Grrr Archives - Page 13 of 21 - i Still Love Dogs

Why the World’s Ugliest Dog Contest Has Become Downright Ugly

On the last Friday of June every year, a pup wins the dubious “World’s Ugliest Dog” title at a contest held during the Sonoma-Marin Fair in Petaluma, Calif.

The contest organizers insist it’s all in good fun. “We celebrate the spirit and imperfections that make these dogs loveable and adoptable,” said Sarah Cummings, the contest’s CEO, in a press release.

The pet parents who enter the contest are proud of their dogs, “despite missing fur, crossed eyes, duck waddles or mismatched ears,” according to the press release. (The dogs, that is, not the pet parents.)

To qualify for the contest, dogs must have paperwork from veterinarians assuring they are healthy. A vet is also on site during the contest to check each of the contenders.

Until last year, the majority of the winners were Chinese Crested Dogs or elderly, toothless Chihuahuas. However, it’s very interesting that as of this year, the rules no longer state that dogs must be “naturally ugly.”

Perhaps that’s because the 2014 winner, Peanut, looked much different when he was born. As a puppy, Peanut was abused by his owner and suffered horrific burns in a fire.

“He doesn’t have lips anymore,” Holly Chandler, who rescued Peanut from a shelter where he’d languished for nine months, told KPIX 5 last year.

“His eyelids are also gone and he can’t close his eyes, so therefore his eyes water. The tears drain into his nose, so he has nice little snot bubbles because of it. So it’s great, that adds to his character.”

Just imagine the uproar if a two-legged burn victim won the title of “World’s Ugliest Human.”

Chandler said she entered Peanut in the contest to raise awareness for animal rescue. That’s a noble reason, but there’s got to be a better way to do this than making fun of — er, celebrating — a dog’s looks, especially when those looks are the result of abuse.

Why not a World’s Sassiest Dog contest? Or how about World’s Happiest Dog? Now, that’s a competition I would fully support.

Photo via sonoma-marinfair.org

Ohio Police Officer Aiming for Pet Dog Shoots Little Girl Instead

When a woman flagged down a police officer on a street in Whitehall, Ohio, yesterday afternoon, telling him her sister, Andrea Ellis, had cut herself, the last thing she probably expected was that her 4-year-old niece, Ava, would end up being shot by the cop.

That’s what happened when, as the unidentified police officer stood in the front doorway of the Ellis family’s house, their pet dog ran toward him.

The officer drew his gun and fired a shot at the dog. Instead, the bullet possibly ricocheted and struck Ava’s leg.

After the shooting, the officer “seemed a little disoriented, like he was really bothered,” neighbor Norman Jones, who called the police after he heard the shot, told the Columbus Dispatch.

Neighbors said the Ellis family has two dogs, who both wear electronic shock collars that prevent them from leaving the house. Police spokeswoman Denise Alex-Bouzounis told the Dispatch the dogs were put in the backyard after the incident.

According to the Columbus Division of Police Facebook page, Ava was taken to Nationwide Children’s Hospital in stable condition. Her mother was treated for her cut at another hospital.

Iowa Woman Killed in January by Cop Shooting at Her Dog

This is at least the second time this year that a police officer has accidentally shot a person instead of a dog.

In January, 34-year-old Autumn Steele of Burlington, Iowa, was fatally shot by officer Jesse Hill, who had been aiming for Sammy, her German Shepherd. Hill was outside Steele’s home, responding to a domestic dispute, when Sammy began growling.

Hill told Steele to get her dog. When Sammy bit him, Hill fired two rounds, striking Steele in the chest and right arm. After an investigation, Hill was cleared of criminal charges and returned to work in March, according to the Des Moines Register.

Training Cops to Humanely Deal with Pet Dogs

Sadly, police officers tend to be gun happy when dealing with pet dogs who are just doing what comes naturally — protecting their families and property.

In fact, Ozymandias Media, which is producing the documentary “Puppycide” on the topic, reports that a dog is shot by law enforcement every 98 minutes.

“When an officer shoots a pet dog, it is traumatic for the officer, the animal and the community — something we want to mitigate as much as is possible,” Madeline Bernstein, president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles (spcaLA), said in a press release earlier this year.

In response to the shocking, viral 2013 video of a Hawthorne, Calif., police officer shooting a Rottweiler named Max as his owner begged him not to, spcaLA began offering the class, “Dog Behavior for Law Enforcement” to all police departments in California. Hawthorne police officers completed the class in January.

In 2013, Colorado became the first state to pass a “Dog Protection Act,” which requires similar training for law enforcement officers. Last month, Texas enacted a law (HB 593) that requires the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement to establish a statewide comprehensive training program in dog encounters by Jan. 1, 2016.

This is a start, but as these sad statistics make clear, teaching law enforcement officers how to humanely deal with dogs should be required in every state.

Photo via Facebook

Grrr: NYC Luxury Co-op Requires DNA Tests to Determine Banned Breeds

When I saw a headline earlier today about an Upper West Side co-op in New York City requiring DNA tests for its dog tenants, I assumed the purpose was to identify poo that had not been picked up by their irresponsible pet parents. (Yes, this is a thing.)

I assumed wrong. The DNA tests are for something much more sinister.

Pet parents living in the luxury tower at 170 West End Ave. must have their veterinarians confirm the pedigree of their dogs. For mixed breeds, the vet must indicate the percentage of each breed. And if the vet is unsure of what breed(s) a dog happens to be, that dog must take a DNA test.

Why?

Because certain dogs “are not permitted to reside in the building based upon documented information regarding their tendency towards aggressiveness,” according to the new discrimination policy the co-op board sent to tenants last month.

Surprisingly, among the 27 banned breeds are small dogs, including Maltese, Pomeranians and Shih Tzu. Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, Saint Bernards and Basset Hounds are also prohibited.

Any dog who is at least 50 percent of any of the banned breeds cannot live in the building.

‘It’s Like Dog Racism’

“It’s like dog racism, essentially,” one disgruntled tenant told DNAinfo.com. “It’s beyond offensive. It’s intrusive.”

The tenant refused to be identified because, like many other pet parents in the building, he or she fears the negative publicity could affect their property values.

The co-op board president, Robert Sadin, has refused to comment on the new policy, as has the property manager, FirstService Residential.

“Mark my words, there is going to be a lawsuit for dog discrimination,” Sylvia Shapiro, a lawyer and author of the book “The New York Co-op Bible,” told DNAInfo.com.

“The problem with dogs is not the dogs, it’s the owners,” she said. “There seems to be a lot of irrational people around.”

I propose that DNA tests be required for the co-op board, based on their tendency towards ignorance.

Photo credit: sari_dennise

Georgia Shelter Kills Dozens of Dogs with Respiratory Symptoms

More than 60 dogs were euthanized Monday at the Clayton County Animal Control (CCAC) shelter in Jonesboro, Ga., only because they may have been infected with the H3N2 virus. Most dogs recover from this respiratory flu within 10 to 30 days.

“Treat all dogs like we treat our children. We don’t put our children to sleep when they get the sniffles,” Tandra Matthews, one of hundreds of people outraged by the killings, told 11Alive.

Dave Edwards is a rescue volunteer who monitors Atlanta Pit Bull Networking on social media. (The majority of the dogs killed Monday by CCAC were Pit Bulls, one of the breeds that the shelter only allows to be released to rescue groups.) Edwards told CBS46 Wednesday that rabies is the only disease he could think of that would automatically require such a “mass extermination” of shelter dogs.

Clayton County Police Deputy Chief Michael J. Register told CBS46 Friday the shelter was trying to protect the healthy dogs, and offered no further explanation.

“If we don’t euthanize the number of animals that are exhibiting symptoms, you run the risk of jeopardizing the whole facility,” Register said. He said the infected dogs were quarantined last weekend, and then killed Monday.

When asked if the shelter had considered providing medicine to the infected dogs, Register said it had not.

The symptoms of the dogs killed were “coughing, running nose and sneezing,” according to a statement released Friday by the Clayton County Police Department. The department did not say whether the dogs were even confirmed to actually have H3N2.

After an assessment was completed by veterinarian medical personnel, those alleged experts recommended that the sick animals be euthanized, the police department stated.

Coughing, a running nose and sneezing are also symptoms of kennel cough, a contagious respiratory illness that is common in animal shelters. In fact, earlier this year, a shelter in Gwinnett County, Ga., experienced a kennel cough outbreak. Did its veterinarian medical personnel advise the shelter to kill the sick dogs? No way. Those dogs were quarantined while the shelter was disinfected.

In response to public complaints at a meeting Tuesday night, Clayton County Commission Chairman Jeffrey Turner told CBS46 he agrees that something needs to be changed at the shelter. Back in 2009, Clayton County voters approved construction of a new shelter, but six years later, nothing has been done.

Turner said he predicted a new shelter could be completed in 18 months.

As of June, the H3N2 virus has spread to 13 U.S. states. Most at risk for becoming infected with this flu are puppies, older dogs and dogs with weakened immune systems. Many dogs that have it show no symptoms at all. Click here for tips for preventing your dog from becoming infected.

Photos via Clayton County Animal Control Rainbow Bridge Facebook page

San Diego Man Covers Lawn with Chocolate Chips to Keep Dogs Away

Sure, it’s aggravating when irresponsible dog owners allow their pooches to poop on your front lawn. Again and again and again.

But is that any reason to cover your lawn with something that’s potentially poisonous to dogs?

John Robinson of San Diego thought so. Last Friday, he sprinkled several pounds of chocolate chips over his front yard.

Chocolate, as you should know, can be poisonous for dogs — especially darker chocolate and smaller dogs.

Robinson told NBC 7 he had previously used signs warning people not to let their dogs poop on his lawn, to no avail.

“People disrespect my yard,” he said. “I’m tired of the stuff.”

The idea he came up with seems to be working. He said people walking their dogs are now crossing the street to avoid his house.

Local dog mom Sarah Fisher has been using social media to warn pet parents about the chocolate chips on Robinson’s lawn.

“If he is doing this – which is like an animal genocide, pretty much – he’s putting it out for animals to ingest and get sick,” she told NBC 7.

Residents in Robinson’s North Park neighborhood called San Diego County Animal Control to complain. Its deputy director, Dan DeSousa, told NBC 7 the case is currently being investigated by both animal control and the San Diego Police Department.

Robinson claimed he doesn’t believe chocolate is harmful for dogs. (Then why did he cover his front lawn with it?) He told NBC 7 he plans to mow the lawn soon to get rid of the chocolate chips — although city officials may order him to do it sooner.

Ingenious or Evil?

More than 100 comments have been left on the NBC 7 story. I was surprised that many people seem to think Robinson’s method of deterring dogs is ingenious, not evil.

“Let me get this straight. Pet owners won’t be considerate of a homeowner’s property, so he puts chocolate chips on HIS OWN FRONT YARD as a deterrent,” wrote Les Ciapponi. “Then some of these same irresponsible pet owners file a complaint. OK this is crazy. It’s his property! Can’t these people control their pets? I’m sorry, these pet owners who filed a complaint are WHACK!”

Desi Woodburn agreed. “I think his intention is to scare the dog owners away from his yard, which he did,” she wrote. “It’s his own yard, so what’s the big deal? Responsible dog owners keep their dogs on a leash when out and about. Then again, responsible dog owners should be picking up after their pet.”

I agree with those who thought what Robinson did was wrong, particularly since it is harmful to the innocent dogs rather than their irresponsible owners.

“Why make the dogs suffer painfully and possibly die because they crapped on the lawn?” wrote Shelley Sloane. “Why not go after the owners rather than setting it up so any dog that goes by has the possibility of eating this and having health issues because of it?”

Jordan Smith wrote, “I get what he’s doing and I do feel he has a right to take action against this, but the dogs shouldn’t suffer for the irresponsibility of the owner. Dogs don’t know not to poop in a yard, nor are they aware that chocolate is bad for them.”

Photo via Twitter

What do you think? Please leave a comment below.