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!
Monday, May 24, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
