Cat Got Your Wallet?

Here's a half hour long documentary that appeared on CBC about how your vet's taking you to the cleaners with 100-450% mark-ups on medications you purchase in Canada. I'm guessing that it's the same old, same old in the United States. A friend over who blogs over yonder stumbled upon it. According to the documentary, in the UK, vets are required to post what they're actually charged for common medications in their lobbies. They're also required to tell companion animal caregivers that these caregivers can obtain the very same medications at their pharmacy with a prescription from the vet (which is something you can do in Canada, as well, although good luck finding a vet who'll let you deal directly with a pharmacy and lose out on the price mark-up).

The Tradition of Pretending Animals Are Rewards

I've been avoiding writing about this whole "new dog in the White House" thing, but figured that enough was enough.

So, to keep up the years long tradition of each new US President having an official White House Critter, the Obamas promised their daughters a brand new puppy if Obama was elected. One of the Obama daughters is allergic to dogs, but that won't throw a wrench into the longstanding tradition -- instead, the Obamas have been searching for a hypoallergenic breed. In the interim, VP-elect Joe Biden's gotten himself a three-month-old purebred German Shepherd. I stumbled across a bloggish piece in the Christian Science Monitor that mentions it. In this piece, according to Biden's spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander "[h]e’s excited to bring it home when it gets a little older and has promised that his grandchildren can name it after the New Year".

"It" pretty much sums things up. The puppy is a thing. A gimmick. Worse, Biden went to a breeder to get a dog, when in the US alone, 4 million companion animals are killed each year because they've been abandoned or mistreated by people. Many of those are purebred dogs.

The CSM piece is titled "Biden gets new dog -- animal rights advocates not happy". What got my attention about is that the supposed animal rights advocates named in the article are the folks from HSUS and those from PETA, which are both clearly animal welfare organizations and not animal rights advocates. And this whole "Let's hope Obama does the right thing and gets a shelter dog" just misses the point altogether. You don't promise someone a dog the way you'd promise them a car on their 16th birthdays. There's no heavy symbolism in the Obamas' getting a shelter dog, unless that symbolism is that dogs are things to be given. Sure, I'd rather see President-elect Obama rescue a dog from a shelter rather than perpetuate the companion animal status quo by getting one from a breeder. Whatever he does, though, means little when you look at the bigger picture.

Or so I thought when I started reading the comments left by CSM readers:

"It’s a dog, who cares where it comes from."

"Why should the Bidens, or the Obamas, have to accept somebody else’s leftovers?"

"Bringing in an unknown dog from a shelter is risky especially when you are dealing with kids. Often no history about the cute dog is known. Perhaps it was abused, beaten, had a tough life or for whatever reason would like to snap and eat your child’s head off. [...] The positive is, he bought from a reputable breeder, some one who breeds dogs for the love of the breed."

"Don’t breeders have a right to do business or is PETA saying that all dogs should be gotten from the pound. I have a dog which is wonderful and was gotten through a no-kill humane society. But there is nothing wrong with getting a dog from a breeder and why should they have to join the ranks of the unemployed."

Ah, that old grey area that I can't for the life of me ignore. I keep forgetting the level of ignorance held by so many when it comes to animals species we deem worthy to welcome into our homes. As much as I hate this whole White House tradition and the message I can't help but feel it delivers, I guess that I can't help but hope, myself, that the Obamas -- if they have to go through with this act at all -- do choose to adopt from a shelter: If only to send the message out that just because you've been abandoned doesn't make you a bad dog; in some cases, it just means that there are bad caregivers.

A kinder, gentler Switzerland for goldfish

More than a couple of reporters and bloggers have been amused these past few days by the news that the Swiss government has enacted new legislation intended to improve the lives of both domesticated and wild animals. What's elicited a titter or three is that it's now illegal to flush a live conscious goldfish down a toilet in Switzerland. I'm all for saving a fish the trauma of being flushed into someone's local sewage treatment plant, but have to wonder how the heck anyone would enforce something like that. I have this image of angry Swiss children morphing into Orwell's "The Spies" or "Youth League", ratting their parents out.

In theory, many of the new changes are the kinds of things I'd love to see implemented in North America, as well. For instance, the lot of fish other than goldfish may be improved, since the cruel and common angling practice of catching and releasing fish is now illegal in Switzerland, as is using live fish as bait.

Changes affecting animals kept as "pets" include that budgies and hamsters may no longer be kept as individuals in captivity, but must be provided with companionship. The tail and ear cropping of dogs will no longer be allowed, and people who adopt them will be required to take training classes designed to lower the occurrence of biting mishaps.

In zoos, social creatures such as lamas, alpacas and yaks will need to be provided with companionship, as well. Pragmatically, it will be somewhat interesting to see how some of these things will actually be enforced. The very fact that these changes in legislation have been enacted and announced, however, reflects the sort of change in mindset that's promising.

Air Canada forced to allow pets to travel on passenger planes again

Air Canada has had to reverse course on its 2007 change in policy, which had banned shipping certain companion animals as luggage on passenger planes, forcing people to instead ship them as cargo at a higher cost and on completely different flights. The reason Air Canada had initially given for its change in policy was that the animals used up valuable baggage space (never mind that customers paid $105 CAD for each animal traveling within North America and $245 CAD for those on other international flights) and the ban applied solely to animals and their kennels weighing a total of more than 70 pounds. The Canadian Transportation Agency's ruling this past week gives Air Canada until May 5 to comply with its decision.

As a caregiver to four cats, I must admit that I'm not so sure I'd want to put any of them through the stress of a flight, whether in a passenger or a cargo plane. Plus, Air Canada's disclaimer absolving itself of liability for the ''loss, delay, injury, sickness or death'' of any animal travelling on its flights does absolutely nothing to make me feel anything but even more hesitant about ever doing so. To be honest, I think my aversion stems from a traumatic childhood experience involving furry critters and airports.