Worst In Show
By Mitch Berg
I’m going to do the world a huge public service.
Lawn product dealers! Menards, Lowe’s, Home Depot! It’d be good marketing to prevent your products from killing your customers’ dogs!
Please see to this.
There. This way, everyone’s happy. And this way, the government doesn’t have to waste time noodling about debating warning signs for dogs instead of figuring out how to fix the mess caused by the Legislature’s 10 year orgy of spending:
A bill that would require retailers to post notices that cocoa bean mulch can be dangerous to pets brought howls of indignation about overweening government and stories about the time Fido or Felix got sick from eating the wrong thing.The problem: Dogs can get sick from eating cocoa bean shells, which are growing in popularity as a landscaping mulch.
Dogs and chocolate. Hello?
More regulation? It’s a DFL thing:
A constituent of Minneapolis DFLer Frank Hornstein came to him this year after the death of the family Labrador retriever. Hornstein offered legislation on the House floor Tuesday directing retailers to put up a sign indicating that cocoa bean shell mulch could be hazardous to pets if eaten.
Now, there may be bigger threats to democracy than masses of dog fanciers.
But there are few as humorless:
Fangs started to show when Delano Republican Tom Emmer wondered what language the signs would be written in. Told by Hornstein, whose family dog is a Cockapoo, that the signs would be in English, Emmer scoffed: “I’m very concerned because I don’t believe the dog can read that,” he said.
Emmer should expect to be picketed by hordes of irate people with Ploobradors and JackShihtzus carrying signs wedged into their little harnesses.
And by the way – these new breeds of dogs that are popping up? Hello, people – opportunity! There is no rational reason a Labrador/Poodle cross should not be a Ploobrador; if there is not a Jack Russell/Shihtzu cross, then the terrorists have won.
Anyway – keep the cocoa bean mulch away from the dogs. And next chance you get, keep the DFL away from office.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Mitch, you missed the obvious. Dogs represent the next voting block Dems are placating. With ACORN’s help, there will be plenty of Fido’s on the voter registration list.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Dogs can’t read. At least, that’s what the dog that keeps flauting the “bans guns on these premises” sign at my office told me (he carries a Ruger because it’s the easiest for him to pronounce).
Next I suppose they’re going to ban dogs smoking while playing cards, and I hate to think what this is going to mean to the seat-belt laws. As for having to be 21 to drink legally, will we have a ruling on whether that’s in dog years?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
he carries a Ruger because it’s the easiest for him to pronounce
That’s just plain awesome, right there. If you came up with that, kudos to you. If you borrowed it from elsewhere, kudos to them.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ruger: Hah!
And, Dog Gone, I should clarify; when I refer to humorlessness, I’m referring to the types of dog people that you and I both know, the crowd parodied in “Best In Show”. And I know you’re with me on that one…
May 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Yoss, I’m only quoting the dog, who wishes to remain anonymous (though I can assure you his name is not “Spotty”). He’s a German Shepherd and has had his eye on a Heckler & Koch USP Compact. I told him that when he’s got the money I’d be happy to go along with him and help out so that he won’t have to sound as if he’s coughing up a hairball.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Ahhhh, speaking of nuts:
“… Peanut. Hazelnut. Cashew nut. Macadamia nut.” That was the one that would send her into going crazy. She’d say, “Would you stop naming nuts!” And Hubert used to be able to make the sound, he couldn’t talk, but he’d go “rrrawr rrawr” and that sounded like Macadamia nut. Pine nut, which is a nut, but it’s also the name of a town. Pistachio nut. Red pistachio nut. Natural, all natural white pistachio nut…”.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Gun nuts?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Night,
A dog could say “Koch”, I think, but for “Heckler” you’d need to retain a parrot.
For cats, I think “Mauser” is the only option.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Next thing you know, we’ll all have signs hanging on our asses lest AssClown & Son get a bad allergic reaction from the peanuts they might encounter on the job.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Crows? Kahr, of course!
May 7th, 2009 at 6:50 am
As expected, Mitch, you neglected to mention the Republicans who extended the discussion, making it even longer. Read the whole article from the original source next time.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:42 am
uncledavid said:
“the Republicans who extended the discussion, making it even longer”
Rightly so. They should underscore the stupidity of folks who think this is important legislative business.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Mitch Berg Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ruger: Hah!
“And, Dog Gone, I should clarify; when I refer to humorlessness, I’m referring to the types of dog people that you and I both know, the crowd parodied in “Best In Show”. And I know you’re with me on that one… ”
Yes, Mitch, 100% in agreement. Being me, of course the first thing that came to mind was the amount of theobromine that is toxic – that, along with a smaller amount of caffeine, is what is dangerous in chocolate. And oh-dear-god-in-heaven, do I agree that Best in Show was funny. Having come away from the Westminster show with a prestigious Award of Merit won by one of my dogs (the show parodied in the movie Best in Show), OH yeah, the movie nailed it. I KNOW some of those people.
My two cents – it probably IS a good idea for the distributing retailers to put up signage, given the recent popularity of the product. But the real location where warnings like this are important is on the packaging itself. There are so many things that are potentially as toxic, or more so, from anti-freeze to grapes and raisins, house plants, etc. that it can be a real chore for even the most conscientious owner to keep adequately informed. Given the potential costs involved for the owner in treating this kind of poisoning – it may not be the most important legislation in the world, but neither is it all that stupid or trivial either.
I have teamed up with a number of other breeders; we cover for each other as a resource on call for the buyers of purebred dogs we have bred. I can’t tell you the number of calls I’ve taken at all hours from the owners of dogs in distress. We provide everything from advice on canine first aid to expediting their use of emergency veterinary care. On a serious note, it is an exceedingly tragic thing for dog and owner when their dog is having seizures. So, thanks for the laugh, but in a way this is also a bit of a public service announcement too.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Dog Gone said:
“it can be a real chore for even the most conscientious owner to keep adequately informed”
Dog ownership may involve chores on the part of owners. Got it.
“it may not be the most important legislation in the world, but neither is it all that stupid or trivial either”
No, it really is stupid and trivial. Making the world safe for people who can’t find the wherewithal to “do their chores” is not a set of tasks I want my government to take on.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Troy Says:
May 7th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Dog Gone said:
“it can be a real chore for even the most conscientious owner to keep adequately informed”
Dog ownership may involve chores on the part of owners. Got it.>>
Troy there is an enormous amount of misinformation that circulates. Like spraying your dog’s bed with Febreeze will kill your dog is a perrenial bit of misinformation. Even veterinarians can have a hard time keeping up with the topic, particularly given some breed specific reactions. This easily can go beyond ‘normal chores’.
>
Actually, requiring effective labelling about toxins IS a job I want my government to perform. It is precisely the kind of job that government SHOULD do. And if you think that is trivial, I suggest you research the billions of $ spent in the care and maintenance of pets in the US; it is in the billions. That kinda $ takes it out of the category of trivial, IMHO.
Mitch says:
“And by the way – these new breeds of dogs that are popping up? Hello, people – opportunity! There is no rational reason a Labrador/Poodle cross should not be a Ploobrador; if there is not a Jack Russell/Shihtzu cross, then the terrorists have won.”
Humor aside, if I might interject a serious observation about dog breeds and mutts: having a cutsie-poo name doesn’t make a breed. REAL dog breeds are created for specific purposes; are the result of careful selection; breed true over many many generations; and conform to a recognized breed standard which specifies a variety of requirements, such as size, structure, movement, temperament, and often working ability. A cocka-poo is a mutt, usually a drastically over-priced MUTT. The REAL labradoodle, in comparison, is the result of over twenty years of careful breeding and health testing by a veterinarian in Australia, which resulted in a superior service dog for blind people that dramatically improved on the shedding and allergy problems associated with labradors and GSDs.
In creating a new breed, this veterinarian not only improved on the working ability, but made drastic improvements in elminating health problems that were common in one or both breeds, like dysplasia.
I cringe every time I hear of a person who paid outrageous amounts of $ for a dog that is just a poodle x lab mutt, thinking they have acquired an actual ‘labradoodle’ that has none of the improved qualities of a genuine labradoodle. Or the fools who pay outrageous amounts of $ for novelty ‘breeds’ that are novel, but not… breeds. That is what I consider an instance of people being stupid that should not involve government intervention. Caveat emptor! not all dogs are created equal. Best advice I ever learned – You can fall in love with a good one as easily as a bad one.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Dog Gone said:
“Actually, requiring effective labelling about toxins IS a job I want my government to perform. It is precisely the kind of job that government SHOULD do.”
For dogs. Because you’re a dog person. I could not disagree more strongly.
How about parakeets? Should they take that on too, or is that unimportant? How many other species in the animal world should the government force others to protect?
May 7th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Dog Gone said:
“And if you think that is trivial, I suggest you research the billions of $ spent in the care and maintenance of pets in the US; it is in the billions. That kinda $ takes it out of the category of trivial, IMHO.”
The video game market is also big. It is also trivial.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Troy says:
“For dogs. Because you’re a dog person. I could not disagree more strongly.
How about parakeets? Should they take that on too, or is that unimportant? How many other species in the animal world should the government force others to protect? ”
No, I am not taking this position because I am a dog person. I am taking htis position because where the contents or qualities of a product are potentially dangerous when used as intended by a homeowner or other probably user, I think it is proper for that information to be on the label.
Buyers have a reasonable expectation of being informed about potential hazards when they are spending their money on a product. I don’t know about parakeets; how many people let their budgies wander around outside? None, for very long. However, it would be reasonable if people who spend a lot of money cultivating birds in their yard, with bird houses, bird feeders, etc., expected to be informed if a yard product would be fatal to those wild birds.
This is not about expecting the government to be your nanny, it is about the reasonable expectation that you are able to make an intelligent and informed choice about your life and specifically your home. I would agree with you if the move was to BAN the stuff, but LABEL a product adequately? That’s a fair thing to require a company to do.
Troy also mentions the video game market, and that it is trivial. That it is trivial I agree with you. But isn’t it true that the video game manufacturers are required to identify their games by age and other appropriateness? Not ban the games, but to make it possible for purchasers to exercise their own judgement in an informed manner. Same idea.
Perhaps Troy you are unaware of the other areas of consumer law related specifically to pets? I’d be happy to elaborate, having been interviewed on television, radio, in national magazines, and major newspapers on the topic.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Actually, Dog Gone, I am simply tired of my representatives fixating on what are (IMHO) relative non-problems. I understand that you think it is really important, and that forcing people to slap helpful labels on stuff costs nothing, but I disagree.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Troy says:
“Actually, Dog Gone, I am simply tired of my representatives fixating on what are (IMHO) relative non-problems.”
I would certainly agree with you that it is not THE most important issue Troy.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:24 am
By creating a requirement for labelling you then have to have a standard that all producers must follow. Things like print size, location on packaging and at point of sale (since no one reads a mulch label), color, regulatory approval and finally enforcement all start to come into play. So what starts out a simple good idea morfs into a buracratic hassle that consumes far more time and productivity than the actual cost of the danger. Then overtime it becomes easier for the goverment to add more labelling requirements and it just snow balls all to protect a tiny few.
Dog I gather from your posting you breed and sell dogs do you provide a complete list of all the common household items that are harmful to dogs? Do you support a goverment requirement that you do so with enforcement and penalties. Perhaps overtime it becomes obvious that most pet purchasers do not read the document provided should the goverment then force you to have the purchaser sign papers to signify they got the information and understand it (ref lead warnings when you buy a house). Should this requirement be extended to all pet types and peddlers? When does this cycle stop, when we have owner licensing which requires classes and goverment certification.