Pets

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Feline frenzy: could cats swing the US election?

      by

      Take a shot at a cat, and you’d better not miss. It all started in 2021, with a remark by JD Vance, long before he became the Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate. To be fair to the guy, Vance lives in a low-consequence universe, where you can hate Trump one minute and love him the next, with no ding to your credibility, so he must have been gobsmacked in July when he was called on this historic remark.“It’s just a basic fact,” he had told Tucker Carlson back in 2021. “You look at Kamala Harris, [transportation secretary] Pete Buttigieg, AOC [congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] – the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?” This elision of parenthood and long-termism is the acceptable face of the childlessness taboo in politics: you can call it dumb, but you can’t call it misogynistic, since it isn’t gendered.However, he then blew it by saying the quiet part out loud, which, if we substitute “quiet” for “batshit crazy” is the new Republican playbook. They’re “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too”.When those remarks resurfaced this summer, Harris’s campaign team said that Vance was “not pro-family [but] anti-women”. One of the most sincere interventions came from Jennifer Aniston, who has had a well-documented struggle with infertility, and said on Instagram: “Mr Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day.” Simultaneously, he had managed to offend all step-parents (Kamala is only childless if you don’t count her two stepchildren with Doug Emhoff), all gay parents and all adoptive parents (Buttigieg has adopted two children with his husband, Chasten).View image in fullscreenBut never mind the children – won’t someone think of the cats? Taylor Swift is merely the highest-profile member of a large constituency that isn’t just unashamed to be childless, but is actively proud of their cats. She signed off her endorsement of Harris’s presidential bid on Tuesday with “childless cat lady”, to which Elon Musk responded – and there’s no other word for this than creepily – “Fine Taylor … you win … I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life.”Will this hit the Republicans, electorally, and if so, where? First of all, forget about dogs since they’re “purple” – dog owners are equally likely to be Democrat or Republican. If Vance was trying to speak to an imagined base – “We, dog people, despise the barren keepers of cats” – that won’t fly. Democrats are somewhat more likely to have a cat (40%) than Republicans (35%), but that’s still a significant number of red voters who, if they love their pet more than their politics, could be alienated. The numbers are very even, in terms of cat-devotion: 31.8% of Democrats and 33.3% of Republicans with a cat said it was the most important member of their family, from which I’ve decided to infer that Whiskers is definitely more important than the president.Determining swing states is a dark art, but it is easy to say which states have the most cat owners: Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Iowa, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas and Wisconsin. Per the New York Times, only one of those is a swing state (Wisconsin) but using the Nate Silver method (which I prefer not to, as he predicts a Trump landslide in electoral college votes) puts New Hampshire also in contention. If we imagine everyone with a cat, even those who also have children, falling in behind Kamala, that is at least some low-hanging fruit for the Democrats.Looking at Trump’s debate with Harris this week, it is just about imaginable that his claims about Springfield, Ohio, were a last-minute attempt to reorientate his campaign as friend-to-the-cat. The peculiar thing about Trump is that you simply cannot imagine him communing with any animal, not even an iguana. A cat would be too aloof and challenge his narcissism; a dog would baffle him with affection – which, deep down, he would know he’d done nothing to deserve – and would itself be baffled, because his commands would make no sense.But anyway, back to Springfield, where immigrants from Haiti are “eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats”, according to Trump. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” This false rumour has its proximal roots in a video where a Springfield resident claims that recent immigrants were eating the ducks from a pond, but it’s an existing right wing trope. Repurposed to cover domestic pets, it sounds even more fanciful, but immediately sparked a load of AI-generated images, with Trump as a Francis of Assisi figure, protecting cats and dogs, and one bold billboard campaign by the Republican Party of Arizona, which read: “Eat less [sic] kittens – Vote Republican!” Can this win back the cat vote? I’m going with: not in a million years. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Repeats False Claim About Immigrants Eating Cats and Dogs

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump repeated a false and outlandish claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, have abducted and eaten their neighbors’ pets.Mr. Trump made the comments on Tuesday early in his first debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, shortly after Ms. Harris mocked his rallies as so filled with fictions and fringe theories that attendees leave early. Mr. Trump responded by trying to pivot back to the subject under discussion, immigration.“A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it,” he said. “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”Mr. Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, have amplified the internet rumor on the campaign trail this week. It stems from viral social media posts that have spread as Mr. Vance and others have sought to stir fears about the growing Haitian population in Springfield, though members of the community are living and working in the United States legally.Local officials have found no evidence, credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed by Haitian residents.When David Muir, a debate moderator, noted the lack of evidence, Mr. Trump said he had gotten his information from “the people on television saying my dog was taken and used for food.”Ms. Harris laughed. Mr. Trump’s “extreme” statements, she said, are one of the reasons she has the endorsements of 200 Republicans.Mr. Vance first made the claim about Haitian immigrants on Monday, saying “it’s coming to your city next.” A news release from the Trump campaign later recounted the falsehoods. Mr. Vance then appeared to backtrack on Tuesday morning in a social post, saying his office had “received many inquiries” about the false claims. But he added that “it’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.”That has not stopped the social media platforms from being awash with memes and AI-generated images of cats in support of Mr. Trump.Job opportunities in Springfield, a city of roughly 58,000 people between Columbus and Dayton, have attracted thousands of Haitians since the pandemic began, with city officials estimating that as many as 20,000 have arrived. By some accounts, the immigrant community has helped revitalize the town, though it has put pressure on housing, schools and hospitals. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Costs of Caring for Pets

      by

      We explain the changing world of pet health care. Pets these days are just like us. They get birthday cakes, day care and rubber boots to wear in the snow. Their health care is becoming more human, too — for better and for worse.Decades ago, animal care was relatively rudimentary. Veterinarians usually owned their own clinics, and the options to treat a sick or injured pet were limited. Today, animal hospitals are equipped with expensive magnetic resonance imaging machines, round-the-clock critical care units and teams of specialists in cancer, cardiology and neurology. For pets and the people who love them, the advances are welcome.But as animals’ health care has changed to more closely resemble our own, it has also taken on some of the problems of the human system, including the biggest one: cost. The price of veterinary care has soared more than 60 percent over the past decade, outpacing inflation. Private equity firms have snapped up hundreds of independent clinics, in a trend reminiscent of corporate roll-ups of doctors’ offices. Veterinarians around the country told me that they worry this is changing the way that they practice, as they face growing pressure to push costly treatments and order more tests.The changed landscape means that even as veterinarians can do more for dogs and cats than ever before, pet owners face sometimes heartbreaking decisions about whether they can afford the care. (Read more in our story on the topic.)Changes in the industryAbout one-quarter of primary care clinics and three-quarters of specialty clinics are owned by corporations, according to Brakke Consulting, which focuses on the animal health industry. Sometimes, the corporate ownership is not obvious: Many private equity firms do not change the name of the vet clinic when they take it over.Most veterinarians are paid, at least in part, based on how much money they bring into a practice, whether that is by ordering tests, selling prescription dog food or performing procedures. One veterinarian said she quit her job after she was told her “cost per client” was too low; another said she was told she needed to see 21 animals a day, about a half-dozen more than her current workload.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Tenacious Pekingese Is the ‘World’s Ugliest’ Dog, After Many Tries

      by

      Meet Wild Thang, an 8-year-old Pekingese from Oregon who had sought the title of “World’s Ugliest” for years. Now, it’s finally his.Maybe it’s the way his lolling pink tongue juts out, or how his glittering wide eyes bejewel a tiny head under a mop of long, frizzy, brown-and-white fur, but there’s just something about Wild Thang — and a panel of judges agreed.The 8-year-old Pekingese from Oregon was crowned the World’s Ugliest Dog on Friday, confirming that when the looks are, well, lacking, there’s something to be said for persistence. It was his fifth try for the top prize at the competition.“His victory is a testament to his undeniable charm and resilience,” said a statement released by the competition following Wild Thang’s big win.Born and raised in Los Angeles, Wild Thang’s life got off to a difficult start, according to his biography (yes, he has one). As a puppy, he contracted distemper, an infectious disease caused by a virus that attacks dogs’ respiratory, gastrointestinal and nervous systems. He barely survived, and his biography notes that Wild Thang was left permanently affected by the disease: “His teeth did not grow in, causing his tongue to stay out and his right front leg paddles 24/7.”Nevertheless, Wild Thang is “a healthy, happy Glugly (glamorous/ugly) guy” who “loves people, other dogs and especially his toys.”Like other beauty pageant winners, Wild Thang champions causes dear to him, according to his biography. He has helped raise money to get his fellow Pekingese doggies in Ukraine to safety — and has already saved seven of them from the war zone.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Sage, a Miniature Poodle, Wins Best in Show at Westminster Dog Show

      by

      Sage, a miniature poodle, was named best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show on Tuesday night, modeling the kind of poise and composure unfamiliar to most humans in front of a whooping crowd at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York.The competition began with 2,500 dogs from more than 200 breeds, then pared down to a field of just seven group champions. The best in show judge, Rosalind Kramer, selected Sage over what she called an “absolutely glorious” lineup of dogs: Mercedes the German shepherd, Comet the Shih Tzu, Louis the Afghan, Micha the black cocker spaniel, Monty the giant schnauzer and Frankie the colored bull terrier.Victory at Westminster is considered the apex of canine achievement. Last year, the prize went to Buddy Holly, a petit basset griffon Vendéen who was the first of his breed to win best in show. The dog was later sworn in as the “canine mayor” of his hometown, Palm Springs, Calif. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Pet Policies for Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, American Airlines and Other Domestic Carriers

      by

      American recently relaxed its rules for pets traveling inside the cabin with their owners. Here’s what the major U.S. airlines require to travel with a pet.Flying with a pet can be expensive and confusing, with fees, weight limits, carrier size rules and the need to make sure there’s no loud barking (or meowing) on board.Recently, American Airlines relaxed its pet policy to allow passengers to bring a carry-on bag in addition to a pet in a carrier, and more private flight options have been emerging in recent years for pet owners who can afford them.Still, flying with large or medium-size dogs can be tricky, and many travelers are wary of leaving a pet in the plane’s cargo hold.For those traveling on the major carriers with their pets as carry-ons, here’s what do know about each major domestic airline’s policy.Southwest AirlinesOn Southwest, a Dallas-based carrier, two checked bags can fly at no cost, but not pets. Southwest charges $125 per pet carrier on its flights.Dogs or cats are allowed to travel below a seat in an approved carrier — up to 18.5 inches long by 8.5 inches high and 13.5 inches wide) — according to the airline.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Joys and Challenges of Caring for Terrance the Octopus

      by

      Dr. Cameron Clifford, a dentist in Edmond, Okla., said his son Cal, 9, has been infatuated with octopuses since he was 3 years old. “Every birthday, every Christmas, every holiday, he would always say: ‘All I want is an octopus,’” Dr. Clifford said.For a while, the family nurtured Cal’s interest by buying him octopus toys and octopus T-shirts, dressing him as an octopus for Halloween and taking him to aquariums to see live octopuses.Then, last October, Dr. Clifford sprang for the real deal.He ordered his son a California two-spot octopus to keep as a pet in a tank in his bedroom. It arrived via UPS in a bag of water packed inside a cardboard box on Oct. 11, Cal’s ninth birthday. Cal named it Terrance.When the Clifford family welcomed Terrance, they did not realize she was a female octopus, who would give birth to 50 hatchlings.Michael Noble Jr. for The New York TimesUnbeknown to the family, Terrance was a female, who released what Dr. Clifford described as “a chandelier” of puffy little eggs in December. He assumed the eggs were unfertilized until one night in February, when, while cleaning the tank, he picked one up and examined it closely.“I accidentally popped it, and this droplet comes out and spreads out these tiny tentacles and does three swim strokes across my viewpoint,” he said. “It was absolutely shocking.”

      @doctoktopus #octopus #aquarium #fyp #saltwateraquariu #biology #marinebiology #shrimpdaddy #surprise ##cephalopod ♬ original sound – TikToktopus We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pet Shop That Sold Sick and Hurt Puppies Will Repay Nearly 200 Customers

      by

      Shake A Paw agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general after investigators found that the Long Island business was selling puppies from so-called puppy mills.The owners of a Long Island pet store accused of knowingly selling hundreds of sick and injured puppies, including some that died days after being bought, will pay $300,000 to about 200 customers under a settlement announced by New York’s attorney general on Friday.The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by the attorney general, Letitia James, in December 2021 after an investigation by her office determined that the store, Shake A Paw, was acquiring and selling puppies from so-called puppy mills, large-scale commercial breeders with reputations for abuse, inbreeding and filthy conditions.Ms. James’s inquiry also found that the store and its owners, Marc Jacobs and Gerard O’Sullivan, had failed to disclose animals’ serious medical conditions and had illegally refused to reimburse customers for veterinary bills incurred after they had been sold sick pets, according to court documents.In addition to repaying the $300,000, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. O’Sullivan agreed to stop misleading advertising including claims that puppies sold by Shake A Paw were the “healthiest” and from the “most trusted breeders”; to buy animals only from reputable breeders; and to provide customers with disclosures certifying the health of their puppies, according to court documents.All pet stores in New York will be prohibited from selling dogs, cats and rabbits starting in December under a law passed in 2022.Richard Hamburger, a lawyer for Shake A Paw, declined to comment late Friday. Erin Laxton, who bought her Chihuahua-dachshund mix, Merlin, at Shake A Paw in 2020, described the settlement as a “huge relief.” Ms. Laxton said Merlin had begun coughing the day she brought him home from Shake A Paw and had died of respiratory illnesses five weeks later, according to court documents.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More