Love For Animals

My dog is a labrador/shepard mix (probably mixed with more breeds though) and just turned nine years old. It seems as though her age is interfering with her ability to hold in that ungodly smell within her—the GAS! I have to give her some credit though because she doesn’t fart all the time. It happens rarely but is becoming slightly more noticeable.

I’ve learned that when certain breeds get older, their intestines start to lose their muscular tone; hence the doggy farting. Other reasons may include a poor diet, lack of exercise, constipation, or eating their food too quickly, which causes poor indigestion. Or, it just depends on the dog breed. The following dog breeds are considered the top 10 gassiest breeds according to seefido.com:

1. Mixed Breed (Check one for my dog)
2. German Shepherd (Check two)
3. Labrador Retriever (Check three)
4. Boxer
5. Poodle
6. Doberman
7. Cocker Spaniel
8. Rottweiler
9. Beagle
10. Dalmatian (I’ve actually experienced a heavily farting Dalmation! Air-freshener required! )

Of course, it all depends on your dog. I think it’s just an age factor with my dog since she gets a 30-minute walk everyday and eats dry dog food, never any wet dog food. She really only farts once in a blue moon, but I thought this was interesting. For those of you who have gassy dogs, remember to make sure your dogs get the appropriate exercise and a healthy diet suited for their needs. Oh! And keep those air fresheners in hand!

Is it wrong to declaw your cat? I hear of people declawing their cats pretty often, but in my opinion, it just seems a little excessive and inhumane. Although some cat owners do it to protect their household furniture from being clawed at, is it really the only way? I’ve heard about vinyl nail caps (probably best for indoor cats) and scratching posts, yet some cat owners say they have no luck with getting their cat to use the posts. It’s not my intention to blame a pet owner for their pet’s overall behavior, but I do believe that the habits of an animal depend on how the owner raised or trained it (that is, if you raised your pet since they were young). I think that training or familiarizing your pet to certain habits works best when the animal is young. I just don’t want this declawing procedure to be abused by the percentage of pet owners that are just looking for a quick fix.

Hypothetically speaking, even if declawing a cat was the only way to maintain a beautiful home (furniture and all), I don’t think it’s reason enough to physically alter or amputate a part of a cat’s anatomy. After all, that is what happens in the surgery room—the doctor has to cut bones, ligaments, and tendons during this procedure. It is not equivalent to pulling out a human finger nail. With surgery comes possible complications that can occur during the recovery period. Surgery should be performed under extreme circumstances or needs, but is protecting furniture one of them?

So, lately I’ve been in the mood to post about animals that are not exactly your average pet and not exactly your ordinary animal either (at least not one that you’d be familiar with). First thing comes first–what is the definition of an animal? Dictionary.com defines an animal as “any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli.” Now I am aware that this “animal” has already been in the news for quite some time now, getting people to raise their brows and scratch their heads in a reluctant manner. For those of you who have seen the Montauk Monster, the following picture and information may come of no surprise to you. Yet, for those who haven’t seen or heard of this animal, it is my pleasure to present to you–the Montauk Monster:

The Montauk Monster washed up on the shores of Montauk, New York (July 2008) and has created a buzz since then.

The picture is enough to appear shocking at first glance, but then again, I’ve never seen a decomposing body in its raw form. When I initially saw this picture, I immediately noticed the nose area to look like a beak. I remember thinking that it looked like a dog/pig/parrot (yes I said pig). Of course, people have resorted to claims that the animal was a subject of government experiments at a testing facility nearby. What else are people to do with the unknown, but let their imaginations get a little bit of action, ey? Jeff Corwin, the host of Corwin’s Quest on Discovery Channel’s Animal Planet network, gives his expert opinion in an interview with FOX News about what he thinks the Montauk Monster is:

Hmm… So are you sold on Corwin’s opinion? He is, after all, considered an animal expert. However, without much scientific recourse, both expert and non-expert are equally left to wonder in the dark.

Have you ever heard of the Anglerfish? If you haven’t, I’ll give you a clue. The Anglerfish was depicted in a hit Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, as a hugely jawed fish that lured/chased Marlin and Dory. Still have no idea? Well then, let me give you a glimpse into the world of the Anglerfish. The Anglerfish is truly a unique creature that lives 3,000 feet and deeper into the pitch black waters of the deep sea. The waters all over the world are home to the Anglerfish, and its scientific name is Melanocetus johnsoni (Whew! Science likes to be complex). According to National Geographic, there are more than 200 species of the Anglerfish. Although some females are only about 5 inches in length, they can swallow prey twice the size of their body! Other females are known to reach up to a maximum length of 3.3 feet. Besides its jaw, the Anglerfish has another distinctive characteristic, which is an elongated dorsal spine that produces a blue-green light through a process known as bioluminescence. This thin, long tip emerges out of its head and naturally glows in the dark, luring its prey. However, what is really unique about the Anglerfish is its reproductive process.

Female Anglerfish

The male angler is about the size of a small finger and lives like a parasite while “mating.” The male spends most of its life looking for a mate. As soon as the male fully matures, its digestive system starts to degenerate or weaken until it is physically impossible for the male to support itself. Now this is the crazy part. Once the male finds the female, he sinks his teeth into her flesh and attaches his body to hers with one bite. Eventually from that one bite, the male will fuse with the female until they share the same skin and bloodstream. The male’s internal organs and eyes will die out over time, leaving only the testes of the male for the reproduction purposes of the female. This is why the males are generally described as being a permanent “parasitic mate.” The female will carry more than one male on its body. Try six or more! It is very incredible how the Anglerfish survives in the stark conditions of our deep oceans. I’m sure there are plenty more deep fish that are just as strange, but very intriguing as well.

It’s a dog, no it’s a monster, no it’s a chupacabra? There’s no doubt that this animal does exist. However, much of its extraordinary appeal exists on generations of mythical folklore. For example, if you look at the following pictures, the first one is someone’s depiction of a chupacabra, while the second is a picture collage of a chupacabra (similar to the appearance of chupacabras seen in Puerto Rico, Texas, and Mexico).

I don’t know how the drawing resembles at all what the chupacabra is now known to look like (albeit the spotted pattern on the drawing has been seen on some chupacabras). I was watching a TV show called MonsterQuest on the Texas chupacabra. I was only able to watch a few parts, but the appearance of the animal’s skin suggests that it may be suffering from a skin disease known as Mange. Yet, since scientists didn’t have living tissue samples from the animal, they could not prove or disprove the presence of Mange. Teeth pulled from an Elmendorf, TX chupacabra and a hair sample from a Puerto Rico sighting were matched through a DNA test and proved to be a 100% identical match and they both match the domestic dog. On the other hand, mitochondrial DNA tests done on a Cuero, TX chupacabra link the animal with coyotes and wolves. Instead of the chupacabra being a part of a whole new species, one theory indicates that maybe the animal is a hybrid of a coyote and wolf.

It is still peculiar how the chupacabra is thought to kill though. Reports state that livestock animals are drained of their blood, but the only exit wounds evident are small puncture wounds found on the prey. El Chupacabra, the modern day vampire? The whole deal with the chupacabra is strange, but it really doesn’t sound as strange as everyone is portraying it to be. With mythical folklore, ideas have been passed down for a long time, but I seriously think that a lot of the hype comes from old stories, beliefs, and simply, the unknown. Folklore has really clouded the discovery of this animal in the sense that everything this animal does is somehow seen as extraordinary. 

For instance, during the MonsterQuest episode, a cryptozoologist and a wildlife expert sprayed a wooden post with coyote urine and the next day they returned to find that the post had been clawed at. The night before, they claimed to have seen something move in that same area. The claw marks were made from a three-foot stance. They looked at the post like it was unbelievable how the animal could’ve reached it to create such deep scratch marks on it. It’s an animal, no doubt, with some pretty huge claws as seen on a dead chupacabra; however, I don’t think scratching on a pole should be seen as evidence of an extraordinary animal. My dog can reach at least four feet when on her hind legs and if she had huge claws, she would be able to do the same. Sure, it’s remarkable how long the chupacabra’s claws and teeth are, but it’s not the only animal that exists with those physical characteristics. My point is that folklore has portrayed the chupacabra as a creature unlike anything this planet has ever known. It’s as if people are trying to apply the same kind of awe factor known in folklore to that of the scientific discoveries about the animal. I’m not saying the chupacabra doesn’t exist. I just think the chupacabra is an animal of an unknown breed from the canidae family; I’m not going to join in on a frenzy that says it’s an evil monster that commits outrageous acts (especially when someone glorifies a scratched post as an incredibly odd event).

Oceans cover approximately 71% of the world’s surface and nurture the majority of this planet’s living matter. More than 90% of this habitat exists in the dark abyss. Scientists have estimated that only 5% of the oceans have been explored so far. That’s incredible. We are so lucky to get the opportunity to study and discover sea creatures that have been around for ages. So it’s probably not a surprise to know that I’d be very interested in the case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council is a case that was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8, 2008. The case was heard by the Supreme Court as a result of a ruling by an appellate court. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of environmentalist concerns that the use of sonar by the navy may adversely affect marine mammals, particularly beaked whales. Therefore, an injunction was placed on navy drills taking place in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Southern California. This injunction orders that the navy must cease their use of sonar during training exercises if they detect any whales within a certain proximity.

Environmentalists are linking mass whale strandings with the navy’s sonar, saying that sonar can confuse whales on a level that interferes with the mammal’s ability to navigate. They note that there have been patterns among many whale strandings that happen soon after the navy engages in exercises involving sonar usage. It has also been observed that beached whales show signs of experiencing a form of decompression sickness as these whales show gas-bubble lesions and bleeding from the eyes and mouth. Although environmental concerns over the sonar harming whales are circumstantial, conservationists warn that there is a definite link between sonar and injured beached whales.

The government is arguing that national security is put at risk when they cannot perform their training exercises in its entirety. The Bush Administration explains that it puts the nation at risk against outside terrorist threats and hinders the effectiveness of navy procedures, which are thought to be critical measures necessary for public safety. When asked why the government did not provide an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before they initiated their training drills last year, they simply said that they didn’t think it was necessary because they felt it wouldn’t affect marine mammals. However, federal law requires an EIS for any action that could noticeably affect the environment.

The decision now rests with the Supreme Court on whether the injunction should be moderated or thrown out completely. I have to say that I’m quite interested to know how the decision will turn out. On one hand, if the injunction gets overturned, I fear that the government will use the idea of national security easily thereafter (whether the claimed threat is actually real is unbeknownst to us). Thus, the navy would be legally sanctioned to engage in activity thought to be detrimental to the environment without fully understanding the effects. On the other hand, you have environmental laws obstructing “crucial” military practices that the national security relies on to protect people. There will be people who will wonder to the extreme on why we are risking human lives for marine mammals. Hopefully, both sides will be able to meet somewhere in the middle.

On November 4, 2008, please vote yes on Proposition 2. By voting yes on Prop 2, you support the view that confined farm animals should have the ability to lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs. If passed, Prop 2 will secure this right for farm animals, particularly egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs, and veal calves. This is a sensible measure that aims to stop cruel living conditions among animals in factory farms. Additional points in favor of Prop 2 include improving our health and food safety, supporting family farmers, protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment.

Cramming thousands of farm animals into small cages can aid the spread of animal diseases, which could transfer over to humans. California family farmers support Prop 2 because they believe that improved farming practices will promote quality food and safety. Yes on Prop 2 will also protect the environment and communities by eliminating safety issues, such as keeping factory farm waste from contaminating waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. With better confinement practices for farm animals, we can help maintain a more sanitary environment for both animals and people.

If passed, Proposition 2 will take effect in 2015, which gives factory farms a sufficient amount of time to initiate change within their confinement practices. Opponents of Prop 2 argue with regards only to egg-laying hens, in which they say that if we allow hens free outdoor space, we are putting them at risk of catching diseases (e.g. bird flu). They also charge that the proposition will increase prices of California eggs, costs thousands of California jobs and puts farmers out of business, costs $615 million in economic activity, and contributes to global warming. The costs are unknown at this point, and I think Prop 2 opponents are just trying to use scare tactics to influence voters. According to the industry’s own economist, it costs less than one additional penny per egg to stop cramming hens in cages. As for cage-free hens and diseases, the broad majority of chickens in the food industry aren’t confined in cages, which goes without any mention or objection from Prop 2 opponents.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong in allowing farm animals to live in a space where they can stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs—to say the least. I could see why agri-corporations would be opposed to Prop 2 because it requires them to contribute time and money into restructuring housing methods, not to mention possible fines if they don’t fully commit to the proposition (should it pass). However, I wouldn’t doubt that they’ve always put profit before animal welfare, so I just can’t take anything they say seriously because their motive is clear to me.

To California voters, please vote yes on Proposition 2.

“All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.”

–www.yesonprop2.com

A few mainstream organizations supporting Prop 2 include:

• Consumer Federation of America
• Humane Society of the United States
• Union of Concerned Scientists
• Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production
• Sierra Club California
• California Clean Water Action

Suggested related link:

www.yesonprop2.com

Have you ever heard of a term called Black Dog Syndrome? Until recently, I didn’t either. Black Dog Syndrome refers to any black dog that doesn’t get adopted out of an animal shelter primarily due to the color of their fur. The term revolves around the observation that many black dogs stay in shelters for long periods of time (years, even). Also, in kill shelters, it has been noticed that black dogs–as compared to lighter dogs–are more vulnerable to being put down. Black Dog Syndrome sounds a bit unbelievable at first, claiming that fur color can actually influence whether the dog gets adopted. Yet, as the idea is thought upon more, it becomes apparent that Black Dog Syndrome isn’t all that hard to believe. The majority of black dogs brought to shelters are simply not favored for adoption.

No one, however, is saying that people consciously make the decision to choose a non-black dog over a black dog. Sometimes, people’s eyes are just attracted to brighter colors, and black may appear dull or plain to some people. Of course, there are probably other reasons why some people prefer lighter dogs. For example, my dad doesn’t like black dogs because he says that they scare him. I’m assuming this goes back to old ideas of how the color, black, has always held negative connotations in old superstition. Rottweilers and Dobermans have been known to get a reputation as great watch dogs, so maybe some people subconsciously make the connection of black dogs being mean dogs. Whatever the reason, the appearance of a dog does not determine a dog’s personality.

There aren’t extensive reports or accurate records of how many black dogs get put down or exactly how many black dogs remain in shelters, but the situation is very real. Black Dog Syndrome has gained a name through a noticeable pattern among many shelters. Now that you are aware of Black Dog Syndrome, try to keep it in mind if you’re looking to adopt an animal. Help these dogs by making a conscious effort to look past their appearance and by paying attention to other great qualities they have.

Suggested Related Links:

Associated Press - Large, Black Dogs Go Unwanted

Black Pearl Dogs: Making a difference one black dog at a time through education, awareness, and action

Black Dog Syndrome: Dark Color Hinders Adoption

Black Dogs Often Overlooked