Cloning Of Dogs And Cats.

Did you know that in the U.S. there are companies that are "trying" to clone cats and dogs? I certainly didn't. This process is still very experimental and subjects hundreds of dogs and cats to very painful and invasive procedures and produces abnormal animals who fail to survive birth. This is not mentioned by cloning companies when advertising their services. According to published reports, a total of 3656 cloned embryos, more than 319 egg "donors," and 214 surrogate mothers have been used to produce, now get this, just 5 cloned dogs and 11 cloned cats who were able to survive only 30 days after birth.


These cloning companies try to capitalize on people's grief over losing a beloved pet. They charge exorbitant fees for gene banking (storage of genetic material). Cloning is a way to, like the Phoenix, resurrect a beloved pet. South Korea is a hot spot for this horrid practice. But their government has suspended and prosecuted researchers for fraudulent activities.

It seems that 80% of Americans do not support this practice. This industry in the U.S., is not regulated like other research facilities that use animals for research. They (clone researchers), should be held to the same standards, minimal as they are, that are outlined in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

Here are some prices: Genetic Saving & Clone, Inc., (what an original name) was started in 1999 by John Sperling, a billionaire, who wanted to clone his own dog. They charged clients anywhere from $295.00 to $1395.00 for gene banking and, get this, $50,000.00 to clone a cat, even though the only cat the company had cloned, has a different physical appearance and personality from her genetic donor. In 2004, this company offered to accept 6 "orders" for cloned cats, but were only able to obtain 5 and only delivered 2. They have failed to clone a dog. In 2006, they closed their doors, thankfully.

I searched the internet on genetic banking and found many, many companies that are attempting to clone.

A Very Disturbing Investigation Of The Iams Pet Food Company.

My own words:

Back in 2002 and 2003, PETA went undercover into a contract laboratory employed by the pet food manufacturer Iams. What they found was sickening. For the nearly 10 months the investigator had to endure this to get the footage needed to expose this, the investigator found dogs who had literally gone crazy from intense confinement in barren, steel cages and cement cells. They were left there to see the result of solitary confinement on a dog.

Another sick thing they found were dogs who had been left on a filthy floor after chunks of muscle had been hacked from their thighs, and the ever so "popular" debarked dogs. And, then there were the horribly sick dogs and cats who were just laying in cages, neglected and dying slowly and painfully, alone. They were given no veterinary care at all.

source: www.iamscruelty.com

Even Iams own Executive criticizes the Company's Cruel Caging Policy. Her name is Diane Hirakawa, Sr. Vice Pres. of Iams Research and Development.

Here is the list of violations documented by government inspectors.

Failure to provide pain relief to sheep used in experiments that cause pain/distress.
Failure to ensure that personnel were trained to perform experiments on animals.
Failure to provide veterinary care and to observe animals daily.
Failure to properly ventilate housing facilities for dogs and cats.
Failure to house cats with adequate number of litter boxes and resting surfaces.
Failure to keep animal-housing facilities clean and in good order/resulting in injuries.
Failure to maintain comfortable temperatures in animal-housing facilities.
Failure to provide animals with sufficient space.

If you feed this food, you might want to go to the website I listed above and read about what you are feeding your dog and what the dogs have to go through in order for you to feed it. I feed BilJac.

Support the Animal Welfare Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193)

This is a continuation of the Final Farm Bill information.Representatives Steve Israel (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) have introduced the Animal Welfare Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193) to prohibit the use of animals for sales/marketing of medical devices and products, increase maximum penalties for animal research facilities, and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to submit an annual report to Congress regarding enforcement activities.


Harming Animals in Sales Demonstrations:The recent death of a dog following a sales demonstration at an Ohio medical center highlighted the fact that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not bar the use of live animals in sales demonstrations for products such as medical devices. The HSUS is calling on Congress to amend the AWA to prohibit the use of animals for mere sales pitches.


What happened at the Cleveland Clinic?An individual artificially created an aneurysm in the brain of an anesthetized dog in an attempt to demonstrate a medical device used to treat such aneurysms. The demonstration was for the benefit of salespeople from the device's manufacturer, about two-dozen of whom watched and at least some of whom participated in the hands-on exercise. According to news reports, the surgeon thought it would be “fun” for the sales representatives to use the device; the exercise had nothing to do with the advancement of medical science. The procedure was repeated several times on the dog, who was later killed. Why should the use of live animals in sales demonstrations be prohibited?


Many people have concerns about animal experimentation even when conducted for the most compelling medical purposes. However, in this case, a dog was operated on, manipulated repeatedly by non-medically trained salespeople, and later killed, all for marketing of a device and for the financial gain of a for-profit corporation. The Cleveland Clinic took swift action in the matter, and has stated that the exercise was not approved and it does not allow procedures with animals for the sole purpose of sales training. However, this is not a decision that should be left up to individual research facilities; this use of animals should be prohibited by law altogether. How many animals are used for sales demonstrations each year? While the exact number cannot be determined, the use of live animals in sales demonstrations is increasingly coming to light.


In the 1980’s, a company that sold surgical staples used over 1,000 dogs per year in sales demonstrations. The company eventually stopped but only after years of public pressure. How does H.R. 2193 solve the problem of the use of live animals in sales demonstrations? This legislation would specifically bar the use of live animals for demonstrations of medical devices or products for the purpose of marketing. This amendment will not prohibit the training of physicians as to how to use a device or product if the training is for purposes other than marketing a device or product.


Increased Penalties for Violations by Animal Research Facilities:The proposed amendments increase the current maximum penalty for research institutions under the AWA from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation. The maximum penalty has not changed since 1985. It would also require that penalties be calculated per animal affected per day per violation.