Well, this piece is actually about blogging and web publishing in general. I just needed to get the word "dog" in the title somewhere, as these headlines get syndicated to several online news outlets and pet websites.

If you've been wondering where I've been the past several days, I've been spending a lot of time discussing the future of the web publishing business. Several of my friends and colleagues have been talking on the phone, trading e-mails, chatting, about problems we face in this market, and developing ideas to get ahead. It was a discussion that snowballed and grew into a big affair.

As a result, this June I'll be heading to Nashville, TN to meet with other bloggers and web publishers to hash out the same discussion in person, and come up with a concensus on how to move forward.

I'm sure many of you have heard about "spyware". It's been the buzz word on the Internet for quite some time, and it seems to be getting discussed more and more.

The problem is that the word "spyware" is being used to describe so many things now. The real definition of spyware, is a computer program that spoofs the built-in security features on your browser, runs on your computer without your knowledge, reports personally identifying information, and studies your browsing habits.

But spyware is also being used to describe "cookies". It's also being used to describe "adware".

At stake is a very large piece of business in the form of anti-spyware software. Companies like Symantec, Lavasoft, Network Associates, et al, all produce software that claim to scan your computer for spyware, and removes them. It's the hottest business in software today. Even Microsoft entered the fray with a beta version of its own entry.

In order for these companies to sell more anti-spyware software, they have to make you worried about your privacy. The more worried you become, the more likely you will purchase their product. Hence, they tell you that cookies are a threat to your privacy and security, and tell you several horror stories.

And that's the problem web publishers and e-commerce companies are facing.

Cookies are not spyware. First, they are not computer programs. They don't run on your computer, and they don't monitor your browsing activity.

Some people think that cookies are like parasites; if you have them, then your computer is "infected", and that soon you will be deluged with telemarketers and junk mail. Not true.

Cookies are primarily used to reimburse web publishers for advertising. That's why it's important to me, I'm a web publisher.

In addition to DoggieNews.com, I publish several other websites. They attract lots of people, and each one attracts people with a specific interest. Those websites have advertisements on them, that match the same interests. When people click those ads, cookies get placed on their computers, identifying my website as the "referrer".

If anyone ends up buying something from the advertiser, whether immediately, or months later, the advertiser will check to see if it has a cookie on that person's computer. If it finds one, it checks to see which website originally referred that customer. That website gets credited with the sale.

But now, anti-spyware companies are trying to make people believe that cookies are equivalent to "spyware". And that you need to buy their sofware so that you can remove cookies. Ironically, many of these anti-spyware companies advertise their software on other websites, and use cookies themselves to track sales and referrals!

These companies will have you believe that cookies are being used to track your Internet activities. But that's really stretching the truth. Businesses that use cookies, only want to know what website referred you to them, whether one minute ago, or one year ago, so that can they give proper credit. They really don't care where you've been the past month, or what you've been doing.

I wanted to explain this to all of you, to help diffuse the paranoia the anti-spyware companies are spreading around.

Internet Explorer, by default, already blocks cookies from websites that don't have a privacy policy, along with those that use personally identifying information without your consent. It's already blocking out any bad cookies that try to land on your computer. If there is anything to concerned about it's spyware. Cookies, however, are not spyware.

Reading through the many comments posted regarding Ontario's ban on pit bulls tells the tale on how we as a society feel about dog attacks. There were many that are against breed specific legislation (BSL), while some seemed to be in favor of it. DoggieNews.com attracts dog lovers, so it's easy to see why so many commenters are opposed to banning dogs.

As a libertarian, I don't like government deciding what dogs we can own and not own. The problem is the irresponsible dog owners. I don't agree that pit bulls are like any other dog. They were bred for fighting. That in itself is a tragedy for this breed. But anyone who seeks to own a pit bull, must understand that this breed carries additional responsibility. In the end, the dog owner is responsible for the dog.

That being said, the laws should target the dog owners. But the problem is how do we protect our freedom and our privacy, while protecting the general public from a potentially deadly weapon? That's why I brought up the analogy between pit bulls and guns in one of my earlier posts.

It's the government's job to protect its citizens. When the media sensationalizes every pit bull attack, the people look to their elected officials for solutions. This is what happened in Ontario. Unfortunately, no one in Ontario presented lawmakers with a better solution.

One of the commenters said that they indeed gave solutions, and here was the comment:

We pit bull owners have gave solutions. Instead of punishing the breed target the irresponsible dog owners. There are two ways to do that. One, start having owners answer personal questions of why they want the dog. Next is to educate the buyers about the breed and dog training. If they feel they don't have what it takes to train a dog themselves, sign them up to a professional dog trainer for free. If the goverment cares about protecting people over making money, they should make acess to professionals dog trainers free.

While this solution could in fact reduce pit bull attacks, the problem is that it costs money. That is the REAL issue. Let's look at the commenter's solution point by point:

1. "start having owners answer personal questions of why they want the dog". Answer to whom? Do we set up a government agency to regulate "dangerous dog" ownership? Or, do we force dog sellers to act as quasi-government agents to make decisions on whether someone is eligible to own a pit bull? If we make dog sellers responsible for policing prospective buyers, then can we sue the dog seller if a dog does end up biting someone? It's going to cost money to set up a state-mandated profiling system.



2. "educate the buyers about the breed and dog training". Again, who is going to do the educating? Will the government set up a training program for this? Will the government reimburse dog sellers for providing "pit bull classes"? Or will the government print up pamphlets?



3. "If they feel they don't have what it takes to train a dog themselves, sign them up to a professional dog trainer for free". Is the government going to hire hundreds of dog trainers so that people can own pit bulls? Or, are they going to set up reimbusement programs? Again, money.

Now, take a look at Ontario's pit bull ban. It simply says that no one can acquire any pit bull, and that anyone who already has a pit bull must keep it muzzled and restrained. Does that law cost the government any additional money? No.

That's the key.

The problem is that no government has an abundance of money to throw around. In fact, governments must allocate a budget for everything they do. If legislators write up a law that would require funding, then it has to go to a budget committee to decide where the funding will come from. If you read the news about government budgets, you'll know that they are not an easy thing to pass.

Hence, it's a law of convenience. It's "lazy legislation". But there was also the fact that legislators didn't have better solutions, and that the media was pushing legislators into doing something.

Are we as a society prepared to raise our own taxes so that we may reduce the number of pit bull attacks? Is it that fair that some people are so irresponsible that it would force us to pay higher taxes just for the freedom of owning pit bulls? I suppose this is the question.

I could go on and on about government and funding. But DoggieNews really isn't about politics. Yet, dog ownership is affected by politics. I don't want to ban any kind of breed, period. I think freedom and liberty must be protected. I also don't want to raise taxes to support educational and training programs. If we're going to raise taxes, let it go to hiring more animal control officers.

If it turns out that the number of pit bull attacks are reduced in Ontario, then look out.

Today was a big day for Mia, our beagle. She caught her first bird, a sparrow. For the past several months she had been trying so hard to catch one. And now, her efforts have paid off. This is the photo of it.

I would sit in my back patio and watch her. She would observe the birds flying around, landing on the fence, and hopping into the bushes and vines where they made their nests. Mia would crouch down and walk slowly and steadily so as not the jingle the metal dog tags around her neck. Then she would put on the afterburners and jump on the birds.

Today, she managed to trap one of the birds and caught it. I don't know the paw-by-paw details of the altercation. But she clenched the hapless little bird in her jaws, and shook it violently left and right until its bones its shook out of joint.

I'm quite proud of her. She's been trying so hard for so long. But I'm also worried. The West Nile virus is propagated through birds. They carry the virus, and the ticks and mosquitoes that feed on them get the virus too.

The Centers for Disease Control says that dogs that were experimentally infected with West Nile virus showed no symptoms. They also went on to say that its unlikely pet owners can get West Nile virus from their dogs. I suppose that's a relief.

However, there was a teenage girl in my neighborhood that became infected with West Nile virus last summer, though it's believed she got it from mosquitoes. But the virus caused her brain to swell, which ultimately resulted in brain damage. And now, she's not the same person.

While I can trust the CDC that dogs are not affected by West Nile virus, I'll reserve judgement on whether they can transmit the pathogen to their owners. This season has seen an high amount of rainfall, and now there is vegetation growing everywhere. Birds and rodents are going to be in great numbers this spring and summer.

Lee Anne Emig, who runs a pet sitting service in the Belleville, Illinois area called "The Pet Nanny" wanted to help a nearby animal rescue group with fundraising. She started a volunteer group called, "Trash for Critters", which collects used printer cartridges and unwanted cellphones, and exchanges them for money.

Lee has already managed to set up collection bins at a couple of stores and an animal clinic, and is actively seeking more volunteers. When exchanging the printer cartridges and cellphones for cash, her group can get between $2.00 to $4.00 for each inkjet cartridge, $1.00 to $12.00 for each laserjet cartridge, and $2.50 for each cellphone.

But what Lee Anne is doing is not new. There are thousands of people like her organizing these "trash for cash" programs all over the country, benefitting thousands of animal rescue groups.

What makes this all possible is a company called CKA Associates, based out of Phoenix, Arizona. CKA runs three printer cartridge recycling programs, "Cash for Critters", "Kash for Kids", and "Recycleaid". Cash for Critters is set up to benefit animal charity groups, while Kash for Kids is set up to target childrens charities. Recycleaid targets businesses and offices that want to earn money by recycling printer cartridges.

CKA Associates got started about five years ago, as a collection service for a larger company, IJR Inc. IJR got started back in 1978, in Southern California, under the name of "Pentec, Inc.", which manufactured pens and markers, along with pens for plotting printers. As the popularity of inkjet printers grew, Pentec reorganized itself into an inkjet cartridge recycling business, and renamed itself to "IJR, Inc" (Ink Jet Renew).

Today, IJR remanufactures printer cartridges for companies that market refilled cartridges to consumers. But in order to replenish itself with an endless supply of old printer cartridges, it relies on the services of CKA Associates.

In January of 2000, IJR started CKA Associates for the express purpose of developing collection programs. Their first program was "Kash for Kids". Today, Kash for Kids is raising funds to benefit schools, youth groups, youth sports, 4-H, Girl and Boy Scouts, and church youth groups. To make it easier for groups to donate cartridges, CKA Associates developed a postage pre-paid mailer system for the collection.

Within a few short months of its launch, CKA signed up more than 1,000 schools to participate in the "Kash for Kids" program. CKA credits its success to the simplicity of the program, and promptness of payments.

Soon after, CKA developed the "Cash for Critters" program to benefit animal welfare organizations. I spoke with Diane Dedes, a spokesperson for CKA, who described the volume of collection groups they are working with. "We have thousands of animal welfare groups who participate in our Cash for Critters Program. They range from a small group of people running an organization, from a home, to a 320 acre facility in Virginia."

So what about the cellphones? How does CKA recycle those? Well, they don't. They sell unwanted cellphones to a cellphone recycling company. CKA chose to include cellphones in its recycling programs to increase the amount of money that collection groups can raise, thereby increasing the popularity of its programs.

But as someone like Lee Anne Emig illustrates, you don't have to be a company or organization to start a collection program. You can just be a concerned animal lover wanting to benefit a neighborhood rescue.

To get started with your own collection program, contact CKA Associates at 1-866-301-7027, or visit their website at: http://www.cashforcritters.com/

Just a few examples of other people and groups that have started collection programs:

Animal Compassion Network
Capital Area Animal Welfare Society
Castaway Animal Rescue Effort
Maine Animal Coalition
Northwoods Humane Society
Heaven on Earth Society for Animals
Highland Animal Shelter

The Chicago Tribune has an interesting article to read about how to care for your pets while contractors are remodeling your home, so that your pet doesn't end up trapped behind drywall:

"We hear those stories all the time," said Sevon, owner of Palatine-based Sevvonco Inc. Builders and Remodelers. "Sometimes we'll hear about contractors who accidentally trap the cat underneath the tub. The owners will hear the cat purring the next day. They have to rip everything up and start all over again."

The article goes on to provide tips on what to do with your pets while the contractors are working in your home. It also provides ideas on how to remodel your home to make them more pet-friendly.

This is actually timely for me because we're in the process of remodeling our home. Though, it doesn't involve any drywall. I'm still wondering what's going to happen when the carpet at the bottom of the stairs is finally replaced with travertine tile. You see, when Max comes down the stairs, he doesn't walk all the way the down. Instead, he forgoes the final few steps and just jumps off the stairs landing on the carpet below. When we replace that carpet with tile, I can just see his little paws trying to skid to a stop as he crashes into the wall. I may have to put a little throw rug there.

Reuters is reporting that a Finnish inventor has applied for a patent on a battery-powered device that will protect dogs against wolf attacks. It's coat worn by a dog that shocks any animal that manages to sink its teeth into the fabric of the coat.

The dog-coat sends 1,000 volts of electricity through a predatory wolf when it bites into the outer layer, but is designed to ensure the pampered pet feels no pain from the jolt.

I imagine it could be useful against coyotes and mountain lions here in So. Cal.

Last week, it was reported that Dr. Albert Y. Chu, who is with the Maryland State Examiner's Office, stated that some dogs are prone to attack baby swings because the back-n-forth motion triggers an attack mechanism.

Today, Jennifer Shyrock, a certified dog behavior consultant who educates parents and children on dog bites, announced her new program called, "Dogs & Storks", a series of education products to help expectant parents prepare for when their dog meets the new baby.

The Dogs & Storks program includes:

• a semi-private workshop that offers education on the special circumstances surrounding bringing a baby into a home with a family dog



• a teleclass offered in a phone conference format



• an educational CD in E-Book (PDF) format that includes information from the workshop with pictures, activities and homework ideas



• private customized consultation and services designed to identify and address specific concerns and issues. Offered via phone or in person



• support via phone and email

North Shore Animal League America and the North Shore Animal League International announced today their "Tour of Life 2005" mobile pet adoption program. The Tour kicks off April 1, 2005 with several mobile adoption vehicles driving out to cities all across North America and the United Kingdom helping more than 300 shelters find homes for pets.

Helping them get started is Judge Judy (Judy Sheindlin), who will preside over the opening ceremony in Los Angeles, California. A simultaneous global kick-off event will take place in Glasgow, Scotland. From there, the mobile adoption vehicles will be stopping at Albuquerque, Chicago, Dallas, Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Nashville, New Orleans, New York City, North Little Rock, Richmond, Sacramento, San Antonio, Spartanburg, Kansas City, St. Louis, Baltimore, Clearwater, Florida; Cortland, New York; Eatontown, New Jersey; Englewood, Colorado; London, Ohio; and Sterling, Virginia, including other places in Canada and UK, all in a span of 30 days.

The program then ends with the worldwide Pet Adoptathon on April 30 and May 1, 2005.

The Tour of Life originally started in 2000, and has been running every year since. Visit the official websites for dates and times of when the Tour of Life comes to your town.

In California, a difficult situation involving an injured chihuahua-terrier mix was reported in the Contra-Costa Times today. The dog was injured in a hit-and-run accident, and brought to the local animal shelter.

A group of people who witnessed the dog's accident pooled their money and raised $750.00 to provide the dog with surgery necessary to fix its broken pelvis and leg. However, the animal shelter refused to release the dog to these people until after the State-mandated waiting period. Meanwhile, the shelter had taken the dog a clinic for medication.

I did some research on this waiting period, and found it codified into the Food and Agricultural Code, under section 31108. The law defines the waiting period to be six days, with exceptions for a shorter four-day period.

The waiting period is designed to provide the owner of the dog enough time to claim their pet. However, I could not find anything in the code that prevented officials from providing veterinary care during the waiting period. But most likely, the bare minimal care was provided to the dog out of budget constraints.

However, I found an interesting piece of law in the Business and Professions Code, relating to the licensing of veterinarians:

4826.2. ...A veterinarian, registered veterinary technician, or an unregistered assistant working under the supervision of a veterinarian, may lawfully possess one or more of the animals only for the period of time that, in his or her judgment, veterinary care and treatment are necessary...

This means that a veterinarian working at a shelter can actually seize ownership of an animal, if that animal requires veterinary care.

So, why can't such a veterinarian go ahead and take the $750.00 this group has raised, and just provide the care? Clearly these people are wanting to help this poor dog. It seems the State has already provided a solution for this very situation, yet the animal shelter seems unwilling to take advantage of this group's generosity.

Reported today on Canada.com, the pit bull ban has passed the legislature, and now needs only "royal assent" before it can be proclaimed law.

The law prohibits people in Ontario from acquiring pit bulls. Current owners of pit bulls are allowed to keep their pets, but they must be kept restrained and muzzled.

In another article, Attorney General Michael Bryant, who lobbied for this legislation, believes that Ontario will pave the way for other governments across North America:

"I would anticipate that other states and provinces across North America will pursue it when they see that, in fact, in Ontario it got safer with this bill," Attorney General Michael Bryant said of the legislation, which was passed by the provincial legislature. "Mark my words, Ontario will be safer."

Ok, Mr. Attorney General, we will mark your words.