US Food Policy: If you could change one thing...

shartran

bump

rml_16

To say nothing of the damage cause by spay/neuter madness and the villification of quality breeders.

If there wee no animals being put down or ending up in shelters, I'd be all for breeders. But I find it disgusting that people are so obsessed with status that they'll spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a "pure bred" rather than save a life. And I find it disgusting that people who claim they love animals (breeders) deliberately bring new ones into a world where so many are being put down because there aren't enough homes simply so they can make some money.

I don't understand your statement about spaying and neutering. Are you saying we shouldn't do it or encourage people to do it?

As far as your previous statement about resources, ummmm ... Do you have Facebook? Because I do and on any given day there are about 100 different posts begging for money to support 100 different causes. Most people have a limited supply of money and they have to pick and choose their causes. Not everyone is going to give to animal rescue groups.

Greytfish

To say nothing of the damage cause by spay/neuter madness and the villification of quality breeders.

If there wee no animals being put down or ending up in shelters, I'd be all for breeders. But I find it disgusting that people are so obsessed with status that they'll spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a "pure bred" rather than save a life. And I find it disgusting that people who claim they love animals (breeders) deliberately bring new ones into a world where so many are being put down because there aren't enough homes simply so they can make some money.

I don't understand your statement about spaying and neutering. Are you saying we shouldn't do it or encourage people to do it?

As far as your previous statement about resources, ummmm ... Do you have Facebook? Because I do and on any given day there are about 100 different posts begging for money to support 100 different causes. Most people have a limited supply of money and they have to pick and choose their causes. Not everyone is going to give to animal rescue groups.

Rather than save a life? That's some twisted logic. Responsible breeders of purebred dogs breed to quality, temperament, and health and they are obligated to take back any returned purebred animals if one who purchases from them cannot keep the animal - or they lose the ability to register a litter with the AKC. And by "sell" I mean they recoup thier expenses fro producing the litter and little else. They do not breed dogs for which they do not have homes - often with a wait list of a year or more. They breed as a hobby and for the good of producing dogs with predictable temperaments and attributes. The biggest problem with all of the mutts/mongrels/mixes is that when you breed a dog that is a mix, you get no particular mix of characteristics and no predictability. That is a huge factor in a dog not staying in a home. The dog gets bigger than they thought, or more energy, and ill tempered....and they dump it at a shelter.

The dogs that are put down en mass in shelters are - by and large - the mixes and mongrels or the ill bred, genetically defective "purebred" puppy mill dog someone bought at a pet store. Those dogs are eminently disposable, especially once their temperament and health defects become apparent. And, frankly, people who pay $1,000 for a "purebred" puppy mill dog, and "designer "mix," and the shelter adopted dog are all considered disposable. Dogs sold by hobby breeders are actually the most likely dogs to stay in their original homes for their entire lives, and less commonly need rehoming except in the most dire of circumstances. This is in part because those people are more closely vetted and also because people who feel invested in a breed of dog, even if they don't breed, show, or compete, see more inherent value in the pet.

The reduction of pets killed in shelters has been falsely attributed to spay/neuter programs. In fact, there weren't all that many "oops" puppies that were simply the result of people not knowing any better. It's not difficult to keep dogs from reporducing. But, the majority of "oops" puppies ending up in shelters are actually deliberately bred so someone can make a few bucks selling the puppies. If that doesnt work out or the puppies are sick or get sick, they end up dumped at a shlter or in a box in front of the door to a vet. That hasn't changed or reduced in numbers at all.

What has mad a drastic difference is the proliferation of no-kill placement groups and the increased social networking. As more dogs were considered adoptable, shelters have gradually throttled back the once prevalent policy of slating dogs and cats for euthenization at the end of a mandatory hold period without ever reaching out to rescue groups or even showing them to the public. Food collection and donation programs have also helped many, many people keep pets they could not otherwise afford and would have turned in to a shelter.

Worse than the well-intentioned myth about spay/neuter is that to place more pets, many programs have done widespread spay/neuter of 8-12 week old puppies and kittens without regard to the often dire health consequences of desexing a mammal before it has gone through puberty. That leads to health problems, many of which are severe or disabling, and many of which are expensive - which makes that dog or cat more likley to end up back in rescue yet again.

Begging for money is part and parcel for all adoption groups. Not because they always need the money. You would be surprised at how many kind hearted souls leave huge bequests in their wills and how much revenue that generates when they group invests it. I know of one local group that has well over a million dollars in their investment account and they do 17 large scale fundraisers each year and run adoption events in no less than 9 locations every Saturday and Sunday. It's not because they need the money. But, oddly, when you stop running fundraisers and begging for donations, people actually stop adopting. So they will constantly beg for money and goods and pass along what they don't need or can't use to someone who can.

It's easy to condemn what igorance prevents you from understanding. It's even easier to vilify someone you know nothing about. I don't need Facebook or clever marketing to sell me on "outrage." I have two decades in all breed and purebred dog and cat rescue and adoption.

rml_16

Rather than save a life? That's some twisted logic. Responsible breeders of purebred dogs breed to quality, temperament, and health and they are obligated to take back any returned purebred animals if one who purchases from them cannot keep the animal - or they lose the ability to register a litter with the AKC. And by "sell" I mean they recoup thier expenses fro producing the litter and little else. They do not breed dogs for which they do not have homes - often with a wait list of a year or more.

And every dog they breed and sell is one more dog sitting in a shelter or being put down.

You do get how this works, right? Person A wants a dog. Person A decides a registered purebred is somehow better for his status than a shelter or rescue dog and since purebreds are readily available due to BREEDING, one more shelter dog dies. Person A would have had to get a shelter dog if he wanted a dog if he couldn't buy one from a breeder.

And what's the point of breeding and selling the puppies just to break even? No one is breeding and selling animals to break even.

I won't even get into the physical and health issues that human breeding (yes, even RESPONSIBLE breeding) has caused.

The dogs that are put down en mass in shelters are - by and large - the mixes and mongrels or the ill bred, genetically defective "purebred" puppy mill dog someone bought at a pet store.

Untrue.

This is in part because those people are more closely vetted and also because people who feel invested in a breed of dog, even if they don't breed, show, or compete, see more inherent value in the pet.

Also untrue.

As more dogs were considered adoptable, shelters have gradually throttled back the once prevalent policy of slating dogs and cats for euthenization at the end of a mandatory hold period without ever reaching out to rescue groups or even showing them to the public

When our city shelter is too full, every animal that comes in goes straight to euthanization. My information comes from the employees directly. I doubt highly that it is the only shelter that does this.

I have two decades in all breed and purebred dog and cat rescue and adoption.

I believe you are a breeder. I doubt you work with rescues as closely as you claim.

jenilla1

This thread is so full of CRAZY. :indifferent:

murphy612

So, you guys want an agency that goes around testing and monitoring all over the country so you can count your calories. Lol. Ridiculous. There are bigger fish to fry in the economy. Setting up a bureaucracy is not something I support.

I second this ^^^^

If you're that concerned, don't eat out. That might have a bigger impact on what restaurants serve than anything else.

KHalseth

Require all restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

This would be my thing too. They say that seeing the numbers at the places that do post them is not causing people to order different things. But I've actually changed my mind about what I planned to order when I saw the calories. So if it caused me to modify what I ordered I can't be the only one. I just wish more info was posted. I really don't care about fat content so much as I have to watch carbs and sugars since I am Diabetic. I actually need fat when I eat carbs because it slows down processing of the carbs and helps prevent blood sugar spikes.

WendyTerry420

People who get Habitat homes aren't lucky. They work their behinds off to get a house after going thoguh a pretty tough process. And, 3 of the families I worked with recently volunteered with HH even after getting their homes.

None of the situations are one-offs, just because you're fortunate to be unaffected where you live. I know 32 working class families with no internet, no TV, and phone service only by prepaid phones.

I don't think most of them need the internet for their food education, though. Most of them (70% or so) are making all of their meals from scratch. That probably explains why they don't have the time to surf the 'net and watch TV, so don't really miss it.

Yes, they are one-offs. It is a tiny portion of the overall class of "working poor" and "impoverished" who would ever be affected by this.

And the point of the internet was the claim made by another poster that poor people have no way to get info about nutrition.

Greytfish

Rather than save a life? That's some twisted logic. Responsible breeders of purebred dogs breed to quality, temperament, and health and they are obligated to take back any returned purebred animals if one who purchases from them cannot keep the animal - or they lose the ability to register a litter with the AKC. And by "sell" I mean they recoup thier expenses fro producing the litter and little else. They do not breed dogs for which they do not have homes - often with a wait list of a year or more.

And every dog they breed and sell is one more dog sitting in a shelter or being put down.

You do get how this works, right? Person A wants a dog. Person A decides a registered purebred is somehow better for his status than a shelter or rescue dog and since purebreds are readily available due to BREEDING, one more shelter dog dies. Person A would have had to get a shelter dog if he wanted a dog if he couldn't buy one from a breeder.

And what's the point of breeding and selling the puppies just to break even? No one is breeding and selling animals to break even.

I won't even get into the physical and health issues that human breeding (yes, even RESPONSIBLE breeding) has caused.

You really don't know what you're talking about. The people who want to adopt a dog, adopt one. Most of the people who want a "purebred" dog actually get a puppy mill dog, not one from a hobby breeder. Those people will never stop producing dogs because they make a quick buck and have no responsibility. Then they have rescue to pick up their slack.

Quality breeders almost never make a profit. You would have to beed a female multiple times per year and get large litters to make a profit. Puppy mills make profit by breeding voluminously, skipping genetic testing for disease before using a dog as breedign stock, and not providing veterinary care or vaccinations to the dogs they breed. Then, they sell them at 6-8 weeks - 4 to 6 weeks before a dog is fully weaned. A Hobby breeder is selective, will not breed an unhealthy dog, will have a stud fee, prenatal care for the female, a possible cesaerean, and then a health exam, parvo vaccine, and at least 2 rounds of distemper vaccines before the dog goes to a home. That's over and above the costs of feeding and housing in accordance with regulations.

The dogs that are put down en mass in shelters are - by and large - the mixes and mongrels or the ill bred, genetically defective "purebred" puppy mill dog someone bought at a pet store.

Untrue.

Most of the dogs who are euthanized are not purchased from hobby breeders. Most, in fact, are mixed breeds commonly identified as "pit bulls" which are sometimes Am Staffs, but commonly not. It's at least partially due to the BSL and insurance company policies that make them more difficult to place. Most of the "purebred" dogs you see in shlters are not, in fact purebred. They are the product of a puppy mill, which does not keep records of breedings and familial relations and many times breed two similar looking dogs of different breeds and pass them off as one breed or the other. Those are not purebred dogs, but the breed rescue for that dog's supposed breed will almost always take it into their program and attempt to place it.

This is in part because those people are more closely vetted and also because people who feel invested in a breed of dog, even if they don't breed, show, or compete, see more inherent value in the pet.

Also untrue.

You know this because you know soooo many breeders, right? :laugh:

As more dogs were considered adoptable, shelters have gradually throttled back the once prevalent policy of slating dogs and cats for euthenization at the end of a mandatory hold period without ever reaching out to rescue groups or even showing them to the public

When our city shelter is too full, every animal that comes in goes straight to euthanization. My information comes from the employees directly. I doubt highly that it is the only shelter that does this.

Actually, that's pretty uncommon. Almost all shelters have moved to a model where unadoptables (because of temperament, usually) are euthanized immdeiately upon expiration of the holding period, and then animals that have been waiting longer are euthanized next, not a "last in first put down" model. Although, some shelters that don't have a lot of rescue contacts will tell the public that the next animals in will be immediately put down as that makes people more likely to adopt. If your shelter doesn't have a minimum waiting period, they really are in the dark ages. I don't blame them. That's your community's failing.

I have two decades in all breed and purebred dog and cat rescue and adoption.

I believe you are a breeder. I doubt you work with rescues as closely as you claim.

[/quote]

Do you believe in the Easter bunny as well? I've never bred an animal, nor have I given you any reason to think I have. I don't work *with* rescues, I work in rescue. As a volunteer. In my spare time. What I know I have learned first hand, working for and with rescues, shelters, and adoption networks.

Next time you want to jump far afield in an off topic comment, opt for something you at least understand. At least then someone could learn from it.

Greytfish

People who get Habitat homes aren't lucky. They work their behinds off to get a house after going thoguh a pretty tough process. And, 3 of the families I worked with recently volunteered with HH even after getting their homes.

None of the situations are one-offs, just because you're fortunate to be unaffected where you live. I know 32 working class families with no internet, no TV, and phone service only by prepaid phones.

I don't think most of them need the internet for their food education, though. Most of them (70% or so) are making all of their meals from scratch. That probably explains why they don't have the time to surf the 'net and watch TV, so don't really miss it.

Yes, they are one-offs. It is a tiny portion of the overall class of "working poor" and "impoverished" who would ever be affected by this.

And the point of the internet was the claim made by another poster that poor people have no way to get info about nutrition.

No, they're not on-offs. They are an ever growing trend. Luckily, many chain eateries do have printed nutritional information available if you ask. Some even have them available prominently at the counter.

Again, I don't think you *need* nutrition information available if you have some basic health knowledge, but there is certainly a discrepancy between the convenience items for doing so.

WendyTerry420

People who get Habitat homes aren't lucky. They work their behinds off to get a house after going thoguh a pretty tough process. And, 3 of the families I worked with recently volunteered with HH even after getting their homes.

None of the situations are one-offs, just because you're fortunate to be unaffected where you live. I know 32 working class families with no internet, no TV, and phone service only by prepaid phones.

I don't think most of them need the internet for their food education, though. Most of them (70% or so) are making all of their meals from scratch. That probably explains why they don't have the time to surf the 'net and watch TV, so don't really miss it.

Yes, they are one-offs. It is a tiny portion of the overall class of "working poor" and "impoverished" who would ever be affected by this.

And the point of the internet was the claim made by another poster that poor people have no way to get info about nutrition.

No, they're not on-offs. They are an ever growing trend. Luckily, many chain eateries do have printed nutritional information available if you ask. Some even have them available prominently at the counter.

Again, I don't think you *need* nutrition information available if you have some basic health knowledge, but there is certainly a discrepancy between the convenience items for doing so.

So thank you for agreeing with my ORIGINAL statement, even if it was in such a messed-up way. OMFG!

Best of luck on your gurney! :flowerforyou:

turtledove773

Require all restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

AMEN! It makes me so mad when a place doesn't have this! How are we suppose to make the right decisions if we don't have the right tools! If they don't want to broadcast it, at least have one on hand for those of us who want to see it!

missionquestthing

no high fructose corn syrup

Acg67

Require all restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

AMEN! It makes me so mad when a place doesn't have this! How are we suppose to make the right decisions if we don't have the right tools! If they don't want to broadcast it, at least have one on hand for those of us who want to see it!

Lol, then don't go out. Calorie count has zero impact on what dishes I choose when going to a restaurant

IVMarkIV

Change to the Metric system

ztaitaifufu

Lol, then don't go out. Calorie count has zero impact on what dishes I choose when going to a restaurant
[/quote]



ahhhahah : ) THIS

Carnivor0us

give all the current subsidies to organic farmers / outlaw GMOs, (even russia's doing it)

That's silly and Russia just rounded up stray dogs in sochi and killed them, should we do that as well?

The way this country puts down animals because of irresponsible human beings, this country is no better. The US has no right to say a word about what other countries do as this country does things worse than most other countries.

A lot of Americans are pitiful human beings.

Actually, the US puts down 4 million animals a year. 25 years ago, it was 16 million.

Russia doesn't even have a public animal shelter system. Their solution is either limited TNR or just round up every stray animal and kill them.

We are actually quite ahead of them on that front.

No, not really, if you consider the available resources. We have immense wealth and an extensive network of private rescue groups that handly much of the placement of dogfs and puppies - because we have the immense wealth to do it. Proportionate to the resources at hand, we aren't very impressive at all.

To say nothing of the damage cause by spay/neuter madness and the villification of quality breeders.

Russia isn't some third-world nation. They have the basic resources for some kind of public shelter system, but they don't have one because it's not a social priority. We might have more resources, but we have more of a will to do it because (and I know this might sound crazy) a LOT of Americans really really REALLY care about their pets and homeless domesticated animals. You just said so by telling us about all the resources that people pour into private rescues (and public ones too!). I work with rescues and foster people all the time and they are hardly wealthy.

DatMurse

let people eat what they want. its called survival of the fittest and they are losing.

Greytfish

Russia isn't some third-world nation. They have the basic resources for some kind of public shelter system, but they don't have one because it's not a social priority. We might have more resources, but we have more of a will to do it because (and I know this might sound crazy) a LOT of Americans really really REALLY care about their pets and homeless domesticated animals. You just said so by telling us about all the resources that people pour into private rescues (and public ones too!). I work with rescues and foster people all the time and they are hardly wealthy.

No one said that Russia is a third-world nation. Like everyone else, they have limited resources, and they have far more limited resources than the U.S. It doesn't mean they couldn't have more extensive shelter and adoption, it just means they prioritize thier resources (as does the U.S.) and stray domestic pets fall near the bottom. They fall near the bottom in the U.S. as well, there's just more money to go around generally. But, let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of U.S. shelters that still gas pets 30 or 60 at a time in a small room.

I know plenty of people who care deeply about pets. In the days following 9/11 I fielded calls 2 times a day from a wonderful volunteer firefighter who had gone up to the city to help search through the rubble, but had noticed as he was leaving that his dog was ADL. She had a pyometra, and would have died had he not noticed she was "off" and brought her to us that afternoon as he headed north. I held the phone up to her kennel so she could hear his voice. It was the least I could do for both of them. That same day there was a cardboard box of 3 kittens with eyes not yet open sitting by the front office door when I went to open the front door for surgical drop offs. This after I had found a beagle mix leashed to the spotlight next to the side door I entered. I figured out pretty quickly why I beat everyone else in in the morning, as this was common. And, we were in a very wealthy area.

Plenty of people in the U.S. care deeply for animals. Plenty of people also donate for the tax benefits or for the social good will it buys. Some of them are even smart enough to do research and donate where it will do good, instead of to places like HSUS or ASPCA. And, it's a good thing, because overwhelingly pets are still pretty disposable to millions of people.

We do, absolutely have the resources to do better than we do now, but it takes motivation and the desire to take a more comprehensive approach to the problem. In that respect, it's not all that different from the obesity problem in the U.S. or our failing bridges.



If I could change one thing about U.S. food policy I would make school meals more nutritious and offer low cost or free breakfasts and lunches to students so we could pair education abotu healthy choices with a practical solution. The biggest shame about the U.S. and food is that he have an exponentially growing percentage of needlessly obese children while at the same time have millions of children who don't know when they will have their next meal.

eldamiano

Require all restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

AMEN! It makes me so mad when a place doesn't have this! How are we suppose to make the right decisions if we don't have the right tools! If they don't want to broadcast it, at least have one on hand for those of us who want to see it!

Probably wont work. This happens in the UK anyway and obesity levels are rising. Ok, granted that if you went into your local non-chain kebab/burger place that they arent going to have this, but everybody knows this food is junk and calorie-laden anyaway, so why is looking a set of numbers going to do anything?