ADVERTISEMENTS

Give The Bark -- The Ultimate Dog Magazine

dibanner


books on dogs


Introducing the New Havahart Wireless Custom-Shape Dog Fence


Find care for your pets at Care.com!
Pet Meds

Heartspeak message cards


Celebrate Mother's Day with $10 off! 130x600

Bulldog Leash Hook

Healthy Dog Treats


80% savings on Pet Medications

Free Shipping - Pet Medication


Cheapest Frontline Plus Online

Fine Leather Dog Collars For All Breeds

“Teen Mom” lets her dog play with fireworks

In her defense, forethought and consequences are concepts that may not be fully understood by Jenelle Evans.

That would explain, among other things, why the star of this season’s “Teen Mom 2″ on MTV let her dog play with lit fireworks, videotaped it, posted it on social media and says she would do it again — except maybe for the posting on social media part.

The homemade video, which she has since deleted, showed the reality TV star tossing a lit firework into her yard as a voice seems to encourage her dog, Jax, to fetch it.

Some reports say the voice is that of her son, Jace, who Evans gave birth to at age 16.

After she posted the video, animal lovers gave Evans a richly deserved verbal pounding, and she took it down.

A snippet of the video aired on TMZ, along with an interview with Evans, who defended her actions by saying she has seen similar footage of animals playing with fireworks on “America’s Funniest Home Videos.”

That, she said, makes it acceptable.

She told TMZ she was not encouraging the dog to go after the firework, and that the incident has been blown out of proportion.

“Anything I do is going to be so such a big deal to everyone else, because I’m on TV. If I wasn’t on TV you guys wouldn’t give a shit right now.”

“Teen Mom” is a spin-off of the MTV documentary series “16 & Pregnant.”

It follows the stories of four girls from the first season of 16 & Pregnant who are “navigating the bumpy terrain of adolescence, growing pains, and coming of age — all while facing the responsibility of being a young mother.”

Stella & Chewy’s recalls dog and cat dinners

stella&chewysPet food maker Stella & Chewy’s is recalling some of its products because a routine test found Listeria in a sample of its chicken freeze-dried dinner patties for dogs.

On Thursday, Stella & Chewy’s was notified by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) that it issued a stop sale order on a single lot of Chewy’s Chicken Freeze-Dried Dinner Patties after monocytogenes were detected in the product.

Listeria can cause serious illness and even death in children, the frail and the elderly. Healthy people may suffer flu-like symptoms, such as high fever, headache, nausea and diarrhea.

The Milwaukee-based company said there have been no reported pet or human illnesses.

A complete list of recalled products can be found on the pet food company’s website.

As a precautionary measure, the company says, it is voluntarily recalling all products from Lot # 111-15 including:

Freeze-Dried Chewy’s Chicken Dinner for Dogs /15oz/UPC: 186011000045/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/23/2016

Freeze-Dried Chewy’s Chicken Dinner for Dogs /15oz/UPC: 186011000045/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/26/2016

Freeze-Dried Chicken Dinner for Cats/12oz/UPC: 186011000434/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/29/2016

Freeze-Dried  Chicken Dinner for Cats/12oz/UPC: 186011000434/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 5/3/2016

Carnivore Crunch – Turkey Recipe/3.25oz/UPC: 186011001103/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 5/3/2016 and 5/4/2016

Frozen Duck Duck Goose Dinner Morsels for Dogs/4lb/UPC: 186011001394/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/21/2016

Frozen Chewy’s Chicken Dinner Morsels for Dogs/4lb/UPC: 186011001387/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/21/2016

Frozen Surf ‘N Turf Dinner Patties for Dogs/6lb/UPC: 186011000533/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/21/2016

Frozen Chewy’s Chicken Dinner Patties for Dogs/6lb/UPC: 186011000120/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/21/2016

Frozen Chewy’s Chicken Dinner Patties for Dogs/3lb/UPC: 186011000038/Lot: 111-15 and Use By Date: 4/21/2016

For Quasi Modo, the humiliation continues

The freak show just got freakier.

However well-intended, this segment from Wednesday’s Jimmy Kimmel Live serves to intensify our growing disdain with the World’s Ugliest Dog Contest — for turning what was originally a sweet idea into a circus.

Here, Quasi Modo, who won the annual competition last weekend, visits Jimmy Kimmel Live to receive a “makeover” from fashion expert Carson Kressley (of “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” fame).

As if the humiliation of competing for the title wasn’t enough.

The selection of Quasi, whose deformity results from being born without some vertabrae, wasn’t quite as disturbing as the choice of last year’s winner — whose appearance resulted from being abused earlier in life — but it’s another sign that the contest, which is supposedly all about compassion, has become even more about ratings.

Just maybe, the contest has become the ugliest beast of all.

quasidressKressley gives the dog a “complete makeover” that includes a spa session, mani/pedi, accessories (made of fur no less) and a wig.

Quasi, a patient soul, seems to tolerate all the silly human behavior — and more than a few snide comments.

Kimmel, after the reveal, called Quasi’s new look “a cross between Honey Boo Boo and a hooker.”

I don’t think he realized just how fitting an analogy that was — maybe not so much for Quasi, but definitely for the contest, and for the news media that continues eat it up without bothering to sniff first.

(Photo: ABC)

But wait! There’s more

Sometimes, technology is little more than putting a bygone relic to new use.

Witness the Woof Washer 360 — basically a Hula Hoop with holes in it that attaches to your garden hose, allowing you to squirt your dog clean with the kind of coverage Anderson Cooper might envy.

It’s currently being direct-marketed to consumers with the kind of goofy ad direct-marketers are famous for.

“Rover loves to play, but he ends up filthy from the day,” we are told, as if we are second graders who wouldn’t otherwise realize that.

Simply connect the magic wand to a hose, add soap, slip it over your dog and the “sudsy solution” will “scrub” Rover clean — in less than one minute.

The secret, we’re told, is the “360 degree design…Amazing…like a soothing massage for your pet.”

Somehow, we are supposed to conclude that “Rover” will not be as frightened by a giant hoop producing dozens of streams of water as he is by a garden hose.

We are supposed to “Act now!” of course, because this item is “not available in stores.”

And what would any TV/Internet only offer be without the ubiquitous added incentive: “But wait, there’s more” — in this case a bonus “Woof Washer 360 Microfiber Quick Drying Mitt” to dry your dog even faster.

Woof Washer 360 comes in two sizes — small ($19.99) and large ($24.99).

One one level, it makes a weird kind of sense. Then again it looks like the kind of contraption that ends up stashed in the corner of the garage, gathering cobwebs.

But worry not; decades from now, when its unearthed anew, the grandkids can always use it as a Hula Hoop.

Caitlyn stars in some happier photos

caitlyn

Around the end of May, sad images of a pit bull mix who was found with her muzzle tightly wrapped in electrical tape were going viral.

The 15-month-old dog had been found wandering the streets of Charleston, S.C., with her muzzle bound so tightly in tape that the blood flow had been cut off and her tongue was trapped between her teeth.

caitlynfacebook

Her owner was charged with ill-treatment of animals, and Caitlyn, as her case received international news coverage — all featuring that horrible photo of her taped-up snout — underwent a series of surgeries.

Only a month later, Caitlyn is recovering, in a foster home — and showing a much happier face in a series of calendar photos.

Caitlyn was asked by the Charleston Firefighters to star in their 2016 calendar.

The calendar — featuring firefighters, often without their shirts, is put together by the Charleston Animal Society, which has been taking care of Caitlyn since she was found.

The money raised by the calendar will go to Toby’s Fund, which provides medical care for animals in need, according to a report on TheDodo.com.

Caitlyn now has her own Facebook page called Caitlyn’s Comeback.

(Photos: Charleston Animal Society)

Woof in Advertising: Whose behind this heartwarming tear-jerker? Kleenex of course

Leave it to a tissue-making company to come up with a tear-jerking dog ad.

And while I’m surprised it has taken them this long, I’m very glad they did.

This Kleenex social marketing video features Chance, a dog who was left partially paralyzed after he was hit by a car. He was scheduled to be euthanized when a San Antonio rescue organization pulled him from the shelter and found him a home.

That home was with Mike, who isn’t “wheelchair-bound” by any means, but also uses one to get around.

“My husband was like we have to get him because nobody is going to love him like we’re going to love him,” his wife Stacey recalls.

wiaThe ad, part of Kleenex’s “Messages of Care” social media campaign, is a beauty. It’s sweet. It’s real. It’s neither overdone nor overwrought.

San Antonio Pets Alive reports on its blog that Chance was “more than ready to be in the spotlight.”

The video depicts how Chance and Mike don’t let too many things get in their way, and how they seem to bring out the best in each other.

“I knew his struggles as well as mine, and I knew we could overcome those obstacles together,” said Mike.

“The difference Chance makes in my life is the happiness and the courage to know that there isn’t anything that anybody can’t do.”

(This series looks at how dogs are used in advertising. You can find more of our “Woof in Advertising” posts here.)

Love those ugly dogs, just not the contest

quasi1

It was last year I decided that I’d had enough of the “Worlds Ugliest Dog Contest” — a cute little idea that has become too big, too cutthroat and, by putting so much emphasis on appearance, too much like all those beauty contests whose superficiality it was created to counter.

What finally sent me past the tipping point was that last year’s winner, Peanut, was said to look the way he looked at least in part because he had been abused — back before he was rescued by a loving family.

Giving prizes to dogs whose appearances have been mangled by humans — though that’s kind of what happens every year at Westminster — is a bad idea.

Giving prizes to dogs who are deformed, or just plain ugly, was a sweet concept at first. Then, despite its good intentions, it grew into a beast.

So with a nod to this year’s winner, Quasimodo — that’s him above in an Associated Press photo by Noah Berger — we reprint last year’s ohmidog! post on the topic, which asked the question, “Has the World’s Ugliest Dog Contest run its course?”

It seems like every year I’ve teetered a little closer to disliking the World’s Ugliest Dog Contest.

A cute concept at first — and one that helped remind us what a superficial thing beauty can be — it seems to have grown into a pageant that, despite its focus on “ugliness,” inches ever closer to reflecting many of the same negative traits of purebred dog shows and beauty contests.

As the quirky little contest at the Sonoma County Fair in Petaluma has grown huge, and the title more sought after, there has been a concurrent increase in cut-throat competition, campaigning and hype.

But it’s the choice of this year’s winner that may have finally pushed me into being a fan no more. The title of World’s Ugliest Dog was won by a dog whose unusual appearance is the result of being abused.

And that troubles me.

This year’s winning dog, Peanut, a two-year-old mixed breed, is from Greenville, N.C. He was adopted from a shelter after being found abandoned and severely abused. It is suspected he was set on fire. While he’s healthy now, his eyelids, lips and patches of hair on his body were burned off, which accounts for much of his unusual appearance.

His owner, Holly Chandler, held fundraising campaigns to travel to California and enter Peanut in the contest — all, she said, to help raise awareness about animal abuse.

Given that’s a large part of this website’s mission, too, I have no problem with that cause.

I’m all for celebrating dogs who look different. I’m all for celebrating dogs who have overcome harsh odds. I’m all for abused dogs recovering and becoming rich and famous while their abusers rot in prison.

Where my discomfort comes in, I think, is placing abused animals in a “contest” context and, within that party atmosphere, picking a winner whose looks are the result of being horribly mistreated at the hands of man.

Abuse, it seems to me, should not be connected to pageantry and cash prizes, no matter how circuitous that link is.

Yesterday, I watched a local TV report about Peanut winning the contest. The anchor people, while noting Peanut had an inner beauty, laughed and joked about his appearance, as I’m sure the crowd did at the contest.

Peanut beat 24 other dogs to win the contest Friday, receiving more than double the votes the second-place dog received.

While his owner seemed sincere in her purpose, and probably did raise awareness about animal abuse, I can’t help but wonder whether we should all be chuckling — even while feeling sympathy and love for Peanut — at his appearance, at his prominent teeth, or his eyes that never close, given it was all the result of a cruel criminal act.

On the other hand, the world should know Peanut’s story — and the contest was a way to make that happen.

Maybe, though, there are better, more dignified ways, such as writing a book, or taking him to schools, or sharing his story with the news media — ways that might avoid the appearance of exploitation and have a little less of the circus atmosphere that seems, in my mind at least, to clash with serious nature of animal abuse.

I doubt there is any danger of people disfiguring their dogs in hopes of winning the World’s Ugliest Dog contest, but — given the world can be pretty ugly — stranger things have happened.

I think it would be wise, and in good taste, for contest officials to impose and enforce a ban on dogs whose “ugliness” or unusual looks are a result of actions taken by humans — whether those actions are heinous criminal acts or cosmetic steps, like dyeing, taken for amusement purposes.

While the contest’s web page states that “all the dogs must provide a veterinarian’s paperwork asserting that they are healthy and are ‘naturally ugly,’ Peanut’s victory casts some doubt on how strongly that’s being enforced.

All that said, I don’t find any fault with Chandler entering Peanut in the contest. She was on a mission. She made her point.

Maybe the World’s Ugliest Dog contest, after 25 years, has made its point too. A cute and well-intentioned gimmick with a sweet message, it might be growing into a bit of a monster. Maybe it should fade way before it becomes too Westminstery.

I have problems with contests that award people, or dogs, for good looks and conformity. Maybe I have issues with awarding them for “bad” looks and non-conformity, too.

Definitely I don’t like the idea of people laughing and finding amusement in a dog’s misery, which, in a very distant, removed and indirect way, is what’s going on.

That’s the best I can do at explaining the ill-at-ease feeling Peanut’s victory gives me.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

pro sony vegas 12 software
Batards body twitched the ThreeWay Color Corrector in Adobe Bridge and Mini Bridge.