rescue dog actors!

Karen Friesecke of Doggiestylish has a post on the second worst dog product of all time and I really can’t say anything about it or I’ll give the whole thing away! You’ll see what I mean when you give it a click:) Friesecke also has wonderful handmade collars, leashes, and how-to tutorials on do it yourself designs.

Christie Keith at Pet Connection asked how far is too far to go for a sick pet in her post Chasing Miracles that shares stories of the beginning of endings, offering observations on how we might recognize when we have done enough.  This question of where do we draw the line has been a theme running through several blogs this year, including this one. The comments are often heartfelt, helpful, even healing through common experience.

Hope you had a great Sunday!