KC DOG BLOG

Update: Six month old infant dead from dog attack in Virginia

Updated:  The boy has ben identified as Salvador Miguel Cotto.

Update 7/8/11: The case has been officially ruled as a tragic accident. Sources say the medical examiner has said that the infant died from a single bite to the head the caused a cerebral edema.  "Chances are the dog was startled and it would never happen again".

It's situations like this that really highlight just how fragile infants are and why the need to strictly monitor them around dogs. Some of the people from Polar's (the dogs) rescue are vying for the dog to be given a second chance -- which leads me to the question, what should happen to a dog involved in an incident like this, but that isn't truly an aggressive dog?

-------------------------------------

This is a newly developing story, a six month old infant is dead after a dog attack.

The child was visiting a family member's home in Chesterfield, VA, and was left alone in a room with the family dog, and was bitten by the dog.  The child was declared dead later at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center.  The dog was signed over to animal control and will most likely be euthanized.

The dog has been described as both an American Bulldog mix and a Dogo Argentino. The most recent and detailed story are calling it a Dogo Argentino but does once again show the problem with using the media for breed identification.  The dog was apparently deaf.

The bigger issue is that once again a case of a dead infant as a result of a child that is new to the household (in this case a visitor) being left alone with a dog that is not well socialized with that child.

It's a tragic story and I"ll post more details as they become available.

Update:  The rescue organization that adopted out the dog has said the dog was not a Dogo and was far to small to be one, and that the dog is likely an American Bulldog mix.

The story was only picked up in 17 news outlets.

Very good sentences (in Ohio)

As Ohio lawmakers discuss HB 14, a bill that would remove breed-specific language from the state law, it has not been lost on the media that two of the four largest cities in the state, Toledo and Cleveland, have moved away from breed-specific laws in favor of behavior-based laws.  The move from breed-specific laws to breed neutral ones are seen by almost all experts as a more effective approach to dealing with dangerous dogs:

"This whole obsession with 'pit bulls' I think is a distraction for truly effective public policy on dangerous dogs," said John Dinon, Executive Director of the Toledo Area Humane Society. "The fact that people are now looking at dog behavior and owner responsibility is a huge step toward making our communities in Ohio a safer place."

Yes and yes.

Joplin Adopt-A-Thon finds homes for 745 pets (and what other shelters can learn from their success)

Just over a month ago, the city of Joplin was hit by a huge tornado that wiped out miles of homes in the city and was responsible for the death of more than 150 people.

The response from the surrounding communities to help those who needed it has been great -- from police officers sent down to protect from looting, to supplies sent to people helping out with pets who lost their homes in the event. An estimated 90 organizations from around the country dedicated volunteers just for helping animals in the event.

Over the weekend, the Joplin Humane Society -- with the help of many organizations including the ASPCA, held a major adopt-a-thon for animals that were not able to be reunited with owners following the tornado.

On Saturday, an estimated 2,000 people from 24 states waited in line to adopt pets from the shelter -- and a total of 385 pets (210 dogs and 175 cats) were adopted.

By the end of the weekend, an estimated 5700 people entered the doors of the Humane Society and 745 pets were adopted.

There was no adoption fee and all pets had been spayed or neutered, microchipped and given up-to-date vaccines.  The event was such a success that the Joplin Humane Society is continuing to waive adoption fees through Saturday July 9. 

Obviously this is a huge success for the 700+ animals that lost their homes due to last month's tornado (an estimated 500 animals were reunited with their owners)....and a huge testimate to the power of reaching out and asking for help from the community at large to help.  When we ask people to step up, they have an amazing ability to do so.

This is obviously a huge success story. One that oozes community support, help from others when you ask, and a nation of animal lovers who want to help animals in need.

So I ask, why only take advantage of this in times of extreme tragedy? Why not hold major adopt-a-thons more regularly to help move animals out of shelters?  If eliminated adoption fees proves to increase adoptions, why not eliminate them more often? (we know that "free cats" programs work, as does pay as you wish pricing). And we know that marketing our homeless pets works as well, as does marketing our adoption specials. So why not do them more often?

Yes, it helps that this situation involved a major tragedy -- and people really did want to help any way they could.  But we are a nation of pet lovers, and when you reach out and give people a reason to help -- they do tend to help.

Which is why we should find every excuse reason possible to reach out and ask.

In fact, I would love for a shelter like Memphis Animal Services (or any other high-kill shelter) to try to prove me wrong. I would love for them to run a promotion -- 1 weekend only required at first - and waive adoption fees. Invite everyone to come to your shelter and adopt pets because you're "overcrowded" and "want to save them".  And see if it works. If it doesn't work, I'll never mention it again. I'll admit that I'm wrong and that people don't want to help homeless pets. But if it does work, and a lot of animals get adopted -- then you have the obligation to do it repeatedly.

Because this type of promotion works. It's proven time and time again to do so. All it takes is the desire to reach out and ask for the help.

 For more on Joplin: KC Dogs Examiner

Ohio HB 14 to be heard by the State House of Representatives TOMORROW 6/28

In a note form the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates, they have learned that HB 14 -- a bill that would remove BSL from Ohio state law and replace it with a good, state-wide behavior-based policy, will be heard by the entire House of Representatives TOMORROW, 6/28. The bill passed through committee two weeks ago by a vote of 10-2.

If you live in the state of Ohio, please contact your state Representative and urge them to vote YES on HB 14.

 

 

Running Free

Sorry that I've not posted much the last few days. Taking some much-needed time off with the wife and dogs out at the farm.

Sometimes a dog's just gotta run free. And Stella loves running free.

Dogtime Editor writes 8 part series about the No Kill Movement (& where she got it right & wrong)

Two months ago, Dog Time Editor Leslie Smith embarked on an 8 part series about the No Kill Movement and her "7 hard-learned lessons about animal shelters, euthanasia and the No Kill Movement".

I must confess, I was pretty excited about the examination at first. From the start, the No Kill Movement has been under fire under those who are positions of power in the animal welfare community. My experience has been that many who are most vocal about the movement are either a) protecting their spot at the top of the hierarchy, b) don't really know a lot about the movement other than what they've heard from those at the top of the hierarchy or c) have had negative experiences with self-proclaimed "no kill shelters" that really aren't doing it right, and have made the movement guilty by name-association.

Meanwhile, because of the vocal criticsm -- much of which is unfounded or ill-informed -- there can be a tendency to just ignore all criticism. This isn't necessarily a condemnation of the leaders of the no kill movement (who I think have tried to remain open), it's just human nature.

So I was eager to hear someone's outside perspective on the movement in an attempt at a thoughtful dialogue about No Kill.  Unfortunately, the outcome ended up being a mixed bag of some really good thoughts mixed with some almost baffling animal rights rhetoric or a lack of true knowledge about the movement. So with that, I'm going to talk briefly about each of her 7 lessons learned -- with links to each so you can read for yourself.

1st Lesson: No Kill is a very complicated "simple concept"

I think Smith did a good job with this piece. She addresses that No Kill means not killing animals for space and saving all "healthy and treatable" animals and that as a concept, is easy to get behind -- yet, notes a big problem that "healthy and treatable" is fairly subjective (we have a couple shelters in my community that are very liberal in declaring animals untreatable and killing them). She also notes that many of the programs that are required either take money, or volunteers - both of which are lacking in many communities.

The no kill community would counter that most of these shelters don't have money or support because they have actually taken a stance of dispising the "irresponsible public" - -and thus doesn't embrace the good that can come from a strong volunteer base and embrace these volunteers. However, I will note, there especially in this economy, there are a good number of great shelters out there that are struggling financially right now, so it is not a completely irrelevent problem.  I do think really strong leadership and good volunteer coordinators can overcome a good number of these problems.

Lesson #2: People love dogs. As long as their cute, convenient and easy to care for

I hate the title (which I think starts heading down the "irresponsible public" road)  -- but I do like the message of this post. Smith addresses the Pet Overpopulatoin issue and whether or not it's real or a myth. She acknowledges that, right now, there are more people who get new pets every year than we have animals in the shelter (with 17 million new pets going into homes each year and about 8 million pets in our shelters). That's a start. But then questions whether it's bad marketing, or that the population of shelter animals doesn't match up with what people want in their adoptable pets.

I think it is obviously a combo of the two -- and it's one of the bigger issues many shelters have not figured out how to address. Sometimes it's because shelters make it too difficult to adopt animals. Sometimes people have a particular want or need for a type of dog that isn't readily available in their local shelter. And sometimes shelters just do a poor job of marketing their homeless pets.  This is a good subject -- and one I plan to spend a little more time on soon.

Lesson #3: Shelters could be doing (a lot) more

Honestly, if everyone accepted the title of this lesson as the reality, then we'd be a lot closer to No Kill Today. The post itself is very good also -- tackling the issue of the lack of qualified shelter management in this country that can really handle all of the needs of running an animal shelter.

I think Smith did a great job on this post all on its own, but I'd like suggest something. The type of people who are capable of running very dynamic organizations like big shelters and also handle fundraising duties, volunteers, etc, are very talented people. And as such, we should expect to pay them as talented people. It's just not feasible to try to lure someone with talent as a great manager from corporate America who makes a 6 figure salary to run an animal shelter and make $60k. You might find some who will do it, but not enough.

Instead of shelters staffing dozens of workers with low pay - -some of whom's jobs are to walk dogs and clean kennels, I'd submit to increasing the pay of shelter leaders, hiring a great volunteer coordinator, and then getting volunteers to do the majority of the leg-work. But I do think that better shelter leadership will provide a lot of solutions.

In Calgary, which has a fabulously run animal control, the average employee makes around $80,000 a year. Bill Bruce, the manager there, always says, "if you pay peanuts, you end up hiring monkeys."  And I think paying peanuts is unfortunately far too common in many municiple shelters.

Lesson #4: Suffering is Rampant

In this post, Smith starts treading down the line of rhetoric vs reality. Yes, many have criticized the No Kill Movement for focusing on adoptions into any homes vs into good or great homes.  But at no point in reading 2 books about the movement, pretty much every blog posting by anyone familiar with the movement or in attending two conferences sponsored by the movement have I ever heard anyone recommend that we should adopt dogs and cats into substandard homes.

The No Kill movement is based on the reality that of the 78 million owned dogs in this country, the vast majority of them live in good to great homes. Sure some aren't perfect, but there are statistically aren't a lot of bad homes for dogs.

The movement doesn't seek to adopt dogs and cats into these bad homes - -but it does seek to a) make fair homes into good homes through education instead of just rejecting the home for not being good enough and b) removing artificial barriers to adoption that have been somehow made up by the animal welfare community.

 Not having a fence does not make a bad home. Nor does not having a yard. Nor wanting a "farm dog". Nor not treating an elderly dog with regular heartworm treatment at the advice of your veterinarian. Nor having an unaltered pet. Nor having a child. Nor having a dog of the same gender. Nor does being poor or living in the "wrong neighborhood". Nor does the color of your skin. Nor having ever bred a pet. Nor does living in an apartment. Nor does having a good job that the shelter thinks will make you "too busy" to care for the pet properly. Nor is wanting to adopt a pet before the holidays. Nor is wanting to adopt a black cat around Halloween.

These are not viable blanket reasons to prevent people from adopting pets (and yes, I know of someone who has been denied for every one of the reasons listed above or can point you to a rescue group that will deny someone in each of these situations as a blanket policy). And this is where the No Kill Movment is focused -- on not inventing reasons for people to not be able to adopt. While I admit that the right balance of where to draw the line is a very difficult one,m I think it's a bit much to say that No Kill isn't focused on putting animals in good homes (and yes, I have a blog post to write about this one also).

Lesson #5: There are no responsible breeders

This is officially where a once-promising series fell apart completely. First off, pretty much any time you deal with absoulutes, you will be wrong. And secondly, of course there are responsible breeders out there.

For many reasons, there are people who have viable wants and needs for certain types or breeds of dogs. Should someone not be allowed to own a Schnauzer because we're killing too many other types of dogs in our shelters?  And what about true service or working dogs?  Should we just get rid of that notion altogether?

In Lesson #2, Smith acknowledged that the type of animals in the shelter doesn't match the type that people want. And in Lesson #3, she acknowledged that 17 million people are looking for a new pet every year, but only 8 million animals end up in the shelters. So where are the other 9 million to get their pets -- even if we adopted them all from the shelters right now? Even right now, with the number of pets killed in our shelters annually, we would HAVE to breed pets in order to meet the demand.

There is a demand for bred pets. There is actually a need for bred pets. There is even a numeric need for bred pets. Now, we could certainly have a great argument that too many of the wrong people are beeding pets. There certainly shouldn't be a reason for most people to be breeding 'pit bull' type dogs, or mixed breed big black dogs and generic barn cats with the numbers we have in the shelters.  I'd also rather see fewer dogs bred in mass breeding facilities. But I can't say that I'm on board with there being "no such thing as a responsbile breeder". In fact, I've met a good number of people who breed who are also involved in rescue. We should be able to embrace the folks who are doing it right...and be smart enough to tell the difference between those who are good and those that are doing it wrong. But blanket absolutes that are based more closely on rhetoric than fact are doing no one any favors.

Lesson #6: Adoption is not the (best) answer

And the downhill spiral of the series continues. In this part, Smith claims that this is her "biggest ideological deviation" from the No Kill Movement in that Adoption shouldn't be the only solution -- but that preventing animals from ever coming to the shelter should be the focus.

Earlier I noted that many of the opponents of No Kill tend to be the people who understand it the least...and it was during this post that I feared that Smith may be one of those people. In Winograd's book Redemption, he clearly lays out the tenets of the No Kill Equation (p200-204), and they include:

1) Feral Cat TNR Program

2) High Volume, Low Cost Spay/Neuter

3) Partnerships with Rescue groups

4) Foster Care

5) Comprehensive Adoption Programs

6) Pet Retention

7) Medical and behavioral Rehabilitation

8) Public Relations/Community Involvement

9) Volunteers

10) A Compassionate Director

I frankly have no idea where Smith even got the idea that No Kill was "putting all eggs in the adoption basket" and why thinking that deviating away from that was a differentiator for her.

Meanwhile, this post also strangely uses the 1 cat can produce 420,000 offspring in 7 years number -- that has been been mathematically proven to be false on several occassions. 

Frankly I found this entire entry a bit puzzling and frankly think Smith is irresponsible and negligent for using her forum to completely mis-represent the No Kill movement as being only about adoptions.  Adoptions are important. No doubt. But far from the only thing the movement is about. Smith should have known better.

Lesson #7: No Kill Must cast a wider net: first step is a name change

In the final "lesson," Smith has a really nice point that gets lost in a really awful solution.

She starts by noting that while the No Kill Movement states a number for a live release rate of 90% or higher, that each "statistic" actually represents a story. Each dog and cat has their own story, and each one should be taken very seriously before their story is ended.

I do think sometimes this gets lost as a part of a statistical information -- and she notes that "every animal that receives the gas chamber or the blue juice is one you might've adopted". But I think Smith lost sight of what the 10% that don't make it represents: the helplessly ill or aggressive. The No Kill movement is about saving all the ones that can be saved -- but then euthanizing -- in the true sense of the word -- the ones that are sick, injured or too aggressive to go into a home.  There should be no "adoptable" animals euthanized.

The 10% number is just a rough percentage based on experience of how many animals that come into the shelter truly aren't adoptable (to prevent some shelters from fudging their numbers by declaring a huge numer of their animals unadoptable).

Smith's proposal is for the "No Suffer" movement to replace "No Kill".  And I cringe.

I've heard many arguments for "No Kill" needing to change it's name -- primarily because it is misleading in that it does propose that animals are euthanized (I still propose that if people quit using the terms "kill" and "euthanize" as synonymous then "No Kill" makes complete sense and does not mean "no euthanasia" in the true sense of using death to end suffering).  I also think "No Kill" has great public awareness.  Most people understand the concept of a "no kill shelter" right now -- and don't feel misled or lied to when they find out animals are euthanized.

But hey, I'm open to people's suggestions.  but "no suffer?"  Actually, the "no suffer" movement, while great in theory and how she describes it, is how we got into this situation in the first place. We got here, in part, because too many animal welfare people decided to "end suffering" by "ending life".  The blue liquid was seen as "humane" and "ending suffering" and preventing the "fates worse than death."  Really, do we want to go down that road again?

In the end, I felt very disappointed with Smith's review. What started with some promising thoughts on the No Kill Movement, unfortunately quickly spiraled into some of the old incorrect rhetoric we've heard too much in the past, and some blatant mis-information about the movement s a whole. 

I wish she would have used her forum to help end some of the misconceptions about No Kill. Unfortunately, she ended up causing a lot more misconceptions, or feeding into the ones that exist.  And by and large, I think once people learn what No Kill is really about (and not just what someone else said it was about) they soon realize it is easily, far and away, the most viable and humane way to treat animals and sheltering in this country. 

Cumberland, BC repeals their Breed-specific law

Cumberland, BC has repealed their law that required all 'pit bulls' to be muzzled.  Dogs are now judged based on their behavior.

City officials noted that problem dogs come from problem owners -- and that the city needed to focus it's attention on finding those dogs instead of using up resources just tracking down pit bulls.

Darby Arsenault, the city's animal control officer, said that a lot of her focus had been on searching out dogst hat were pit bulls "even when they had done nothing wrong".

 She also noted that a lot of cities are now moving toward a more breed-neutral, behavior-based appraoch.

The tide continues to turn against archaic breed-specific laws. Congrats to the folks in Cumberland for getting it right and joining the movement toward more-effective, behavior-based ordinances.

 

Dear Memphis: The status quo isn't good enough

Eighteen months ago, there became a firestorm of media controversy regarding Memphis Animal Services after a young puppy was starved to death at the shelter.

Upon reveiw, Memphis fired their director of animal services and hired someone with a less than spectacular track record, Matthew Pepper, to run the shelter. They also inserted web cams at the shelter so people could keep an eye on what is going on at the shelter.

Well, in the months that have followed, Memphis passed a law that increased impounds into their high-kill shelter and their kill rate continues to be around 70%.

For the last couple of months, Shirley over at YesBiscuit! has been doing a magnificent job of covering the exploits at the shelter -  with many screen grabs from the webcams of ACOs hoisting animals into kennels with their catch poles, dragging animals through the shelter via catchpole, killing animals that never make it to the adoption floor or onto pet finder, killing treatable animals immediately upon impound because of fairly minor injuries -- that sort of thing.

Through the process, Shirley has been collecting donations that are going toward helping particular animals at the shelter.

Now, let's say you worked at a shelter with limited funds and a 70% kill rate -- and someone from South Carolina began raising funds to help out some of the animals at the shelter.  Would you:

a) Send a note to thank her

b) Realize how big of a mess your shelter has become and work hard to fix the problems that she is exposing

c) Sue her for violating a South Carolina law that you have no power to enforce

If you guessed "C", you are now qualified to be in Memphis City Government.

Yes. Seriously.

In a strange act, the Memphis City Attorney, Herman Morris Jr, sent a note calling for a cease and desist for her donation drives because it is violation of a South Carolina code that prevents you from raising funds on someone else's behalf without written consent to do so because it apparently gives the impression that your actions are endorsed by that party.

Now, I can't speak for everyone who's read Shirley's blog over the past 2 months, it I can assure you I never once would have assumed the city was endorsing her activities. In fact, I can safely say that I assumed that the city cared so little about animals that even if they were grateful, they still would have been too lazy to say so.

But here's the deal Memphis. Your shelter is broken. Animals are needlessly dying and there is seemingly little attempt to improve the situation. And your attempts to squash the voice that is making it public, and your attempts to cut off support from people who want to help the animals is the wrong approach.

Instead of having someone sift through pages and pages of South Carolina public code, why not spend that time doing something productive -- like working to fix the problems?  Because the status quo isn't good enough. And it's not just one blogger in South Carolina that is upset -- it is a whole nation of animal lovers who think animals deserve better than the outdated catch and kill sheltering models.

If you're tired of the very fair criticism. Fix it.

And residents of Memphis -- these are your elected leaders and your tax dollars at work. You are paying for this. And you also have the power to influence change.  Take it. Run with it. And make the change happen.

And for Shirley, congratulations on getting their attention. You are getting a standing ovation from over in my corner. 

More from: Raised by Wolves and the Pet Connection

 

Dog bites girl, Man beats dog

A 26 year old Ontario man is in custody after one of the more disturbing articles I've read in awhile.

Apparently, a small chained up Jack Russell Terrier bit a 1-1/2 year old girl. In response to the dog biting the girl, the girl's father came outside with a baseball bat and bludgeoned the chained dog -- that belonged to his neighbor - to death.

There were apparently several witnesses to the killing of the dog including several children.

Apparently a 12 year old boy whose family owned the dog cradled the dead dog in his arms and said "I love you Teddy."

This obviously a horrible story. At this point there doesn't appear to be any information as to why/how an 18 month old girl was in the neighbor's yard with the dog or why the man felt it was appropriate to bludgeon a small dog on a chain or why onlookers didn't try to stop the attack when they saw it happening (although, in fairness, an obviously berzerk man weilding a baseball bat is probably a bit tough to approach).

 We just HAVE to do a better job of educating people on how children interact with dogs, about dog behavior, and about appropriate responses to what is probably somewhat typical dog behavior. It can save a kid a trip to the hospital, and a 12 year old boy from having to cuddle his dog that was beaten to death. 

The 26 year old man is in custody for animal abuse.

Editor's Note: I didn't do a very good job of explaining that second-to last paragraph -- but I can only think that what if over the past 6 years Ontario had been focused on educating people on how to prevent dog bites (one tip would be to watch your 18 month old when wandering up to a chained up dog) instead of creating hysteria around certain types of dogs this whole thing could easily have been avoided.

Kansas City and Missouri News and Notes

There is a lot of news in Kansas City and the surrounding area right now. As such, there are a couple of stories that I think are important to share.

Pin Ups for Pit Bulls Midwest Carnival

Over the weekend was a great event with the folks from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls, along with Shorty Rossi, were in town over the weekend to raise awareness for 'pit bull' type dogs and to raise some money for local rescues.

This was an extremely fun event -- and before hand, the great folks over at Paw Prints had a great interview with both Shorty and Little Darling to get some insight behind the TV show the Pit Boss and behind the efforts from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls.

It sounds like The Pit Boss is going to be airing a show from Denver soon which will expose many of Denver's problems as it relates to the city's breed ban.

Also, a big appreciation to Stacy for Kansas City Dog Advocates getting a shout-out in her interview -- and nice job overall on the interview. They also captured some great photos of the event.

Animal Haven and No More Homeless Pets form Merger

Two local animal welfare organizations have officially formed a merger as Animal Haven - -the city's largest no kill animal shelter, and No More Homeless Pets KC -- on of the two largest low-cost spay neuter clinics, have officially formed a merger to form the Heartland SPCA.

I really don't have a lot of commentary about what this may or may not mean in Kansas City animal welfare. Both organizations have been working very closely together for many years and this just solidifies their partnership. I think the name is problematic (I still think most causal observers will think this is an off-shoot of the ASPCA) -- however, I do think the two groups (both very good organizations) can merge their power for positive change for the animals in the metro area.

More to come on this, no doubt, but this is pretty big news in the metro this week (even though it may have been the worst kept secret ever).

Missouri Dedicates $$ for crack down on Puppy Mills

Earlier this week, Governor Jay Nixion held a press conference at the Humane Society of Missouri that announced that the state has officially dedicated $1.1 million for more state field inspectors, veterinarians and enforcement agents in order to crack down on poorly run commercial breeders in the state.

This promise was part of the Governor's compromise that eliminated parts of voter-approved proposition B, but also added several key enforcement measures including this money for more enforcement and some increased power for the state Attorney General to close down repeated violators of state laws (which has already led to the closing of two breeding operations). This is particularly notable at a time when the state was facing a $704 million budget deficit, even before the state had to set aside $50 million to help the city of Joplin recover from a massive tornado that hit last month, and as the state is dealing with major flood damage that will also take millions of dollars of state funds to rebuild levies and repair damages.

So the state continuing to increase funding for shutting down poorly-run breeding operations in spite of these budget shortfalls is HUGE.

And yet, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS still found room to criticize. Pacelle criticizes the money because he doesn't think it should have come in conjunction with the changes to Prop B. While Pacelle mentioned at one point recognizing the need to compromise on Prop B, he apparently doesn't realize that compromise involves both parties giving in on certain things. Maybe this is why the compromise was among local animal welfare groups and HSUS wasn't invited to the table.

While everyone should be celebrating the increased enforcement resources (which was everyone's #1 need in solving the state's 'puppy mill crisis') at a time of significant financial strain on the state, leave it to HSUS to be the critic (of course, the news comes at a time when Wayne Pacelle was on his book tour and was in St. Louis last night promoting his book, and Kansas City tonight). It should also be noted that the state's $1.1 million toward enforcement -- which is very good news, is less than 1/3 of the money HSUS spent trying to pass Proposition B.

A few other things going on....more to come.