PET STORES MIGHT DISGUISE SAD ORIGIN OF CUTE POOCHES

How many of us have walked past a New York City pet store and stopped to look at the adorable puppies playing in the window? Have you ever wondered where they come from? If you have no idea, you are not alone.

According to a national survey conducted by Lake Research Partners on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, more than three-fourths of all adults nationwide do not know where the puppies in pet stores come from. However, most adults surveyed (80 percent) said they would not buy a puppy from a pet store if they knew the truth—most pet store puppies come from puppy mills.

Puppy mills are large-scale commercial breeding operations where the dogs live in filthy, overcrowded cages. They are often crammed in dark, poorly ventilated sheds where they are exposed to sweltering temperatures in the summer and below-freezing temperatures in the winter. In order to maximize profits, female dogs are bred at every opportunity with little to no recovery time between litters. When, after a few years, the females can no longer reproduce or when their breed goes out of “style,” the dogs are often abandoned, shot or starved until they eventually die.
Pet store owners will often deny that they get their puppies from puppy mills. Instead they will say their puppies all come from “USDA licensed breeders.” If you dig a little deeper into what this actually means, you’ll find the standards of care required by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are woefully inadequate and not what most of us would consider humane. Under current federal law, it is completely legal to keep dogs in tiny, wire-bottomed cages stacked on top of each other for their entire lives. The conditions we think of when we think of puppy mills are exactly the conditions found in most USDA licensed facilities. In fact, any breeder who has more than three breeding female dogs must be licensed by the USDA to sell puppies to pet stores or brokers. So, USDA licensure is actually a pretty good indicator that these breeders are, in fact, puppy mills.

Unfortunately, most consumers don’t realize that many puppies sold online also come from puppy mills. To buy a puppy online is just as bad as buying one in a pet shop, maybe even worse. Websites that let you buy a puppy online often claim to be responsible dog breeders and will usually ship a puppy directly to you. They even use fancy terms like “AKC registered,” “pedigree” and “health certified,” and include photos of cute, cuddly puppies for sale. But the only way to be sure that a puppy came from a reputable source is to see for yourself where he or she came from and meet the puppy’s parents, and buying online often does not allow for this opportunity.

Responsible breeders would never sell to someone they haven’t met, because they want to screen potential buyers to ensure the puppies are going to good homes. Responsible breeders are individuals who have focused their efforts on a select breed. Through breeding and ongoing study, they have become experts in the breed’s health, heritable conditions, temperament and behavior. They operate in an open, undisguised manner, allowing and even encouraging potential buyers to visit and tour their properties. A responsible breeder will show you the parents of the puppy, and if, for any reason, you can’t keep the dog, a responsible breeder will take it back.

If you are looking to make a puppy part of your family, check your local shelters and make adoption your first option. If you live in New York City, the ASPCA Adoption Center (424 E. 92nd St. between First and York avenues) has several dogs and puppies available for adoption that need loving homes. Not only will you be saving a life, but you will ensure that your money is not going to support a puppy mill. If you’re committed to a specific breed of dog and can’t find what you’re looking for at your local shelter, contact a rescue group for that breed.

The ASPCA’s No Pet Store Puppies campaign is aimed at educating consumers about puppy mills and putting an end to this inhumane industry. Please visit www.NoPetStorePuppies.com and sign our pledge not to shop at your local pet store for any items—including food, supplies or toys—if the store sells puppies. The ASPCA believes that consumer action is a critical element in the fight against puppy mills.

All pets, dog and cats alike, will enjoy toys and supplies purchased from puppy-free stores every bit as much as those purchased at stores selling puppies, so why not exercise your consumer power by only purchasing toys and other supplies at stores that do not support the puppy mill industry?
And please, make adoption your first option, or choose a responsible breeder.

Submitted by Cori Menkin, senior director, ASPCA Puppy Mills Campaign

Derby.

Derby
Derby, a 3-year-old Chihuahua mix, is up for adoption. He only has three legs, but this little tripod has no trouble keeping up, and he loves to play. He adores being with his favorite people and likes to curl up on available laps. Squeaky toys have a special place in Derby’s heart, and if you toss one, he will chase right after it. He may not be a retriever, but he will bring the toy back to you for another round of play. Cat owners should have no problem with Derby, because he’s lived with cats before. But he’s not a huge fan of other dogs, and needs some time to understand that you’re one of the good guys. Once he warms up to you, he’ll be your canine pal. Derby would be a perfect pet for a Chihuahua fan and would do best in a teens-and-up household. Derby is neutered and up-to-date on all vaccinations.

Buffy and Pearl.

Buffy and Pearl
Buffy and Pearl are 11-month-old feline beauties who would like nothing more than to find a loving home and spend all of their time together. These two are a bonded pair and love each other so much that they can’t bear to be split apart, so they must be adopted together. These lovely ladies are sensitive and shy, so they would appreciate respectful owners who don’t move too fast toward them. Once they sniff you out, they’ll let you know if they are comfortable being petted. Buffy and Pearl are Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) positive, but that shouldn’t prevent them from living long, healthy lives. They would do best with an experienced cat owner with children over the age of 10. Both Buffy and Pearl are spayed and up-to-date on all vaccinations.

With each of these pets, the ASPCA includes also includes a microchip and free follow-up vet exam.
To adopt Derby, Buffy and Pearl or any of the many other dogs and cats at the ASPCA, visit the shelter at 424 E. 92nd St., between York and First avenues. Shelter hours are Monday through Saturday, from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Visit www.adoptaspca.org or call 212-876-7700, ext. 4120, for additional information.

A stable attendant sweeps in front of a horse about to leave the stables

Will the Central Park horses finally be outlawed?

By Anam Baig and Sean Creamer

Central Park’s horse-drawn carriages have been a traditional New York City tourist attraction since the 1930s, but animal rights activists have been pushing for years to close the stables, free the horses and find them a home outside the Big Apple.

Three recent incidents involving the horses have resparked the debate and shed light again on the horses and the iconic tourist experience. March 3, a horse was spooked on the Upper West Side and took off, dragging a tipped carriage through heavy traffic. Last December, a horse collapsed near Grand Army Plaza at 59th Street while pulling a carriage holding three adults and a child, tossing them to the ground. In October, another horse, Charlie, died while pulling a carriage on the way to Central Park.

Those in favor of the horse carriages claim that the incidents are sporadic and don’t reflect the high standard used by the industry. The opponents claim that it’s just another day at work for the horses.

Two dueling events happened last weekend when the groups gathered to build momentum on their side as the debate rages. A slew of equestrians from all over the country gathered March 30 to attend ClipClopNYC, where the Horse-Carriage Association of New York welcomed members of the public to see behind the scenes of the industry. The event included tours of the stables, a meet-and-greet with veterinarians who work with the horses and an informational session at Central Park. The event touted the industry’s partnership with Blue Star Equiculture of Palmer, Mass., where retired horses go to live after serving on the streets of New York City.

To counter that event, the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, working with other animals rights groups, held an event of its own Sunday, April 1, to protest ClipClopNYC and expose the carriage industry’s practices.

But things weren’t always so black and white for horses in the park.

Frederick Law Olmstead’s original 1870s design of Central Park was meant for horse-drawn carriages both as a means of transport and recreation. Now that those times have passed, many people are vying for the carriages’ ban, citing that the horses are put under unnecessary strain, suffer subpar living conditions and lack roaming space.

Upper West Side Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal and Queens Senator Tony Avella introduced legislation last spring that would ban horse-drawn cabs in the city.

“These horses get easily spooked on city streets. Its not their natural habitat,” Rosenthal said. “It’s dangerous for them and the people in the carriage. My aim is to relieve the horses of work that they are forced to do, dragging hundred and hundred of pounds of carriage and people all day long.”

At the City Council level, legislation sponsored by Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito would ban the use of horse-drawn carriages in the park, allowing electric cars to take the place of the horses as a tourist attraction.

“We support any legislation that gets these horses out of harm’s way,” said Carly Marie Knudson, executive director of NYCLASS, a group that wants to end the use of carriage horses in the city.

Steven Malone, president of the New York Horse and Carriage association with his horse Paddy

“We think the City Council’s route has the advantage of offering an alternative that saves the horses while simultaneously creating new jobs and boosting revenue to the city through the vintage replica cars,” she said.

NYCLASS was founded by Manhattan Mini Storage and Edison ParkFast owner Steve Nislick and Ed Sayres, co-president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The ASPCA not only acts as the government watchdog for the carriage industry, it donated $250,000 to NYCLASS to support their electric car cause.

Animal rights activists such as NYCLASS, The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages, Friends of Animals, the ASPCA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claim that the horse-carriage industry is equine abuse in its worst form.

But those who are a part of the carriage industry say otherwise. Carriage drivers interviewed for this story were adamant that there is no animal abuse. They claim that PETA and the ASPCA, among others, have stalked carriage drivers at the park and stables with video cameras, looking for instances of abuse. But, according to the drivers, they’ve left empty-handed every time.

Conor McHugh, a carriage driver of 26 years, said protesters of the industry have yelled at customers and at times thrown water or spit on them for taking a ride.

“It’s shameful to the city that allows it—that the customers, tourists of this city, get spat on by people because they decide to take a horse and buggy ride,” McHugh said.

In order to become a driver, applicants must go through oral and multiple-choice exams proctored by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which licenses New York City’s horse carriages. After they get their license, newly established drivers take a test run with an experienced driver for a week to ensure they pick up the skills needed to successfully and safely operate a horse.

New horses from the Pennsylvania stables in Amish country are tested for their ability to work the busy Central Park streets. If the horses do not become accustomed to the incessant traffic noise, bustling crowds and gawking tourists, they are sent back.

“Maybe sometimes they get used to it, but they can get spooked,” said Edita Birnkrant from Friends of Animals, a group that proposes banning animals in the park. “They have an innate instinct. Nothing can change that. There will be times when the horse will startle, and then you have 2,000 pounds of wild animal running out of control in a metropolitan hub.”

The horse-drawn carriage industry has faced scrutiny before. In 1988, when three horses died during a heat wave, the City Council enacted a New York City Administrative Code that regulated carriage horse operation, required licensure of the horse, carriage and driver, and established standards for horse treatment and a horse health advisory board to make recommendations to the commissioner of health.

Since then, the Code has seen many amendments focused on improving the quality of life and well-being of New York City’s carriages horses.
The horses are kept in four stables on the Upper West Side, an area that has been undergoing renovations over the past 10 years, according to Steven Malone, president of the New York Horse and Carriage Association, which represents the city’s 68 carriages, 293 certified drivers and 220 privately owned horses. The stable on 52nd Street has three levels that are connected by ramps, another facet that activists say is dangerous for the horses.
The bottom level holds the carriages. Above them, the horses live in individual stables. The horses have constant access to water and food and their bedding is changed three times a day, according to various drivers who, like McHugh, keep their horses at the stable.

McHugh stood against a backdrop of stable workers cleaning out the empty stables of the horses that had left for work earlier in the morning and explained that if NYCLASS or Friends of Animals get their way, these men would lose their jobs.

“We have people in this business who inherited it from their fathers in the 1950s,” said McHugh. “That’s a long, continuous connection, and someone like the assemblywoman just proposes that we be banned? It just seems so draconian.”

Horses are supposed to work every other day and only for nine hours at a time, giving them the chance to rest after a day of lugging carriages and tourists around from the day before, a result of previous legislature to ensure the horses are treated fairly. ASPCA veterinarians examine them twice a year.

Last year, the ASPCA did an intensive study of the horses for 281 days and found no instances of abuse, according to McHugh.

“The horses have to be groomed and presented everyday. We present them everyday on Fifth Avenue,” said McHugh. “Inspection does not go on behind closed doors.”

But activists say that the abuse exists in the fact that the horses must endure the conditions of the city. Janet Restino, an artist who lives near the stables on the UWS, agrees with this sentiment.

“I don’t think it is a particularly great idea to have horses on the street during traffic and rush hour,” Restino said.

Ivanna Fairweather, a Harlem resident who was walking in Central Park on a recent bright, sunny day, said she’s in favor of a ban.

“We have so many other forms of transportation, why do we need horses? People just want to say, ‘Oh, I took a horse ride in Central Park.’ But those pretentious people don’t know that taking a walk in Central Park is so much better,” she said. “New York is a place to walk; it’s a walking city. We don’t need horses to take us places. I mean, $50 for 20 minutes? What? Are they crazy?”

Most elected officials and animal rights advocates agree that New York City’s public shelter system is desperately in need of reform. Shelters are grossly overcrowded and understaffed, the city spends only 10 percent of the Humane Society’s recommended $8 per capita on its animal care, and an average of 54 animals are euthanized every day. What politicians and advocates cannot agree on, however, is how to fix this broken system.

City Council is expected to vote this week on Intro Bill 655, sponsored by Speaker Christine Quinn and Upper East Side Council Member Jessica Lappin and supported by the mayor and a cadre of prominent groups like the ASPCA, the Humane Society and the Mayor’s Alliance for Animals. Council Member Dan Garodnick is also one of the bill’s 15 sponsors.

The bill would infuse Animal Care and Control (ACC), a division of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, with a $10 million budget bump to fund expanded hours and staff at existing shelters and receiving centers, create a field service division and regulations for Trap-Neuter-Return programs. It would also repeal a law passed in 2000 that requires the ACC to build and maintain a full-service shelter in every borough, a requirement the city never fulfilled, and would negate the city’s obligation to operate shelters in Queens and the Bronx, where there are currently no city-run shelters.

Because of this provision, some animal rights organizations are crying foul on behalf of their four-legged charges, claiming that City Council is trying to abrogate its responsibility by throwing cash at a broken system. They are supporting an alternate plan put forth by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer—a viable rival of Quinn’s for the 2013 mayor’s race—that would spin off the ACC into a quasi-independent not-for-profit organization, much like the Central Park Conservancy.

“We are currently in an emergency situation,” said Lappin. “If we can get this money now, if we can hire staff for this now, let’s do it. That does not mean that we can’t get more in the future.” She is pushing hard to get the bill passed on the basis that she’d rather take whatever resources the city can offer and put them into the system now than wait to perfect it. “I do think we would like to find a way to reform the system. We are looking at ways to do that,” she said. “That’s not what this bill is focused on—it’s about improving service and putting more money into our ACC system.”

Opponents have seized on just that fact, alleging that putting more money into ACC is exactly the wrong prescription to fix an ailing shelter system that can barely handle the animals it takes in.

“There are inhumane conditions. There are healthy animals being put down, animals sleeping in their own waste,” said Stringer. “We have members of the board who have absolutely no experience in fundraising and no experience in animal control. It’s a disgrace.”

“My view is that New York City can become a national leader in humane animal care through sensible reform. The root of the problem is that ACC lacks the funding and expertise to live up to its name,” Stringer said. He has put forward a proposal to take the ACC out of city control and require the city to comply with the existing laws mandating a full-service shelter in every borough.

So far, a petition supporting Stringer’s plan has garnered 8,165 signatures and the backing of many animal welfare groups, like Stray from the Heart, the nonprofit that sued the city for its breach of the shelter law, claiming they incurred financial injury as a result of picking up the city’s slack. The court originally agreed and ordered the city to set up a timetable to build additional shelters, but the city appealed on the grounds that Stray from the Heart had no standing on which to sue, and won. In a rare move, the appellate court ruled in favor of a motion from Stray from the Heart to reconsider the appeal based on legal errors in the interpretation of standing.

Toni Bodon, executive director and founder of Stray from the Heart, has worked on the lawsuit for three years. She is confident that their case will ultimately triumph in the court system and is dismayed that it may be voided by the passage of Intro 655.

“They’re running scared, so now they’ve fast-tracked the bill,” said Bodon. “Let the court of appeals decide this very important decision.” She said they had already won on the merits of the case, and that all the city had to fall back on were technicalities. “They called minivans that are parked in depressed neighborhoods receiving centers,” she said. “We said no, and the judge agreed.”

Assembly Member Micah Kellner, who has sponsored state legislation that would set minimum standards of care for shelters, said the Department of Health should be taken out of the equation entirely.

“Over the last decade, you’ve seen the private sector step up to the plate when it comes to saving animals,” said Kellner. For example, “There’s the ASPCA, which has provided free and low-cost spaying and neuters for people’s pets, particularly ones coming from rescue groups. So you’ve had all of this private investment in saving animals’ lives so we can have a no-kill city—all you’ve seen is the city under the Bloomberg administration take a step back.”

Fellow Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal, who also has a legislative history of working to protect animals, has been urging City Council to vote no on Intro 655 and supports Stringer’s alternative.

“This current bill to put more money into ACC, while it’s commendable,” said Rosenthal, “doesn’t address some of the essential problems of homeless dogs and cats out there.”

Some of those problems include a lack of capacity and high rates of euthanization at shelters. Richard Gentles, director of development and communications at ACC, said they will euthanize sick animals at the requests of owners, if they have severe behavior problems and can’t be placed in adoptive homes and for simple illnesses they can’t afford to let spread.

“Our isolation wards are very limited,” said Gentles, an animal lover who is about to add a rabbit to his roster of adopted pets that at one point included goats. “We don’t have a lot of extra space for animals, so if they’re sick and contagious,” even with just an upper respiratory infection like a cold, “they’ll have to be put down.”

Rosenthal said the problem of space is her main objection to any bill that allows the city to get out of building new shelters.

“This might increase the number of staff people,” said Rosenthal. “[But] there will be no room. This is sentencing thousands of animals to death by not following up with building new shelters.”

With major support from the council, Intro 655 is likely to pass this week.

“In reality, if the mayor and the speaker support this, the only thing we can do is wait for a new mayor and speaker,” said Queens Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., whose father passed the original bill to mandate the shelters.

“The bill does good things, I’m aware of that, but there’s not reason to let the city out of its legal responsibility to build a shelter in Queens and the Bronx,” Vallone said.

Lappin and other groups supportive of the measure say they’re doing the best they can and would prefer not to let animals languish in shelters for lack of staff and funding while the city fights over how to restructure the ACC.

“There are people who would say, ‘Until we completely dismantle it and start from scratch, it’s not worth it,’” said Lappin. “I don’t agree with that.”

A recent visit to the Manhattan shelter showed the ACC doing its best with scant resources. Volunteers and staff members worked to clean the cages of the hundreds of dogs, cats, rabbits and other miscellaneous abandoned pets—recently, a pigeon and a pig—but many sit in small cages with their own waste precariously close to their food, waiting. What the ACC needs more of, said Gentles, are adopters, volunteers and money.

“We need to supplement our contract money from the city,” said Gentles, noting that the ACC is able to raise its own funds as a nonprofit but still relies heavily on the city, which appoints its board. He couldn’t say whether Intro 655 or an alternate plan would best serve ACC at the moment. “We’re all wanting to do the same thing, to help the animals,” he said, voice raised slightly above the din of howling pit bulls in cages a few yards away.

The ASPCA reaffirmed its offer to find homes for 22 carriage horses after the city closed Shamrock Stables, on West 45th Street. The property will be used to build a new residential development and expand a nearby school. The stable owners, however, declined the offer.

“An offer was made to the Shamrock Stables, who were saying that if they were to be evicted, they didn’t know where the horses would go, but they did not accept that offer,” said Melissa Norden, chief of staff for the ASPCA. “We’re waiting for information, but as of now we’re unsure of the location of the horses.”

So far, 16 of the 22 horses were relocated to other stables in the city, according to the New York Times. The other six were trucked to the Shamrock Stables owner Ian McKeever’s farm in Pennsylvania.

They appreciate it and talk about day camp, allergies, Saturday’s visit to the Bronx Zoo, who’s good at math and who was so funny at the pediatrician yesterday.

My experience as an uncle seven times over has taught me how to talk to parents about their kids, yet I am surprised how poorly people engage my partner Bryan and me about our 6-year-old dog, Ezra Pound. I’m not saying dogs are exactly like children, but the U.S. dog population recently hit 72 million, and that’s about the same number as kids under 18.

Ezra Pound: most definitely not named after the poet.

Here’s how to score points with a dog owner and be on the right side of the numbers:

1. Ask about the name. Just as kids are named after someone, Ezra Pound, too, has a backstory. People assume it’s after the famous poet, which upsets my mother who knows him as insanely anti-Semitic. But “Ezra” comes from the founder of Cornell, where Bryan and I (and both our families) went to school. “Pound” reminds us he was adopted.

2. Yes, he’s adopted. We got Ezra when he was eight weeks old from the ASPCA on the Upper East Side. The affinity test they made him take made us feel like he “chose” us. With so many desperately needing a home, we do frown on breeding, though we would never say it to your face.

3. Race is an acceptable topic. For years, we thought Ezra was a mix of pit bull and labrador and even had to balk on an opportunity to move to London because of that city’s Dangerous Dog Act. But when we genetically tested him (what gay people with cash do), we learned Ezra that is actually chow, rottweiler and greyhound. Just don’t use the word “mutt.”

4. Compare routines. Like any kid’s dance, sports and tutor schedules, Ezra has a full plate too. Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays he attends a top-rated doggie day care (private) in Chelsea. Tuesdays and Thursdays, his walker, Michael, takes him to the dog run off the West Side Highway. There was competitive tension between Michael and day care, but they’ve all learned to work as a team.

5. Eyes in back of our heads. You look away a minute, and they found a chicken bone in the gutter. We’re just lucky that other than avoiding chocolates and stepping on glass, Ezra doesn’t have nut allergies or buy into trends like raw meat. Bones are an expense, but it’s better than chewing Bryan’s sneakers.

6. Flatter him, flatter me. Natural or adopted, we all see our young as reflections of ourselves. Ezra has a gorgeous black coat, strong body, soulful eyes and is often mistaken for a puppy. People think I’m fairly immature too.

7. Forget about birthday parties. It’s sweet if you remember his birthday, but you wouldn’t want to attend Ezra’s party. The food’s inedible, and it involves a 20-minute struggle to get the hat on.

8. Discuss major minor rights. Your child benefits from thousands of protective laws. Ezra is technically Bryan’s property, which means in a bad situation, Michael Vick has as many rights as I do. Worse, in 46 states, we’re not even technically married, which makes Ezra kind of a bastard.

9. Ask about his poo. If you just flinched, you probably have forgotten your baby’s first weeks. Ezra’s bathroom activities affect his behavior. Loyal, he seems to not go with his dog walker but save it for walks with me.

10. Are we having kids? Read above.

–
Mat Zucker is a creative director in advertising who lives in Chelsea with his partner Bryan and their 7-year-old dog, Ezra Pound.

“I think you’re better off putting $50 in a bank account with your pet’s name on it,” said Natasha Cotter, office manger for East Side Veterinarian Dr. Patrick Cotter.

Based on her experience, she has found that insurers typically pay about 50 percent, “and you have to really work for it to get that reimbursement.”

ConsumersReports.org also says that putting the equivalent of the insurance premiums in a savings account is a better idea over your pet’s lifetime. And the odds that your pet is going to need some incredibly expensive treatment are small.
But Dr. Mike Marder of Westside Veterinary Group disagrees.

“I used to advise clients to self-insure,”—essentially setting aside money in a savings account for pet health care—“but now $3,000 to $4,000 for a sick pet is not unusual, so insurance is a definite help,” he said.

Still, insurance companies only reimburse a percentage of what they consider reasonable costs—and New York City tends to have its own definition of “reasonable.”

“Insurance usually pays 80 percent of their schedule of legitimate costs,” Marder said. “A basic exam in New York City is $80 to $100. In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, it may be $35 to $50. If the insurance company establishes $50 as the cost of a basic exam and pays 80 percent of $50, that’s just $40. But if the exam cost $100, the client still has to pay $60.”

Currently, only about 5 percent of pets in this country are insured, estimates Dr. Robin Brennen, vice president of program operations and chief of veterinary services for Bide-A-Wee.

“Pet insurance is a growing industry, though, and increasingly offers more options to owners,” Brennen said. “There used to be just two or three companies for people to choose from; now there are 20 to 30 options.”

With the economic downturn, middle- and lower-income pet owners, especially, may not have a lot of disposable income, so insurance may help them make better decisions for their pets, Brennen explained. Owners of adopted or shelter animals also may want to make sure they have coverage for a previously existing condition.
“Their pets may have diseases that weren’t apparent or uncovered at the time of their adoption,” Brennen said.

Another non-insurance option is called Care Credit, a short-term health care credit card with a line of credit you can apply for and get on the spot. Bide-A-Wee does not recommend any particular plan, and Brennen advises pet owners do research to figure out what makes the most sense for their individual needs.

I went prowling online to compare insurance packages. PetsBest.com offered a real range of plans with optional wellness coverage (like cleaning your pet’s teeth).
Although there was a $75 deductible for illness and accidents, after which they paid 80 percent of the vet’s actual bill, there was no deductible for wellness care; teeth cleanings were reimbursed a flat $100, with an annual limit of $505 for “Wellness Care.”

Another website, Petcareinsurance.com, also offered a wide range of plans and optional routine care coverage, but their annual cap for Wellness Care was $105.

The ASPCA also offers plans, including optional Wellness Care. The deductible for illness or accident is $100, but it’s a one-time deductible, not per illness or accident.
The details and exact benefits and limitations of all insurers vary, so you really have to burrow in there to find out which one is best for you.

Dr. Stephen L. Zawistowski co-wrote a history of the ASPCA, which was started in New York, with Marion S. Lane.

This is not a book for a reader who wants a simple mind rinse, or a way to take Valium through the eyes. But if you’re at all interested in animal welfare and animal rights, this is a book for you. It’s an intelligent, interesting story about a major organization in New York (and America) whose history is intimately involved with the history of New York City. But it’s never pedantic or preachy. It’s surprising how much the ASPCA is involved in humane issues that go far beyond the Hudson River.
Zawistowski, who is executive vice president and science advisor for the ASPCA, recently sat down to talk about the book. The following transcript has been edited.

Q. Why did you think this book should be written?
A. I think most people, people in New York City especially, don’t understand what the ASPCA is or does. They think it only does animal control work and is a branch of the city government. I wanted people to know that the ASPCA is really a cultural institution, like the Metropolitan Museum, in terms of its impact on our culture and how we treat animals. Caring about animals didn’t just start in 1960. Our history goes back to 1860.

Q. What do you think readers would find most surprising about your book?
A. That the ASPCA wasn’t founded to run shelters, but for a much broader mission: concern for humane slaughter and the transportation of livestock. In its earliest day, the ASPCA was primarily concerned with the treatment of horses. But Henry Bergh also created the child protection movement. He was concerned with the mistreatment of all of those who couldn’t defend themselves.
Also, the ASPCA was the first to call for professional standards for veterinary care and to operate a hospital to care for the animals of rich and poor alike. During the Depression, when many people couldn’t afford to get medical care for themselves, the ASPCA made it possible for them to care for their pets.

Q. Are you surprised that the ASPCA is still fighting some of the same animal abuse problems and having some of the same problems getting anti-cruelty legislation passed?
A. No. People haven’t changed much in hundreds of years in terms of human behavior. It wasn’t until the 17th century that philosophers began to believe that animals could suffer. Before that, they were thought of as no more than machines. But the success of Animal Planet and Animal Precinct shows that people have a great interest in animal welfare.
Most states have anti-cruelty legislation—classifying such crimes as felonies—but they were initially on the books to protect livestock and other animals of value. There is still a segment of society that believes that caring about animals demeans caring about humans, as if there were a limited amount of caring in the world.

Q. The public has been very aware of the Michael Vick case. But do they know about the role of the ASPCA in that case?
A. We were intimately involved in the prosecution of the case. But until it was settled, we couldn’t talk about it. The bottom line is that of the 50 dogs rescued, 49 were moved to sanctuaries where many were retrained to make them adoptable.