OK, after many months of work, I'm launching the new www.boundangels.org site today. Along with that is the blog that is incorporated into the site, and that address is:
http://www.boundangels.org/blog/
I ask you to please use that blog from now on, as I will discontinue this blog as of today.
Thanks.
Robert
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Update on Blind Stevie Wonder - cocker spaniel
Stevie was in the shelter for over 2 months when I found him sitting there all alone in a dark cell. A sign over his kennel read "Keep Alone - Blind Dog." It broke my heart and I knew I had to save him. I made a video which you can view by clicking here:
STEVIE'S VIDEO
He was rescued by a great organization and now lives a life filled with love. Join The Revolution and help us save more... Here is an update from STEVIE-
I love my new life so much Auntie Tracey, thank you for helping save me from the bad place. Now I get to have lots of nice naps in the sun if I want, or if I don't want the sun, I just go back in my big bedroom and lay down on one of the nice fluffy beds Mommy Carolyn has for me.
I get lots of good food and hopefully will put on a little weight soon. All the other doggies are very nice to me, and I think there are even some here who can't see....just like me, but we do real good getting around. I have lots of room to roam and explore and I think it's just wonderful.
And, oh yeah....I get tons of love and pets and hugs and kisses every day. I really like that:-)
xoxo
Saturday, August 28, 2010
New Article for Shelter Workers
I can't tell you how often I'm called to deal with a dog at a shelter that exhibits what's called Barrier Aggression. This is a behavior when the dog is barking, growling or aggresses toward the front of the kennel when people are present. It is generally not that hard to fix, but it is a death sentence in many shelters.
The most common solutions are overlooked. Having trained several shelters in new methods of temperament testing and dog behavior, this article sheds new light on this behavior. Please share it with your rescue, shelter and humane societies.
http://blackbeltdogtraining.com/dog_training_articles.html
Best regards,
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
The most common solutions are overlooked. Having trained several shelters in new methods of temperament testing and dog behavior, this article sheds new light on this behavior. Please share it with your rescue, shelter and humane societies.
http://blackbeltdogtraining.com/dog_training_articles.html
Best regards,
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Selling Used Dogs
So.... big announcement. I've recently completed a book entitled "Selling Used Dogs." This is a book about saving dogs that are doomed at shelters. I thought of many ways of marketing this book, selling it, promoting it, etc. but thought that this information is too valuable not to GIVE AWAY. So that is exactly what I plan to do.
Selling Used Dogs is over 100 pages and contains programs that shelters and rescue organizations can put into place to increase adoptions. Programs like The Bound Angels Shelter Angel Video Program. I explain the program and how to implement it step-by-step. I'm also including in the book my personal Behavioral Assessment Guide. I've used this test on hundreds of dogs in rescue, for adoption / placement and for testing the temperament of dogs which I fight to defend in court. The book is full of information, programs and ideas that I've tested and proven 100% successful. Its not a book about dog training, its a book about saving dogs and understanding them.
Some people may be put off by the title, and if you're one of those, I urge you to read the book and judge its content. My idea is we must save these dogs and if sales skills and strategies are necessary then lets do it.
This last weekend I was invited to Prescott AZ to visit the Yavapai Humane Society and teach my "Selling Used Dogs" workshop. It was a 900+ mile round-trip, and of course I had to drive; I take my dogs with me when I travel. To say this was a long weekend would be to say the least, but it was so meaningful. I met so many wonderful people that have an amazing journey ahead of them. At the helm is my good friend Ed Boks who I believe has the clear vision to make NO KILL a reality. We've worked together before and I support his work at Yavapai Humane Society, his concepts, ideas and vision. In fact, in addition to this weekends workshop, I'm offering my help to see this project through.
In the past this shelter was dealing with temperament tests that were not fair to the dogs as well as limited programs to create exposure for the beautiful dogs that live there. During this weekends workshops we focused on training dog walkers, volunteers, kennel workers, management and staff in my Binary Dog principle. A concept that breaks down basic reward based training for every person that comes into contact with every dog. I met some very cool people that are very excited to change the way things "were" done and move into the direction of NO KILL.
I believe that every dog deserves a fair chance and if they have an issue when they arrive at the shelter, we owe it to them to lend a hand and teach them some basic skills. I believe that most behaviors can be fixed with dedication and education. I believe that we can save many more dogs with proper training. My vision was shared with the nice people at the YHS and I'm looking forward to all of the wagging tails that will be walking out of the front door of that shelter and into the homes of loving families from now on.
If you'd like a copy of my book SELLING USED DOGS, please email me and I will send you your very own copy in PDF form. Its my goal to get this book into the hands of every rescue worker that shares my vision for helping dogs get out of the front door of the shelter.
Also, please be sure to support our work by joining us at our fundraiser August 8th right here in Malibu. If you can't make it, you can still support our work by donating.
Best regards,
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Selling Used Dogs is over 100 pages and contains programs that shelters and rescue organizations can put into place to increase adoptions. Programs like The Bound Angels Shelter Angel Video Program. I explain the program and how to implement it step-by-step. I'm also including in the book my personal Behavioral Assessment Guide. I've used this test on hundreds of dogs in rescue, for adoption / placement and for testing the temperament of dogs which I fight to defend in court. The book is full of information, programs and ideas that I've tested and proven 100% successful. Its not a book about dog training, its a book about saving dogs and understanding them.
Some people may be put off by the title, and if you're one of those, I urge you to read the book and judge its content. My idea is we must save these dogs and if sales skills and strategies are necessary then lets do it.
This last weekend I was invited to Prescott AZ to visit the Yavapai Humane Society and teach my "Selling Used Dogs" workshop. It was a 900+ mile round-trip, and of course I had to drive; I take my dogs with me when I travel. To say this was a long weekend would be to say the least, but it was so meaningful. I met so many wonderful people that have an amazing journey ahead of them. At the helm is my good friend Ed Boks who I believe has the clear vision to make NO KILL a reality. We've worked together before and I support his work at Yavapai Humane Society, his concepts, ideas and vision. In fact, in addition to this weekends workshop, I'm offering my help to see this project through.
In the past this shelter was dealing with temperament tests that were not fair to the dogs as well as limited programs to create exposure for the beautiful dogs that live there. During this weekends workshops we focused on training dog walkers, volunteers, kennel workers, management and staff in my Binary Dog principle. A concept that breaks down basic reward based training for every person that comes into contact with every dog. I met some very cool people that are very excited to change the way things "were" done and move into the direction of NO KILL.
I believe that every dog deserves a fair chance and if they have an issue when they arrive at the shelter, we owe it to them to lend a hand and teach them some basic skills. I believe that most behaviors can be fixed with dedication and education. I believe that we can save many more dogs with proper training. My vision was shared with the nice people at the YHS and I'm looking forward to all of the wagging tails that will be walking out of the front door of that shelter and into the homes of loving families from now on.
If you'd like a copy of my book SELLING USED DOGS, please email me and I will send you your very own copy in PDF form. Its my goal to get this book into the hands of every rescue worker that shares my vision for helping dogs get out of the front door of the shelter.
Also, please be sure to support our work by joining us at our fundraiser August 8th right here in Malibu. If you can't make it, you can still support our work by donating.
Best regards,
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
When a Government Not Only Condones Murder – but Protects the Murderers
This is exactly what happened in Delavan, Wisconsin today June 30, 2010. There were some 200 geese living on the lake committing the greatest crime they could – sh1tting… These geese were considered a nuisance by some members of the community, but not by all. In fact some people stood up to fight for them. I am proud to know Rebecca who spearheaded this fight. Not only was a humane solution suggested, but volunteers were ready to do much so more. This wasn’t good enough for Dorothy Burwell town chair of Delavan or park supervisor Herb Sessner.
I spoke to Dorothy on the phone and she, being such a humanitarian, said the massacred geese would be given to the food bank to feed the poor. She assured me she is a “real” animal lover who even spent $1000 on a rescue cat. Imagine that, spending $1000 on a rescue cat and then condoning the killing of 200 innocent geese…what a hypocrite! Comes to find out that the city spent somewhere near $4000 of taxpayers money to kill the geese. That’s about $20 per goose from what I imagine. I guess a couple of boxes of mac and cheese wouldn’t be enough. But since Dorothy is the ever-humanitarian, perhaps she can volunteer to de-feather the geese and cook them up in her kitchen and have these poor people of Delavan over for a big feast.
The idea was to whittle down the numbers so that the humans could enjoy the lake without too much poop. Well, these human will be walking on bloody soil today instead of feces. All 200 geese were massacred today under the cloak of the USDA, which by the way condones puppy-mills and has allowed its fair share of tainted e-coli meat and produce to kill American citizens.
For those who tried to stop the killing, they were met by police officers that held the them back. Sort of reminds me of Nazi Germany.
All I can say is that Ms. Dorothy Burwell and Park Committee Supervisor Herb Sessner are murderers whose hands drip the blood of innocent animals. I only wish someone would dump the carcass of these 200 dead geese in their front yards. They are sad excuses for human beings and have no compassion for life other than there own. Dorothy’s blatant lies and circle logic should buy her an e-ticket out of office and I would hope no one would ever elect her to office ever again. For that matter, I would hope she would feel the pain she inflicted on these innocent animals.
I applaud Rebecca and all of the people that stood up for the fight. One goose survived. May her life be a testament to the massacred others, and may we one day live in a world where all animals have a right to be free, not only the animals with the biggest guns.
I spoke to Dorothy on the phone and she, being such a humanitarian, said the massacred geese would be given to the food bank to feed the poor. She assured me she is a “real” animal lover who even spent $1000 on a rescue cat. Imagine that, spending $1000 on a rescue cat and then condoning the killing of 200 innocent geese…what a hypocrite! Comes to find out that the city spent somewhere near $4000 of taxpayers money to kill the geese. That’s about $20 per goose from what I imagine. I guess a couple of boxes of mac and cheese wouldn’t be enough. But since Dorothy is the ever-humanitarian, perhaps she can volunteer to de-feather the geese and cook them up in her kitchen and have these poor people of Delavan over for a big feast.
The idea was to whittle down the numbers so that the humans could enjoy the lake without too much poop. Well, these human will be walking on bloody soil today instead of feces. All 200 geese were massacred today under the cloak of the USDA, which by the way condones puppy-mills and has allowed its fair share of tainted e-coli meat and produce to kill American citizens.
For those who tried to stop the killing, they were met by police officers that held the them back. Sort of reminds me of Nazi Germany.
All I can say is that Ms. Dorothy Burwell and Park Committee Supervisor Herb Sessner are murderers whose hands drip the blood of innocent animals. I only wish someone would dump the carcass of these 200 dead geese in their front yards. They are sad excuses for human beings and have no compassion for life other than there own. Dorothy’s blatant lies and circle logic should buy her an e-ticket out of office and I would hope no one would ever elect her to office ever again. For that matter, I would hope she would feel the pain she inflicted on these innocent animals.
I applaud Rebecca and all of the people that stood up for the fight. One goose survived. May her life be a testament to the massacred others, and may we one day live in a world where all animals have a right to be free, not only the animals with the biggest guns.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Just Kill the Dog - it's Easier
As ridiculous as this statement sounds, you've got to consider the approach most people take with their dogs. People who have dogs with issues, which many have, give it a half-assed try to fix it, and when that doesn't work, they either give up on the dog and let the trouble behavior continue, or they dump the dog at the shelter.
Dumping a dog at the shelter is about the most cowardly thing I can imagine and it only leads to a dogs issues getting worse progressively worse until the dog is killed and dumped in a barrel. Giving up on a creature that lives and breathes and depends on you 100% is BS. I get so upset at the people who say, "I've tried everything, and nothing seems to work." Well, instead of trying everything perhaps you should limit yourself to trying those things that will work. Tossing a hundred ideas around and seeing if one will work is a recipe for disaster. Its almost as bad as giving it a half-hearted approach and then giving up.
For dogs with strong behavioral issues, which are the ones that end up in the shelter, people will give training a "try." They will generally register at a local pet store or group class and follow the instructions for a week or so. If the dogs progress is not up to their expectations, they let it go. These are the same people who go to the gym for a couple of weeks and when they don't look like the magazine cover, they get angry at society for marketing beautiful people. Dog training is something you will start to do today and continue until your dog takes his last breath. Its part of dog custodianship and its fun and rewarding for both you and your dog.
Mediocrity is not acceptable when success is the goal.
There is one approach I take with dogs, and that is a fair one. I start all training and behavior issues with a treat and a toy. I look to what the dog responds to and how he responds. I want to see what drives him and how he relates. I do believe in a strong hand with dogs as they respect that. For the feather weight trainers who abhor any corrections, I welcome them to visit the city and county shelters that I work with and bring your treat pouch (and a band aid).
My reason for taking such a strong stand is simple; I do not believe in dominating or hitting dogs, lets be clear on that. However, a firm correction that moves a dog into obedience is fair. Remember, a correction is not abuse, it is merely a direction to move a dog from what he is doing wrong to what we expect of him. For example if we are teaching a dog to sit and he is "not getting it" by use of a treat over his head, we can push down on his backside and "correct" him into the sit. A dog that doesn't follow on a leash when we lure him with a treat can be "corrected" by using a leash pop when we give him the direction to "follow" or "heel."
Now if all things were as simple as getting a dog to sit or follow life would be ok. Most of the problem issues come into place when people accept bad behavior from their dogs and don't correct for it when the problem first appears, be it that they are ignorant to the potential or that they think its cute and it will "probably go away." This can be as simple as a dog jumping up on people or chewing your favorite shoes, all the way to dominant and aggressive posturing and actions toward people and other dogs.
If we can't redirect the dog with a treat or a toy is it worth it to give the dog a fair correction or should we just drop the dog at the shelter and give up on him? If that is the case, why not just take him to the vet and kill him ourselves?
Harsh words? Well the reality of it is simple: If you can't get "your" dog to listen to you or to obey you, or if "you" refuse to give your dog the direction he needs, what makes you think that someone else wants your problem? The dog that puts his head down every night and you are the last person he sees, the dog that wags his tail at your mere presence, the dog that would give his life for you is the one you are giving up on. Remember one thing, he is an animal with teeth and the ability to use them. If you don't realize this, maybe you should opt for a goldfish as a pet.
Training a dog may take some work. Much like having a child, children require work: we change diapers, stay up when they cry, teach them to walk, talk, etc. Dogs require a certain amount of work. If people could understand that dedication to training, socialization and structure early on could save them a lot of work in the end.
Your dog depends on you - YOU! He has nowhere else to go. If you give up on him, his world has forsaken him, he's just as well dead. If you can't take the responsibility of training him, understand that someone else probably won't either. There are thousands of great dogs in shelters across this country, the dog you messed up and gave up on is not on the top of the list for an adoption. Most rescue organizations won't take dogs with aggression issues because they don't have the time to "fix" them. They are over-flooded with the countless other dogs that they are rescuing every day.
If your dog is developing an "issue" research training methods and get to work. I can assure you that an attitude of indifference and strength will go a long way with your dog and will move you along in training and giving your dog a fair chance at a good life.
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Black Belt Dog Training
Dumping a dog at the shelter is about the most cowardly thing I can imagine and it only leads to a dogs issues getting worse progressively worse until the dog is killed and dumped in a barrel. Giving up on a creature that lives and breathes and depends on you 100% is BS. I get so upset at the people who say, "I've tried everything, and nothing seems to work." Well, instead of trying everything perhaps you should limit yourself to trying those things that will work. Tossing a hundred ideas around and seeing if one will work is a recipe for disaster. Its almost as bad as giving it a half-hearted approach and then giving up.
For dogs with strong behavioral issues, which are the ones that end up in the shelter, people will give training a "try." They will generally register at a local pet store or group class and follow the instructions for a week or so. If the dogs progress is not up to their expectations, they let it go. These are the same people who go to the gym for a couple of weeks and when they don't look like the magazine cover, they get angry at society for marketing beautiful people. Dog training is something you will start to do today and continue until your dog takes his last breath. Its part of dog custodianship and its fun and rewarding for both you and your dog.
Mediocrity is not acceptable when success is the goal.
There is one approach I take with dogs, and that is a fair one. I start all training and behavior issues with a treat and a toy. I look to what the dog responds to and how he responds. I want to see what drives him and how he relates. I do believe in a strong hand with dogs as they respect that. For the feather weight trainers who abhor any corrections, I welcome them to visit the city and county shelters that I work with and bring your treat pouch (and a band aid).
My reason for taking such a strong stand is simple; I do not believe in dominating or hitting dogs, lets be clear on that. However, a firm correction that moves a dog into obedience is fair. Remember, a correction is not abuse, it is merely a direction to move a dog from what he is doing wrong to what we expect of him. For example if we are teaching a dog to sit and he is "not getting it" by use of a treat over his head, we can push down on his backside and "correct" him into the sit. A dog that doesn't follow on a leash when we lure him with a treat can be "corrected" by using a leash pop when we give him the direction to "follow" or "heel."
Now if all things were as simple as getting a dog to sit or follow life would be ok. Most of the problem issues come into place when people accept bad behavior from their dogs and don't correct for it when the problem first appears, be it that they are ignorant to the potential or that they think its cute and it will "probably go away." This can be as simple as a dog jumping up on people or chewing your favorite shoes, all the way to dominant and aggressive posturing and actions toward people and other dogs.
If we can't redirect the dog with a treat or a toy is it worth it to give the dog a fair correction or should we just drop the dog at the shelter and give up on him? If that is the case, why not just take him to the vet and kill him ourselves?
Harsh words? Well the reality of it is simple: If you can't get "your" dog to listen to you or to obey you, or if "you" refuse to give your dog the direction he needs, what makes you think that someone else wants your problem? The dog that puts his head down every night and you are the last person he sees, the dog that wags his tail at your mere presence, the dog that would give his life for you is the one you are giving up on. Remember one thing, he is an animal with teeth and the ability to use them. If you don't realize this, maybe you should opt for a goldfish as a pet.
Training a dog may take some work. Much like having a child, children require work: we change diapers, stay up when they cry, teach them to walk, talk, etc. Dogs require a certain amount of work. If people could understand that dedication to training, socialization and structure early on could save them a lot of work in the end.
Your dog depends on you - YOU! He has nowhere else to go. If you give up on him, his world has forsaken him, he's just as well dead. If you can't take the responsibility of training him, understand that someone else probably won't either. There are thousands of great dogs in shelters across this country, the dog you messed up and gave up on is not on the top of the list for an adoption. Most rescue organizations won't take dogs with aggression issues because they don't have the time to "fix" them. They are over-flooded with the countless other dogs that they are rescuing every day.
If your dog is developing an "issue" research training methods and get to work. I can assure you that an attitude of indifference and strength will go a long way with your dog and will move you along in training and giving your dog a fair chance at a good life.
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Black Belt Dog Training
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Response about the Geese
Here is the response I received today from Dorothy:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Dorothy Burwell wrote:
Please accept my apologies for not reply earlier. Contrary to what many think, I have also received many comments supporting our position. Many view this as a health issue. With the support of staff at Lakeland Animal Shelter, I am hopeful that we can educate many people in prevention methods so that this does not ever happen again.
We do not wish to eradicate any animal or bird but simply get the number to a manageable level and feed some needy people.
Dorothy C. Burwell, Town Chair
townchair@townofdelavan.com ; hjs754@charter.net
Here is my response to her response:
Dear Dorothy,
I am very disappointed at your decision and am perplexed by the many inconsistencies in your statements / position. The animal shelter of your own city does not support your decision, nor do many of the people of your township. Furthermore, if you follow the will of the people to do something that is so clearly wrong, you are no more than a puppet at the hands of those who pull the strings. Righteousness is reserved for those who often times make unpopular decisions.
Your statement of feeding needy people with 200 geese that your city is paying close to $4000 to kill is a bit ludicrous. If they are a "health issue" do you feel that it is a wise decision to feed this to needy people? Couldn't the $4000 be better spent to buy some meals for these people and the geese spared.
In either case, you've made your decision and I'm certain that you will feel the implications of your decisions in the strong disapproval of not only those in your community, but also many more that are aware of the terrible thing you are doing.
I sincerely thought after our conversation that you were reasonable and may sway to an ethical decsision. Imagine my disappointment after I believed you spent all that money to save 1 cat and won't stand up for 200 geese. To those who believe a life is a life, its a position of hypocrisy.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
their email addresses are here.. FYI.
townchair@townofdelavan.com ; hjs754@charter.net
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Dorothy Burwell
Please accept my apologies for not reply earlier. Contrary to what many think, I have also received many comments supporting our position. Many view this as a health issue. With the support of staff at Lakeland Animal Shelter, I am hopeful that we can educate many people in prevention methods so that this does not ever happen again.
We do not wish to eradicate any animal or bird but simply get the number to a manageable level and feed some needy people.
Dorothy C. Burwell, Town Chair
townchair@townofdelavan.com ; hjs754@charter.net
Here is my response to her response:
Dear Dorothy,
I am very disappointed at your decision and am perplexed by the many inconsistencies in your statements / position. The animal shelter of your own city does not support your decision, nor do many of the people of your township. Furthermore, if you follow the will of the people to do something that is so clearly wrong, you are no more than a puppet at the hands of those who pull the strings. Righteousness is reserved for those who often times make unpopular decisions.
Your statement of feeding needy people with 200 geese that your city is paying close to $4000 to kill is a bit ludicrous. If they are a "health issue" do you feel that it is a wise decision to feed this to needy people? Couldn't the $4000 be better spent to buy some meals for these people and the geese spared.
In either case, you've made your decision and I'm certain that you will feel the implications of your decisions in the strong disapproval of not only those in your community, but also many more that are aware of the terrible thing you are doing.
I sincerely thought after our conversation that you were reasonable and may sway to an ethical decsision. Imagine my disappointment after I believed you spent all that money to save 1 cat and won't stand up for 200 geese. To those who believe a life is a life, its a position of hypocrisy.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
their email addresses are here.. FYI.
townchair@townofdelavan.com ; hjs754@charter.net
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
My Letter to the Delavan Township
Dear Dorothy - Dear Herb,
I have been made aware of the decision your town has made to kill the geese dwelling near the Delavan lake. I must say that I am shocked and saddened by such a heartless act and can find no excuse for such an inhumane decision.
The fact that millions of animals are dying needlessly a few thousand miles away because of human error makes this decision of yours even more preposterous. I have read the letter presented to you by Kristen Perry offering a very valid solution to your "problem." Why this plan was rejected confuses me. Is the need to eradicate an animal from your city so necessary that it must be exterminated? Isn't it worth it to try option A, before stepping through to option B.
This decision has been well publicized on facebook as well as other social networking sites, and I am hoping that many citizens will stand up and stand between your workers and the geese. This event will get serious attention and very negative press for anyone involved in the decision. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision and opt for a humane solution to this problem. This decision is not only inhumane, but will cost tax payers money when a volunteer driven program is available.
I am making this letter to you public on my blog at www.boundangels.org and am encouraging others to speak up for the animals and against your decision.
I welcome a conversation with you at any time.
Giving a voice to animals,
Robert Cabral
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
join the revolution!
************************************
Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com
Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net
I have been made aware of the decision your town has made to kill the geese dwelling near the Delavan lake. I must say that I am shocked and saddened by such a heartless act and can find no excuse for such an inhumane decision.
The fact that millions of animals are dying needlessly a few thousand miles away because of human error makes this decision of yours even more preposterous. I have read the letter presented to you by Kristen Perry offering a very valid solution to your "problem." Why this plan was rejected confuses me. Is the need to eradicate an animal from your city so necessary that it must be exterminated? Isn't it worth it to try option A, before stepping through to option B.
This decision has been well publicized on facebook as well as other social networking sites, and I am hoping that many citizens will stand up and stand between your workers and the geese. This event will get serious attention and very negative press for anyone involved in the decision. I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision and opt for a humane solution to this problem. This decision is not only inhumane, but will cost tax payers money when a volunteer driven program is available.
I am making this letter to you public on my blog at www.boundangels.org and am encouraging others to speak up for the animals and against your decision.
I welcome a conversation with you at any time.
Giving a voice to animals,
Robert Cabral
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
join the revolution!
************************************
Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com
Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net
Delavan Township in Wisconsin to Murder Wild Geese
As if its not bad enough with all of the animals being killed in the Gulf Oil Crisis, Delavan Township is setting out to kill the Canada geese which they claim are a nuisance. The primary concern is the =droppings, that these "droppings" impose an inconvenience on the "humans" who which to enjoy the park.... OK, maybe a point to be taken - not a good one, but a point.
Well, a committee presented the council with a proposal of volunteers that would step up and clean the park and even developed a plan to minimize the population in a humane way. What is the Town Councils decision? MURDER. You gotta love governments that condone murdering animals! Who the fuck votes there? I certainly hope that each and every one of these people is voted out and that they feel the repercussions. They say their decisions are made based on health issues.
Please check this link:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=121954864505374
And if you're on facebook, join their cause. This makes me sick and angry at the same time. If you are local, I would say get there and stand in the way, you will be removed, but stand their anyway. I don't suggest anything violent, I suggest getting in the way and making the job of murder a little more difficult physically since its obviously not morally difficult for these morons. I also suggest video taping it and spreading the word that this is not ok.
Also, here is the contact info to voice your opinion.
Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com
Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net
Take an action for someone who can not - for someday you may require someone to step up for you, when you can not!
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Well, a committee presented the council with a proposal of volunteers that would step up and clean the park and even developed a plan to minimize the population in a humane way. What is the Town Councils decision? MURDER. You gotta love governments that condone murdering animals! Who the fuck votes there? I certainly hope that each and every one of these people is voted out and that they feel the repercussions. They say their decisions are made based on health issues.
Please check this link:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=121954864505374
And if you're on facebook, join their cause. This makes me sick and angry at the same time. If you are local, I would say get there and stand in the way, you will be removed, but stand their anyway. I don't suggest anything violent, I suggest getting in the way and making the job of murder a little more difficult physically since its obviously not morally difficult for these morons. I also suggest video taping it and spreading the word that this is not ok.
Also, here is the contact info to voice your opinion.
Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com
Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net
Take an action for someone who can not - for someday you may require someone to step up for you, when you can not!
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Monday, May 24, 2010
Spent the weekend at Bark Ave - check out Kim's videos.
I spent Sunday at Bark Ave LA, a great organization that helps so many dogs here in LA. Kim Sill asked me to come by and temperament test a few of the dogs, here are the videos.
Kim and Bark Ave are willing and able to transport any of these beauties directly to your doorsteps.
Please watch their videos and pass them along...
Sweetie pie is the dog Nancy Heigl asked me to pull
Melanie and Dawn at Bark Ave have been boarding her for me
Sweetie Pie-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArG7eSEztU
Lucy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlRimkCPrMc
Mona- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imsZ_Kjlf_A
Finn- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78f_2GYRPw
Bowser- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukdXLk29bg
Babie Girl- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfU8I7ROM6c
Apalonia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQYPvSXDuzM
Carmella- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxHInYwmNyg
Bo- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gWYaplgjY
Katie- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFLvThirRo
Thanks for taking the time to look at these pets... they need you.
giving a voice to animals...
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Kim and Bark Ave are willing and able to transport any of these beauties directly to your doorsteps.
Please watch their videos and pass them along...
Sweetie pie is the dog Nancy Heigl asked me to pull
Melanie and Dawn at Bark Ave have been boarding her for me
Sweetie Pie-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArG7eSEztU
Lucy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlRimkCPrMc
Mona- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imsZ_Kjlf_A
Finn- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78f_2GYRPw
Bowser- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukdXLk29bg
Babie Girl- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfU8I7ROM6c
Apalonia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQYPvSXDuzM
Carmella- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxHInYwmNyg
Bo- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gWYaplgjY
Katie- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFLvThirRo
Thanks for taking the time to look at these pets... they need you.
giving a voice to animals...
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Hoarders - why?
There are those people that are called hoarders. Among rescue people these individuals are seen as the most evil of people, comparable often times with animal abusers and murderers.
Lets take a look at the mentality that makes up a hoarder. A hoarder is a person that takes in animals and continues to take in more and more often times with no limit in sight. Their houses are over-run with dogs, cats, and whatever else. These people continue to take in more animals even though they are unable to care for the animals they have in a way that is acceptable by our standards. Most of the time this compulsion is triggered by several factors, namely in an effort to keep these animals from being killed at shelters. Hoarders are not collectors (who may have a “collection” of one type of dog or a particular animal), but instead take any and all animals. It’s not uncommon to see a hoarder with dogs, cats, and horses among other animals.
A hoarders goal starts out very noble and somewhere goes awry. They start out with 2, 3 or 4 animals and begin amassing more and more. Often times they try to adopt out the animals they have, but these efforts get squashed as the toll of taking care of their current animals takes up too much of their time. Their number grow by people dropping off animals to them, they get them from the shelters, strays find their way to the hoarders property and just about any other way to get animals, they get them. As it is very obvious to understand, without a major staff, it is impossible to care for but only a few animals. Hoarders don’t see the crazy cycle of neglect that is cast upon the animals, as their main goal is to keep the animals alive. They clearly see one vision: these animals would all be killed at a shelter. This forces us to look at a scary logic, is it better to have these animals living in somewhat deplorable conditions or kill them at the shelter? There are those who think that killing an animal (or as they refer to it- euthanizing) is a humane thing to do. I can only cite very-very rare occasions in which ending an animals life is a humane thing to do.
Although I do not agree with hoarders, I do understand their twisted logic or I should say, where their hearts lie. These people are animal lovers, they are trying to provide for the animals and save them, but the mission goes wrong somewhere. When the levy finally breaks and the amount of animals attracts enough attention, rescue groups and animal control agencies will step in. At this moment all efforts are shifted toward one thing: saving these animals from these deplorable conditions: although I ask the question, “Where were these people before?” What happens to these animals now is where the true demented logic comes in. For the most part they are taken to rescue organizations which are already over-run with too many animals, they are take to shelters which are also over-run with too many animals and the rest are killed / euthanized because of their conditions. The hoarder will go to jail, serve some time, pay a fine and eventually be free to start the same cycle again.
Ask most people in rescue if they had a million dollars what would they do with that money and I can assure you most will tell you that they would buy a big piece of property and take in as many animals as possible. These are the same people that abhor hoarders; at their core they are the same people. At their core they see the goodness, yet are unaware of the pitfall.
Are hoarders bad people? Are they abusers? I would say NO. The goodness of the mission goes wrong along the way and they get caught in the middle of a whirlwind that can’t be righted. These people started out with the goal of saving animals from the hands of those that will kill them, eventually only to be judged and condemned by these very people. Their animals are not properly cared for mainly because of a lack of resources. It should be noted that hoarders, for the most part, spend all of their money on the animals they have. These people are not living high on the hog in one house with these animals being abused and neglected somewhere else. Quite the contrary, these people live in the very same deplorable conditions that the animals under care live in. This indication alone shows me that these people are no more animal abusers, as they are human abusers because of the abuse they subject themselves to. They deny themselves the luxuries of life and instead live in sub-human conditions with the animals they are trying to save.
When the rescue community steps in, it is generally with a whirlwind of excitement, media attention and accusations hurled against someone who is not that far removed from the people casting the stones. Here is someone whose initial goals started out quite aligned with his or her own. These people step in and start taking the animals one by one, starting out with the ones that can be adopted and eventually ending up at the feral ones that no one can touch. These animals are generally on a short list to be killed.
I’d be a hypocrite if I only laid blame without a solution. And, perhaps my “solution” is less of a solution than an ideal that can be seen as nothing more than a dream. Since these people started out doing the work that all of us in rescue see as “kind of” the right idea that somewhere went wrong, how hard would it be to step in and help these people with some resources and support. What if their homes could be rebuilt to clean them up, some donations could be gathered to help with food and supplies and rescue organizations worked with them to help them adopt their animals out to homes? What if some people volunteered some time to keep this type of “no-kill shelter” rolling? What if our efforts would be geared at helping instead of hurting?
Instead people see these places as a dumping ground for dogs that they’ve been stuck with. Rescue needs to take a good hard look at themselves and understand that if someone is trying to do the right thing, they deserve some help. Throwing a person under the train does nothing to help the animals they’ve tried to help. As humans we are afraid to stand up for someone when it becomes un-popular, it’s easier to cast a stone than to ask people to put their stones down and try and do something.
If hoarders are such evil people, we need to define when they turn evil and what makes them evil. Is it when they have more than 10 animals, 20, 50 or 100? If they suddenly become evil at that point, why don’t people step in then and help? Is the act of evil that they are keeping these animals from being destroyed at shelters? Is the act of evil that they take these animals from people who drop them off to them, who tie them to their fences or even throw them over those very fences? Is evil living in deplorable conditions along with the animals in their care? As rescue we need to step up and help those who are helping, we need to work together. And, when one of our own is prosecuted, we should step up to help. I am in no way condoning hoarders or hoarding, but I am inviting you to look at that what makes hoarding what it is. We live in a country where we kill millions of animals every year. It’s done in a back room at the end of a hallway. We all know the room is there, but we choose to ignore it. If getting an animal out of a shelter gives it a chance at life, is it better to do that or kill it? It’s a perplexing question and one that we have to ask. If you were given the option to live in sub-standard conditions or face death, what would you choose? Personally I don’t know many dogs who live the life of the dogs that my closest friends have, but yet they live. Are we to judge what is good enough, and play G-d?
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Lets take a look at the mentality that makes up a hoarder. A hoarder is a person that takes in animals and continues to take in more and more often times with no limit in sight. Their houses are over-run with dogs, cats, and whatever else. These people continue to take in more animals even though they are unable to care for the animals they have in a way that is acceptable by our standards. Most of the time this compulsion is triggered by several factors, namely in an effort to keep these animals from being killed at shelters. Hoarders are not collectors (who may have a “collection” of one type of dog or a particular animal), but instead take any and all animals. It’s not uncommon to see a hoarder with dogs, cats, and horses among other animals.
A hoarders goal starts out very noble and somewhere goes awry. They start out with 2, 3 or 4 animals and begin amassing more and more. Often times they try to adopt out the animals they have, but these efforts get squashed as the toll of taking care of their current animals takes up too much of their time. Their number grow by people dropping off animals to them, they get them from the shelters, strays find their way to the hoarders property and just about any other way to get animals, they get them. As it is very obvious to understand, without a major staff, it is impossible to care for but only a few animals. Hoarders don’t see the crazy cycle of neglect that is cast upon the animals, as their main goal is to keep the animals alive. They clearly see one vision: these animals would all be killed at a shelter. This forces us to look at a scary logic, is it better to have these animals living in somewhat deplorable conditions or kill them at the shelter? There are those who think that killing an animal (or as they refer to it- euthanizing) is a humane thing to do. I can only cite very-very rare occasions in which ending an animals life is a humane thing to do.
Although I do not agree with hoarders, I do understand their twisted logic or I should say, where their hearts lie. These people are animal lovers, they are trying to provide for the animals and save them, but the mission goes wrong somewhere. When the levy finally breaks and the amount of animals attracts enough attention, rescue groups and animal control agencies will step in. At this moment all efforts are shifted toward one thing: saving these animals from these deplorable conditions: although I ask the question, “Where were these people before?” What happens to these animals now is where the true demented logic comes in. For the most part they are taken to rescue organizations which are already over-run with too many animals, they are take to shelters which are also over-run with too many animals and the rest are killed / euthanized because of their conditions. The hoarder will go to jail, serve some time, pay a fine and eventually be free to start the same cycle again.
Ask most people in rescue if they had a million dollars what would they do with that money and I can assure you most will tell you that they would buy a big piece of property and take in as many animals as possible. These are the same people that abhor hoarders; at their core they are the same people. At their core they see the goodness, yet are unaware of the pitfall.
Are hoarders bad people? Are they abusers? I would say NO. The goodness of the mission goes wrong along the way and they get caught in the middle of a whirlwind that can’t be righted. These people started out with the goal of saving animals from the hands of those that will kill them, eventually only to be judged and condemned by these very people. Their animals are not properly cared for mainly because of a lack of resources. It should be noted that hoarders, for the most part, spend all of their money on the animals they have. These people are not living high on the hog in one house with these animals being abused and neglected somewhere else. Quite the contrary, these people live in the very same deplorable conditions that the animals under care live in. This indication alone shows me that these people are no more animal abusers, as they are human abusers because of the abuse they subject themselves to. They deny themselves the luxuries of life and instead live in sub-human conditions with the animals they are trying to save.
When the rescue community steps in, it is generally with a whirlwind of excitement, media attention and accusations hurled against someone who is not that far removed from the people casting the stones. Here is someone whose initial goals started out quite aligned with his or her own. These people step in and start taking the animals one by one, starting out with the ones that can be adopted and eventually ending up at the feral ones that no one can touch. These animals are generally on a short list to be killed.
I’d be a hypocrite if I only laid blame without a solution. And, perhaps my “solution” is less of a solution than an ideal that can be seen as nothing more than a dream. Since these people started out doing the work that all of us in rescue see as “kind of” the right idea that somewhere went wrong, how hard would it be to step in and help these people with some resources and support. What if their homes could be rebuilt to clean them up, some donations could be gathered to help with food and supplies and rescue organizations worked with them to help them adopt their animals out to homes? What if some people volunteered some time to keep this type of “no-kill shelter” rolling? What if our efforts would be geared at helping instead of hurting?
Instead people see these places as a dumping ground for dogs that they’ve been stuck with. Rescue needs to take a good hard look at themselves and understand that if someone is trying to do the right thing, they deserve some help. Throwing a person under the train does nothing to help the animals they’ve tried to help. As humans we are afraid to stand up for someone when it becomes un-popular, it’s easier to cast a stone than to ask people to put their stones down and try and do something.
If hoarders are such evil people, we need to define when they turn evil and what makes them evil. Is it when they have more than 10 animals, 20, 50 or 100? If they suddenly become evil at that point, why don’t people step in then and help? Is the act of evil that they are keeping these animals from being destroyed at shelters? Is the act of evil that they take these animals from people who drop them off to them, who tie them to their fences or even throw them over those very fences? Is evil living in deplorable conditions along with the animals in their care? As rescue we need to step up and help those who are helping, we need to work together. And, when one of our own is prosecuted, we should step up to help. I am in no way condoning hoarders or hoarding, but I am inviting you to look at that what makes hoarding what it is. We live in a country where we kill millions of animals every year. It’s done in a back room at the end of a hallway. We all know the room is there, but we choose to ignore it. If getting an animal out of a shelter gives it a chance at life, is it better to do that or kill it? It’s a perplexing question and one that we have to ask. If you were given the option to live in sub-standard conditions or face death, what would you choose? Personally I don’t know many dogs who live the life of the dogs that my closest friends have, but yet they live. Are we to judge what is good enough, and play G-d?
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Fisherman, the Seagul, and my input!
It was an early morning walk on the beach in Malibu, like I take almost every day with my dog. Up ahead I spotted a seagull curiously sitting and not flying away as my dog Silly and I approached. I knew something was wrong. I placed my dog away from the bird and approached to find a beautiful, young seagull with a fishing lure pierced through its right leg, and if that wasn't bad enough, one of the hooks was pierced through the webbing of its left foot as well. It was doomed.
Yes, I save dogs, but I advocate on behalf of all animals, especially those harmed by and ignorant ass who was too f*cking selfish to clean up his own mess. I guess spending several hours fishing for a 3 pound fish is more financially beneficial than working for $8.00 an hour and spending $10 at Ralphs. Oh, I forgot its a "sport." Well, a sport is an activity in which both parties are willing participants, therefor I can't really see fishing or hunting as a sport. Sorry, wearing camouflage does not classify you as an athlete.
I am pissed at this, its downright stupid. I've never attacked hunters in the past, as I feel "it is what it is," but this sight put something into deep perspective. Its like leaving a loaded gun in a playground. But perhaps we should care more if a child got hurt, of if a child got caught up in fishing line or lures and died. We are sentient beings, but care only about ourselves... How sentient is that?
Anyway, I was able to handle the seagull and met a really nice guy who lives close to where I found the bird. We were able to get the bird into a box and he took it to the California Wildlife Center here in Malibu. I can only hope it wasn't too late. The bird was in shock, and from the look of the pics you can see that the foot has already started developing an infection.
So my message to anyone who is going to fish the beaches as a sport is simple, clean up your f*cking mess. I've seen several dead birds wrapped up in fishing line and hooks, this time I hope I was there in time. And, if I see you fishing the beach, I'll make it a point to tell you the pain that having your necked wrapped in a thin mono-filament can be; how a slow-painful suffocation while the line is cutting into your skin feels like. How painful it must be to have a speared fishing hook jammed through your skin or your tongue and pulling it out the same way must feel like.
Am I pissed??? F*ck yes, whoever did this f*cked up a really nice day I was getting ready to have. Now that I got this off of my chest, I do feel much better though.
Thank you.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
anti BSL issues
I'll start off by saying that I am strongly opposed to BSL (breed specific legislation), and I'll tell you why. I don't believe there is any one specific breed of dog that is "bad" or should be banned. As a trainer, behaviorist and animal rights advocate, I've seen great pit bulls that would never bite, and ones that will - I've seen golden retrievers that would take your arm off as well as dachshunds and chihuahuas. So, legislating against any one breed is idiotic. Most of the issue with problem dogs is their problem owners. Yes, some dogs are bred for a specific purpose and that purpose should be understood when acquiring a dog. Breeders are a big part in this, and responsible breeders can lend a hand in "fixing" the issues with the dogs that may have issues.
For example, we understand that pit-bulls have been bred for fighting dogs; the strongest and most aggressive were bred further and the weaker, submissive dogs that showed no aggression were culled. Most other breeds that are used for pets, or protection would be culled if they showed these radically aggressive tendencies. I will say that pits, for the most part show the slightest amount of aggression toward humans, this was bred out of them to keep their handlers safe in the pit. Since its proven that we can breed a trait into a dog, its only logical that we can breed it out. Now, when you have the morons breeding dogs in their backyards and selling them on the street corner for $100, that is a huge problem and must be stopped.
Its not my point to get into breeding in this post, it is my point to address serious issues. The first and foremost is that we can not legislate on one specific breed of dog, just like we can't draw a line around a specific group of people. Say for example white-protestant males were the number one cause of sexual abuse crimes in a particular city. Would it be fair to require all white-protestant males in that city to be castrated or wear tracking devices? Its just as stupid for a law banning one breed of dog irrelevant of individual issues.
Now, my biggest issue is the people fighting against BSL. Every time I see an article or picture from a group trying to prove their point it involves a big dog: rottweiler, pit bull, mastiff, etc, laying next to a baby or a small child riding on it. I can tell you this is beyond stupid, and even if your dog is ok with it (at that moment), another dog may not be and by showing this picture you are giving others the impression that it is OK to put a child in a dangerous situation like this.
IT IS NOT OK. Dogs and children are a tricky thing, and dominant breed dogs must be desensitized and socialized to children properly. Just winging it and hoping for the best is putting a child and the dog at the greatest of risks.
If we want to make a point how good a dog is, it can be proven through proper training and socialization. I would not put any dog -NONE in a situation with a baby laying on top of it - or the dog laying on top of the baby.
Everyone should know that ALL dogs should be trained, socialized and safe. It is our responsibility, not the dogs.
PLEASE - if you care about dogs and are against BSL and you want to voice your opinion, do so in a rational manner. Understand that showing a dog in a situation that could be construed as dangerous or provoke someone else to put a dog and human at risk is irresponsible, stupid and proves no point. Every time a dog attacks a child I see one of those idiotic pictures and wonder if the victims family saw that and thought, "We can do that with our dog."
All dogs deserve a fair chance at a good life, that chance hinges on us.
For example, we understand that pit-bulls have been bred for fighting dogs; the strongest and most aggressive were bred further and the weaker, submissive dogs that showed no aggression were culled. Most other breeds that are used for pets, or protection would be culled if they showed these radically aggressive tendencies. I will say that pits, for the most part show the slightest amount of aggression toward humans, this was bred out of them to keep their handlers safe in the pit. Since its proven that we can breed a trait into a dog, its only logical that we can breed it out. Now, when you have the morons breeding dogs in their backyards and selling them on the street corner for $100, that is a huge problem and must be stopped.
Its not my point to get into breeding in this post, it is my point to address serious issues. The first and foremost is that we can not legislate on one specific breed of dog, just like we can't draw a line around a specific group of people. Say for example white-protestant males were the number one cause of sexual abuse crimes in a particular city. Would it be fair to require all white-protestant males in that city to be castrated or wear tracking devices? Its just as stupid for a law banning one breed of dog irrelevant of individual issues.
Now, my biggest issue is the people fighting against BSL. Every time I see an article or picture from a group trying to prove their point it involves a big dog: rottweiler, pit bull, mastiff, etc, laying next to a baby or a small child riding on it. I can tell you this is beyond stupid, and even if your dog is ok with it (at that moment), another dog may not be and by showing this picture you are giving others the impression that it is OK to put a child in a dangerous situation like this.
IT IS NOT OK. Dogs and children are a tricky thing, and dominant breed dogs must be desensitized and socialized to children properly. Just winging it and hoping for the best is putting a child and the dog at the greatest of risks.
If we want to make a point how good a dog is, it can be proven through proper training and socialization. I would not put any dog -NONE in a situation with a baby laying on top of it - or the dog laying on top of the baby.
Everyone should know that ALL dogs should be trained, socialized and safe. It is our responsibility, not the dogs.
PLEASE - if you care about dogs and are against BSL and you want to voice your opinion, do so in a rational manner. Understand that showing a dog in a situation that could be construed as dangerous or provoke someone else to put a dog and human at risk is irresponsible, stupid and proves no point. Every time a dog attacks a child I see one of those idiotic pictures and wonder if the victims family saw that and thought, "We can do that with our dog."
All dogs deserve a fair chance at a good life, that chance hinges on us.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Proposed Budget for LA Animal Services May Risk Public Safety and Increase Pet Euthanasia
The following letter is from the Department of LA Animal Services to the Budget and Finance Committee regarding impending budget cuts:
I urge you to weigh in on this issue by contacting the District Councilmen, the link is below. Remember, animal control calls it euthanasia to soften its blow.. these animals will be murdered because council members will vote for a 10% budget cut. Meanwhile we can hire another 1000 LAPD officers, just like the ones that had to shoot and kill the dog below.... I'm not putting down the LAPD, I have the utmost respect for them, however the council needs to know that we NEED animal control to maintain their budget.... PLEASE READ THIS!
In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.
The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.
Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.
Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction
Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.
We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.
Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.
The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.
Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.
The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.
In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.
Call Center Closure
The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.
The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.
The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."
The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.
Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions
The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.
Early Retirement IP Payouts
The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.
The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.
We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services
If you would like to weigh in on these important decisions
contact the
LOS ANGELES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0600
I urge you to weigh in on this issue by contacting the District Councilmen, the link is below. Remember, animal control calls it euthanasia to soften its blow.. these animals will be murdered because council members will vote for a 10% budget cut. Meanwhile we can hire another 1000 LAPD officers, just like the ones that had to shoot and kill the dog below.... I'm not putting down the LAPD, I have the utmost respect for them, however the council needs to know that we NEED animal control to maintain their budget.... PLEASE READ THIS!
In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.
The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.
Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.
Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction
Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.
We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.
Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.
The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.
Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.
The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.
In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.
Call Center Closure
The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.
The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.
The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."
The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.
Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions
The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.
Early Retirement IP Payouts
The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.
The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.
We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services
If you would like to weigh in on these important decisions
contact the
LOS ANGELES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0600
Monday, April 19, 2010
Rabies Vaccine - Important Notice...
As many of you may know I am against the over-vaccination of our dogs. They are primarily geared at revenue and are highly dangerous to our pets. I suggest you read up on "vaccinosis".. just google it. In the meantime, there is an important bill in California that needs your attention. I've read the bill, and at it's core it has little problem. The primary goal as it is read is to simplify the procedure for attaining a license for your dog. It wants to do away with the antiquated process of having to show a certificate at an animal control office to attain the license. It will allow for online registration and modernized methods.
My issue with the bill is that it still requires dogs to be vaccinated at too young of an age, and is not 100% clear on the duration of the vaccination period: 1 or 3 years. I am for "titer" tests on dogs to see if they still carry to anti-body to rabies, and wish that to be stronger stated in any legislation and give owners the option to submit medical titer results as opposed to simply vaccinating. This should be an option. Even though the costs would be higher, many people would gladly pay. Making these options available and allowing people to license their dogs / pets this way would probably see an increase in license fees. Please read below:
CALIFORNIA Rabies Bill AB 2689 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2689_bill_20100408_amended_asm_v98.html introduced by Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, Chair of the Local Government Committee has been referred to the Local Government Committee http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=17
and will require annual rabies vaccinations and puppies to be vaccinated at 3 months of age in "rabies areas" (portion of bill text below) as determined by the State Public Health Officer -- violation is impoundment.
It is URGENT that ALL concerned pet owners contact the committee and tell them to reject this bill in its entirety. The COMMITTEE PHONE is (916) 319-3958 and the members contact information is listed below. PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please help spread the word and take action to defeat this legislation.
Cameron Smyth - Chair
Rep-38 (916) 319-2038 Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair
Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula
Ind-31 (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Steven Bradford
Dem-51 (916) 319-2051 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis
Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Dan Logue
Rep-3 (916) 319-2003 Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio
Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov
SEC. 2. Section 121690 is added to the
Health and Safety Code , to read:
121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:
(a) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three
months, shall no less than once every two years secure a license for
the dog as provided by ordinance of the responsible city, city and
county, or county. License fees shall be fixed by the responsible
city, city and county, or county, at an amount not to exceed
limitations otherwise prescribed by state law or city, city and
county, or county charter.
(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three
months, shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year,
as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a
licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by,
and in a manner prescribed by, the department.
The Rabies Challenge Fund
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
I am interested in the work of the Rabies Challenge Fund and its research to determine the amount of vaccines we need to give our animals to safely vaccinate them against rabies. I am including the link to them above and urge you to research this information on your own. Over-vaccinating a dog or any animal is dangerous and un-necessary.
Thanks for giving a voice to animals...
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
My issue with the bill is that it still requires dogs to be vaccinated at too young of an age, and is not 100% clear on the duration of the vaccination period: 1 or 3 years. I am for "titer" tests on dogs to see if they still carry to anti-body to rabies, and wish that to be stronger stated in any legislation and give owners the option to submit medical titer results as opposed to simply vaccinating. This should be an option. Even though the costs would be higher, many people would gladly pay. Making these options available and allowing people to license their dogs / pets this way would probably see an increase in license fees. Please read below:
CALIFORNIA Rabies Bill AB 2689 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2689_bill_20100408_amended_asm_v98.html introduced by Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, Chair of the Local Government Committee has been referred to the Local Government Committee http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=17
and will require annual rabies vaccinations and puppies to be vaccinated at 3 months of age in "rabies areas" (portion of bill text below) as determined by the State Public Health Officer -- violation is impoundment.
It is URGENT that ALL concerned pet owners contact the committee and tell them to reject this bill in its entirety. The COMMITTEE PHONE is (916) 319-3958 and the members contact information is listed below. PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please help spread the word and take action to defeat this legislation.
Cameron Smyth - Chair
Rep-38 (916) 319-2038 Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair
Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula
Ind-31 (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Steven Bradford
Dem-51 (916) 319-2051 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis
Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Dan Logue
Rep-3 (916) 319-2003 Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio
Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov
SEC. 2. Section 121690 is added to the
Health and Safety Code , to read:
121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:
(a) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three
months, shall no less than once every two years secure a license for
the dog as provided by ordinance of the responsible city, city and
county, or county. License fees shall be fixed by the responsible
city, city and county, or county, at an amount not to exceed
limitations otherwise prescribed by state law or city, city and
county, or county charter.
(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three
months, shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year,
as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a
licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by,
and in a manner prescribed by, the department.
The Rabies Challenge Fund
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
I am interested in the work of the Rabies Challenge Fund and its research to determine the amount of vaccines we need to give our animals to safely vaccinate them against rabies. I am including the link to them above and urge you to research this information on your own. Over-vaccinating a dog or any animal is dangerous and un-necessary.
Thanks for giving a voice to animals...
Robert
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!
Friday, April 9, 2010
MOVING?? WTF
You know it never ceases to amaze me how many people give up their dogs, so just let me vent here for a moment. Whoever came up with the excuse, "I have to give up my dog because I'm moving..." should be slapped up side the head - hard.
For the past several years I've heard a plethora of excuses for giving up the animal that's shared it's life with you, the most honest is, "I just don't want him any more." It's stupid, but honest. I can't imagine any excuse for giving up a pet once I've commited to it, but then again, that's just me. Commitment is something some people take seriously while others have no idea "what it means." Since these people probably meander through their meaningless lives with little focus on structure or function, they probably don't see the meaning for focus let alone commitment. These people probably make bad parents, employees and partners. If you can let go of an animal that has given it's life to you, only to drop it at a shelter with little regard to what will happen to it; leaving it with a person you've never met, then your charachter may be a bit flawed - actually severely flawed.
But, back to the idea, "I'm moving and can't take my dog with me." I would like to know where that special place is where you are moving where dogs are illegal. I've traveled around this country a bit and haven't found a state, nor city that has a ban on dogs. Recently I was forced to move and did find it a little bit challenging to find a place that would allow dogs, but I persevered... and believe me, my scope of interest of where I wanted to live was much more limited than most people. I can promise you that if its important enough for you, you'll find a place that allows dogs. In fact ask yourself this question, "If giving up my dog will cost me 15% of my yearly pay, would I expend the effort to find a place that will take me WITH my dog?" And if you answer YES to this, WTF is wrong with you?
Am I being a jerk here? NO. I'm speaking for the animal that, when dumped in a shelter has less than a 30% chance of getting out alive. The animal that has no voice after you walk out the front door back to your normal life, the animal that sits and wonders WHEN you will be back... you always came back before. These animals deserve a voice, and their voice is taken from them... I am that voice today... and I am pissed.
Think about what you do BEFORE you get a dog or cat. This is one reason why I am criticized when I don't speak out against breeders. In my opinion, if you get your dog from a breeder and keep it for life, you are NOT a part of the problem. But, no matter where you get your dog, if you dump him when you grow tired, move or can't afford him anymore... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Lets take the blame off of people who have little if anything to do with the problem and place it squarely on those who ARE THE PROBLEM.... irresponsible pet owners... not breeders.
THINK - its a life your messing up... its your choice to be a selfish ass or be to be kind.
For the past several years I've heard a plethora of excuses for giving up the animal that's shared it's life with you, the most honest is, "I just don't want him any more." It's stupid, but honest. I can't imagine any excuse for giving up a pet once I've commited to it, but then again, that's just me. Commitment is something some people take seriously while others have no idea "what it means." Since these people probably meander through their meaningless lives with little focus on structure or function, they probably don't see the meaning for focus let alone commitment. These people probably make bad parents, employees and partners. If you can let go of an animal that has given it's life to you, only to drop it at a shelter with little regard to what will happen to it; leaving it with a person you've never met, then your charachter may be a bit flawed - actually severely flawed.
But, back to the idea, "I'm moving and can't take my dog with me." I would like to know where that special place is where you are moving where dogs are illegal. I've traveled around this country a bit and haven't found a state, nor city that has a ban on dogs. Recently I was forced to move and did find it a little bit challenging to find a place that would allow dogs, but I persevered... and believe me, my scope of interest of where I wanted to live was much more limited than most people. I can promise you that if its important enough for you, you'll find a place that allows dogs. In fact ask yourself this question, "If giving up my dog will cost me 15% of my yearly pay, would I expend the effort to find a place that will take me WITH my dog?" And if you answer YES to this, WTF is wrong with you?
Am I being a jerk here? NO. I'm speaking for the animal that, when dumped in a shelter has less than a 30% chance of getting out alive. The animal that has no voice after you walk out the front door back to your normal life, the animal that sits and wonders WHEN you will be back... you always came back before. These animals deserve a voice, and their voice is taken from them... I am that voice today... and I am pissed.
Think about what you do BEFORE you get a dog or cat. This is one reason why I am criticized when I don't speak out against breeders. In my opinion, if you get your dog from a breeder and keep it for life, you are NOT a part of the problem. But, no matter where you get your dog, if you dump him when you grow tired, move or can't afford him anymore... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Lets take the blame off of people who have little if anything to do with the problem and place it squarely on those who ARE THE PROBLEM.... irresponsible pet owners... not breeders.
THINK - its a life your messing up... its your choice to be a selfish ass or be to be kind.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Divided We Fall
I know this post may fly in the face of many people in rescue, but I have to say what I feel. Since I entered into this field I've found a lot of egos present in the animal rescue community. Everyone knows a better way to do things, and people are very divided on their stands. This is very evident in the debate about the No Kill Shelter concept. I think everyone wants it, but no one understands the magnitude of the problem. Shelters are overcrowded because people keep dumping more and more pets into the shelters. People blame breeders first and foremost, and I differ on this point very strongly. I believe the problem is with un-reputable breeders. For years I've taken the side of good breeders and know for a fact that many good breeders are doing more to help the problem than hinder it.
The problem to the pet "overpopulation" problem does not lie with reputable breeders, it lies with stupid people who are irresponsible pet owners, who can't keep their dogs in their homes or yards - they don't spay or neuter and their dogs are running around making more unwanted dogs that we kill at a rate of several million every year. Then lets look at back yard breeders, puppy mills, impulse shoppers on the internet buying dogs, people who don't train their dogs or grow tired of them.
Legitimate breeders screen potential homes for their puppies more thoroughly often than rescue organizations, they qualify people who are getting one of their puppies, and they will take a dog back if it doesn't work out. So... lets put the blame of this problem squarely where it lies, and off of the reputable breeders who have a love and passion for their dogs, just like us.
I get angry when people point fingers and blame without a solution. Do people actually think that we should stop breeders? That makes as much sense as sterilizing people until there are no more orphans. Lets take the efforts and focus on educating people about responsible pet custodianship, lets team up with breeders and see how we can work together. Statistics show that there are about 30% pure bred dogs in shelters. I think that number may be a bit high, but close enough to consider. That means more than 70% of our "problem" lies with irresponsible people who are breeding dogs to show their kids the beauty of "The Miracle of Life." Which to me is one of the most idiotic things and it borders on bestiality. If children should learn about the miracle of life, shouldn't it be from humans.. oh yeah, we can't show naked people, that would be a sin.... But don't get me started there.
I'll close this post with my typical disappointment in the people who complain and complain and do very little to solve the problem, and my hat off to all of those people who make the world a better place for animals! You know who you are.
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
The problem to the pet "overpopulation" problem does not lie with reputable breeders, it lies with stupid people who are irresponsible pet owners, who can't keep their dogs in their homes or yards - they don't spay or neuter and their dogs are running around making more unwanted dogs that we kill at a rate of several million every year. Then lets look at back yard breeders, puppy mills, impulse shoppers on the internet buying dogs, people who don't train their dogs or grow tired of them.
Legitimate breeders screen potential homes for their puppies more thoroughly often than rescue organizations, they qualify people who are getting one of their puppies, and they will take a dog back if it doesn't work out. So... lets put the blame of this problem squarely where it lies, and off of the reputable breeders who have a love and passion for their dogs, just like us.
I get angry when people point fingers and blame without a solution. Do people actually think that we should stop breeders? That makes as much sense as sterilizing people until there are no more orphans. Lets take the efforts and focus on educating people about responsible pet custodianship, lets team up with breeders and see how we can work together. Statistics show that there are about 30% pure bred dogs in shelters. I think that number may be a bit high, but close enough to consider. That means more than 70% of our "problem" lies with irresponsible people who are breeding dogs to show their kids the beauty of "The Miracle of Life." Which to me is one of the most idiotic things and it borders on bestiality. If children should learn about the miracle of life, shouldn't it be from humans.. oh yeah, we can't show naked people, that would be a sin.... But don't get me started there.
I'll close this post with my typical disappointment in the people who complain and complain and do very little to solve the problem, and my hat off to all of those people who make the world a better place for animals! You know who you are.
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Dogs Poisoned in Washington State
Here's a story that should shake up everyone who has a dog. In Washington state someone is killing dogs using poisoned laced meatballs.
I've heard about this before and its one of those things that can only be explained as absolute idiocy.
Please watch the video and spread the word. There are ways to train your dog not to eat food from strangers, but it is a lot of work. I would suggest you keep you dog closer to your home than the fence in your yard and monitor him when he is out. IF, you should happen to know someone who is doing something like this, please report it to us or your local police department.
Giving a voice to animals,
Robert
I've heard about this before and its one of those things that can only be explained as absolute idiocy.
Please watch the video and spread the word. There are ways to train your dog not to eat food from strangers, but it is a lot of work. I would suggest you keep you dog closer to your home than the fence in your yard and monitor him when he is out. IF, you should happen to know someone who is doing something like this, please report it to us or your local police department.
Giving a voice to animals,
Robert
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Revolution Has Begun
I received an email the other day and it floored me, I wanted to share it with you. I met Dennis through my good friend Kim a few months ago. He runs a pet store in Camarillo and his passion is saving dogs. He is a one of a kind guy and a real stand up person. He told me that he really loved the concept of Bound Angels, and had created a media center in his store that shows Bound Angels videos all day long. The center is beautifully created and a joy to visit. Everyone who walks into All Pet Headquarters in Camarillo can see the videos playing, learn about adopting shelter dogs, and NOW... adopt a shelter dog right there.
Dennis has dedicated an entire area of his store to puppies from kill-shelters that can be adopted from him instead of buying one. My hat is off to Dennis. The photo above is the marquee over the area where the puppies are house. He concept was a Knight riding in and freeing a dog and bringing him to a forever home. Here's a quick quote from the email which made my day:
"Robert, I truly like your work and think you do a great job with the videos and also believe the revolution has begun. A tribute to your work……Dennis"
Friday, February 12, 2010
Dealing with Fear Aggression
Last week a friend of mine asked me for some help in dealing with a pair of German Shepherds that were adopted to a very nice lady living in Santa Barbara. The best part of the story is that after these two a father and daughter had sat in the shelter for almost a year, they were adopted from a youtube video inspired by our Shelter Angel Video Program.
Well, it seems as though the girl, Lilly had a little bit of a biting issue. Some trainers had worked with her, but the lady was still a little pensive about how to handle Lilly. I offered to ride up with my friend and pay a visit.
This was a classic example of fear based aggression which is oftentimes mis-diagnosed as dominance. This is a very bad mistake and can be impossible to fix if not properly handled. Trainers who approach all situations with a blanket approach are the culprits of messing up more dogs than anything. I've seen motivational based trainers mess up dogs with serious dominance issues and correction based trainers mess up dogs with fear based aggression. I was happy to step in in place of a trainer who might screw this girl up any more.
I could see immediately that Lilly was very insecure without her dad Romi around. So I taught the owner how to build up Lilly's confidence and work from there. I will post an article over at www.blackbeltdogtraining.com in the next week on how to deal with fear based aggression in dogs.
The most important thing I would like to stress here is that it is crucial in dealing with a dog with aggression to determine the cause of it before you try to solve it. A good trainer / behaviorist will cost a bit more, but will solve the problem in a manner that is fair to the dog and it will work. I received an email that the owner already better understands how to deal with Lilly's personality and is doing the homework to get her on her way.
Well, it seems as though the girl, Lilly had a little bit of a biting issue. Some trainers had worked with her, but the lady was still a little pensive about how to handle Lilly. I offered to ride up with my friend and pay a visit.
This was a classic example of fear based aggression which is oftentimes mis-diagnosed as dominance. This is a very bad mistake and can be impossible to fix if not properly handled. Trainers who approach all situations with a blanket approach are the culprits of messing up more dogs than anything. I've seen motivational based trainers mess up dogs with serious dominance issues and correction based trainers mess up dogs with fear based aggression. I was happy to step in in place of a trainer who might screw this girl up any more.
I could see immediately that Lilly was very insecure without her dad Romi around. So I taught the owner how to build up Lilly's confidence and work from there. I will post an article over at www.blackbeltdogtraining.com in the next week on how to deal with fear based aggression in dogs.
The most important thing I would like to stress here is that it is crucial in dealing with a dog with aggression to determine the cause of it before you try to solve it. A good trainer / behaviorist will cost a bit more, but will solve the problem in a manner that is fair to the dog and it will work. I received an email that the owner already better understands how to deal with Lilly's personality and is doing the homework to get her on her way.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Don't Adopt a Dog Because You Feel Bad
I've had a note to myself, sitting on my computer for the last month to write this particular blog post.
It might be hard to understand what I mean by "don't adopt because you feel bad," so I will explain. It seems all to often people are swayed by their emotions when it comes to adopting a dog. Having created many campaigns geared at getting dogs adopted out of our shelter system, I'd like to be clear on something very important. Adopting a dog is a decision that lasts for many years, and because of that should be carefully evaluated. Yes, the warm and fuzzy feelings of saving a life is enough to make people jump in with both feet, but you have to think about the logistical aspects and long term ramifications of what you are doing. A dog is a commitment for many years, not just for today. This dog will be a member of your family for the next 10 or more years. The feeling of sympathy that you are feeling today will soon pass and you'll be dealing with the reality of what you just got yourself into for many years. This often creates a resentful person, and that is not fair to you or your new dog.
I don't say these things to be harsh, but to be realistic. All to often as a dog trainer I see people complaining that the dog they rescued is turning out to be a nightmare to both them and their dogs. If you're adopting a dog to save his life, you need to understand that this dog, no matter how bad you feel, will need structure. Feeling bad because he was living in the shelter, and was about to be put down, will make you treat him in a state he's not used to. Dogs are very resilient creatures, and all too often I see people hanging on to the negative past of the dog long after the dog has forgotten, or should I say "moved on."
The recidivism rate at shelters is a testament to what I am saying. Some shelters have over a 50% return rates on dogs that were adopted. This is in part due to: no screening, evaluation or consulting on what people are getting into. Dogs do have feelings and shuffling them around from place to place, shelter to home, home to rescue and so on creates dogs with behavioral issues.
When people first bring rescue dogs into their homes with their personal dogs, they often drop the ball on the introductions. If the dogs get along at first, they think that all is well and they forget about it. Eventually there will be an issue, and both dogs and people would be better served to understand the proper way to introduce a new dog into a home. I cover this in my article on www.blackbletdogtraining.com called "Bringing Home the New Dog."
Adopting a dog is a decision of compassion, but it must be infused with a dose of logic. Take your time, understand what you are getting into and do your homework. Saving a life is one of the most important things you will ever do. Be sure that you are in fact saving the life and making that commitment. It requires some thinking about the dog and your situation.
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
It might be hard to understand what I mean by "don't adopt because you feel bad," so I will explain. It seems all to often people are swayed by their emotions when it comes to adopting a dog. Having created many campaigns geared at getting dogs adopted out of our shelter system, I'd like to be clear on something very important. Adopting a dog is a decision that lasts for many years, and because of that should be carefully evaluated. Yes, the warm and fuzzy feelings of saving a life is enough to make people jump in with both feet, but you have to think about the logistical aspects and long term ramifications of what you are doing. A dog is a commitment for many years, not just for today. This dog will be a member of your family for the next 10 or more years. The feeling of sympathy that you are feeling today will soon pass and you'll be dealing with the reality of what you just got yourself into for many years. This often creates a resentful person, and that is not fair to you or your new dog.
I don't say these things to be harsh, but to be realistic. All to often as a dog trainer I see people complaining that the dog they rescued is turning out to be a nightmare to both them and their dogs. If you're adopting a dog to save his life, you need to understand that this dog, no matter how bad you feel, will need structure. Feeling bad because he was living in the shelter, and was about to be put down, will make you treat him in a state he's not used to. Dogs are very resilient creatures, and all too often I see people hanging on to the negative past of the dog long after the dog has forgotten, or should I say "moved on."
The recidivism rate at shelters is a testament to what I am saying. Some shelters have over a 50% return rates on dogs that were adopted. This is in part due to: no screening, evaluation or consulting on what people are getting into. Dogs do have feelings and shuffling them around from place to place, shelter to home, home to rescue and so on creates dogs with behavioral issues.
When people first bring rescue dogs into their homes with their personal dogs, they often drop the ball on the introductions. If the dogs get along at first, they think that all is well and they forget about it. Eventually there will be an issue, and both dogs and people would be better served to understand the proper way to introduce a new dog into a home. I cover this in my article on www.blackbletdogtraining.com called "Bringing Home the New Dog."
Adopting a dog is a decision of compassion, but it must be infused with a dose of logic. Take your time, understand what you are getting into and do your homework. Saving a life is one of the most important things you will ever do. Be sure that you are in fact saving the life and making that commitment. It requires some thinking about the dog and your situation.
Robert Cabral
Bound Angels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
