Tag: dogs

UK Mulls Banning 67 Dog Breeds for ‘Animal Health’ — but Is That Really the Reason?

After all these years, it turns out that your beloved pooch may be “unhealthy,” so much so that his breed has to be banned. This dire news comes from the far-left government of the United Kingdom, where beagles, dachshunds, mastiffs, great danes, boxers, and saint bernards may soon be a thing of the past. All in all, the government is considering banning no fewer than sixty-seven dog breeds, with the stated reason being animal health. This is so implausible, however, that it cries out for another explanation, and there is an obvious one that doesn’t bode well for Britain’s future as a free society.

The UK’s Daily Mail reported Thursday that this initiative comes from the top: “Sixty-seven dog breeds could be banned in Britain if new breeding guidelines set by parliament become mandatory, campaigners have warned.” This is because “the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for animal welfare has launched a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy.”

Why was a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy needed now, to the extent that the British parliament has a group devoted to studying this question? Is Britain suffering a plague of unhealthy dogs? Are these legions of unhealthy dogs infecting their owners with diseases of some kind?

None of that seems to be the case; on the contrary, this sudden parliamentary fascination with canine health seems to be entirely a bolt from the blue, and the parliamentary group’s criteria for what constitutes sufficient dog health look just as arbitrary: “The cross-party committee has developed a 10-point checklist of extreme physical characteristics which can make for a poorly pooch. They include mottled colouration, excessive skin folds, bulging outward-turning eyes, drooping eyelids, under or overbite and a muzzle that interrupts breathing.”

The upshot of this is that numerous breeds of dog that are perfectly healthy but which have a coloration or skin folds or eyes to which parliament objects may end up being banned. And parliament means business: “The assessment – which is currently voluntary but expected to become law within five years – aims to drive out breeds with these sorts of exaggerated attributes.”

The claim is that this is all about caring for the poor dears, just as Canada’s euthanasia program is supposed to be all about alleviating pain and suffering. Britain’s anti-dog push “comes after studies have shown animals of these varieties can sometimes suffer pain, discomfort and frustration from birth.” However, “critics have cautioned the new criteria will see some 67 of the most popular types of dog in the UK automatically dubbed unhealthy.” These include “widely adored breeds like dachshunds, shih tzus and Scottish terriers – and even the late Queen’s beloved Welsh corgis.”

Given that these claims about the health of well-known and beloved dog breeds are so implausible, what else could be going on here? Well, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) recently landed himself in hot water when he posted this on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” Could it be that Muslims in Britain are forcing exactly this choice, or that Britain’s far-left Labour government is trying to ensure that the country’s growing and restive Muslim population continues to vote for Labour en masse?

Keep reading

They Are Experimenting on Your Dog

You read the labels. You check the ingredients. You avoid seed oils, limit sugar, and side-eye anything with a barcode longer than a haiku. You subscribe to Substacks that dissect institutional capture. You understand, probably better than most, that “the science” can be quietly purchased by the people it is supposed to regulate.

So let me ask you a question that might sting.

What did you feed your dog this morning?

If the answer is a brown pellet from a bag, you are running the same ultraprocessed food experiment on your dog that you have spent the last few years learning to reject for yourself and your family. And you are doing it for entirely understandable reasons, because the same machinery of institutional capture, industry-funded research, and reassuring pseudo-scientific language that once told you margarine was healthier than butter has been quietly operating in veterinary medicine for decades.

I am a practising veterinary surgeon in the UK. I have spent over 30 years in clinical practice, and I am the founding president of the Raw Feeding Veterinary Society. I also lecture on canine nutrition at the University of Glasgow and around the world. I was in Florida last year and San Diego the year before. I am writing a book on ultraprocessed food for dogs, because someone needs to say plainly what the pet food industry would rather you never thought about: your dog has been subjected to the most sustained ultraprocessed feeding experiment in mammalian history, and almost nobody noticed.

The Cleverest Marketing You Never Saw

Here is how it works, and it will feel familiar to anyone who has followed the corruption of nutritional science in human medicine.

The major pet food corporations do not merely sell food. They fund the university departments in the UK and the US where veterinary nutritional science is researched. They endow professorships. They provide free student packs and educational materials to veterinary schools. They sponsor the conferences where vets gather for continuing professional development. They supply the textbooks. They fund the bursaries. They stock the waiting room shelves and put posters on the surgery walls.

They do this so quietly and so comprehensively that most vets do not even realise they have been swimming in industry-sponsored water since the first day of vet school.

The result is predictable. Almost all large-scale nutrition studies published over the past 50 years have been conducted on extruded, grain-based diets produced by the very companies that funded the research. That research became what vets are taught. 

Raw and fresh diets, by contrast, have received almost no industry funding, which means almost no large-scale trials. Vets are then honestly told there is “no evidence” for raw, because nobody with money has paid for that evidence to exist.

It is rather like sponsoring every study on buses and then declaring there is “no evidence” that bicycles work.

The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Global Nutrition Committee now explicitly warns that most pet nutrition studies are industry-funded and says conflicts of interest should always be declared. RCVS Knowledge, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK, which runs the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Network, notes that funding source is one of the strongest predictors of outcome in nutrition trials. JAVMA News has run pieces on corporate influence in veterinary education.

This is in the official documents. It is no longer fringe grumbling.

Keep reading

It’s Not Racist To Say Muslims Can’t Tell Us To Reject Dogs

Shortly after Nerdeen Kiswani, a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist activist and organizer, said on X that pet dogs have no place in homes because “they are unclean,” several other videos surfaced reportedly demonstrating Muslim attitudes toward dogs.

There’s the video purportedly showing a Muslim threatening to behead a woman’s dog. And the video of “Sneako,” a Muslim streamer in Miami, telling Americans, “F-ck your dog. … Dogs are haram. … Dogs are gross.” And then the video allegedly capturing Muslim kids torturing a lone dog. Added to those were reports of Morocco engaging in a campaign to slaughter three million dogs ahead of the 2030 World Cup.  

The obvious conclusion is that Muslim culture does not like dogs and has no qualms about being cruel toward them.  

But the issue is not about dogs specifically. It is about Islam forcing Americans — who have been dog-loving and dog-using people since the Mayflower — to change our habits and our way of life in order to accommodate Muslims. It is about conquest and control. As Dana Loesch put it, it is primarily about submission, with Muslims pushing the boundaries of what they can do in America.  

In cases like this, it is very important to see who supports the suppressors and who supports the people being told to submit. Unsurprisingly, Democrats haven’t reacted with the common-sense, American response: If you don’t like dogs, don’t have a dog. But we are not going to tell Americans they can’t have dogs or that they cannot have their dogs in their own homes.

Instead, leftists from Jake Tapper to AOC have called Congressman Randy Fine of Florida a “bigot” for responding to Kiswani’s original tweet, with a sentence most Americans would agree with: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.” And the reactions have gone well beyond that. Hakeem Jefferies has promised retribution if the Democrats retake the House in November. Ahead of that threatened retribution, Democrats (and some gutless wonder Republicans, if rumors are to be believed) want Fine to be censured.  

It’s important to understand what is unfolding. It is easy to see this as just another example of the left being the left and throwing down the “Racist!” card because that is largely what their entire deck consists of. But it is more than that. The old legal maximum “Silence means consent” (qui tacet consentire videtur) is still true. Every Democrat who has only been able to try and spin this as another example of xenophobic, Islamophobic conservatives proving their xenophobia and Islamophobia is advertising that he is an ally of Islamists — Islamists who, if given the chance, will exert power to change our way of life.  

The proof of this is not the fact that Islam is currently the fastest growing religion in the world, while also rising in the United States — religion obviously changed the Roman Empire after Constantine, Mexico after the conquistadors toppled the Aztecs, the Christian Middle East after the Muslims conquered it, so of course an Islam-majority United States isn’t going to be the United States we inherited. Nor is the proof that blue cities like New York are now blasting the Muslim call to prayer, changing their own rules to allow the disturbance. The proof can be seen in Dearborn, Michigan. 

Dearborn, with a population of about 100,000 people, is the city whose Muslim mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, named a street after Osama Siblani, reportedly a public defender of U.S.-designated terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. He also publicly told a Christian man he “was not welcome” in the city when the man expressed mild disapproval of Hammoud’s plan. Hammoud also said that he would throw a parade when the man left Dearborn.

Telling Americans to leave Dearborn seems to be habitual for its Muslim overlords: Muslim agitators shouted down one of Nick Shirley’s interviews in Dearborn, after which Shirley was told that “racists” were “not welcome.” Dearborn was also the locale where Muslims shouted, “Death to America!” so it’s not surprising that Islamists would tell Americans to leave what they clearly see as a conquered city.

Keep reading

Diversity’s Fruits: Islam’s Brutal War on Dogs Comes to the U.S.

“The dog is man’s best friend” the saying goes. Why, we humans argue about most everything, notes website History and Headlines. “If there is one thing most people agree on, though, it is dogs,” it continues. “How can you not love them?”

Maybe one Nerdeen Kiswani can answer that question. After all, Kiswani, a Palestinian activist, recently agitated against the American norm of keeping dogs as indoor pets.

As she put it in a tweet last Thursday, “Finally, NYC is coming to Islam. Dogs definitely have a place in society, just not as indoor pets. Like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

After pushback, Kiswani attacked her critics. “Lmao at the Zionists frothing at the mouth at this…,” she wrote. “It’s obviously a joke.”

Many noted that it’s obviously not. Regardless, no one is laughing — especially given Islam’s history of condemning, abusing, and even torturing dogs. (More on that momentarily.)

Notable pushback came from Congressman Randy Fine (R-Fla.) who, among other things, tweeted the following. (Kiswani’s original message is below Fine’s.)

Predictably, many condemned Fine as not so fine and demanded he resign. (To his credit, he didn’t back down but doubled down.) Many took issue with his implication that Kiswani’s sentiments are general Muslim ones. The truth, however, is this: As Islam comes to the West, so does its war on dogs.

The Prejudice Is Against Canines, Not Muslims

Commentator Andrea Widburg addressed this Wednesday, writing:

Muslims look to their faith to justify hating dogs. No wonder, then, that the dog war has finally come to America. And while Americans are willing to tolerate many insults from Islam, it remains to be seen whether they will tolerate Islam’s murderous intent toward man’s best friend.

The Muslim war on dogs is nothing new. While there is a trend in Islamic countries towards laws protecting animals, the fact remains that, across the Islamic world, the Muslim street doesn’t just want fewer dogs. It has a culture that encourages exceptional cruelty toward dogs. Torturing dogs is as much a part of childhood culture in large parts of the Muslim world as cuddling dogs is in the Western world.

Keep reading

There Is A Growing Plot Against Dogs

At the airport, the staff now offers comfort dogs, gorgeous Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds available for petting and holding. The idea is to comfort scared kids, delight passersby, and generally lift up the space. Yes, that’s exactly what dogs do.

What a wonderful idea. However, not everyone is happy about our love of dogs.

We’ve all become sensitive about threats on the horizon, small hints in science journals or from establishment media that target what we love. There was a time when we could treat these as an opportunity for debate and discussion. Events of the last five years suggest that parlor games are over. With so much trust lost, we are newly aware that these threats can turn out to be real and thus merit more attention.

The issue now concerns pets and dogs in particular. Are they coming for them?

In August 2020, Anthony Fauci co-authored an article in Cell that broadly called for “radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” Among the specifics, the article obliquely targets pet ownership, urging that we must reduce “unsafe exposure to animals.”

I wondered about that line at the time. The whole theory of the article is that humans are everywhere surrounded by icky things that can infect us. We’ve neglected these threats for many thousands of years by traveling around, moving here and there, domesticating animals, and living too closely together. This must change, they opine, because bad pathogens are ever more leaping from the outside world into humans.

Keep reading

Climate Nutjobs Target Pet Dogs for Being ‘Environmental Villains’

Full disclosure before going any further: I love dogs. Have three myself. I fully subscribe to the “man’s best friend” moniker when it comes to canines.

(But no, I never celebrated Father’s Day until I had actual human children.)

In a soon-to-be-related note, I am not against preserving this planet, at all. This is the only earth that God gave us, and it would behoove us to be good stewards of it.

With that being said … When is enough going to be enough with these idiotic eco-zealots?

It’s one thing to want to be good stewards.

It’s another thing entirely to place every human being’s wants (let the people eat a freaking hamburger) and needs (like transportation and energy) last in comparison to the planet. That’s the antithesis of empathy and humanity, something the far left supposedly specializes in, especially compared to us conservative brethren.

What a farce. And it’s a farce that continues to self-parody itself more and more every day.

Look no further than this recent drivel from leftist rag Mother Jones: “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains.”

Since when did Fido become a James Bond villain? Citing recent “new research,” the outlet’s Donna Lu typed out — presumably with a straight face — that, “Dogs have ‘extensive and multifarious’ environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions.”

Apparently, the hall monitors in Australia reviewed various studies to determine that “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally [recognized].”

The Australian argument almost devolves into leftist memes like (and these are real points made, though perhaps not with this level of dripping sarcasm): “Oh, won’t someone think of the Tasmanian penguins?!”, “But the bobcats will be LESS ACTIVE with dogs around!”, and “The entire multi-billion dollar pet food industry is equivalent to the 60th — 60th — most pollutant country!”

Thankfully, nobody died and made the likes of Greta Thunberg queen, so this utter nonsense was met with the derision it so scornfully deserved.

Keep reading

Cannabis May Be ‘Viable Alternative’ Treatment For Dogs With Common Skin Disease, Case Study Shows

Cannabis appears to be a “viable alternative” treatment option for dogs suffering from a common skin disease—especially if they experience adverse side effects from conventional steroid therapies—according to a new case study.

Researchers at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil published their findings in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science this month, detailing the efficacy of full-spectrum CBD oil on a dog with the autoimmune disease discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE).

The condition, which causes hair loss and redness that could progress to lesions, is typically treated with corticosteroids and other medications that can put a strain on a dog’s liver. That’s what was happening with the two-year-old canine at the center of the new case study.

A veterinarian prescribed a full-spectrum oil with a 2:1 THC:CBD ratio, which was administered orally—at first, one drop per day for three days and gradually increasing it “until the optimal dose for symptom control was identified.”

“Within a few weeks, the dog exhibited significant improvement in dermatological signs, accompanied by a concurrent improvement in liver function,” the study says. “Interestingly, the owner reported an improvement in the dog’s behavior shortly after discontinuing prednisolone and within the first day of receiving the cannabis oil.”

“Cannabis derivatives, beyond their pain-relieving prowess, are emerging as potential knights in shining armor against inflammation and immune system overwork in the veterinary world,” the discussion section says. “Unlike traditional drugs, these compounds dance with the body’s own endocannabinoid system (ECS), a master conductor of cellular harmony, homeostasis and diverse functions.”

They added that a key benefit of using cannabis over corticosteroids is that the latter is “limited” to short-term use. In contrast, cannabis products “lack significant side effects and are safe for long-term usage.”

Keep reading

‘No money would ever tempt me to kill my XL Bully’: Furious dog owners blast government £200 ‘puppy scrappage scheme’ to euthanise their pets – as charities face an impossible task to rehome animals before December 31 deadline

Livid Bully XL owners are refusing to accept a £200 Government handout to euthanise their soon-to-be-banned pets, branding the plan ‘absolutely disgusting’.

The breed will be banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act by the end of the year, following a spate of recent fatal and horrific attacks. 

Owners can apply to have their pets exempt from the crackdown – which means they would have to pay £92.40 for a certificate and the dog would need to be microchipped and neutered, among other rules.

The second option would be to have their dogs put down, with the government offering £200 in compensation to these owners. 

But news of the measures this week triggered fury from Bully owners, who branded the move a ‘puppy scrappage scheme’. 

Fuming Bully XL owner Ashley Oxley from Brighton told MailOnline: ‘No money would ever tempt me into putting my girl down she’s fine the way she is and that’s how it’s staying can’t believe in this generation this kind of brutality is even allowed.’ 

Mother-of-three Dani Harland added: ‘This breaks my heart. I own an XL Bully and I would never ever even dream of putting her down. I find this absolutely disgusting that they [the government] are even offering to pay people money to have their dogs put to sleep.’

The outcry comes as animal charities today warned they face an impossible task of trying to rehome hundreds of Bully XLs stuck in rescue centres before the December 31 deadline, after which it will become illegal to rehome, breed, or sell the dogs.

Mel Kermode, operations manager of Freshfields Animal Rescue in Liverpool, said: ‘It is a desperate race against time to try and save these dogs. The clock is very much ticking,’ 

Keep reading

American XL Bully dogs are officially banned following spate of attacks: Owning one without exemption certificate will be a criminal offence from February

American XL bully dogs are now officially banned – with offences established to outlaw the sale, breeding and giving away of the dogs and walking them off-lead.

The ban was promised by prime minister Rishi Sunak following a spate of high-profile attacks earlier this year including the savaging of an 11-year-old girl and the death of a man in Staffordshire at the hands of two of the dangerous dogs.

Defra says that under the new rules, which come into effect from December 31, it will be illegal to ‘breed, sell, advertise, exchange, gift, rehome, abandon or allow XL Bully dogs to stray’ in England and Wales.

From the same date, existing XL Bully owners must keep their dogs on a lead and muzzled in public; the government is advising people to start training their dogs to wear a muzzle and walk on a lead comfortably, if they aren’t already trained. 

And from February 1, owning an XL Bully will be outlawed altogether unless owners register their animal on the Index of Exempted Dogs. The government says it has ‘staggered’ the dates to give existing owners time to prepare for the laws to come in.

Keep reading

Fauci Oversaw Dangerous, Torturous Experiments On Dogs

In addition to overseeing funding of gain of function coronavirus experiments in Wuhan, and then lying about it, it has now emerged that Dr Fauci was in charge of funding horrid experimental research on dogs, including purposefully infecting the animals with parasites known to be contagious to humans.

The report from the White Coat Waste Project draws on information gleaned from a FOIA request which revealed that $400,000 was pumped into National Institutes of Allergy & Infectious Disease experiments to infect beagles with parasites from biting flies.

The report outlines how the dogs “endured months of pain, and once researchers were done with them, they were killed.”

The NIAID task order states that “28 beagles were to be allowed to develop infections for three months before being euthanized for blood collection.”

The records obtained under the FOIA request show the dogs “vocalized pain” during the experiments.

Keep reading