On Dessert? Make mine pie!

Posted on September 13 at 2:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Ack! Just checked out the Elegant Farmer...the pies look great but $40?! Only $30 a piece if you buy two. I don't like pie that much. ;o/

On Dessert? Make mine pie!

Posted on September 12 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I agree that grocery store pies are "icky!" With that said - for those of us who don't bake - where can one BUY a decent pie (other than fundraisers selling homemade). I love me a good banana cream or pumpkin but any fruit pie will do.

On Appeals court upholds dog limit ordinance

Posted on April 19 at 12:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Pet limit laws do not provide the benefits which proponents claim but rather have negative repercussions for animals in our community. At the same time that household limits discourage responsible individuals from providing a good home for more needy animals, they do not prevent an irresponsible one from acquiring unlimited animals. Unfortunately, caring can't be mandated.

Only a very small fraction of animal control complaint calls ever involve more than two animals while the vast majority of abuse and neglect complaints concern only a single animal’s welfare. Whereas one individual may be able to responsibly care for and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one. And if problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at their disposal in terms of public safety and property rights laws. In fact, unsanitary conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all unlawful in virtually every community regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or not. Instead of correlating numbers of animals with problems, issues such as neglect, noise, and sanitation can be addressed specifically.

Proponents of pet limit laws claim that they prevent animal hoarding. The assertion that if one chooses to share their home with more animals than the government bureaucracy says you should that they are somehow a hoarder or criminal is undeniably false and simply having more animals than an arbitrary set limit does not make one sick or a scofflaw.

Animal hoarding is a mental disease and a crime whereby individuals keep large numbers of animals beyond their capacity to care for them resulting in neglect and cruelty and often death. There are three key defining characteristics that constitute hoarding:
1. Keeping large numbers of animals; and,
2. Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness, and death; and,
3. Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household, and human occupants of the dwelling.

Focusing on the first, without the other two, is not hoarding in the same way that very large families with numerous children are not child abusers by the simple fact that they have a lot of children. In order to constitute criminal activity, there must be the added elements of neglect or cruelty. More importantly, animal hoarding is punished by existing state animal cruelty laws. Since the current laws that can carry onerous punishments do not deter these individuals, a local pet limit law certainly won’t. And since these individuals are mentally ill, they are hardly making an informed decision about whether to hoard animals based on a pet limit law.

On Wis. gov signs bill limiting voucher schools

Posted on April 6 at 2:51 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Can somebody explain to me why we can comment on this "story" but not those covering the anti-abortion or abstinence bills?

On Towns grapple with stray animal control

Posted on March 22 at 8:40 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

As a donor, they are doing exactly what I expect...using my donation to help pay for the services that each adoptable animal needs to find a new home. I do NOT give my money to subsidize the stray animal control responsibilities of local governments with nothing left to actually help the animals be adopted. And all does mean all...that means cats, too. Their mission is not to be a stray holding facility. If they took my money and used it to just cover the stray holding costs that are a municipal responsibility and then had nothing left and no choice but to euthanize, THAT would call into question their mission and accountability. Their save rates for both dogs and cats are admirable given their facility and financial constraints. The improvements in the last few years have been remarkable and, as a donor, I wouldn't be supporting them if they weren't achieving such save rates and working to improve them every day. Imagine what this community could achieve if everyone worked together with compassion and respect for animals...and each other.

On Towns grapple with stray animal control

Posted on March 21 at 9:03 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

RCHS has never refused to contract with anyone. They offer a service contract as does any other third party vendor that governments contract with to provide services they do not wish to provide themselves. If the municipality does not wish to purchase the service they offer, they are free to handle the issue - or not handle the issue - as they see fit. Because RCHS does not allow the municipality to dictate what options they wish to pick and choose does not make them wrong. What other third party vendor allows the purchaser to dictate the services and fees? What other vendor provides services at a loss or takes on more than they can actually provide? Again, RCHS is a private shelter. When I give a donation, I do not want it to go to subsidize government services with nothing left to actually help the animals. If the municipalities choose not to purchase their services, the shelter will be just that...a shelter that would just accept owned surrendered animals as their resources allow...like many other shelters that are in existence that do not even offer animal control services. We are fortunate that we have a shelter that wants to provide the service...but they can't do it alone and without the resources to actually make it happen. Their mission is not to be a "pound" for local governments.

On Towns grapple with stray animal control

Posted on March 20 at 9:21 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

People seem to be misunderstanding that RCHS is a private animal shelter, not an animal control facility. They have contracted to provide stray services at a huge loss - both financially and in terms of loss of life - for decades. So that means things should never change? They should continue to accept the status quo and be forced to shut their doors or just operate as a "pound" where stray animals don't get a second chance at a loving home because, gosh darn it, that's the way it has always been? The money received on contracts does not cover the 7 day stray hold care. When people make a donation, they don't intend to subsidize a stray hold with then nothing left over to actually help the animal become adoptable. Foster care and satellite centers are for adoptable animals, not stray animals that must legally be held at the shelter through their stray hold. RCHS has stated repeatedly that they wish to work with the municipalities in providing stray animal control and care. If the municipalities choose to do it on their own or do nothing at all, that is their choice. RCHS will exist as they were intended - as a private shelter that helps homeless animals as their resources allow. They then would not be forced into taking more animals than their facility and resources can handle as is the case now. What other nonprofits are forced into taking on more than they can actually provide adequate service for? If they don't have the facility and resources to do it, why are they being bullied into staying the course and being the whipping boy for a community that won't address its stray animal issues? If they don't save lives, then they're horrible...if they do save lives, they're wasting money. Can't have it both ways. They're not creating the problem...they are trying to deal with what the community throws away and devalues every day.

On Towns grapple with stray animal control

Posted on March 19 at 9:12 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

RCHS is a private, charitable animal shelter not an animal control facility. They have decreased euthanasia by almost 70% for dogs and over 50% for cats in three years so obviously things are moving in a very positive direction. Contracting to provide stray animal care and control is a choice. For decades, they have paid dearly for providing these services and even with increased fees (that were raised two years ago and are billed on a per stray animal basis) still lose money that they then must try to make up with donations...if the donations don't come in, animals cannot be helped. It IS a community issue. Racine County is assuming animal care and control under its government at the end of this year...at the cost of over $600 per animal. We need cooperation and progress, not sniping and fingerpointing.

On Why is your dog (or cat) loose?

Posted on January 20 at 3:51 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Well, if the media says "pit bull type" dogs are horrible and eating children on a consistent basis, it must be true! Please, people. Educate yourselves. Read The Pit Bull Placebo. Visit www.badrap.org or www.bestfriends.org and learn something. Funny how the Cairn was just being a "terrier." And what, praytell, is a "pit bull?" An American Pit Bull TERRIER or an American Staffordshire TERRIER...or some cross thereof. Dogs running at large is a problem. Blaming a breed for irresponsible guardianship is ludicrous...and sad.

On How long can humane society provide stray animal control services?

Posted on November 8 at 8:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

most cats carry viruses at all times...upwards of 70% or greater. vaccinations don't cover all viruses and many lay dormant (much like the human herpes virus) and are brought out by stress...which explains why cats "get" sick in shelters across the country despite being vaccinated upon intake...they were already carrying the viruses when they came in and break with illness due to the stress. antibiotics only treat secondary bacterial infections...not viruses...only the cat's immune system can rally against them...in a nice, stress-free home setting this isn't so bad...in a crowded shelter it can be impossible despite the best of care.