How processed raw meat diet can endanger people and pets

December 24, 2013

Raw diets can sicken pets and humans

By Dr. Lee Pickett

Berks County, PA –  Dear Christopher Cat: I mentioned to my veterinarian that I am switching my cats to a raw diet, and she objected, saying many were contaminated with bacteria. I don’t see her point, since free-roaming cats eat raw mice without having problems.

Christopher responds: The difference is that outdoor cats kill their prey and eat it immediately, before bacteria levels can rise.

Food-borne bacteria have ample opportunity to flourish when raw food is sorted, ground or cut up and packaged. These bacteria can sicken not only your cats, but also you and other family members.

In a recent two-year study, the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Veterinary Medicine tested 1,056 samples of pet food for salmonella and listeria bacteria, two common foodborne pathogens.

Of the samples tested, 196 were commercial raw cat and dog foods, most of which were frozen. Fifteen (8 percent) of the samples tested positive for salmonella, and 32 (16 percent) contained listeria.

Only one of the 860 non raw diets carried these bacteria.

Salmonella can contaminate raw fruits and vegetables, unpasteurized dairy products and raw or undercooked meat, poultry and eggs. These bacteria cause bloody diarrhea, vomiting, lethargy, fever, loss of appetite and stomach pain, in both pets and their people.

Listeria causes even more serious disease; 90 percent of the people sickened by foodborne listeria require hospitalization. Despite intensive care, 20 percent to 30 percent die.

So stick with a major manufacturer’s processed food, preferably one whose label states it was tested in cats.

•••

Humane Watch radio ad for the holidays

And give some coal to the   Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which, despite its name, does not   run a single shelter, gives only   1% of its budget to local pet shelters, and deceptively raises money   from pet-loving Americans. We have a new radio ad airing to clarify this   to listeners:

Please pass this around   to your family and friends. You never know who might be giving to HSUS and   mistakenly thinking they are supporting their local shelter. If you want to   help homeless pets, please donate to your local shelter.

 

HSUS-Xmas-Radio-Ad.mp3 (1 MB)
http://www.humanewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HSUS-Xmas-Radio-Ad.mp3

 

KODA (Keep Our Domestic Animals) website to make donations

December 19, 2013

The first step has been taken to protect our rights to own/breed and exhibit our dogs/cats/exotics and other pets of our choice.  It isn’t over, it is just the beginning.  KODA needs donations in order to keep the process moving.  As you all know HSUS is well funded and will not give in not to mention they have their loyal supporters deeply entrenched within USDA/APHIS itself.  Give what you can there is no limit and no donation is too small or too big.  As we get more information I will keep you updated.

Thank you all so much for your enthusiastic support of the efforts to knock down the APHIS regulations that will do so much harm to dog and cat breeders. The lawsuit is filed – the first step – there are many more steps as we march down this road. Here is the link on the KODA website to make donations – either by check or paypal.

http://www.keepourdomesticanimals.com

 

 

 

 

 

NEW MEXICO ranks low for animal welfare

December 19, 2013

If you live in NM I
would suggest that you get organized and be ready to push back on HSUS and ALDF before they get a toe-hold and legislate you out of existence.

http://www.currentargus.com/carlsbad-news/ci_24748016/report-nm-ranks-low-animal-welfare

http://tinyurl.com/kv4jllx

Eddy County considering new rules that would add teeth to local animalordinances

By Jonathan Smith
jsmith@currentargus.com
@CCAJonSmith on Twitter

CARLSBAD >> New Mexico finds itself on a dogged list. The state is ranked among the five worst states for animal welfare and protection rights, according to new report released by Animal Legal Defense Fund.

The study is the eighth annual report from the nonprofit organization. Lora Dunn, a spokeswoman for the organization, said New Mexico has consistently ranked around the bottom tier of states.

“We looked at 15 different categories related to animal protection, like penalties for animal cruelty, cost of care for abused animals and veterinarian reports of animal abuse,” she said.

“There’s a few areas that the New Mexico needs to improve in,” she added. “We encourage New Mexico to look at those categories and make thechanges.”…..

KENTUCKY congressman horse trades for HSUS

December 18, 2013

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/ed-whitfield-humane-society-congress-101251.html

Whitfield defends interaction between his official actions and his wife’s lobbying. | AP Photo

By JOHN BRESNAHAN and ANNA PALMER | 12/17/13 5:56 PM EST

Rep. Ed Whitfield is leading the charge on contentious animal welfare legislation — a push that his wife, a paid lobbyist for the Humane Society Legislative Fund, is urging Congress to support.

The pair’s efforts have included sessions in which they have jointly lobbied lawmakers and aides to support the legislation, according to sources who have met with the couple.

Continue Reading

It’s uncommon for a lawmaker to work so closely with a lobbyist on legislation, especially with a spouse who is paid to lobby on the issue. The Whitfields have caught the ire of opponents of the legislation who allege their activity is inappropriate, since the congressman’s wife, Connie Harriman-Whitfield, has worked as a registered lobbyist for the fund since 2011.

The Kentucky Republican hasn’t been shy about mentioning the connection with his wife’s employer, even noting in statements on the House floor that the Humane Society — among other organizations — supports his legislative initiatives.

(Also on POLITICO: Full agriculture policy coverage)

Whitfield defends the interaction between his official actions and his wife’s lobbying, and he adds that anyone who doesn’t like it can file a complaint against him with the House Ethics Committee.

“I don’t view that as an ethics violation because it’s an issue that I’ve been involved in since I’ve been in Congress and this is a practice that must be and should be stopped,” Whitfield said. “There’s a big difference in my mind of getting financial gain for some financial institution, to trying to prevent cruelty to animals.”

Whitfield, first elected to the House in the 1994 Republican Revolution, has introduced the “Prevent All Soring Tactics Act,” which would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to bar the practice of “soring” during horse shows. This refers to the use of blistering agents or mechanical devices that alter a horse’s gait. This is done to Tennessee walking horses or other show horses, making it painful for the horse to step down on their hooves.

“You have the right, any person has the right to file a complaint with the Ethics Committee if they think we are violating House ethics laws,” Whitfield added. “I don’t apologize for lobbying people about this issue because these animals are being abused, and there is no monetary gain for me, no monetary gain for anybody. In fact, money is being spent to prevent us to be successful.”

Whitfield said he expects a House vote on his bill next month.

(Also on POLITICO: Pols optimistic on energy deals)

The Humane Society Legislative Fund’s most recent lobbying report — covering July 1 to Sept. 30, 2013 — lists the bill as one of the pieces of legislation on which Harriman-Whitfield is actively lobbying lawmakers.

The Humane Society’s disclosure report also lists a number of other bills that Whitfield has co-sponsored as legislative priorities for the group.

And the organization has contributed $6,000 to Whitfield’s reelection campaign since 2010, Federal Election Commission records show.

Opponents of Whitfield’s legislation have raised questions about the couple’s handling of the matter. Performance Show Horse Association Chairman of the Board Doyle Meadows raised questions in early December about the Whitfields’ actions. “And in a strange coincidence — I think not — the congressman happens to be married to a lobbyist for the [Humane Society],” Meadows wrote on the association’s website, following a hearing on Whitfield’s bill by the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. Whitfield chairs another subcommittee on the energy and commerce panel.

(More on Ed Whitfield)

Connie Harriman-Whitfield has been associated with the Humane Society since 2007, although she has been a lobbyist only since 2011, lobbying disclosure records filed by group’s lobbying arm show.

During a March 2011 meeting in a Dupont Circle area club, the Whitfields openly lobbied members and staffers together on legislation, showing how little room there seems to be between his official actions and her lobbying.

“I have been in a room and seen Whitfield and his wife lobbying members and staff on Humane Society horse issues,” said a Capitol Hill source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Under House ethics rules, lawmakers are prohibited from doing “special favors” for anyone, including family members.

“The prohibition against doing any special favors for anyone in one’s official
capacity is a fundamental standard of conduct, and it applies to an official’s conduct with regard to not only his or her spouse or other family members, but more broadly to any person,” the House Ethics Manual states.

In addition, the Ethics Manual warns that “Special caution must be exercised when the spouse of a Member or staff person, or any other immediate family member, is a lobbyist. At a minimum, such an official should not permit the spouse to lobby either him or herself or any of his or her subordinates …”

Ethics experts said that the Whitfields could be violating House rules through their joint lobbying for legislation, although these experts cautioned that it isn’t a cut-and-dried case.

“If it were Boeing and they were doing this, it would be a really big deal,” said Melanie Sloan, head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. While Sloan applauded the Whitfields for disclosing their activities — something that has been one of the major problems in other ethics cases — she said the joint lobbying of members and staffers is troubling.

Continue Reading

“I can’t see a flat-out ethics violation, but I can certainly see it creates an appearance problem, and it would seem like the better course would be for them not to be lobbying together; that seems inappropriate to me,” Sloan said.

Veteran ethics lawyer Stanley Brand said the activity does raise questions because lawmakers aren’t supposed to gain personal benefit from their official duties.

“It’s not that easy to get from those general standards to a violation,” Brand said. “There have been cases before where spouses have been registered lobbyists and their husbands or wives are on committees where those companies have interest and that’s never been enough to get you to a violation.”

Whitfield is hardly alone when it comes to lawmakers with relatives who lobby. Dozens of congressional relatives are registered lobbyists, and oftentimes, lawmakers with family ties on issues weigh in on legislative proposals. Congress cracked down on ethics reforms in 2007, banning spouses from lobbying a member’s personal office staff and the lawmaker. Other lawmakers whose relatives have lobbied include: the wife of Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as a lobbyist at Kraft Foods and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), whose father — former Rep. Bud Shuster — served as a contract lobbyist.

Humane Society President and CEO Wayne Pacelle defended Harriman-Whitfield’s involvement pushing the horse legislation.

“I think sometimes when folks look at issues like this, they nitpick on it as a conflict of interest and I just want to say, No. 1, there is a real difference in working for a coal company or an oil company or any big business, pharmaceutical company and working for a nonprofit organization where there is no financial incentive to gain as an institution,” Pacelle said. “The track record of both Connie and Ed is deep involvement in animal welfare far preceding Connie’s involvement in the Humane Society. She came to the Humane Society because she was already very, very involved on these issues personally.”

Further, Pacelle said that he meets with Whitfield to discuss legislative issues, not Harriman-Whitfield.

Pacelle said he didn’t see anything wrong with Whitfield and his wife personally lobbying his colleagues together on the issue of animal cruelty.

“It’d be a shame if our society didn’t allow spouses to advocate for ending poverty in the world, or advancing other core values of our society. I’m not sure what she’s supposed to do, just be mute on these issues with his colleagues,” Pacelle said.

Harriman-Whitfield has a history of advocating against animal cruelty long before joining the Humane Society Legislative Fund in 2007. As assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior under President George H.W. Bush, Harriman-Whitfield is credited with playing a major role in instituting the U.S. and worldwide ban on the elephant ivory trade.

Harriman-Whitfield now serves as senior policy adviser for the Humane Society Legislative Fund and has been engaged in federal lobbying since early 2011. During this two-year period, the HSLF spent $90,000 on in-house lobbying activities, according to Senate lobbying disclosure reports. An outside lobbying firm billed the organization an additional $60,000 so far this year, according to another report.

Whitfield’s annual financial disclosure report does not include his wife’s compensation from the Humane Society.

For his part, Whitfield said his standing with the Humane Society hasn’t always been good, although he provided POLITICO with a long list of legislation he has offered dealing with animal welfare during his time in Congress.

“Sometimes I’ve had a good record with them and sometimes I have not had a good record with them, but I’ve been involved in a multitude of issues, so from my perspective there absolutely is no violation of ethics laws and if someone thinks there is they can file a complaint,” Whitfield said, noting that he has a 62 percent rating in the group’s 2013 midterm score card.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/ed-whitfield-humane-society-congress-101251_Page2.html#ixzz2nnOZbbbO

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/ed-whitfield-humane-society-congress-101251.html#ixzz2nnONb5bQ

HSUS keeps contributors in the dark

December 18, 2013
http://www.dairyherd.com/e-newsletters/dairy-daily/How-HSUS-keeps-contributors-in-the-dark-235964381.html?view=all

http://tinyurl.com/lqtsoz2

JoAnn Alumbaugh, Editor, Pork Network | Updated: 12/15/2013

According to a recent poll by the Opinion Research Corporation, 71 percent of Americans believed that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) “is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.” And 68 percent believed that HSUS “contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.” Both of these
statements are false.

HumaneWatch.org reports that recent research has also uncovered another disturbing finding: HSUS’ own donors are confused about where their money is going. The release states, “A September 2013 poll of 1,050 self-identified HSUS supporters found that 87 percent of HSUS’s donors were unaware that the
organization gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters. When informed of this fact, 83 percent of HSUS’s own donors agreed the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters,” and 59 percent were less likely to support HSUS….

…Hurricane Help – for HSUS

The organization raised $2.2 million in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, but in reality, only one third of the money was actually spent on hurricane relief (view the documents here). HumaneWatch continues: “This isn’t the first disaster that has raised questions about HSUS’ fundraising. Louisiana’s attorney general investigated HSUS following Hurricane Katrina, closing the investigation only after HSUS agreed to build a new shelter in the state. A 2009 WSB-TV report discovered that out of the $34 million HSUS reported raising after Katrina, only $7 million could be publicly accounted for.”…

HSUS gets stingy with animals on its own property

December 17, 2013

Author: Humane Watch Team

 

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which   is not affiliated with local humane societies, gives   only 1% of the money it raises to pet shelters, according to its tax   return. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter of its own. HSUS gets   a “C-minus” grade from the independent watchdog CharityWatch for spending   a significant amount of money on overhead. And it seems the financial waste   at HSUS even extends to animals on HSUS property.

HSUS runs a 20-year-old affiliate called the Wildlife Land Trust (WLT),   whose reason for existence is to inherit land from people and subsequently   prohibit development and hunting—forever. Essentially, WLT seems like   a disjointed effort at creating wildlife preserves across the U.S., and it   claims to hold rights to property in 32 states.

One such range of land is 3,000 acres in Oregon called the Greenwood   Preserve. HSUS wants to build a water guzzler there to help the wildlife out   with another source of water (despite, by WLT’s admission, that the preserve   “contains three year-round sources of water – a rarity in the West”). HSUS   has launched a “crowd-funding”   campaign to raise $12,200 to build the guzzler, essentially a contraption   that collects rainwater. Crowd-funding works by collecting small ($5 or $10)   donations for a specific effort.

Here’s our question: Why?

HSUS’s budget is $120 million. The Wildlife Land Trust has a $6.9 million   budget. Can’t they find $12,200 in there to build a watering hole? That’s   about 0.0096% of their combined budgets, or nine one-thousandths. Not exactly   breaking the bank.

The trouble with the crowd-funding exercise is that it frees up more money   for HSUS to waste on other things. This wouldn’t be bad if HSUS was already a   fiscally responsible organization, but it isn’t one.  CharityWatch finds   that HSUS spends up to 45 percent of its budget on overhead. The watchdog   Animal People puts the figure higher—at   55 percent. There’s a lot of money to go around, but HSUS wants to spend   it on direct mail.

So while HSUS is “crowd-funding” a project that could be easily financed   using existing dollars, it can put that $12,200 it’s not spending on   the water guzzler towards mailing costs and to conduct more fundraising. This   might be a small drop in the pond, but it speaks volumes about the priorities   at HSUS.

View article…