.

Above: PFW Lifestyle Award Winner 2010

So when someone asked me about Pet Fashion Week, I realized that I dismissed it again this year.

Probably because I don’t particularly care for it.

Then I saw the headline, Pet Fashion Weak and thought perhaps I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.

The headline made me laugh but also made me want to ask, Do you find pet fashion dignified or disgusting ?

I first mentioned Pet Fashion Week here on the blog in 2007 but the problem was that by 2008, Pet Fashion Week still wasn’t a week but only a couple of days and there were a lot of other things about it that disturbed me beyond the misleading moniker.

Perhaps I am not a pet fashonista partially because I’ve lived most of my life in animal friendly uniforms.

You know, the safari garb or jeans type of gal who wears sensible shoes and shirts that make it easier to wash away dirt, drool and other substances that come along with living and working with critters.

I started my career with things that could kill you with the swipe of a paw or the flick of a trunk–so that upbringing has kept me aware of just who and what animals are and those relationships are dependent on a solid, sensible view–otherwise you might end up maimed or dead.

But my theory behind the trend of pet fashions?

We’ve lost our minds.

Seriously, we just get further and further away from appreciating animals for who and what they are.

We seek to connect but do a terrible job of it and then subject them to all kinds of odd things.

Even pet behavior problems are on the rise.

Problems I used to only see in my more affluent client cases are today common within the general population as well.

It seems that people have ideas about who and what animals are but seem to miss the very essence of their beings.

Now I’ve been in the pet industry a while and have seen a lot of changes.

I’ve seen the specialty products increase, matching human and pet wear fashion set emerge, and then the rise of higher end pet fashions.

Now some pets enjoy being fussed over and dolled up but many do not.

What disturbs me is that many pets are being treated more like toys and accessories instead of living creatures from a fascinating array of animal cultures.

These pet lifestyle industry trends were discussed at length in One Nation Under Dog.

What rang true was that the theory that the author posed, “In an atomized era, the growing amount of time and money we collectively spend on pets is an indication of how much we thirst for community, leaning on animals for support once provided by other humans. And the specifics of how we treat those pets no longer just reflect what we think is appropriate for animals. From the popularity of pet antidepressants to the rise of pet-custody divorce settlements, the way people interact with their pets says a great deal about two-legged society.”

So basically, it isn’t about them–its about us.

Wow, what a surprise.

But I still have the same question, is Pet Fashion Week dignified or disgusting? Let me know how you feel in the comments.

What is up with the Moonridge Zoo?

The Ark Animals blog has recently been taking questions from subscribers and Mike, a fellow resident of Big Bear, wrote in to ask about the small zoo here which began as a wildlife rehabilitation facility back in the 1950s.

In the late 1980s I got involved with the original group members who formed the “Friends of the Moonridge Zoo.”

Our goal was to get security install within the facility after several of the Bald Eagles housed there were slaughtered by those wanting their feathers.

Since that time I have pulled my involvement from most agencies or organizations for personal reasons.

As it was then and as it is now, the Moonridge Zoo aka Moonridge Animal Park aka Big Bear Zoo remains under the management by the municipal park district.

There have been years of delay in moving this zoo to a new location and very poor fundraising efforts–so that the money needed for the zoo’s relocation has not been raised.

In addition, the previous location selected for consideration required the cooperation of multiple governmental agencies in conjunction with multiple assessments, studies and reports.

Needless to say, progress has been dismal–if not non-existent.

The county supervisor had this to say,

“It is not uncommon for projects of significant size and scope to get bogged down in bureaucratic channels for a variety of reasons….

One such project was the relocation of the Moonridge Zoo. For nearly a decade, this project had been in various stages of discussion and implementation with action in earnest occurring over the last five years. Things had deteriorated to the extent that state funding sources would be lost if we did not act quickly and secure an achievable plan to relocate this gem of the mountain.

While there was much discussion and urging to relocate the zoo near the Big Bear Discovery Center, there were numerous hurdles and obstacles impeding this path. Completing the infrastructure toward providing municipal water to this site was estimated at more than $1 million. The topography would have required approximately $3 million in grading, and that was even if we could appease regulatory concerns pertaining to existing or potential Native American cultural sites and other sensitive features of historical significance.

The county pursued this path for a good three years and submitted three proposals to the U.S. Forest Service. It became clear that all concerns and obstacles might never be satisfactorily mitigated when the county was asked to submit a fourth proposal and thus we sought to look for an alternative site.

Additionally, relocating to this area would necessitate a name change and after many years of existence, there were significant concerns that such a change might destroy the intrinsic value of this name and undermine years of marketing…

It must also be noted that an additional sense of urgency arose when the owners of the land upon which the zoo now sits, upped their financial demands from a nominal payment of $1 a year to $5,000 a month….

The whole relocation project has been a saga–but I’ll keep my mouth shut for now.

Last I heard, the paperwork needs to be filed for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to develop the land for the animal park, state environmental requirements have to be met for biological, cultural, noise, traffic and lighting.

One of the main concerns is that the area is in a flood zone adjacent to Rathbun Creek, which runs through the property.

The flood zone map indicates that more than two-thirds of the property is in that zone–not exactly a good location if truth be told.

Since the property is within the Big Bear Lake city limits, the park district and county will need to adhere to regulations for pollution elimination discharge and the clean water act and probably loads of other regulations.

At the moment, I’ve heard that nothing can be done until escrow closes.

Then the wait will begin.

So, as far as I can tell there won’t be any fast progress with things as they stand.

Wild horse roundups are something that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does regularly and this year it was a disaster.

Karen (one of my subscribers) wrote in asking my opinion about the horse round ups–and I have to say that like most government management efforts—things have to change.

Where I live, the Bureau of Land Management rounds up the burros from public land and puts them up for adoption.

Like most other federal management agencies, it is a reactionary form of management and one that is archaic and fraught with poor management and planning.

In the news, critics have spouted that roundups are the first choice in managing the wild equine populations.

I’ve also read that there more wild horses now exist in captivity (they have an adoption program) than on the millions of public acres that should support them–and something is seriously wrong with that.

What most people don’t know is that a lot of land is rented out for grazing cattle and other uses.

If the land is sustaining a wild population of horses it means that they are probably doing okay–but they do compete with grazing cattle and a lot of folks don’t like that.

In early February, news teams in Las Vegas, Nevada had this to say:

The Black Rock Desert and surrounding range is stark and beautiful, but not what you would call a garden spot. But it is just fine for wild horses and is one of the last remaining mustang strongholds in the nation — at least it was.

The BLM determined that 3,000 horses spread across more than half a million acres were simply too many, so they set out in December to gather them up.

The problem was that there were not that many horses and the estimates actually were about half of what was reported.

This might not sound to bad until you learn that the agency relies on estimates instead of looking at population levels based on actual range land data.

They used projections made from years ago.

Now a wild population of animals is usually a good thing.

It shows that the terrain is healthy and that it sustains life but one of the ways that the BLM makes money is by leasing out the land for grazing.

Just two years ago (2008) the agency approved a 300 percent increase in the allocation numbers of cattle in the same area the mustangs lived.

300%!

So basically, they are removing horses because there are too many damaging the terrain.

Uh, anyone see anything weird here?

The Bureau of Land Management continues to allow cattle grazing but removes the horses?

Attorney Valerie Stanley has made it her mission to fight the BLM roundup by taking them to federal court and is going to be a visible force in fighting planned roundups since she is dedicating her practice to the cause.

The 2010 roundup of the wild horses at Calico went on record as being one of the deadliest in the history of the wild horse program.

Of the animals captured, at least 49 Calico horses have perished along with another 30 or so in utero foals.

Since 2000, it is estimated that the agency has removed over 74,000 wild horses and burros from the range and will remove another 12,000 horses this year alone.

Maintaining those horses in captive environments is an estimated about 3/4 of the total Bureau of Land Management’s budget for wild horse and burro management.

Beyond the humane management issue, the wild horse round up will cost the taxpayers close to $2,000,000.00.

But here is the insanity, just last year (2009) the BLM wanted to destroy more than 33,000 wild horses housed in captive conditions because funds were not available to feed and maintain them.

The agency has so many animals that it can’t afford them.

The proposed solution? Euthanize them or sell them off for slaughter.

Bad, bad ideas.

New management is needed and public input is critical.

The BLM has posted some responses on the Calico wild horse roundup and public comments on the new federal management policy for wild horses was just closed earlier this week.

This Wild Horse & Burro Strategy Development Document will be submitted to congress this fall so be sure to contact your representative.

Wild Horse Preservation & Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Round Up Links of Interest

• American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign
• Steven Long (8/4/2010) Covers the Issue & His BLM Interview is reprinted by RT Fitch.
• The Cloud Foundation
• Horseback Magazine