35 Scientific Publications Showing Adverse Health Effects From WiFi

 

Waking Times

 
Here is an excellent collection of scientific papers finding adverse biological effects or damage to health from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi-enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz), complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools.

The papers listed are only those where exposures were 16V/m or below.  Someone using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m.  Papers are in alphabetical order.  A file of first pages, for printing, can be found here.
If you feel like sending a copy of this collection to the local schools in your area, you can search for them here and either print out this article to post or email the link.

Wi-Fi papers

1. Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825

2. Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647

3. Avendaño C. et al., 2010. Laptop expositions affect motility and induce DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro by a non-thermal effect: a preliminary report. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 66th Annual Meeting: O-249http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/laptops+and+sperm.pdf) 

4. Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077

5. Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408

6. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300. http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL  part 2.

7. Havas M. and Marrongelle J. 2013. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

8. Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.http://www.istanbul.edu.tr/6internatwshopbioeffemf/cd/pdf/poster/WI-FI%20ELECTROMAGNETIC%20FIELDS%20EXERT%20GENDER.pdf

9. Margaritis L.H. et al., 2013. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources.
Electromagn Biol Med., Epub ahead of print. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130

10. Naziroğlu M. and Gumral 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079

11. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926

12. Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785

13. Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, Epub ahead of print.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464

14. Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138 (Wi-Fi alters brain activity in young adults:http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/wifi+brain+July+2011.pdf)

15. Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843

16. Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21360060

And here are a few more studies of similar microwave frequencies at low exposures (6V/m or below)  (this is not comprehensive):

17. Balmori A. 2010. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: the city turned into a laboratory. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 29(1-2):31-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20560769

18. Erdinc O. O. et al., 2003. Electromagnetic waves of 900MHz in acute pentylenetetrazole model in ontogenesis in mice. Neurol. Sci. 24:111-116 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600821

19. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Stimulation of murine natural killer cells by weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range. Biofizika 44:737–741http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10544828

20. Fesenko E. E. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:29–35 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619445

21. Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of OncologyLibrary Vol. 5: 273-300 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

22. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 162(2):416-428 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19768389

23. Kesari K. K. and Behari J., 2009. Fifty-gigahertz microwave exposure effect of radiations on rat brain. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 158:126-139 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089649

24. Khurana V. G. et al., 2010. Epidemiological Evidence for a Health Risk from Mobile Phone Base Stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:263–267http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662418

25. Maier R. et al., 2004. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on cognitive processes – a pilot study on pulsed field interference with cognitive regeneration. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica 110: 46-52 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180806

26. Nittby H. et al., 2008. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18044737

27. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1998. Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis factor by murine macrophages when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range Bofizika 43:1132–1333.

28. Novoselova E. G. et al., 1999. Microwaves and cellular immunity. II. Immunostimulating effects of microwaves and naturally occurring antioxidant nutrients. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 49:37–41http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619446

29. Otitoloju A. A. et al., 2010. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from Global System for Mobile Communication Base Stations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 84(1):51-4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19816647

30. Panagopoulos D. J.et al., 2010. Bioeffects of mobile telephony radiation in relation to its intensity or distance from the antenna. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Vol 86(5):345-357.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20397839

31. Persson B. R. R. et al., 1997. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless communication. Wireless Networks 3: 455-461.

32. Pyrpasopoulou A. et al., 2004. Bone morphogenic protein expression in newborn kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 25:216-27http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042631

33. Salford L. G. et al., 2010. Effects of microwave radiation upon the mammalian blood-brain barrier. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5:333-355 http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL part 2.

34. Salford L. G., et al., 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:881-883.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
With thanks to WifiInSchools.


NOTE:  Because you don't experience immediate ill effects from using WiFi, doesn't mean it isn't harming you?  Headaches, irritability, brain fog?

Monsanto Buys Food Prize

As Lily Tomlin has noted, "No matter how cynical you get, it's almost impossible to keep up."
For example, imagine if a prestigious group announced that this year's "World Environmental Prize" is being awarded to BP, for its unique contribution to the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. No way, you say? Too absurd?

Right, but try this one: Imagine that an Iowa group announces that its "World Food Prize" will go to Monsanto for pushing its patented, pricey, genetically-tampered Frankenseeds on impoverished lands as an "answer" to global hunger. This would be so morally perverse that the "cyn" in cynical would be spelled s.i.n.

Yet, it has actually happened.

Rather than encouraging sustainable farming and self-sufficiency in impoverished communities as a way to alleviate poverty and malnutrition around the world, this year's World Food Prize has been "won" by a profiteering, biotech, seed-and-chemical monopolist that's the freakish opposite of sustainability.

 Monsanto, which owns 90 percent of the world's genetically modified seeds, is globally infamous for bullying family farmers, bribing and corrupting governments, stiffing independent scientific inquiries into its hokum, running false ads and fraudulent PR campaigns, and going all out to keep consumers from knowing that the crops produced by its seeds contain alien, bioengineered DNA and have not been tested for long-term health and environmental problems.

Why would this avaricious outfit get any sort of award, much less one that can give it a false legitimacy as a corporate "savior" for the world's poor? Perhaps because Monsanto is a major funder of the World Food Prize. Indeed, the foundation that hands out the award is headquartered in downtown Des Moines in a historic building that recently got a spiffy remodeling, thanks to a $5 million donation from — you guessed it — Monsanto. The corporate honoree has also been a steady donor to the food prize foundation, giving some $400,000 to its promotion of industrial agribusiness in the last dozen years.

It was my privilege to go to Des Moines last week for Monsanto's World Food Prize extravaganza. Well, I didn't exactly get into the ceremony where the halo was being fitted on this predatory proliferator of proprietary GMO seeds. In fact, I wasn't even allowed to enter the Monsanto-financed edifice, wasn't invited to sip sauvignon blanc at the Rockefeller reception on the patio, and didn't get to mingle with the corporate, political, and foundation backscratchers at the official hullabaloo.

Rather, I was down the street at the graceful First United Methodist Church, where more than 500 of us scruffy "outsiders" gathered in protest of the Monsanto absurdity. There, real-life Iowa farmers spoke plainly about the myriad of abuses they have endured at the hands of the genetic manipulator.

One pointed out that if the corporation genuinely gave even one damn about hunger, it could've used its immense lobbying clout in Washington this year to stop Congress from stripping the entire food stamp program from the farm bill. Instead, Monsanto didn't lift a finger to help fend off hunger in our own country. It doesn't care at all about feeding the world, he said with disgust, it cares about profits, period.

Indeed, Monsanto is a pitch-perfect example of what Pope Francis was referring to in May, when he declared: "The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal." How ironic, then, that Monsanto bought this food prize for itself in order to masquerade as a world hunger fighter, hoping to persuade the Vatican to bless its demonic effort to force the world's poor farmers to buy and become dependent on its altered seed.

The World Food Prize Foundation has grandly dubbed its award "The Nobel Prize for Agriculture." But Monsanto has zero to do with agri-Culture. It is the agri-Business face of the cult of money that Francis warned about — and it has turned this award into the "Ignoble Prize."

Copyright Creators.com

Factory Farms :Taxpayers Pay, Politicians Take, Agribusiness Profits

Organic Index 10.9.13
Organic Consumers Association, October 9, 2013

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

The agribusiness giants would have us believe that our inherently unsustainable and morally reprehensible factory farming system is the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. But the facts prove otherwise. Factory farming is all about maximizing profits for a handful of the world’s largest corporations.

Agribusiness spent  $751 million over the past 5 years on lobbying congress and another $480.5 million in direct campaign contributions over the past two decades. Since 1995, taxpayers have provided $292.5 billion in direct agricultural subsidies, another $96 billion in crop insurance subsidies, and over $100 billion in subsidies to promote the growth of genetically engineered corn and soy.

Feeding huge numbers of confined animals actually uses more food, in the form of grains that could feed humans, than it produces. For every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock, we get back just 30 calories in the form of meat and dairy. That’s a 70-percent loss.  And recent research from the University of Minnesota shows that reallocating croplands away from fuels and animal feed could boost food available for people by 70 percent without clearing more land. 

How did we end up with this cruel, unsustainable, unhealthy, environmentally destructive factory farm model? The numbers say it all.

The Bigger the Farm, the Larger the Taxpayer Subsidy

$292.5 billion: Total amount of taxpayer subsidies given to farms from 1995-2012.

Only $39 billion: Total amount in conservation payments paid to farms between 1995 and 2012.

10: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that collected 75 percent of farm subsidies from 1995-2012.

62: Percentage of farms in the U.S. that did not collect any subsidy payments.

$32,043: Average annual subsidies received by the largest 10 percednt of farms between 1995 and 2012.

$604: Average annual subsidy received by the smallest 80 percent of farms between 1995 and 2012.

Insuring Factory Farms at Taxpayer Expense

$15.8 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers in 2012 for providing crop insurance - an overwhelming majority of which went to the largest factory farms.

$96.4 billion: Cost to U.S. taxpayers for subsidizing the Crop Insurance Program from 1995-2012.

$90 billion: Cost of crop insurance to U.S. taxpayers over the next 10 years.

75: Percentage of 2012 crop insurance payouts shouldered by taxpayers.

$10.3 billion: Amount since 2001 that insurance companies have enjoyed in underwriting gains – while taxpayers have lost $276 million.

$1 million: Average amount the 26 largest factory farms collected apiece in crop insurance premium support in 2011.

$227,000: The amount the top 1 percent of policyholders received in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

$5,000: The amount the bottom 80 percent of policyholders collected in crop insurance subsidies in 2011.

More than 10,000: Number of individual farming operations that received federal crop insurance premium subsidies ranging from $100,000 to more than $1 million apiece in 2011.

10: Percentage of farm businesses that received 54 percent of all insurance subsidies in 2011.

GMO animal feed subsidized by U.S. taxpayers

$84.4 billion: Amount in corn subsidies (88 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

$27.8 billion: Amount in soy subsidies (94 percent of which is now genetically modified) provided in the U.S. from 1995-2012.

Legalized bribery: How American monopolies are built

$751 million: Amount in lobbying expenditures by the agribusiness lobby from 2008-2013.

$480.5 million: Amount the agribusiness sector has contributed to federal candidates during the past two decades, with two-thirds going to Republicans.

$43 million: Amount spent by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (world’s largest biotech trade association)  on lobbying from  2008 to 2013.

$33 million: Approximate amount spent by Monsanto (who has patents on 95% of the genetically modified seed market) on lobbying since 2008. 

$7.2 million: Amount just 14 members of Congress and their spouses (net worth of up to $124.5 million)—each of them Republican—have received in farm subsidies since 1995. These Congress members all voted to continue farm subsidies from which they personally benefit, while allowing authorization for nutrition programs for low income individuals and families, including food stamps, to expire this year.

Sources:
2013 Farm Subsidy Database, Environmental Working Group
Pork Barrel Politics, By Congressman George Miller, July 2013
Agribusiness, Open Secrets
Monsanto Co, Open Secrets
Biotechnology Industry Association, Open Secrets
Winning the Debate against Factory Farming

Compiled by Zack Kaldveer, assistant media director for the Organic Consumers Association.

‘Groundbreaking’ Work? Or Monsanto Madness?

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Science is trying to build a better supermarket tomato.

Tomato plants grow from genetically modified tomato leaves. 

 David Manning for The New York Times

 

Harry J. Klee and his team are identifying genes crucial to tomato flavor. Once crucial genes are identified, Dr. Klee’s team uses traditional techniques of cross-pollination to produce a plant with those genes.

At a laboratory here at the University of Florida’s Institute for Plant Innovation, researchers chop tomatoes from nearby greenhouses and plop them into glass tubes to extract flavor compounds — the essence of tomato, so to speak. These flavor compounds are identified and quantified by machine. People taste and rate the hybrid tomatoes grown in the university’s fields. 

“I’m 98 percent confident we can make a tomato that tastes substantially better,” said Harry J. Klee, a professor of horticultural sciences. He hopes that the fruits of his labor will be available to commercial growers within four or five years and in supermarkets a couple of years after that. He thinks he can make seeds for better tomatoes available to home gardeners even sooner, within a year or two. 

The insipid-tomato problem is well known both to salad lovers and scientists. For example, a gene mutation that tomato breeders love because it turns the fruit a luscious red also happens to make it blander. Refrigeration, transportation and other factors also take their toll. Over the decades, the average tomato has become not only less tasty but less nutritious. 

Enter Dr. Klee, who helped found the Institute for Plant Innovation a decade ago and has been in a quest for a more flavorful and nutritious mass-market tomato ever since.

It is easy to find a better tasting and more nutritious tomato. 

Go to a farmer’s market or grow one in the backyard. It is also easy to breed a plant that produces something tastier than a supermarket tomato — cross a sweet heirloom with the supermarket variety. In the greenhouse, Dr. Klee pulls one such hybrid tomato off a vine, and it does taste sweeter.

 But a hybrid also loses some of the qualities highly valued by commercial growers — it is not as fecund, not as resistant to disease, not as easily grown, not as pretty. 

As growers are paid by the pound, a better-tasting but less productive tomato holds little economic appeal, and thus was the supermarket tomato doomed to blandness. 

Dr. Klee’s goal is to tweak the tomato DNA — through traditional breeding, not genetic engineering — to add desired flavors while not compromising the traits needed for it to thrive commercially. “I figure that with approximately five key genes we could very significantly improve flavor,” he said. He said three genes that control the production of key flavor compounds have already been located. The next step is to identify versions of the genes that lead the tomato plant to produce more of them. 

The chemistry of tomato flavor has three primary components: sugars, acids and what are known as volatile chemicals — the flavor compounds that waft into the air carrying the fruit’s aroma. There are more than 400 volatiles in a tomato, and Dr. Klee and his collaborators set out to first determine which ones are the most important in making a tasty tomato. 

This involved grinding up a lot of tomatoes, looking at what was in them, and asking a lot of people to taste them (unpulverized), gathering comments like “a bland firm watermelon,” “soft and sloppy,” and “Sweet! Finally a sample with some sweetness.” 

From there, Dr. Klee and his collaborators, who include Linda Bartoshuk, director of human research at the university’s Center for Smell and Taste, used statistics to correlate people’s preferences with the presence, or absence, of particular flavor compounds, to devise a chemical recipe for the ideal tomato. 

The supermarket tomato — even when grown with care and picked ripe — did not excel. “The best it will do is middle-of-the-pack,” Dr. Klee said. 

Cherry Roma tomatoes were at the top of the charts, followed by heirloom varieties like Matina, Ailsa Craig and Bloody Butcher. Other heirlooms like Marmande and Oaxacan Pink ranked at the bottom, below the supermarket tomatoes, though perhaps these particular types just do not grow well in Florida. 

The taste analysis produced several surprises. Some compounds, abundant in many tomato varieties and thus thought to be major contributors to flavor, turned out to be irrelevant, while others, in scant quantities, had major influences. With the new knowledge, “you can’t help but get a better tomato,” Dr. Bartoshuk said. 

The most important attribute was sweetness. The sweeter the tomato, the higher the rating. The biggest surprise, though, was that it was not just sugar that made a tomato sweet. Some of the flavor compounds enhanced the perception of sweetness. 

That is the key to Dr. Klee’s plans. Tomato breeders have already tried to maximize sugar, but the plants are bred to produce a lot of big tomatoes all at once, and then do not have energy and sunlight through photosynthesis to make enough sugar to go around. 

The sweetness-enhancing compounds, however, are present in much smaller quantities, so getting a plant to produce more of those is a much more achievable goal, Dr. Klee said. (The compounds also offer promise for sweetening other foods without adding the calories of sugar.)

“His work is really groundbreaking,” said James Giovannoni, a professor of plant biology at Cornell who studies the ripening of fruit and was one of the leaders in the sequencing of the tomato genome published last year. 

He said Dr. Klee has been deciphering the molecular machineries in tomatoes that produce the flavor compounds, and that is not an easy task. “One, there is a lot of them,” Dr. Giovannoni said, “and two, a lot of them are really not understood, how some of these produce these compounds hasn’t been known.” 

Modern genetic engineering has provided tools to study that, and tomatoes are one of the most common plants that plant geneticists study, much in the same way that animal geneticists focus on mice, and now researchers can knock out particular compounds and see if they played a key role in flavor or not. 

There has been one genetically engineered tomato in the supermarket. In the 1980s, plant geneticists at the University of California, Davis, just as frustrated by bland tasting tomatoes, also tried to make a better tomato. That led to a biotechnology company, Calgene, in 1994, developing the Flavr Savr tomato, the first genetically engineered food of any kind in the supermarket, its DNA tweaked to inhibit a protein that turns a tomato mushy over time. While it sold well, Calgene foundered in the logistics of industrial agriculture and was bought by Monsanto, which discontinued selling the seeds. 

The Florida team is not repeating the Flavr Savr game plan.

Although Dr. Klee experiments with genetically engineered tomatoes to test and confirm findings, he said that none of the ones eventually destined for supermarkets will be — partly to avoid potential consumer backlash and partly because his university cannot afford the estimated $15 million that would be needed to obtain regulatory approval to sell a genetically engineered tomato. 

Instead, the tomato would be created through traditional breeding techniques, but using genetic tests to determine which of the plants possess the desired genes. 

The quest for year-round produce at the supermarket has also led to tomatoes being grown in less-than-ideal places — like Florida, where the soil is too sandy and there are plenty of pests — when the traditional tomato-growing areas farther north are too chilly. 

Dr. Klee does not expect the improved tomato to taste as good as the best heirlooms. Supermarket tomatoes would still be grown in large quantities, picked green and shipped long distances before being gassed with ethylene to ripen. In addition, the tomatoes are often mishandled en route. Refrigeration, Dr. Klee notes, destroys the flavor compounds in even the best tomato. “I might be able to get 75 percent” of the best tomato in one that can be grown in greater quantities, he said. 

Some traditional breeders are skeptical that Dr. Klee can do what he thinks he can as quickly as he predicts. “I don’t think the taste of tomatoes is going to be fixed by molecular biologists,” said David Francis, a professor at The Ohio State University who has bred and released several tomato varieties, “because flavor is a lot more complicated than manipulating one or two genes.” 

After working with tomatoes for so long, Dr. Klee admits he does not eat many of them, but he does want the public to be able to buy appetizing ones. Part of his quest is to get people to eat less junk food. If he can improve the taste of tomatoes, he said, it could be an important way to coax Americans to eat healthier foods. 

Tomatoes aren’t the only focus of the Institute for Plant Innovation. Researchers are working on a more fragrant rose, a project that involves the genetic engineering feat of inserting — yes — a tomato gene in a rose plant. They are also trying to grow tastier strawberries and blueberries. One new blueberry variety could be described as positively crispy, almost apple-like in its texture. 

Consumers who tasted these blueberries liked their firmness, and the quality is also a boon to growers, because the fruit lasts longer. 

“It’s a blueprint,” Dr. Klee said of his tomato quest, “for a much bigger program of bringing back flavor.” 

Why Dr. Bronner's is on a Soapbox for GMO Labeling~ The Fighting Soap Company!

On November 5, citizens in Washington State will vote on whether to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs. Win or lose, The Washington Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is driving the national push on GMO labeling in states around the country as well as at the federal level—just as the narrowly defeated Prop 37 in California did last year.

Contrary to the misleading rhetoric and propaganda espoused by chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow that portrays GMO labeling on food packaging as costly and unnecessary, the truth is we have the right to know important information about our food, and such disclosures on packaging cost virtually nothing. We have the right to know whether juice is from concentrate or not; whether ingredients are artificial or not; whether fish is farmed or wild-caught. We also have the right to know if food is genetically engineered, in order to make informed decisions about what we eat and feed our families.

Chemical companies genetically engineer DNA from bacteria into food crops, causing the crops to either produce or tolerate the pesticides they sell. Overuse of pesticide is creating resistant superweeds and superbugs, which leads to more pesticides being sprayed. Now, chemical companies like Monsanto and Dow are engineering resistance in food crops to increasingly toxic weed killers like Dicamba and 2,4-D, the main ingredient in Agent Orange (which, coincidentally, both Monsanto and Dow also manufactured).

The bottom line is that genetic engineering of food crops is a pesticide industry boondoggle. Just six chemical companies have bought and now control the seed industry in this country, and their interest is to increase—not reduce—agchemical inputs. Rather than help farmers move toward more sustainable and less chemical intensive agriculture, genetic engineering has resulted in huge increases in pesticide use and residues of these chemicals in our food. Pesticide Action Network is a great resource on the link between GMOs and pesticides, and the next generation weed killer tolerant crops in the regulatory pipeline. Even the Wall Street Journal has reported on the recent spike in insecticide use.

Just this past week came news about Argentina's pesticide use and reported cancer clusters. In question: the huge increase in pesticide use—and consequential health impacts—since the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops in Argentina. It's important to understand that no currently commercialized GMO traits, or any in the regulatory pipeline, have the effect of boosting yield to "feed the world." Rather, by far the most important in terms of acreage and revenue are traits designed to increase weed killer tolerance and the short-term profits of the chemical industry.

Additionally, of the five major crops that have been genetically engineered so far (corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets), corn and soy are by far the most prevalent, as the number one and two crops farmed in the U.S. However, these crops are mostly not grown for human consumption.

Big Ag lobbies for and profits from unsustainable ethanol fuel mandates that result in 43 percent of total corn acreage going into inefficient ethanol production from GMO corn kernels (not cellulosic waste straw). Most of the remaining corn production, and much of the U.S. GMO soy crop, goes into animal feed. Industrial agchemical farming of GMO crops for fuel and animal feed only exacerbates world hunger. Study after study shows that agroecological organic methods of agriculture in the developing world can feed the world's population twice over while significantly boosting rural development (see the UN Report, "Agroecology and the Right to Food").

Industrial agchemical agriculture relies on finite fossil resources, is a huge contributor to global climate change, and is inevitably doomed. But there are billions to be made in the meantime polluting the world and killing our soil. Since agroecological methods are knowledge-intensive and are not patentable or profitable for Big Ag, chemical corporations spend millions to ensure national policy reinforces their chemical intensive and genetically patentable—but ultimately unsustainable—business model.

Last year, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps joined a diverse, grassroots coalition of consumer groups, health advocates, and environmentalists in California in support of Proposition 37. Pesticide and junk food manufacturers spent more than $44 million to narrowly defeat the initiative with deceptive advertising. Despite its defeat, Proposition 37 sparked a national movement for the right to know whether foods contain GMOs, with states around the country considering or enacting legislation to do so. Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, which, as stipulated in the legislation, will go into effect when at least five more New England states also pass such laws. Washington State is the next battleground with major agricultural sectors concerned that unlabeled genetically engineered wheat, apples, and salmon will compromise consumer trust in these foods.

To help spread the word about the importance of GMO labeling, we have transformed our iconic Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps label for the castile liquid soaps into an advocacy label, to garner support for the Yes on 522 campaign to label GMOs in Washington, and to raise awareness for the importance of transparency in food labeling. For a limited time, wherever you buy Dr. Bronner's quart castile soaps, you'll find this GMO-Info label on the quart size bottles, and we hope you'll take a moment in the shower to read it.

As the "fighting soap company," we seek to push for a number of social issues that we feel are good. All our soaps are certified under the same USDA National Organic Program that certifies food, and all major ingredients (coconut, olive, palm, hemp and mint oils) are also certified Fair Trade. We cap executive compensation at five to one per our lowest paid position, and dedicate profits not needed for the business to charitable and activist causes.

We have prioritized labeling of genetically modified foods alongside supporting at-risk youth programs, re-commercializing industrial hemp, animal advocacy, fairness in trade, and other worthwhile efforts. My brother and I wrote this new GMO info label in the tradition of our grandfather, Dr. Emanuel Bronner, and his "All-One" philosophy, and on behalf of our commitment to healthy and sustainable agriculture, corporate accountability, and the consumers' right to know—all of which embody the social and ecological principles that inform the philosophy printed on the original castile liquid soap labels.

Whether you live in Washington, or elsewhere in the U.S., this is a food fight that affects all of us. Learn more about the GMO issue, support the Yes on 522 campaign in Washington, and join the growing movement to demand mandatory GMO labeling in your state and at the federal level.

Washington Endorse YES on WA 522

Look Who's Spending Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling in Washington

The opposition: WA I-522 Vote No Funders

Hover over a slice of the pie graph for details:

*The Grocery Manufacturers Association includes these Companies: Safeway (O Organics), Starbucks, Target, Con-Agra (Alexia, Hunt's Organic and Natural Brands, Lightlife, Orville Redenbacher's Organic), Kellogg's (Kashi, Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Morningstar Farms), Unilever (Ben & Jerry's), Kraft (Boca Burgers), General Mills (Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen), Hershey's (Dagoba,) Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla), Dean Foods (Horizon Organic, Silk, White Wave), Pepsico (Naked Juice, Tostito's Organic, Tropicana Organic), Smucker's (R.W. Knudsen)


NOTE:   

The funny thing is, voting yes could work out to Monsanto's et al benefit.  They'll jump on board, saying "we're proud that this food contains GE ingredients, which feed the world" or some other garbage.

Cigarette warning labels didn't stop smoking, while I support GMO labels, informed consumers already know.  Uninformed consumers prefer ignorance.  Maybe some uninformed will take the time to read labels, although that is insufficient knowledge. 

 

Many "organic" trash foods contain GMO, such as sugar (sugar beets) Canola oil etc....they just see the word organic and don't pursue the ingredients any further.  Plus "natural" already allows HFCS etc....

We really live in a corporate ruled society where deception is critical for bottom lines. 

People already have more power than the voting both, more power than any legislation.  Just vote with each $$$ that they spend.

Will All The Kings Horses Harrass Portland Homeless?

To: Michael Oswald

     Kim Peoples, Director of Community Services
To: Multnomah County  Commission

 

 

See below: so often addressed. Any one with any current knowledge and common sense knows that fines punishment and extorted surrender accomplish nothing in animal enforcement ( the most insignificant of crimes) although sometimes they have an effect by frightening  citizens, especially the vulnerable and poverty stricken into surrendering their animals when humane alternatives exist.

 

At MCAS, however failure and bad policy are no reason to reconsider. The lack of government performance standards at the county commission and this agency is astonishing for an urban community; a complete squandering of tax payer resources without accountability,  best suited to a private club not public office. 

 

Additional ticket examples in part one:

 

NOI 90107 a $300 fine issued for a first offense minor bite  to  Mary Mackrill, homeless, an accident, with the requirement that  her dog must wear a muzzle at all times except when eating or drinking or in extreme heat. What is extreme heat, Mr. Oswald ( What most of us feel when impossible conditions are issued) ?. Or her dog will be  surrendered.

 .These are my questions:

 

How is a $300 fine a deterrent to someone who  is homeless and has no money? Of course you will send this to collections so you can ruin a poverty stricken homeless person's "credit". Exactly what have you accomplished?

 

We can't offer legal help because only you have a way to contact  Ms.Mackrill.

 

The imposed conditions of constant muzzling except for extreme heat ( What is that: 85 degrees; 95? What is the measure?. Should the homeless person carry a thermometer? ) amount to animal cruelty and is an impossible compliance requirement, just as impossible as the oft cited requirement of homeless persons that they build a secure concrete based enclosure on property they don't have because they don't have a home.

 

Why don't you permit  an owner education diversion class that teaches new skills instead of futilely punishing those with challenges who have no skills? Other places have "Street Smarts for the Street Dog". This  intervention, so successful  elsewhere, falls on deaf ears because you have fixed ideas and failed polcies and refuse to budge.

 

NOI 89562 to Joseph Razzouk, a UPS driver, who realy loves his dog. His dog gets out. Help him instead of issuing a $500 fine making any solution impossible.

 

There are other tickets just like this one, equally thoughtless, and I will just begin posting them every week so the public can know where its taxes go.

 

If you will not honor this community's values and direction, please resign. A community government agency  on auto pilot needs a new leader. All the King's horses and All the King's men can't fix this when no effort is made and leadership just doesn't care.

 

Gail O'Connell-Babcock

503.625.4563,

Keep Kali Walking

Kali is a 4 year old pup that my has had since she was about 6 weeks old. She is a loving dog who just wants to live a long and happy life.

Kali is a very friendly black lab who can sadly hardly stand up. She has some sort of degenerative knee problem that was not caused by an accident she was just born with. It did not bother her until about two years ago. We have had basic surgery done to it twice by our local vet and it has only gotten worse after. He recommended we see a specialist. To get better surgery and have hospital stays and pain management it is going to cost about $5000 to $6000.
She is a very sweet dog who loves everyone and always seems to be happy no matter how much pain she is in. Lately she wines all day and at night when she is not asleep. She bows out her front legs when she tries to walk because she cannot push much pressure on her back legs. She falls more often and can barely get up unless one of us lifts her hips up for her.
Any help would be so wonderful. God Bless :)

NOTE:  Happy Tails is posting this for someone who needs help raising funds for her dog's surgery.

Understanding Dog Dynamics

 

Dogs and Children

By Crystal Wakeman

Animal Rescue World

Humans and Dogs have a history that goes back 100,000 years. This is when scientists say the DNA from domestic dogs and wolves was split.

 Somewhere in these 100,000 years we have forgotten that dogs are not humans. We have also taught our children to humanize dogs.

I believe this is the reason for countless misunderstandings between dogs and children.

 Unfortunately these miscommunications between dogs and humans often result in death for the dog!

I have heard it a million times,

 “the dog bit our kid all of the sudden with no provocation, he turned on us.“

It is highly unlikely that the dog bit with no warning. It is just not a warning that a human might notice. In the world we live in we have lost the natural instincts and language of our natural world.

When we decide to bring a dog into our home we must understand it is time to tap into our instincts, and learn a little bit about dog behavior. A dog is only a dog, they do not understand English or a lot of our behaviors. 

A household can be a confusing, scary place for a dog. We need to show them we are stable enough to run the pack. If a dog believes he/she is to run the pack (the family) we are putting them in charge of a world they do not understand. 

This is totally unfair to the dog. If we let them lead they will become scared and unstable because they do not understand our human households. 

Never introduce a dog to a child until you are sure the dog understands humans are above them in the pack. Make sure the dog will listen to you no matter the situation. If your dog is unreliable wait until you put in the work to teach them you have running the house covered (not the dog’s job).

Make sure their temperament is stable enough to be around children. Last but not least the kids need to know appropriate behavior around the dog. This does not mean shield the dog from kids all together, it means choose the proper time and environment to introduce the dog to children so everyone is safe and secure. 

The first thing to understand is that we should never greet a dog by running up and patting their heads or baby talking. The best habit to get into is to ignore the dog until the dog is calm for at least 10 min.

In some cases you should even wait until the dog stays calm for longer than 10 min, but I will use the 10 min rule as an average. If the dog starts to get worked up (hyper) after you acknowledge them ignore the dog again and add 5 minutes to the original time every time you have to repeat this process.

When we greet our dogs instead of them greeting us we are electing them leader of the pack! Which puts dogs in an uncomfortable position, they feel that they are responsible for running our household!

It is like putting a banker into an operating room and expecting exceptional performance. It is just not going to happen. It is no wonder why there are so many unstable dogs out there. 

The second thing to understand is it is a terrible idea to pet or acknowledge a dog that is an unstable state of mind. Humans often comfort each other by giving hugs or pats on the back however when we do this to our dogs we reinforce a negative state of mind.

The best thing to do with an unstable dog is to ignore them until they get more comfortable. We can use tools to encourage them to move forward however a dog will not move forward if we are reinforcing instability by petting them and putting lots of treats and toys in their face while they scared or unsure. 

Walking our dogs is incredibly important and is a great way to show our dogs all humans in the home are the leaders. I suggest an adult works with their dog before adding children to the walk.

Before you even put a leash on your dog they need to be calm. The leash going on to a dogs collar is a reward. If you reward a hyper exited dog you are setting the mood for the entire walk.

After the leash is on your dog will typically get exited again. Do not move forward until the dog is calm. Every time the dog walks in front of you walk back to the starting point. The dog will get the point, we do not move forward unless I am calm. 

It does not matter if you only walk a couple of blocks in an hour. This exercise is a mental work out for your pooch. Every day your four-legged friend will go further and further until they only follow you. 

Another important thing to keep in mind is that dogs are very aware of how everyone is feeling around them. If you are in a bad state of mind your dog will sense it and try to take over while you are unable to lead. 

Humans are the only animals that follow instability.

Never work a dog when you are having a bad day. Dogs can smell how you felt hours before you even come around. 

The more calm and confident that we are the better our dogs will listen. 

A good way we can test ourselves on our mood and what messages we are sending to our dogs is our body language. Are we walking like leaders? You cannot lead with a slumped over posture. 

We should walk with our heads high, chest out, and relax, dogs can see and smell tension from a mile away. While working with dogs we should always ask ourselves what message are we sending to our dogs through our mental state and body language.

Whenever we feed our four-legged friends it is a good idea to show them all humans in the house eat first. This is an activity for the whole family, kids included. This can be accomplished by simply eating a cracker in front of the dog before he/she eats. 

This should never turn into teasing our dog, or the whole process will lose it’s meaning. We also set the bowl of food on the ground and make the dog sit or down while the dog focuses on the human in charge before he/she gets to eat. The dog must also be calm, and not hovering over the bowl. If the dog is sitting but not calm, wait until the dog is calm.

Once you we are sure we have a dog’s trust and respect we can introduce the dog to children. The first rule is to never allow the dog to invade the child’s space uninvited. 

They need to keep a respectable distance until they are calm and called to the child. Then they will learn to be calm around children while they are in a submissive state of mind. It is a good idea to include children in training and behavioral conditioning activities.

Just as the adults are to ignore the dog for ten minutes the children must too. This shows our dogs the kids are above them in the pack. We have to be aware of our children’s behavior. If they cannot follow the rules they will not be included in the activities.

The children must be disciplined enough to follow the rules. Unstable unruly children will make unstable unruly dogs. Introducing dogs to children is a positive thing when the environment is not chaotic.

Pick a good time and place for this process.

Some dogs are more sensitive than others. It is best to judge each situation differently with each individual dog. Some dogs may not be able to be around children, but I would say most can with the proper introduction and environment. 

Never introduce a dog to a child who does not recognize you as the leader. Any dog being introduced to children should be even-tempered and ready. Everything written here is based on my experience successfully introducing dogs and children, however these are suggestions, if you are unsure consult a behaviorist near you.

Please Join Me In This Tribute To My Dog

The sun has no business shining when I am in agony after my world turned upside down last night.

How can just a few minutes change everything?

It's hard enough losing a beloved animal family member when they are old, sick or there is reason to anticipate death.

It is unfathomably unbearable when the death is sudden, unexpected and I am left powerless to change the outcome, but with ample intellect to question everything preceding his dying moment.

This written release is a tribute to Gustav and for myself to bring some type of finality or closure to my wounds. The crying is uncontrollable and pushed me into hyperventilation last night. My heart was literally ripped from it's base, I've lost my footing, my friend and am just barely hanging on with too many tears pouring down my face.

Gustav pictured above at 4 months, shortly after he was vaccinated for Parvo, he developed parvo and spent several months with an Idaho vet. Since I didn't know him before, I don't know if it was the vaccine heavy metals that damaged him neurologically or if he was that way to begin with. He was labeled dangerous and so came to us after his parvo recovery.  It was months before the painful intensity of eating diminished, he ate mostly scrambled eggs with goat milk until he healed.

Shortly afterward he developed severe spinal conditions, his back was always arched much like a camel, he could only walk on his tip toes and he would have small rear end seizures. 

Months of herbal blends, detoxing, spinal massages and therapeutic mushrooms brought him a straight top line and he developed into a super athlete. 

The small seizures virtually eliminated. 

Bursting with energy and life he crammed 20 years of living into the 7.5 years spent on earth.

He was too rough for the public, too much uncontrolled energy, life was a game, your feet were a game, other dogs were fun too. Not a mean bone in his powerful body, but someone could easily come in contact with his huge smiling face, paws or his unusual, gruff play style that we modified but couldn't eliminate. Once he relaxed at night, he was a huge, affectionate licking marshmallow. A kind gentle creature who joined our indoor permanent crew.

That was just Gustav's 2 speeds, hyper turbo overdrive or melt onto you and the couch, aka Goo Goo, Gooey, Good Stuff or The Gustinator

He was my favorite dog of all times.

 

His days were fun filled outside in the pasture, next to his best friend Paco, the Peruvian Paso Stallion. They were physical matched friends, running the fence lines, rolling or just hanging out with each other on opposite sides of the fence.

Goo also had 3 permanent deer friends, and up to 7 who would share his pasture. He would observe them and only boof and bounce if they violated his 25' limit.

 

This morning they were not in his pasture for the first time in years, they knew he was gone.

Just before it was time for Gooey to come in last night he started barking as though he was playing with Paco, it was an unusual time so after looking out the window and not seeing him, we raced out just as he launched himself into his Igloo after warning the Raccoon to leave the area and his food.

The fight only lasted a few minutes before we could get Goo out. He's had similar encounters a few times, but not in a couple of years, the raccoons had stayed clear and he always would encourage them to leave.

As usual no bites, no scratches, not even limping, just winded. I walked him until he cooled down and brought him in for dinner of raw bison, Coconut oil, herbs & veggies. He flopped down onto the floor, had some water and was still pretty winded/panting. I thoroughly checked him and found no injuries, tender areas or blood. He'd often run raccoons  up a tree and circle the tree for hours. There was nothing unusual about him or his behavior last night.

He had a couple of cookies and was resting a bit before starting his dinner. 

We went upstairs to eat our dinner, I heard him get up, lap a bit more water and plop back down. After about 10 minutes I didn't hear him go to the couch which was his normal routine, laying in front of the fireplace and thoroughly enjoying the moment. I went down to see if there was anything I could do and found him dead on the kitchen floor where he always laid.

My world stopped.  Our 4 other dogs in the house and both of us, yet none of us heard a sound. He just silently died sometime within those 10 minutes when we went upstairs. There was no re-wind, I couldn't turn back the hands of time or change anything.  Helpless.

Unbelievable, unthinkable, unbearable that I'll never, on this earth, again touch his smiling face, or give his spinal massage, or watch him with his deer, or with his stallion.

Lord Byron's Epitaph To A Dog

Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.

This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
BOATSWAIN, a DOG,
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18, 1808.

When some proud Son of Man returns to Earth,
Unknown by Glory, but upheld by Birth,
The sculptor’s art exhausts the pomp of woe,
And storied urns record who rests below.When all is done, upon the Tomb is seen,
Not what he was, but what he should have been.

But the poor Dog, in life the firmest friend,
The first to welcome, foremost to defend,
Whose honest heart is still his Master’s own,
Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,
Unhonoured falls, unnoticed all his worth,
Denied in heaven the Soul he held on earth –
While man, vain insect! hopes to be forgiven,
And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven.

Oh man! thou feeble tenant of an hour,
Debased by slavery, or corrupt by power –
Who knows thee well must quit thee with disgust,
Degraded mass of animated dust!

Thy love is lust, thy friendship all a cheat,
Thy tongue hypocrisy, thy words deceit!

By nature vile, ennobled but by name,
Each kindred brute might bid thee blush for shame.
Ye, who perchance behold this simple urn,
Pass on – it honors none you wish to mourn.
To mark a friend’s remains these stones arise;
I never knew but one – and here he lies.

Why Does My Dog Bark At Nothing?

Written by  Dr. Patty Khuly

Dogs bark for all kinds of reasons. They may be alerting you to something noteworthy; making a request (or a demand, depending on your point of view); aggressively warding off (or confronting) prey, predator, or interloper; communicating stress or discomfort; or engaging in play.

Barking might be a response to a howl heard from half a mile away. Or because a squirrel just chattered in the backyard. Or because your dog wants dinner. Or because you walked in the door and life is just! so! good! In any case, barking is a perfectly normal canine behavior.

Behaviorists categorize barking into these categories:

• territorial barking
• alarm barking
• attention-seeking barking
• greeting barking
• socially facilitated barking
• frustration-induced barking
• illness or injury barking
• separation-anxiety barking

But some dogs bark excessively, seemingly at the drop of a pin. Luckily, there are measures you can take to help reduce his or her sensitivity and/or the volume and frequency of the response. Talk to your veterinarian, a board-certified veterinary behaviorist, a certified applied animal behaviorist, or a qualified certified professional dog trainer if you're serious about stopping the noise.

If you believe your dog is barking at absolutely nothing, compulsive barking is a possibility, especially if your dog barks excessively and repetitively while also moving in repetitive ways. For example, a compulsive barker might pace in a circle or walk back and forth along a fence as she barks.

Thankfully, there's help for this problem, too. Ask your veterinarian.

Best Cities For Dog Lovers

Do you love to bring your dog everywhere with you? Of course you do! Your dog is an adorable part of the family! If you love man’s best friend as much as we do, check out our list of the Best Cities for Dog Lovers:

 

Dog-Friendly - San FranciscoThere are endless amenities for you and your pup in San Francisco, whether it’s hiking a trail, shopping, checking out attractions or enjoying the park–all 56 of them. Give Fido a view of the water with Blue and Gold Fleet Bay Cruises. Your on-leash pet is welcome to join you for this one-hour cruise, which offers gorgeous views of the bridges, piers and more.

 

San Diego

You and your pooch will love San Diego not just for its great weather, but also because it has plenty of pet-friendly accommodations. Go shopping with your canine, play at the park, walk the hiking trails or head to the beach.

There are 16 off-leash dog parks where man’s best friend can stretch his legs, play and run around. Lighthouse Ice Cream & Yogurt even offers Frosty Paws–a sugar-free, soy-based ice cream for your dog.

 NOTE:  Why  you and your dog should avoid Soy  


Why Dog Parks Are A Bad Idea


 
Portland

Portland is the 12th most walkable large city in the US and home to 32 off-leash dog parks. On Saturdays, get out of your Portland apartment and head over to the Portland Market.

You and your canine can enjoy the outdoors while picking up some fresh produce. Get some exercise with Fido by taking him to the Powell Butte Trail–an easy four-mile hike that takes about an hour and a half to complete.

NOTE:  While Portlanders love their animals, the county and animal control has enormously high kill rates, they sanitize the kills rates by claiming that they don't kill any adoptable animals, yet thousands of healthy dogs and cats are kill yearly without counting   Search this Blog under shelters.

It's so bad that we no longer adopt to Multnomah county where Portland is located.







Seattle, Washington

Walk the city of Seattle with your furry friend to any of its 11 off-leash dog parks.

If you need to get some shopping done, the University Village Shopping Center has many outdoor stores in a relaxing, dog-friendly environment.

 You can even add some fun into your day by visiting the Fremont Sunday Ice Cream Cruise. Well-behaved, leashed pets are welcome aboard to enjoy some sweets on the water.






Chicago, Illinois

Dog-Friendly - ChicagoHave some fun in the sun by taking a walk to one of the three dog-friendly beaches in Chicago.

You can take off your dog’s leash at Montrose Dog beach and splash around in the water–or choose one of the 18 off-leash dog parks.

Get out of your apartment and check out one of Chicago’s biggest attractions with Fido: Navy Pier. Dogs are welcome in the outdoor common areas and some merchants and tours permit dogs to join their humans.





Orlando, Florida
Dog-Friendly - OrlandoYou and your pooch can travel to seven different off-leash dog parks to enjoy the fresh air and exercise in Orlando.

There are also nine veterinary clinics, 13 pet stores and nine grooming facilities, ensuring that your pup looks and feels happy and healthy.

 Hit the trails with Fido or go camping at Turkey Lake Park. You both can hike, play games or visit the butterfly garden. At the Downtown Orlando Farmers Market, you can shop for farm-fresh produce, listen to live music and enjoy a drink in the beer and wine garden. Don’t leave without purchasing something for man’s best friend–vendors sell homemade pet treats, supplies, clothing and travel accessories.

Austin, Texas
Dog-Friendly - AustinSouthern hospitality doesn’t just apply to humans in the Lone Star state.

Want to do your morning yoga?

Visit Austin Doga–that’s right, yoga for dogs. Both you and Fido can feel refreshed and reset in this yoga class for humans and canines.

You can also visit one of Austin’s 18 off-leash dog parks, which are great social scenes for dogs and humans alike. If you’re new to the city, go on one of Austin’s guided walking tours, where leashed dogs are welcome.





Las Vegas, Nevada
Dog-Friendly - Las VegasLas Vegas has 25 off-leash dog parks for your and your pooch to choose from.

You can also head over to the Las Vegas DockDogs–a beach where you and your pet can cool off, get some exercise and play fun games.

There are 12 veterinary clinics in the area, so you can always stay up-to-date on your canine’s health.

 Explore the great outdoors by heading to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, which is less than a half-hour drive from the Strip.

San Francisco, California
Dog-Friendly - San FranciscoThere are endless amenities for you and your pup in San Francisco, whether it’s hiking a trail, shopping, checking out attractions or enjoying the park–all 56 of them.

Give Fido a view of the water with Blue and Gold Fleet Bay Cruises. Your on-leash pet is welcome to join you for this one-hour cruise, which offers gorgeous views of the bridges, piers and more.






Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Dog-Friendly - MilwaukeeEver thought you could go paddleboarding with your pup?

 
 


Well, in Milwaukee you can. Juneau Park Paddleboats allows you and your leashed pets to tour the waters on Veterans Park Lagoon. Once you’re done, grab some coffee at the Community Bark Dog Wash & Coffee Bar.

 You can hang with your furry friend inside while grabbing some coffee, surfing the web or just relaxing. You can also visit any one of Milwaukee’s five off-leash dog parks.





Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota
Dog-Friendly - Twin CitiesBring your pup into Birchbark Books, where you can search for the latest and greatest novel. Then, head to the Lake Harriet Rose Garden, where you can relax and read while your dog keeps you company. Get some exercise at any of the seven dog parks in the Twin Cities–one of which winds along gorgeous waterfalls in the Minnehaha Park.