Thursday, October 23, 2014

Semi Sponsored Post - Cat Urine Extractor and Zero Odor Eliminator

So when I went to BlogPaws 2013 I ran into a company who was producing an odor eliminator product for pets. They gave me several of their products hoping I would blog about it. Unfortunately I haven't gotten around to it until now. While watching twitter during BlogPaws 2014 I saw a post by another company who was producing a product for cleaning up inappropriate elimination. I tweeted to them that I wish I was there so I could get some, and after quite a bit of emails and several follow ups on my part and with some time passing, I finally got a bottle.

I have used both over the months and have found both pros and cons for both. One I intend to buy again, the other I might but I think because of the former I won't need it.

The first product is called "Zero Odor" it is a febreze type product that when you spray it on something that smells it changes the molecular structure so it no longer smells. They demonstrated it with an onion in a chopper.. chopping it up, letting you smell it then covering it with the product and you could no longer smell it. The lack of smell was pretty impressive. He would then chop it some more and the odor would be back. The product only works on the molecules of odor it can reach.

It also comes in three different types, one for odor elimination, one for spraying on the litter box, and one for cleaning. I got all three, and while I didn't use the litter box one, the other two worked very well.

The second product is Cat Urine Extractor by Earth's Balance. It is a concentrated, professional strength formula that completely extracts pheromones, helping to stop your cat from remarking the same area. Moleculift™ technology lifts pheromones up and out, getting rid of stains and odors for good. (quoth the website)

The Zero Odor is in a spray bottle which makes it great for dosing exactly where you want it, and the exact amount you want. It covers up odors wonderfully. My husband had a preference for a very floral smelling product that would give me headaches when he used it, and this covered that up brilliantly. The one downside to it is if there is an odor causing substance soaked into something and you only get the spray on to the surface, it will come back.

The Cat Urine Extractor comes in a squirt bottle. The product has a water consistency so it pours out pretty easily and it is harder to control. Using it on hard surfaces I was less than impressed.

I wanted to do a side by side to see which would "win" so I went down into my basement where I have had some issues with inappropriate elimination. This time it was the entertainment center.. I brought both products down with me as well as a black light I picked up in early November one year as a Halloween clearance item. (seriously, go find one.. you will both be amazed and disgusted what you have in your home)

The equipment (paper towels not shown)
Entertainment center before
under the black light
challengers, prepared to 'do battle'
the after
another after shot. You can see the particle board starting to separate
all gone

For cleaning hard surfaces the Zero Odor in the spray bottle was great. We've all cleaned with a spray bottle, so I don't need to explain why. Using the zero odor on the hard surface was a bit more difficult, but not that bad. Here there really is no clear winner..

Where the Cat Urine Extractor excelled was the carpet cleaning. I tried to get good photos of it, but was really hard. Taking a photo of the stain on the carpet wasn't easy so a lot of them were very blurry (I need to get a tripod) but taking a picture of the stain not there was pointless.. it just looked like carpet. The Cat Urine Extractor totally removed the stain from the carpet under the blacklight; even the stains that came from vomit and not urine. Again, the dosing wasn't very precise, and I felt I often used far more than I had to. Once the product was in the carpet all I needed to do was scrub with my fingertips and the stain actually disappeared with in moments. I used paper towels to sop it up and the rest dried up fairly quickly and you could not tell either in normal light or under the blacklight that it had been there.

Both products failed to clean the unsealed wood on the doors in my basement. We have two, one that goes towards where we keep the litter boxes and one that goes into the kitten room. When we had Chandler in that room he peed on the door before he even explored the room and someone tried to cover up the smell from the outside. Neither product removed the stain on the door, neither did general cleaner.

The Zero Odor is a bit less expensive than the Cat Urine Extractor, both are available on Amazon, but I am really excited about the stain removal properties of the latter and I plan to buy another bottle or two of it to clean the carpet in the basement.

I call this a semi sponsored post because I got these products for free and the people who gave them to me knew I was a blogger, but there was never a discussion about a post which is why I decided to go for a one vs the other post..

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

#BtC4Animals Bear Baiting

I live in Maine.  On the fourth day of November we will be asked to vote on a referendum banning bear baiting.

Here’s the exact language: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research.”

The animal advocate in me says YES YES YES oh heck YES!, but the blogger in me wonders why the Maine Game Wardens and Biologists are saying vote no. So I went into this hoping to find some bit of logical sense in all this for the opposition, to educate myself and maybe learn something.

Before delving into all of that, let me share with you something. There are currently only twelve states that allow bear baiting. Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine is the only state in the union that allows all three methods that they are trying to ban in this vote, baiting, trapping and using dogs.

So, to find out why I should "Vote No on One" I went to I have been extremely unhappy with the "No on One" campaign commercials in general, using a lot of fear and intimidation, implying that without bear baiting, bears will be coming up and mauling your children in your backyard


There have also been commericals implying that there will be nothing that can be done if these bears do come up into your neighborhood and are aggressive.. (except the question says you can to protect property or for public safety) (interestingly enough the No on One camp does not have it's commercials on it's website but the Yes on One does.  There are some really good ones on there, but this is an exercise in why I should vote no.)

So again, why do they oppose this?

Reading "" (do you find that name as irritating as I do? You can still hunt bears, you just won't be able to bait them or trap them or use hounds to hunt them) They are saying that with out these 'reliable" methods of hunting, the cull of the population would go down. That it is very hard to hunt a bear with out these methods, and with an increased population you will have increased aggression in the population as they go in search of food. A quote from that website: "Consider: A year ago, hunters shot 2,845 bears in Maine. Of those bears, at least 2,633 — a whopping 93 percent of the total harvest — were shot using the methods that may be banned come November." *  Well considering these methods are legal, and cheap and easy, who wouldn't use them?? I don't think that is much of an argument.

However, reading their own website and reading the history of bear hunting, one has to wonder what the biologists and game wardens are thinking. Currently the cull is below management levels they themselves set and the population is increasing anyway. The history of bear hunting is that we used to do it twice a year, now we currently only allow it once a year. If hunting bears is so hard and getting rid of baiting would make it that much harder, why do we not allow increased time for hunts? Why are there still caps of two bears per hunter? Couldn't better management of the population occur with a fair hunt if done right?

Another reason they say we should allow baiting and trapping is because it allows for a 'cleaner kill'. I can't really fault that reasoning. Apparently a running bear is kinda hard to hit and can cause a hunter to wound the animal and not outright kill it. When this happens with a deer, it is not hard to imagine the hunter tracking the deer through the woods to either claim his deer or finish it off and then claim it. With a bear you run the risk of running into an injured bear being mauled. Okay, point to the baiting, but it also seems to be more fair to allow the bear the chance of getting away. If you want a bear sitting still when you shoot it, set up near a berry bush, or somewhere else a bear would naturally forage for food.

Interestingly enough, the Vote No on One camp admits there are no statistics on how many bears eat at traps and are never killed. They do claim that bear population isn't influenced by baiting, but I can't see how they can possibly claim that. There is a nice chart on this video showing the population waxing and waning, but would it go lower if there weren't millions of pounds of food put in the woods to 'feed the bears'? I don't know about you, but I grew up on Yogi Bear and learned from a very early age not to feed the bears. Feeding bears gets them used to people and gets them used to coming around populated areas.. They bait bears in the same area year after year, making the bears used to being able to find easy food.

So tell me again why are we baiting bears?

While looking for videos of the commercials playing on our airways on youtube, I came across this video of a fisher cat at a bait station. So how many other animals are we feeding, because no one is required to take the food up when they aren't watching it. And if you didn't know, fisher cats also prey on house cats.

Now I should probably tell you I am not a hunter (you have probably guessed that anyway) and I really abhor the idea and the practice of hunting, but I do fully accept that unless we cull the herd, the population will explode past the point of the land being able to sustain the animals and they will suffer and starve. They will also encroach on to land that is 'occupied by people' and become a nuisance (even though they were here first) and harm will most likely come to either a person or the bear. I also accept that if the hunter is going to use the animal for which he hunts and not discard it to simply display a trophy on a wall (or a rug on the floor) that the kill has a purpose. The meat can feed a family and keep a cow or a pack of chickens from being killed. Trophy hunters are abhorrent to me.

There have been other states that have banned baiting. According to one of the Yes on One commercials, when they have banned baiting in other states they were able to maintain a stable bear population.

So, voting no on one will make it easier for people to hunt by making the bears come to the people, and hopefully allowing for a cleaner shot, and they won't have to take fifteen days to find a bear to shoot.  *sarcasm on* oh yes, let us vote no on one *sarcasm off*

I really was open to finding an actual reason why we should continue to allow baiting, using dogs and traps to maintain the bear population. I don't think it would have changed my mind in voting no, but I was hoping there was something other than 'it is easier' as a reason.

(I know I'm late on BtC, but I wanted to blog about this, and it took a while to do all the reading and catch the commercial I wanted to share)