OUR BEST FRIENDS

whs-logo

The Sergei Foundation

shelterpet_logo

The Animal Rescue Site

B-more Dog

aldflogo

Pinups for Pitbulls

philadoptables

TFPF_Logo

Mid Atlantic Pug Rescue

Our Pack, Inc.

Maine Coonhound Rescue

Saving Shelter Pets, Inc.

mabb

LD Logo Color

Tag: investigation

Bali governor calls for crackdown on vendors and others selling dog meat

(Warning: This video contains graphic images)

The governor of Bali has called upon government agencies to stop the sale of dog meat after a news report showed that street vendors were selling cooked dog on a stick to unsuspecting tourists.

The report that shocked visitors to the island, and much of the rest of the world, was produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program 7.30 and aired in June.

The program showed, often in graphic detail, the brutal methods used by dog meat traders, and how street vendors often lied to tourists, sometimes telling them the meat they were selling was chicken satay.

Drawing on a four-month undercover investigation by Animals Australia, the report showed how dogs were stolen, strangled, poisoned, shot, and bludgeoned to death before being butchered, barbecued and served on a stick to tourists enjoying themselves on the tropical island’s shores.

ABC.net reported this week that Governor Made Mangku Pastika — acknowledging the trade for the first time — has sent a letter to Indonesian ministers, police officials, veterinary and agriculture departments, calling for an end to the practice.

That dog meat is being sold, by vendors and in restaurants, is common knowledge to most locals — but it is kept low-key, and tourists are often not aware they are purchasing dog.

To protect “the image of Bali tourism”, the Governor’s letter called for a crackdown “against the sale of dog meat because it is not inspected and guaranteed to be healthy and can potentially spread zoonotic diseases, especially rabies and other fatal dangers.”

sateThe governor’s letter also ordered information be collected on where and by whom dog meat is being sold and a community education program to teach “that dog meat is not a food for consumption, especially for foreign tourists.”

After the report aired, Animals Australia launched a petition calling on Bali’s governor to immediately ban the dog meat trade and pass laws to outlaw extreme cruelty to all animals.

The governor’s letter may be more about protecting the tourist industry than safeguarding animal welfare. There have been calls for boycotts, and bad publicity threatens to tarnish public perceptions about the tropical island paradise.

“It is important to end the trade in Bali, especially to protect our culture and tourism industry, as well as to apply the national animal welfare law,” said Dr. Nata Kesuma, the head of Bali’s Livestock and Animal Health Services.

“I am sure we will be able to stop the dog meat trade if all relevant stakeholders are willing to cooperate and have the same vision, although it may take some time,” he added.

Others noted that much more could have been done.

“[It’s] a good first step but there’s a long way to go … the consumption of dog meat must be stopped,” said Janice Girardi, founder of Bali’s Animal Welfare Association, which estimates more than 70,000 animals are killed a year for food in Bali.

“This is not actually a ban on dog meat,” she added. “What is allowed and what is not allowed needs to be defined by government …”

Animals Australia’s Lyn White applauded the governor’s steps.

“While fueled by a small section of the community, the dog meat trade has been increasing rapidly in Bali, so the Government’s decision comes at a critical time,” she said.

“It’s a more than appropriate response to a trade that involves significant animal cruelty, presents a serious human health risk, and undermines rabies eradication programs.”

(Video showing highlights of the investigation and photo of a street vendor supplied by Animals Australia)

Police officer shoots two dogs in family’s back yard, one of whom was wagging its tail

Minneapolis police say they are helping a local family with their veterinary bills and will institute a mandatory training program after an officer shot two dogs Saturday in the family’s fenced back yard Saturday.

“This was an outcome that no one wanted,” Police Chief Janee Harteau said. “I’ve asked for an Internal Affairs use of force review. We are reaching out to the family to help them with the veterinary care bills to ensure that both dogs are adequately taken care of.

“To help us prevent similar outcomes in the future,” she added, “we will be implementing updated mandatory training specifically for officers identifying effective tools and tactical strategies with police and dog encounters.”

One of the dogs, Rocko, was shot multiple times and is doing OK after surgery. The other, Ciroc, was shot in the face and has a fractured jaw.

The owner of the two pit bulls, Jennifer LeMay, called the officer “trigger happy,” and said the dogs were not attacking. One was even wagging its tail.

“My dog had stopped. My dog wasn’t even facing him to charge him or be in an aggressive manner to him. You still shot him,” she wrote in a Facebook post that included footage from the surveillance camera.

The officer was responding to a residential burglary alarm, and did not know it had been set off accidentally by the homeowner’s daughter when she returned home, KARE11 reported.

Police say they will review the surveillance video as well as that recorded by the officer’s body cam.

Chief Harteau described the video as “difficult to watch.”

The dog can be seen approaching the officer, but not in a manner that clearly appeared to be “charging,” as the officer described in a police report.

LeMay has set up a GoFundMe campaign to help with the dogs’ medical bills. Its $15,000 goal was quickly reached. As of 3 p.m. Monday people had contributed more than $20,000.

Dogs are on the trail of Amelia Earhart, too

kayle

You’ve probably heard about the guy who thinks an enlarged and grainy photo he stumbled across at the National Archives may solve the mystery of what became of Amelia Earhart.

But you might not have heard that some dogs are on the case as well.

While the photo, unearthed by former U.S. Treasury agent Les Kinney, is grabbing headlines, four dogs retained by a group with a different theory on Earhart’s death have been trying to sniff out the pioneering aviator’s remains at a location hundreds of miles away.

Kinney is convinced the photo shows Earhart (with her back to the camera) and her navigator Fred Noonan some years after they disappeared.

The dogs are looking for something a little more concrete — namely Earhart’s bones.

There are competing theories on what became of Earhart — with some arguing her plane crashed and sank into the ocean, others suspecting she and Noonan survived after crashing on a remote island and others believing they ended up in the custody of the Japanese in the Marshall Islands or on Saipan.

The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) has focused its recent investigation on Nikumaroro Island, nearly 1,000 miles from the Marshall Islands.

The group sent four border collies — named Marcy, Piper, Kayle, and Berkeley — to the island on June 30 as part of an expedition sponsored by TIGHAR and the National Geographic Society.

According to National Geographic, TIGHAR researchers had previously visited the island and narrowed their search to a clearing they call the Seven Site, where a British official reported finding bones in 1940.

In 2001 searchers located unearthed possible signs of an American castaway at the site, including the remains of campfires, and several U.S.-made items including a jackknife, a woman’s compact.

Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan, disappeared on July 2, 1937, on their way to a refueling stop at Howland Island, about 350 nautical miles northeast of Nikumaroro.

TIGHAR’s theory is that, when the aviators couldn’t find Howland, they landed on Nikumaroro’s reef during low tide.

The bone-sniffing dogs were brought to the island in hopes of finding proof that their remains were on Nikumaroro.

All four dogs alerted to a particular spot, indicating they had detected the scent of human remains, and excavation began on July 2, the 80th anniversary of Earhart’s disappearance.

dnaNo bones have been found, but TIGHAR researchers collected soil samples, which have been sent to a lab for DNA testing.

If she were buried there, the soil could still contain traces of Earhart’s DNA.

Kinney’s counter theory, meanwhile is that the aviator and her navigator ended up in Japanese custody, which, he says, the photo seems to support.

Kent Gibson, a forensic analyst who specializes in facial recognition, said it was ‘very likely’ the individuals in the photo are Earhart and Noonan, according to NPR.

amelia

Under Kinney’s theory, when Earhart couldn’t find Howland Island she turned back westward and landed on Mili Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands.

Kinney suspects Earhart and Noonan were rescued after the crash and taken to Jaluit Island, and later taken to a Japanese prison on the island of Saipan.

(Photo: At top, forensic dog Kayle sits on a spot where she alerted to the scent of human bones; lower, the excavation for bones begins; both photos by by Rachel Shea / National Geographic; at bottom, the photo some suspect shows Earhart (seated at the center) and Noonan (standing at the far left), from the National Archives)

Something rotten in paradise

bali2

In the Indonesian paradise of Bali, unsuspecting tourists are regularly being served dog meat — described as “chicken satay” — by restaurants and street vendors.

Eating dog meat is legal in Bali, and some locals consume it regularly, but according to a shocking report by ABC.net in Australia, visitors to the popular tourist destination are unwittingly buying it from vendors.

“Dog meat is essentially filtering into the tourist food chain,” said Lyn White, director of Animals Australia, which is campaigning to end the practice and recently conducted an investigation into it.

The Australian news program “7.30” reported last week on the investigation into how dogs are brutally caught, butchered and barbecued not far from the beaches visited by more than 1 million Australians every year, then served to those who don’t realize what they’re eating — though some seem to have suspicions.

Footage filmed by the investigator included this exchange between a vendor and a group of Australian tourists:

Vendor: “Satay just $1.”

Australian: “Mystery bag. What is, chicken?”

Vendor: “Satay.”

Australian: “Satay chicken, not dog?”

Vendor: “No, not dog.”

Australian: “I’m happy just as long as it’s not dog.”

bali3It was the same vendor who moments before had admitted to an investigator that what he was selling was dog meat.

The dogs are bludgeoned, shot, strangled, and sometimes poisoned with cyanide, leading to public health concerns.

It is possible for cyanide to be passed on to a human, even after a dog has been cooked.

While eating and selling dog meat is not illegal in Bali, the methods use to kill the dogs do violate animal cruelty laws, Animals Australia says.

The dog meat is being sold by vendors on the beach and in specialty restaurants. Locals know the letters RW on a restaurant mean dog meat is being served, but most tourists do not.

An undercover investigator for Animals Australia infiltrated the dog trade and spent four months documenting how it operates.

bali1You can see the ABC.net report here, but be warned it contains some graphic videos and images.

The Bali Animal Welfare Association (BAWA) estimates about 70,000 dogs a year end up as dog meat.

It has documented 70 restaurants serving dog meat in Bali.

“We rescue them from the [dog] trader,” said Bagus Ndurah, a volunteer with BAWA. The organization is currently looking after about 150 dogs, he said.

Animals Australia is looking at ways to end the dog meat trade, including compensating those who earn a living from it in exchange for their promise to leave the business.

“We’ve given thought to that,” White sad. “I’ve even spoken to our management about possibility of compensation,” she said.

“This is not about laying blame. This is about unnecessary cruelty that puts the human health population at risk and is causing shocking animal cruelty.”

“We are certainly also willing to partner with the Bali government to bring about a positive solution here.”

(Top photos from Animals Australia; bottom photo by James Thomas, ABC News)

The curious case of the chewed up chaise

dogchew

Law enforcement authorities in Norfolk (the one in the UK) have a whodunit on their hands.

Well, more like a whichdogdidit.

Three police dogs who reside with the same trainer are under investigation to determine which one of them, or which combination of them, shredded an outdoor lounger.

“That used to be a sun bed,” their handler tweeted in a photo post of the crime scene.

In it, all three dogs are sitting obediently alongside the lounger looking innocent or guilty, depending on one’s point of view.

And humans, as usual, are only too willing to pass judgment based on that photo alone. Internet voting has “all three” leading the way, with 44 percent of the vote.

The Eastern Daily Press is tallying the votes.

Among those who don’t suspect a three-way conspiracy, the cocker spaniel is is getting the most guilty votes. And some are saying all the evidence is circumstantial and suspicions shouldn’t be cast on the dogs just because they were there and the ground around them strewn with foam bits.

It could have been a visiting dog, or intruding squirrels, some suggest.

“Being police dogs, I think they rumbled an attack by rogue squirrels and are now standing guard to make sure the miscreants do not return,” one dog-faithful reader tweeted.

There has been no mention of conducting DNA testing on the chewed up foam, and the dogs — named Shuck, Murphy and Gizmo — remain free on their own recognizance.

(Photo: Twitter)

AHA concludes no animals were harmed in the making of “A Dog’s Purpose”

dogspurp

As expected, the American Humane Association announced that an investigation into the treatment of a dog on the set of “A Dog’s Purpose” confirmed that — like their seal of approval says — no animals were harmed during the making of the movie.

The AHA said the investigation was conducted by a “respected animal cruelty expert,” who concluded that an edited video given to the website TMZ “mischaracterized” the events on the set.

“The decisions by the individual or individuals who captured and deliberately edited the footage, and then waited longer than 15 months to release the manipulated video only days before the movie’s premiere, raise serious questions about their motives and ethics,” the AHA said in a statement.

hercThe AHA (almost as an aside) did admit that Hercules, the German shepherd performing the stunt in question, showed signs of stress that should have been recognized earlier, and efforts to get the dog into the water should have been “gentler.”

Apparently it has no plans to further pursue that piece of the controversy — the one that initially led one actor and the executive producer to say the dog did not appear to have been handled correctly.

The video that aired on TMZ was actually two videos, shot on different days and spliced together in editing — the result of which was misleading, the AHA says, because it makes it appear the dog, after resisting going in the water and becoming stressed, was made to go back into the water.

“The first video scene was stopped after the dog showed signs of stress. The dog was not forced to swim in the water at any time,” the organization said.

While acknowledging attempts to get the dog in the water might have gone on too long, and been a little heavy handed, the investigation didn’t deem that “harmful” to the dog.

The dog resisted going into the pool after the location where he was to enter it had changed.

As for the second part of the video — showing the dog going under the churning water before someone on the set yells “cut it” — the AHA said:

“Handlers immediately assisted the dog out of the water, at which point he was placed in a warming tent and received an examination that found no signs of stress. Eyewitnesses report that the dog wanted to go back in the water. Still, out of an abundance of caution, American Humane stopped filming of any more scenes with the dog.”

The findings of the investigation come as no surprise, given AHA CEO Dr. Robin Ganzert said last week, in a piece she wrote for Variety, that the video was “misleading” and “edited” and reflected no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.

It seemed an unusual statement for the head of the watchdog group to be making, especially before the investigation was completed. While the video’s release was clearly timed to hurt the movie — or at least bring those who provided it to TMZ a maximum payoff — Ganzert’s piece was clearly timed to help the movie.

Ganzert’s piece focused more on the leaking of the video — 15 months after it was shot and in the week before the movie’s release — than on what it showed. She focused primarily on PETA, which called for a boycott of the film based on the video.

In its statement on the results of the investigation, AHA again spends at least as much time bashing PETA as it does on the handler’s questionable efforts to get the dog into the pool, as shown in the video, or whether the monitors they assigned to the film stopped those efforts soon enough.

“It is disappointing that the public was misled by a manufactured controversy promoted by a radical organization like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals with a mission to remove animals from films and other parts of our lives,” Dr. Kwane Stewart, the veterinarian who heads American Humane’s ‘No Animals Were Harmed’ program is quoted as saying in the statement.

“We are the first to address and fight cruelty and abuse, and no such things happened on the set of ‘A Dog Purpose,'” he added.

PETA didn’t leak the video, but it did call for a boycott of the movie after it aired on TMZ, which has not said how much they paid for it, or who provided it.

In a report on the investigation’s findings, TMZ said that the AHA statement “virtually ignores criticism from the movie’s Exec Producer that they were asleep at the wheel.”

Producer Gavin Polone, while bad-mouthing PETA as well, said shortly after the video’s release that its first scene clearly showed an over-stressed dog, and that the AHA monitor on set should have stopped the stunt immediately.

Actor Josh Gad, who supplies the voice of the dogs featured in the movie, also said the video was disturbing and the scene should have been stopped as soon as the dog showed resistance to getting in the water.

(Our earlier reports on “A Dog’s Purpose” can be found here.)

It’s all good, American Humane CEO says

Suddenly, it seems, that video of a dog being coerced into a pool during the filming of “A Dog’s Purpose” is not so “disturbing” at all.

When the video was first leaked, by TMZ, even the makers of the movie — all avoiding any responsibility for what might have happened — all said at least some aspects of it appeared disturbing.

But in the week leading up to the film’s release, the reassurances that nothing bad happened have poured out — from the author of the popular book of the same name, from the star of the movie, Dennis Quaid, from its producer, even from Ellen Degeneres.

And now even the CEO of the non-profit organization that is supposedly “investigating” the incident(s) seems to be saying — before the investigation is even concluded — that nothing inappropriate happened.

Dr. Robin Ganzert, CEO of the American Humane Association — the agency that monitors the safety of animals in movie productions — said in a piece written for Variety that the leaked video was “misleading” and “edited” and reflects no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.

“The beautiful story opens at the box office this weekend mired in controversy stemming from the release of an edited video manipulated in an effort to mischaracterize the behind-the-scenes treatment of the film’s four-legged stars,” she wrote.

The film’s official release date is today.

The viral video has provoked a call for a boycott of the movie by PETA, and some conflicting feelings even among dog lovers — both those who insist the German shepherd, named Hercules, is being mistreated, and those who say the edited video is not to be trusted.

The video shows the dog being nudged and coerced to get into a churning pool of water. He had performed the stunt gladly in rehearsals, but the location of where he was entering the pool had been changed on the day of filming.

He clearly resists getting in, and struggles to get out during the first 45 seconds of the video. Another piece of video was edited onto that, showing the dog, on a different day, swimming in the pool before going underwater, at which point someone yells “cut it” and the dog is helped out of the pool.

To restate our take on all this: That second snippet of video is too short, out of context and blurry to draw any conclusions from. The first 45 seconds, in our view, shows a dog being pushed more than a dog performing a stunt in a movie should be pushed. The stunt was called off that day, but not soon enough.

Is that a crime? No. Should it result in the movie being boycotted? We vote no, but that’s up to you. Should there be repercussions — say a warning, or a fine? Probably, but the agency that would impose that appears to have already made up its mind.

Should the makers of the movie, somewhere along the line, admit to an iota of responsibility for what was a small mistake on the set of the movie they were making? Should they make some amends, maybe offering a percentage of opening week receipts to dog-related charities (likely not PETA)?

Well, that would be classy — a whole lot classier than circling the wagons, denying responsibility, and launching a public relations effort to rescue, not a dog, but their movie.

Yesterday, Dennis Quaid defended the movie on The Today Show, and then did the same on Ellen.

Meanwhile, in her piece for Variety, Ganzert acknowledged that the dog “appeared to show signs of resistance” to getting in the water. The rest of the piece is a defense of the movie, a diatribe against PETA and more questioning of why the video was leaked a year and a half after it was taken.

But what about those 45 seconds?

“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) swiftly called for a boycott of the film, and has since continued to exploit — and further sensationalize — the controversy as an opportunity to argue that the animal actors who enchant and educate audiences don’t belong on the Silver Screen,” Ganzert continued.

But what about those 45 seconds?

“A full spectrum of rigorous safety measures was in place to protect the dog throughout this particular scene,” she added. “In addition to one of American Humane’s Certified Animal Safety Representatives, five individuals –including scuba divers and animal handlers — were present on the set at the time to ensure the safety of the dog.”

But what about those 45 seconds?

Here is what I would like to hear from the AHA — were the methods used trying to get Hercules in the water during those 45 seconds acceptable to them? Was the level of stress the dog was allowed to reach acceptable? Should a dog be allowed to get stressed at all during the filming of a movie stunt?

AHA suspended the monitor it had assigned to the film pending the results of the “third-party” investigation it says has been launched.

But with the publication of his Variety article, it’s pretty clear what Ganzert and the AHA want that “ongoing” investigation to find.

Dog’s can’t talk. Dogs don’t have a union. If the American Humane Association has appointed itself as their guardian in Hollywood — and is soliciting our donations to carry out that mission — we’d like to think it is objective, vigilant and doesn’t give a hot damn about the profit margins of movie makers.

In that respect, Ganzert’s article, on the eve of the movie’s release, is not too reassuring.

As for the movie’s makers, we’d like to think that your production treated dogs in a manner as sweet as your movie’s message and that, if you didn’t, even in small way that has been blown out of proportion, you are at least a little bit sorry it.