Guestbook
Animal Assisted Therapy ~ Say “Ahhh” or “Ruff”
Most people know about Seeing Eye dogs who are partnered with blind people who seek to enhance their independence, dignity, and self-confidence through the use of Seeing Eye dogs. But there is another way that animals can improve human health through service. It is called Animal Assisted Therapy.
The premise behind Animal Assisted Therapy is based upon the theory that the human-animal bond can improve the lives of people who are ill or disabled. The fact is that people heal through the comfort and motivation from a specially trained pet. Dogs are the most common animals to be trained to assist in a person’s therapy. But horses, dolphins, cats, bunny rabbits, and birds can help too.
Companion animals have been introduced into the therapeutic regimens of many health care institutions: nursing homes, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, psychiatric institutions and others. There are even therapeutic riding programs designed to improve the motor skills and coordination of the physically challenged. In correctional facilities for adults and juveniles, Animal Assisted Therapy pets help inmates learn empathy and compassion. Autistic children swim with dolphins. In short, wherever people have special needs, an Animal Assisted Therapy pet can probably help improve a person’s health and well-being.
For a first hand view of how Animal Assisted Therapy works, take a look at this video clip from NBC News Chicago called “Pooches Prompt Promising Results In Patients”
One scientific study after the other has proven that just stroking a pet lowers your blood pressure and calms you. So consider what a specially trained animal can do in terms of healing. Animals are not concerned with age or physical ability. The loving, nonjudgmental presence of animals allows many to reach out and interact with animals.
Medical studies and field reports show that animals have a comforting, reassuring effect on people. The therapeutic benefits of Animal Assisted Therapy include:
- Decreased anxiety and depression
- Increased self-esteem
- Stronger desire to communicate
- Lowered blood pressure
- Increased motivation to get well
- Decreased need for painkillers in some post-operative patients
- Increased willingness to interact with other
Animal Assisted Therapy offers important possibilities for providing holistic care that extends not only to patients, but also to family members and staff, and to the pets themselves.
If you are interested in learning more about Animal Assisted Therapy, here’s a list of a few outstanding organizations in Colorado:
This article was contributed by Lauren Engel of Digital Peabody ~ professional web strategist in Denver, Colorado and full-time animal lover
Don’t Buy Puppies. Adopt them!
The following article about Puppy Mills is contributed by Holly Tarry, HSUS Colorado State Director
With their wagging tails, oversized paws and boundless energy, puppies can be hard to resist. You might see them in the window of a pet shop, or in a photo on a website, and fall head over heels. This rush of affection is what puppy mill operators count on. Who would believe that a cycle of cruelty could be responsible for something so innocent?
Yet despite images of rolling farmland or loving families as the source for their puppies, many pet shops do sell dogs from mass breeding facilities. In fact, puppy mills keep dogs in shockingly poor conditions.
Out of the public eye, puppy mill operators keep their animals in small cages, sometimes without adequate food, water or protection from the elements. Female dogs are bred continuously to produce the maximum profit. Ultimately, profit is what motivates these operations—not the well-being of the animals.
While millions of dogs await adoptions at shelters, puppy mills continue to ship thousands of puppies across the country to pet shops. Others are sold through classified ads or the Internet. Websites selling dogs from puppy mills may claim that their animals are “home-raised, “farm-raised” or brought up with children. These rosy assurances make customers feel good, but without knowing where animals come from, puppy buyers may be supporting cruel, irresponsible breeders.
Federal law only provides minimum-care standards for puppy-mill animals, and has not been well-enforced. Some states have laws that provide oversight of larger breeding operations.
Colorado is not immune to puppy mills. Colorow Kennels, located in Olathe, is a quintessential puppy mill. The owner, Nita Smith, has been convicted of animal cruelty and currently has another charge pending. Smith has a long history of animal-care violations evidenced by a 210-page file with the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act, the state agency that regulates Colorow.
Within the last year, Humane Society of the United States investigators discovered that a high-end pet store in Los Angeles was reselling dogs from Midwest puppy mills, even though this “pet store to the stars” assured customers it did not sell dogs from mills.
We also conducted an investigation in Virginia, which like Colorado was not thought to be a major puppy-producing state. There we found approximately 1,000 breeders in the state selling dogs commercially, many of them puppy mills. Virginia lawmakers are now considering legislation to address the problem.
In addition to the inhumane treatment of the dogs they use for profit, puppy mills can put a huge financial burden on the state. Whenever the state needs to step in and seize animals, the effort puts a strain on the surrounding community, often requiring disaster-level support to provide supplies and care for such a large number of animals.
The most effective way to stop operations like this one is to adopt from your local shelter and never support a puppy mill.
Finally: Ringling Brothers Circus to Address the Atrocities They Bestow Upon Animals at Trial Scheduled to Begin in October
Ringling Brothers Responds to a Pending Lawsuit
By George Knapp, Chief Investigative Reporter of Las Vegas Now
An American institution — the Ringling Brother’s circus is facing an uncertain future now that a lawsuit is moving forward in Federal Court. It took animal welfare groups eight years to get Ringling into court. The trial begins in October.
On a day hot enough to blister meat, in an asphalt parking lot behind a Las Vegas casino, two out-of-place Asian elephants splash around in a shallow pool. It’s enough to thaw the heart of the most strident animal activist.
There’s no getting around it, people love elephants — on a level that seems almost primal. Ringling Brothers knows this better than anyone.
“You care about it when you stand next to a 10 foot tall animal. Your eyes light up, no matter how old you are. That’s the experience we’ve been bringing to the country for 138 years,” said Ringling Brothers spokesperson Andy Perez.
According to Perez, the elephants are essential to the circus, “Our polling shows 80-percent of attendees come because of the elephants. As much as the clowns and acrobats are part of it, so are the elephants.”
By one estimate, the Ringling Circus earns $100 million a year for its owner Kenneth Feld, an impresario with long-standing ties to Las Vegas. Without elephants, the circus would fold its tent, its supporters say.
Attendance and profits remain strong, but it gets a little tougher each year. Animal activists are waiting at almost every stop to protest the treatment of non-human performers — especially the elephants.
Andy Perez has worked for Ringling for ten years. He is the designated media liaison and responder to critics, “Animal activists have their view. It’s the polar opposite of Ringling Brothers.”
He lauds the circus for creating an elephant farm in Florida and a breeding program designed to help save the species. He says, with a straight face, that the stunts performed by circus elephants are perfectly natural.
“Elephants are playful. What you see in the circus is basically what elephants do in the wild. They stand on their head, on logs, on each other,” he said.
“They stand in a line of 14 elephants?” asked Knapp.
“Absolutely. Have you ever seen a herd move?” said Perez.
“Seriously?” asked Knapp.
“Yeah, they move around. Elephants are social creatures. They move in herds,” said Perez.
“In the wild, they would stand on hind legs, 14 in a row?” asked Knapp.
“They stand on each other for mating — for playing. It’s natural behavior to reach for higher things off tree branches,” said Perez.
If we take Ringling’s word for it that elephants in the wild perform, a larger question remains — are elephants cut out to be carnies?
A Ringling tour lasts two years and covers 80 cities. Elephants essentially live in railroad cars and in chains — a part of their existence the public and media don’t get to see.
It’s the circus life that is at the heart of a lawsuit filed eight years ago by animal welfare organizations, which allege that an endangered species, especially one as intelligent as elephants, shouldn’t spend most of its life in a boxcar.
Ringling says its pachyderms are pampered.
“It’s a great life for elephants. They get 24 hour, seven-day-a-week care, people with them all the time, tending to their needs, their health. They get exercised — they are in movement constantly. Look at the elephants. We invite the public to our open house, how healthy they look, their muscle tone. They’re happy. They’re in good condition,” said Perez. “They respond to the trainers. They have great rapport with the trainers and enjoy themselves.”
The animal groups say there’s a reason why elephants obey their trainers — fear. Elephant trainers in every circus, including Ringling, use the infamous ankus or bullhook. Ringling says it’s a harmless but necessary tool.
“The guide is an internationally accepted management tool. It’s necessary,” said Perez.
“Necessary if you are going to have them in a circus,” asked Knapp.
“If you are going to work with elephants period. If you are a 150 pound man, you need a way to communicate with that animal — just like a leash with a dog. Can it be misused? Absolutely. But at Ringling Brothers, we don’t tolerate it and have never been in violation,” said Perez.
Undercover videos recorded by animal welfare groups paint a different picture, although Ringling has been very successful in resolving complaints filed with the USDA.
Some of the most pointed criticism comes from Ringling’s own elephant experts and vets. Internal memos obtained by the critics are packed with first hand accounts of elephants that have been beaten and bloodied, scarred, abused, infected and denied water to prevent urination during performances. The allegations are from Ringling’s own veterinarians.
“Your animal person said it happened lots of times — bleeding in the ring. Others say it happens,” said Knapp.
“In my ten years with the circus, I haven’t seen that. I can speak from experience. I can’t speak to what this person, he or she, what this person has written,” said Perez.
One central issue in the federal court case is the intent of Ringling’s breeding program. The circus says it’s doing the world a favor by saving the species and that no elephant is forced to perform.
“Someone needs to protect and study. We’re leaders in that. We started our center to learn more about them. We do work around the world,” said Perez.
“Do you raise them for anything other than performing?” asked Knapp.
“Not every elephant is a performer, just like not every person is a performer. When a calf is born, a determination is made of what the calf is interested in. Some are shy, some are hams,” said Perez.
But critics say the elephants either perform or die. Former Ringling elephant handler Tom Rider, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, says every single elephant born at the Ringling farm is performing in the circus, except for the four baby elephants that died while training or performing.
“There is not one baby elephant born at that conservation center that has ever been put into the wild. All they’re doing is having babies. It’s like a puppy mill for elephants, breeding babies to put them in the circus,” he said.
“Ringling snatches them from their mother by dragging them with ropes and starts dominating them. At six-months-old, an elephant has no concept of why they’re being hurt. They don’t understand what they’re doing. But the show must go on,” said animal welfare activist Linda Faso.
“We’re caring for an endangered species. Put our money where our mouth is, keeping them from going extinct. The activists are not,” said Perez.
Burgers to Blame for Global Warming?
By Jeff Popick, Vegan World
It all depends on what the burger is made from ” A 408 page report by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that 18% of greenhouse gases are coming from animal agriculture — meat and dairy, that is. Therefore, what many people are eating is contributing more to global warming than the entire transportation sector of the United States. But here’s the interesting part. This report was published two years ago, back in 2006. Last year, in 2007, ABC produced a prime time television special about the top ways we can save Planet Earth. Amongst those “top tips” were suggestions about turning off lights when we’re not using them and trying to use less toilet paper. Great suggestions, mind you, but top tips?! The UN report had already been out for one full year. This year, in 2008, there’s been a regular parade of programs on all major networks and cable — even CNN has their program “Planet in Peril” — telling people how to help save the world. Where is their discussion about the primary culprit of global warming as shown by the 408 page report put out in 2006? Global warming has simply become a sensational story … while the planet burns.
The Earth, and all who reside here, are in grave peril like never before. We have a moral, ethical responsibility and imperative to face up to the truth. Yes, it may mean we need to change our daily habits. Please don’t shoot the messenger. If we don’t do it voluntarily, the Earth will do it for us. There has never been a time in man’s existence when it is so critical to move away from the Standard American Diet (SAD) and embrace an Earth-friendly and sustainable plant-based diet — a vegan diet. It is categorically the single best thing you can do for your health and the health of the planet.
By switching to a plant based diet, mankind will instantly eradicate nearly 20% of the global warming problem. If that isn’t amazing enough, this simple yet profound change would greatly curtail further deforestation, top soil erosion and even the ever-worsening tainting of the world’s waters. Not enough? High cholesterol and heart disease, hypertension, obesity, adult-onset diabetes, kidney disease and many cancers would virtually disappear. Yet the human race has an incredibly huge reluctance to embrace an incredibly huge part of the solution — a plant-based, vegan diet. Even the media seems to be a monumental fortress lying squarely across the path of human and planetary salvation. Why?
The great news is that we don’t have to give up our burgers; we just have to make them from plant-based ingredients. Veggie burgers, have the taste, smell and texture of the traditional burger but without the harmful ramifications.
Do you believe the suggested health benefits of a vegan diet? Do you believe the United Nations? VeganWorld.com has just posted their latest poll inquiring about this very thing. You can check it out on the homepage of http://www.veganworld.com/
Unanimous Decision of New Jersey Supreme Court Results in Precedent-Setting Victory for Farm Animals
“The Court therefore strikes as invalid the definition of ‘routine husbandry practices’”
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 19, 2008
TRENTON, NJ—July 30, 2008— In a unanimous landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today struck down the New Jersey Department of Agriculture’s (NJDA) regulations exempting all routine husbandry practices as “humane” and ordered the agency to readdress many of the state-mandated standards for the treatment of farm animals. A broad coalition of humane organizations, farmers, veterinarians, and environmental and consumer groups, led by Farm Sanctuary and represented by the public interest law firms Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Washington, D.C., and Egert & Trakinski, Hackensack, N.J., brought the case to the state’s Supreme Court. In this monumental case, the Court ruled that factory farming practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used, setting a legal precedent for further actions to end the most egregious abuses on factory farms throughout the U.S. The Court also rejected the practice of tail-docking cattle, and the manner in which the NJDA had provided for farm animals to be mutilated without anesthesia.
“This is a major victory for farm animals in New Jersey, and will pave the way for better protections of farm animals nationwide,” said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. “Setting a legal precedent in a unanimous vote that clarifies that commonly used practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used will build on our momentum in challenging the cruel status quo on factory farms.”
Many states have an exemption to their cruelty code for “routine” or “commonly accepted” practices which leaves animals confined in factory farms unprotected from abuse. However, in 1996, the New Jersey Legislature directed the NJDA to develop appropriate “standards for the humane raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock.” Eight years later, on June 7, 2004, the agency finalized regulations that specifically authorized many cruel farming practices and essentially gave blanket protection to all common agriculture practices.
In 2004, a coalition filed suit alleging that the NJDA failed to establish standards of treatment of farm animals that are “humane” — as required by the New Jersey Legislature in 1996 — and instead sanctioned numerous inhumane practices, including all routine farming practices, used to raise animals for meat, eggs and milk. This coalition included Farm Sanctuary, The Humane Society of the United States, The New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Animal Welfare Advocacy, Save Our Resources Today, Center for Food Safety, and the Organic Consumers Association, among others.
In addition to striking down the agency’s sweeping exemption for “routine husbandry practices,” the Court further held that tail docking could not be considered humane, and the manner in which mutilations without anesthesia including castration, de-beaking and de-toeing could not be considered humane without some specific requirements to prevent pain and suffering. The Court made clear that the decision to permit these practices as long as they are done by a “knowledgeable person” and in a way to “minimize pain” could not “pass muster.”
According to Katherine Meyer, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, “Having the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously recognize that the mutilation practices commonly used in the industry – cutting off the beaks and toes of live animals without anesthesia – is painful to these animals is an important milestone in educating the public at large about these practices and the need for reform.”
“This decision will protect thousands of animals in New Jersey, and also calls into question some of the worst factory farm abuses practiced throughout the country,” said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of animal protection litigation for The Humane Society of the United States. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food.”
Unfortunately, the Court failed to take the opportunity to strike down regulations that allow the confinement of breeding pigs in gestation crates and calves in veal crates, as well as the transport of sick and downed cattle. Although the Court noted that these practices are controversial and that downed animals “suffer greatly,” it found the record on appeal insufficient to warrant striking the regulations at this time. The decision comes amid a massive momentum nationwide to phase out these cruel systems and recent highly publicized investigations of downed cattle that resulted in animal cruelty convictions. The plaintiffs will push the agency vigorously to phase out these cruel and inhumane practices when the regulations are revised.
In April 2008 the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released the results of a two and a half year study that supports a phase out of common factory farming practices such as the use of gestation crates, farrowing crates, tethering, forced feeding, tail docking, and body-altering procedures that cause pain. The European Union outlaws many of these practices, or is in the process of phasing them out. Florida and Oregon have outlawed gestation crates, and Arizona and Colorado have outlawed both gestation and veal crates. An anti-confinement initiative on California’s November 2008 ballot – Proposition 2 – if passed, would outlaw gestation crates for breeding pigs, veal crates for calves and battery cages for egg-laying hens in the nation’s largest agricultural state.