This is what will be taken away from you by many of the proposed laws
Its just A Dog
From time to time, people tell me, "lighten up, it's just a dog," or,"that's a lot of money for just a dog."
They don't understand the distance traveled, the time spent, or the costs involved for "just a dog."
Some of my proudest moments have come about with "just a dog."
Many hours have passed and my only company was "just a dog," but I did not once feel slighted.
Some of my saddest moments have been brought about by "just a dog," and in those days of darkness, the gentle touch of "just a dog" gave me comfort and reason to overcome the day.
If you, too, think it's "just a dog," then you will probably understand phrases like "just a friend," "just a sunrise," or "just a promise."
"Just a dog" brings into my life the very essence of friendship, trust, and pure unbridled joy.
"Just a dog" brings out the compassion and patience that make me a better person.
Because of "just a dog", I will rise early, take long walks and look longingly to the future.
So for me and folks like me, it's not "just a dog" but an embodiment of all the hopes and dreams of the future, the fond memories of the past, and the pure joy of the moment.
"Just a dog" brings out what's good in me and diverts my thoughts away from myself and the worries of the day.
I hope that someday they can understand that it's not "just a dog", but the thing that gives me humanity and keeps me from being "just a man or woman."
So the next time you hear the phrase "just a dog" just smile... because they "just don't understand."
Written by an unknown Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.
From the Therapy Dog Inc. News Magazine
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
National Animal Welfare Act
Model National Animal Welfare Act Summary:
This model law was drafted to provide a starting point for the drafting of national animal welfare law. It includes sections related to companion animals, animal cruelty, owner responsibilities, animal experimentation, and food animal provisions, among others.
Statute in Full:
Model National Animal Welfare Legislation
Drafted by Professor David Favre & Jaime Olin
Animal and Legal Historical Web Center
Michigan State University College of Law
Summary: This model statute represents general animal welfare legislation that can be easily adopted by developing countries. (A full translation into Spanish is available.) It sets out specific criminal actions, and a process for future regulatory acts by national and local governments. A full explanation of the draft law can be found in the accompanying paper. There is also an article that compares existing national statutes which might be helpful in understanding the issues that need to be addressed. (comparative paper)
Statute in Full: This law shall be know as the Animal Welfare Act of [2004] .
Sec. 1. Introduction
(a) Animals, having both intrinsic and extrinsic value to human societies, deserve special protection of their individual interests under the law. This statute acknowledges the obligations that humans have toward animals.
(b) All branches of the government shall endeavor to implement the spirit of this law in assuring the best possible life for animals within our community.
(c) This law acknowledges the rights of humans to keep and use animals, but only where the interests of the animals are recognized and protected.
Sec. 2. Definitions
(a) "Abandon" means the intentional relinquishment of dominion and control of domesticated animals without appropriate safeguards for the animal's well-being.
(b) "Abuse" means the intentional mistreatment of an animal, by example, but not limited to, the use of poison, torture, torment, electrical shock, wounding, unjustified killing, excessive beating, or removal of food or water.
(c) "Animal" means any living vertebrate other than human beings.
(d) "Animal sanctuary" means permanent housing for animals developed by a for-profit or non-profit organization.
(e) "Animal shelter" means physical facilities created by for-profit or non-profit organization to provide housing for unwanted or stray animals. These may be authorized by the National Agency to provide veterinary care, to investigate violations of this statute, to adopt out animals, and to administer euthanasia.
(f) "Companion animal" means animals kept in or near the household for the primary purpose of companionship for the member(s) of the household. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs, cats, and parrots. Dangerous wild animals, including all large cats, bears, and other species designated by the National Agency, shall not be allowed as companion animals.
(g) "Cruelty" means the intentional, unjustified killing, poisoning, physically injuring, causing physical pain, or causing psychological distress to any animal.
(h) "Dangerous dog" means any dog which, when unprovoked and in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or twice within a 12 month period has killed a domestic animal.
(i) "Euthanasia" means the humane killing of animals. The National Agency shall establish the acceptable methods of euthanasia, but in the absence of such provisions, only methods which bring quick unconsciousness or death shall be used.
(j) "Experimental animals" means animals used for scientific or educational purposes in the public or private sphere, including universities and other schools. This includes, but is not limited to, mice, rats, primates, other mammals and birds.
(k) "Experimenter" means a scientist involved with the development of protocols using animals and/or the person performing such experiments employed at a university or corporation engaged in scientific research.
(l) "Farm animals" means animals kept for the purposes of production of goods, including milk, meat, and clothing. Animals covered include, but may not be limited to, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and goats. [Based on local custom it is expected this list will be expanded by the adopting legislature.]
(m) "'Feral' wildlife" means animals once privately owned, or their progeny. These animals are no longer under the control of humans. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs and cats.
(n) "Inhumane" means the mistreatment of animals that goes against cultural norms for acceptable.
(o) "Keeper" means a person with primary caregiving responsibilities for the animal.
(p) "National Agency" means the _________ Department [or Ministry] which will have responsibility for the adoption and implementation of regulations required under this statute.
(q) "Owner" means a person at least 16 years of age who holds title to the animal.
(r) "Pain" means both the adverse physiological and psychological processes experienced by animals when injured or harmed. This may or may not be manifested by the animals' behavior.
(s) "Person" means any human, business partnership or corporation.
(t) "Unjustified" means actions for which a suitable reason other than cruelty cannot be found. [The breadth of this definition should be determined in accordance with the norms of the culture.]
(u) "Veterinarian" means a person with ample experience in performing medical procedures on animals. This can be ascertained by the existence of a state license or through compliance with standards adopted by the National Agency.
(v) "Working animals" means animals kept for the purpose of performing tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying loads, performing in human entertainment, and assisting humans in other ways.
Sec. 3. General provisions.
(a) An owner or keeper of an animal shall not do any of the following:
(1) Fail to provide proper food, water, shelter, and ample space for bodily movement and reasonable exercise,
(2) Force an animal to do anything beyond its species-specific capabilities,
(3) Abandon an animal,
(4) Abuse or cruelly treat an animal,
(5) Refuse to supply veterinary care to an animal in debilitating pain.
(b) A person shall not do any of the following:
(1) Cruelly treat or abuse an animal,
(2) Fail to provide veterinary care to an animal in pain that they have caused,
(3) Neglect to report animal abuse or inhumane treatment, within their personal knowledge, to local officials. When such information is provided, no civil liability shall attach to the reporting of the information.
Sec. 4. Companion animals.
(a) Because of the importance of companion animals in human lives, and because of the known connection between animal abuse and child/spousal/elder abuse, this statute mandates compliance with the following provisions.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Provide the animal with access to daylight and sufficient space for ease of movement,
(2) Provide the animal with sufficient shelter to protect against heat, rain, and cold,
(3) Ensure the animal has necessary freedom of movement and access to food and water,
(4) Vaccinate their animals against any diseases the National Agency deems necessary,
(5) Provide veterinary care when the animal is ill or injured. Home treatment may be provided where reasonable under the circumstances.
(6) Use live animals as prizes in contest and games, or as targets in shooting matches.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Tether the animal if doing so may lead to injuries or suffering, or if the tether is less than five feet or three times the length of the animal,
(2) Permanently chain an animal, indoors or outdoors,
(3) Allow a dog deemed to be dangerous to run at large.
(d) The local administrative body may [shall]:
(1) Require licensing of dogs,
(2) Implement a sliding scale for licensing fees, depending on the type and breeding status of the animals,
(3) Require easy identification of dogs, including tattooing, microchipping, and collar tags,
(4) Establish low- or no-cost vaccination and spay/neuter clinics [where possible]. Fees from dog licenses may be utilized to help pay for this program,
(5) Establish a maximum number of animals that may be kept per owner,
(6) Implement humane regulations concerning overpopulation, which may include mandatory spay/neuter programs, mandatory permits for owners intending to breed their animals, authorizing higher licensing fees for intact animals, and national education programs addressing overpopulation,
(7) Prohibit businesses from keeping more than six breeding females for the sole purpose of providing young to the market, ( Establish proper means for disposal of unwanted animals, including the creation of animal shelters, creation of sanctuaries, or where no alternative exists, humane euthanasia,
(9) Establish and fund animal control agencies and animal cruelty investigators,
(10) Establish ordinances to deal with dangerous dogs, although breed- specific bans are not allowed. Any such ordinance shall not provide for the killing of a dog without notice to the owner or keeper, nor without an administrative hearing for the owner of the dog. Restrictions on the dog and owner shall be utilized when it is possible to do so while protecting public safety.
Sec. 4. Experimental animals.
(a) Experiments and tests on animals are permissible only if they are necessary for scientific progress or protection of health for humans or animals, and if these objectives cannot be reached in another way because of the lack of appropriate alternative methods. A researcher is obligated to use international information in a given field of science in order to eliminate the risks of the unnecessary repetition of experiments. The three Rs (reduction, refinement, and replacement) should be utilized in the development of experimental protocols.
(b) The testing of consumer products on animals is prohibited.
(c) A national review board shall be established, within the National Agency, to set regulations for experimentation on animals. This board shall be comprised of five members, including a veterinarian, a researcher, and an animal welfare advocate. Individual institutional review boards must be established at all institutions licensed for animal research in order to do the initial review of individual protocols, to investigate laboratory conditions, and to provide general research support for the institution.
(d) The national review board shall:
(1) Set minimum and optimal requirements for the care and keeping of laboratory animals, addressing issues of physical space, provision of food and water, social requirements, and psychological requirements. Until such regulations are adopted, animal research institutions shall be guided by the "Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" as published by the United States National Research Council,
(2) Reevaluate and update these standards at least every five years to comply with newly discovered information about each particular species used,
(3) Grant, suspend and revoke scientific investigation permits to institutions carrying out animal experiments. And shall conduct annual investigations of all laboratories to ensure compliance with the regulations.
(e) An experimenter shall:
(1) Submit all experimental protocols involving animals to the institutional review board initially, and with their approval to the national review board before proceeding with the experiment,
(2) Follow the protocol approved by the review board. If he/she wishes to deviate from the approved procedure, he/she must receive prior approval in writing from the board,
(3) Obtain animals for experimentation only from approved sources. This excludes animal shelters, private owners, and wild-caught animals,
(4) Treat laboratory animals humanely, taking care to minimize pain and discomfort,
(5) Provide appropriate housing for laboratory animals, acknowledging physical, psychological, and social well-being of the species and individual animal,
(6) Administer anesthesia or painkillers to animals involved in painful experiments,
(7) Administer euthanasia to an animal that will suffer ongoing extreme pain after an experiment, ( Research and use alternatives to animal experimentation wherever possible.
(f) An experimenter shall not:
(1) Use an animal in more than one invasive and/or painful experiment,
(2) Euthanize any healthy animal,
(3) Use great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) for any scientific experimentation.
(g) Scientific education.
(1) Dissection shall not be permitted in grade schools [through age 18],
(2) Where dissection is permitted at the university level, students must be allowed to opt out of the procedures without suffering any detriment to their grades,
(3) Dissection alternatives should be researched by universities and implemented where possible. Where a university finds dissection necessary to its educational goals, care should be taken to provide for the humane treatment and euthanasia of the animals.
Sec. 5. Farm animals.
(a) Animals that are raised and bred for the purposes of providing food and clothing for humans should be accorded humane treatment. Respect for each individual animal should be encouraged, and methods of husbandry, transport, and slaughter should be altered as new, more humane methods are developed.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Only keep animals in enclosures where the animal has ample room to rise to its full height, turn around, lie down, and will not incur any danger from the enclosure itself,
(2) Acknowledge social behavior of the species when determining the number of animals to keep per enclosure,
(3) Provide regular food, water, space, fresh air, society, access to exercise, and appropriate social grouping,
(4) Provide veterinary care for diseased or injured animals,
(5) Slaughter farm animals using the most humane methods possible. The animal must either be unconscious before death or death must be instantaneous.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Keep animals in cages,
(2) Keep too many animals in each enclosure where this will lead to crowding, injury, or stress to the animals,
(3) Cut off beaks or tails,
(4) Give animals growth hormones,
(5) Fatten geese and ducks for the purpose of foie gras production,
(6) Keep calves in small single animal enclosures and withhold proper nutrition for the production of veal,
(7) Keep any animal permanently chained or caged for ongoing, physically invasive procedures.
(d) Persons who transport farm animals shall:
(1) Use the fastest and/or most comfortable route to maintain the well-being of the animals,
(2) Correctly position animals in the vehicle so that animals have the ability to lie down and get up during transport without discomfort,
(3) Keep the floors and walls of the vehicle clean and sanitary,
(4) Maintain appropriate temperature, ventilation, and space in the vehicle,
(5) During a transport of longer than eight consecutive hours, provide the animals with food and water at regular intervals, and give the animals an opportunity to rest,
(6) Provide sick or injured animals with veterinary care,
(7) Immediately remove animals that die during transport.
Sec. 6. Working animals.
(a) Animals that perform tasks for humans, whether seeing-eye dogs, load-pulling oxen, racehorses, or circus ponies, shall be accorded humane treatment. Because of this, the use of animals in shows and sports characterized by cruelty and/or pain, including but not limited to fights between or among bulls, dogs, and cocks, is strictly forbidden.
(b) Persons using animals for work shall:
(1) Provide a rest period both during the work and after the work for animals appropriate to their species to enable them to recuperate their strength,
(2) Appoint a duly qualified person to carry out animal training for the purposes of shows and entertainment. Pain shall never be used as a method of training an animal,
(3) Submit to inspections by national or international animal welfare organizations to ensure compliance with performing animal regulations.
(c) Persons using animals for work shall not:
(1) Overburden or force animals to perform behaviors beyond their species-specific capabilities,
(2) Use animals that are sick, too young, too old, or undernourished for work,
(3) Use objects or tools for driving or training animals that could cause bodily injuries or unnecessary pain,
(4) Use excessive force while the animal is performing its task,
(5) Give any substance to an animal for the sole reason of enhancing performance.
(6) Engage in the breeding or training of animals to be used in criminal fighting activity, or to organize or promote an animal fighting event.
(d) Circuses.
(1) The creation of new circuses or traveling menageries containing wild-caught animals is forbidden,
(2) Circuses and traveling menageries may not include elephants, lions, tigers, or bears. Those businesses that already contain these animals must retire the animals to sanctuaries. [Businesses complying with this regulation may be compensated by the non-profit organization running the sanctuary],
(3) Persons engaged in the training of animals for circus performances must comply with Sec. 6 (b) and (c).
(e) Zoos.
(1) Zoos must comply with the regulations set out by the [American Zoological Association]. They will have [two years] to come into compliance. [This may include the creation of a review board to investigate living conditions at the facilities],
(2) Zoos may implement breeding programs for animals only when there is space available for the offspring in the zoo or when the breeding is part of a program approved by the National Agency. [These programs must be approved by the review board before begun.],
(3) Zoos with excess or unhealthy animals must establish or utilize existing sanctuaries at which to retire these animals. Humane euthanasia should only be used as a last resort. Sec. 7. `Feral' wildlife.
(a) It is acknowledged that previously-domesticated animals running at large are a substantial problem in urban and other areas. These animals should be treated humanely and carefully while taking into account the public health and safety concerns they present.
(b) The local governing body shall:
(1) Implement a program for spay/neuter clinics to prevent population growth of these animals. [These clinics should be staffed by a veterinarian or veterinary technician],
(2) Encourage volunteers from the community to staff these clinics,
(3) Discourage citizens from feeding these wild populations,
(4) Establish easy contact information for citizens to report to the clinics as to the whereabouts and living conditions of these populations,
(5) Either release altered animals back to the place where they were found, or relocate them elsewhere,
(6) Provide funding for these clinics to administer vaccinations and veterinary care for the animals,
(7) Use humane euthanasia of these populations only as a last resort,
(8) Educate the community as to the proper ways to approach, trap, and transport these animals to the clinics,
(9) Educate the community as to the public health and safety concerns surrounding these animals.
Sec. 8 Enforcement.
(a) Both national and local police officials shall enforce the provisions of this law. Local government may appoint animal control officers to specifically deal with the requirements of this law,
(b) Private non-profit animal shelters may have employees authorized by local police as capable of engaging in criminal investigations and arrest under this law. Such a candidate must show a full understanding of law enforcement generally and the provisions of this law specifically,
(c) The National Agency may seek an injunction to stop an ongoing violation of this law. It may initiate a civil proceeding against any party who violates any regulation or procedure adopted by the National Agency. The outcome of such civil proceeding shall include to revoke or modify any permits granted, and/or to impose fines up to $1,000 per violation,
(d) Private non-profit animal shelters, designated by the National Agency for this purpose, are authorized to bring lawsuits to stop by injunction ongoing violations of this law. While such organizations may not seek money damages, the court may award cost of attorney fees.
Sec. 9. Penalties
(a) If a court finds that a defendant has violated Section 3 (b) or 6 (a), then the penalty shall be up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first such offence. For second and subsequent convictions, the penalty shall be up to three years in jail and $10,000 fine for each conviction, and a minimum of two months in jail shall be required. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(b) For all other violations of the provisions of this law, the court shall impose a penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $100 fine for a first offence and six month and $1,000 fine for subsequent convictions. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(c) A person or organization that is caring for an animal pending the resolution of criminal proceeding concerning the animal may make a motion to the court for the cost of caring for the animal and the court may require the owner to either pay the cost of care or relinquish title of the animal to the party holding the animal,
(d) A court may require a convicted defendant to give up the animal in question and may limit future ownership and possession of animals by the defendant.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stmodelanimalact.htm
This model law was drafted to provide a starting point for the drafting of national animal welfare law. It includes sections related to companion animals, animal cruelty, owner responsibilities, animal experimentation, and food animal provisions, among others.
Statute in Full:
Model National Animal Welfare Legislation
Drafted by Professor David Favre & Jaime Olin
Animal and Legal Historical Web Center
Michigan State University College of Law
Summary: This model statute represents general animal welfare legislation that can be easily adopted by developing countries. (A full translation into Spanish is available.) It sets out specific criminal actions, and a process for future regulatory acts by national and local governments. A full explanation of the draft law can be found in the accompanying paper. There is also an article that compares existing national statutes which might be helpful in understanding the issues that need to be addressed. (comparative paper)
Statute in Full: This law shall be know as the Animal Welfare Act of [2004] .
Sec. 1. Introduction
(a) Animals, having both intrinsic and extrinsic value to human societies, deserve special protection of their individual interests under the law. This statute acknowledges the obligations that humans have toward animals.
(b) All branches of the government shall endeavor to implement the spirit of this law in assuring the best possible life for animals within our community.
(c) This law acknowledges the rights of humans to keep and use animals, but only where the interests of the animals are recognized and protected.
Sec. 2. Definitions
(a) "Abandon" means the intentional relinquishment of dominion and control of domesticated animals without appropriate safeguards for the animal's well-being.
(b) "Abuse" means the intentional mistreatment of an animal, by example, but not limited to, the use of poison, torture, torment, electrical shock, wounding, unjustified killing, excessive beating, or removal of food or water.
(c) "Animal" means any living vertebrate other than human beings.
(d) "Animal sanctuary" means permanent housing for animals developed by a for-profit or non-profit organization.
(e) "Animal shelter" means physical facilities created by for-profit or non-profit organization to provide housing for unwanted or stray animals. These may be authorized by the National Agency to provide veterinary care, to investigate violations of this statute, to adopt out animals, and to administer euthanasia.
(f) "Companion animal" means animals kept in or near the household for the primary purpose of companionship for the member(s) of the household. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs, cats, and parrots. Dangerous wild animals, including all large cats, bears, and other species designated by the National Agency, shall not be allowed as companion animals.
(g) "Cruelty" means the intentional, unjustified killing, poisoning, physically injuring, causing physical pain, or causing psychological distress to any animal.
(h) "Dangerous dog" means any dog which, when unprovoked and in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being, or twice within a 12 month period has killed a domestic animal.
(i) "Euthanasia" means the humane killing of animals. The National Agency shall establish the acceptable methods of euthanasia, but in the absence of such provisions, only methods which bring quick unconsciousness or death shall be used.
(j) "Experimental animals" means animals used for scientific or educational purposes in the public or private sphere, including universities and other schools. This includes, but is not limited to, mice, rats, primates, other mammals and birds.
(k) "Experimenter" means a scientist involved with the development of protocols using animals and/or the person performing such experiments employed at a university or corporation engaged in scientific research.
(l) "Farm animals" means animals kept for the purposes of production of goods, including milk, meat, and clothing. Animals covered include, but may not be limited to, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and goats. [Based on local custom it is expected this list will be expanded by the adopting legislature.]
(m) "'Feral' wildlife" means animals once privately owned, or their progeny. These animals are no longer under the control of humans. This includes, but is not limited to, dogs and cats.
(n) "Inhumane" means the mistreatment of animals that goes against cultural norms for acceptable.
(o) "Keeper" means a person with primary caregiving responsibilities for the animal.
(p) "National Agency" means the _________ Department [or Ministry] which will have responsibility for the adoption and implementation of regulations required under this statute.
(q) "Owner" means a person at least 16 years of age who holds title to the animal.
(r) "Pain" means both the adverse physiological and psychological processes experienced by animals when injured or harmed. This may or may not be manifested by the animals' behavior.
(s) "Person" means any human, business partnership or corporation.
(t) "Unjustified" means actions for which a suitable reason other than cruelty cannot be found. [The breadth of this definition should be determined in accordance with the norms of the culture.]
(u) "Veterinarian" means a person with ample experience in performing medical procedures on animals. This can be ascertained by the existence of a state license or through compliance with standards adopted by the National Agency.
(v) "Working animals" means animals kept for the purpose of performing tasks. This includes, but is not limited to, carrying loads, performing in human entertainment, and assisting humans in other ways.
Sec. 3. General provisions.
(a) An owner or keeper of an animal shall not do any of the following:
(1) Fail to provide proper food, water, shelter, and ample space for bodily movement and reasonable exercise,
(2) Force an animal to do anything beyond its species-specific capabilities,
(3) Abandon an animal,
(4) Abuse or cruelly treat an animal,
(5) Refuse to supply veterinary care to an animal in debilitating pain.
(b) A person shall not do any of the following:
(1) Cruelly treat or abuse an animal,
(2) Fail to provide veterinary care to an animal in pain that they have caused,
(3) Neglect to report animal abuse or inhumane treatment, within their personal knowledge, to local officials. When such information is provided, no civil liability shall attach to the reporting of the information.
Sec. 4. Companion animals.
(a) Because of the importance of companion animals in human lives, and because of the known connection between animal abuse and child/spousal/elder abuse, this statute mandates compliance with the following provisions.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Provide the animal with access to daylight and sufficient space for ease of movement,
(2) Provide the animal with sufficient shelter to protect against heat, rain, and cold,
(3) Ensure the animal has necessary freedom of movement and access to food and water,
(4) Vaccinate their animals against any diseases the National Agency deems necessary,
(5) Provide veterinary care when the animal is ill or injured. Home treatment may be provided where reasonable under the circumstances.
(6) Use live animals as prizes in contest and games, or as targets in shooting matches.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Tether the animal if doing so may lead to injuries or suffering, or if the tether is less than five feet or three times the length of the animal,
(2) Permanently chain an animal, indoors or outdoors,
(3) Allow a dog deemed to be dangerous to run at large.
(d) The local administrative body may [shall]:
(1) Require licensing of dogs,
(2) Implement a sliding scale for licensing fees, depending on the type and breeding status of the animals,
(3) Require easy identification of dogs, including tattooing, microchipping, and collar tags,
(4) Establish low- or no-cost vaccination and spay/neuter clinics [where possible]. Fees from dog licenses may be utilized to help pay for this program,
(5) Establish a maximum number of animals that may be kept per owner,
(6) Implement humane regulations concerning overpopulation, which may include mandatory spay/neuter programs, mandatory permits for owners intending to breed their animals, authorizing higher licensing fees for intact animals, and national education programs addressing overpopulation,
(7) Prohibit businesses from keeping more than six breeding females for the sole purpose of providing young to the market, ( Establish proper means for disposal of unwanted animals, including the creation of animal shelters, creation of sanctuaries, or where no alternative exists, humane euthanasia,
(9) Establish and fund animal control agencies and animal cruelty investigators,
(10) Establish ordinances to deal with dangerous dogs, although breed- specific bans are not allowed. Any such ordinance shall not provide for the killing of a dog without notice to the owner or keeper, nor without an administrative hearing for the owner of the dog. Restrictions on the dog and owner shall be utilized when it is possible to do so while protecting public safety.
Sec. 4. Experimental animals.
(a) Experiments and tests on animals are permissible only if they are necessary for scientific progress or protection of health for humans or animals, and if these objectives cannot be reached in another way because of the lack of appropriate alternative methods. A researcher is obligated to use international information in a given field of science in order to eliminate the risks of the unnecessary repetition of experiments. The three Rs (reduction, refinement, and replacement) should be utilized in the development of experimental protocols.
(b) The testing of consumer products on animals is prohibited.
(c) A national review board shall be established, within the National Agency, to set regulations for experimentation on animals. This board shall be comprised of five members, including a veterinarian, a researcher, and an animal welfare advocate. Individual institutional review boards must be established at all institutions licensed for animal research in order to do the initial review of individual protocols, to investigate laboratory conditions, and to provide general research support for the institution.
(d) The national review board shall:
(1) Set minimum and optimal requirements for the care and keeping of laboratory animals, addressing issues of physical space, provision of food and water, social requirements, and psychological requirements. Until such regulations are adopted, animal research institutions shall be guided by the "Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" as published by the United States National Research Council,
(2) Reevaluate and update these standards at least every five years to comply with newly discovered information about each particular species used,
(3) Grant, suspend and revoke scientific investigation permits to institutions carrying out animal experiments. And shall conduct annual investigations of all laboratories to ensure compliance with the regulations.
(e) An experimenter shall:
(1) Submit all experimental protocols involving animals to the institutional review board initially, and with their approval to the national review board before proceeding with the experiment,
(2) Follow the protocol approved by the review board. If he/she wishes to deviate from the approved procedure, he/she must receive prior approval in writing from the board,
(3) Obtain animals for experimentation only from approved sources. This excludes animal shelters, private owners, and wild-caught animals,
(4) Treat laboratory animals humanely, taking care to minimize pain and discomfort,
(5) Provide appropriate housing for laboratory animals, acknowledging physical, psychological, and social well-being of the species and individual animal,
(6) Administer anesthesia or painkillers to animals involved in painful experiments,
(7) Administer euthanasia to an animal that will suffer ongoing extreme pain after an experiment, ( Research and use alternatives to animal experimentation wherever possible.
(f) An experimenter shall not:
(1) Use an animal in more than one invasive and/or painful experiment,
(2) Euthanize any healthy animal,
(3) Use great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos) for any scientific experimentation.
(g) Scientific education.
(1) Dissection shall not be permitted in grade schools [through age 18],
(2) Where dissection is permitted at the university level, students must be allowed to opt out of the procedures without suffering any detriment to their grades,
(3) Dissection alternatives should be researched by universities and implemented where possible. Where a university finds dissection necessary to its educational goals, care should be taken to provide for the humane treatment and euthanasia of the animals.
Sec. 5. Farm animals.
(a) Animals that are raised and bred for the purposes of providing food and clothing for humans should be accorded humane treatment. Respect for each individual animal should be encouraged, and methods of husbandry, transport, and slaughter should be altered as new, more humane methods are developed.
(b) The owner or keeper shall:
(1) Only keep animals in enclosures where the animal has ample room to rise to its full height, turn around, lie down, and will not incur any danger from the enclosure itself,
(2) Acknowledge social behavior of the species when determining the number of animals to keep per enclosure,
(3) Provide regular food, water, space, fresh air, society, access to exercise, and appropriate social grouping,
(4) Provide veterinary care for diseased or injured animals,
(5) Slaughter farm animals using the most humane methods possible. The animal must either be unconscious before death or death must be instantaneous.
(c) The owner or keeper shall not:
(1) Keep animals in cages,
(2) Keep too many animals in each enclosure where this will lead to crowding, injury, or stress to the animals,
(3) Cut off beaks or tails,
(4) Give animals growth hormones,
(5) Fatten geese and ducks for the purpose of foie gras production,
(6) Keep calves in small single animal enclosures and withhold proper nutrition for the production of veal,
(7) Keep any animal permanently chained or caged for ongoing, physically invasive procedures.
(d) Persons who transport farm animals shall:
(1) Use the fastest and/or most comfortable route to maintain the well-being of the animals,
(2) Correctly position animals in the vehicle so that animals have the ability to lie down and get up during transport without discomfort,
(3) Keep the floors and walls of the vehicle clean and sanitary,
(4) Maintain appropriate temperature, ventilation, and space in the vehicle,
(5) During a transport of longer than eight consecutive hours, provide the animals with food and water at regular intervals, and give the animals an opportunity to rest,
(6) Provide sick or injured animals with veterinary care,
(7) Immediately remove animals that die during transport.
Sec. 6. Working animals.
(a) Animals that perform tasks for humans, whether seeing-eye dogs, load-pulling oxen, racehorses, or circus ponies, shall be accorded humane treatment. Because of this, the use of animals in shows and sports characterized by cruelty and/or pain, including but not limited to fights between or among bulls, dogs, and cocks, is strictly forbidden.
(b) Persons using animals for work shall:
(1) Provide a rest period both during the work and after the work for animals appropriate to their species to enable them to recuperate their strength,
(2) Appoint a duly qualified person to carry out animal training for the purposes of shows and entertainment. Pain shall never be used as a method of training an animal,
(3) Submit to inspections by national or international animal welfare organizations to ensure compliance with performing animal regulations.
(c) Persons using animals for work shall not:
(1) Overburden or force animals to perform behaviors beyond their species-specific capabilities,
(2) Use animals that are sick, too young, too old, or undernourished for work,
(3) Use objects or tools for driving or training animals that could cause bodily injuries or unnecessary pain,
(4) Use excessive force while the animal is performing its task,
(5) Give any substance to an animal for the sole reason of enhancing performance.
(6) Engage in the breeding or training of animals to be used in criminal fighting activity, or to organize or promote an animal fighting event.
(d) Circuses.
(1) The creation of new circuses or traveling menageries containing wild-caught animals is forbidden,
(2) Circuses and traveling menageries may not include elephants, lions, tigers, or bears. Those businesses that already contain these animals must retire the animals to sanctuaries. [Businesses complying with this regulation may be compensated by the non-profit organization running the sanctuary],
(3) Persons engaged in the training of animals for circus performances must comply with Sec. 6 (b) and (c).
(e) Zoos.
(1) Zoos must comply with the regulations set out by the [American Zoological Association]. They will have [two years] to come into compliance. [This may include the creation of a review board to investigate living conditions at the facilities],
(2) Zoos may implement breeding programs for animals only when there is space available for the offspring in the zoo or when the breeding is part of a program approved by the National Agency. [These programs must be approved by the review board before begun.],
(3) Zoos with excess or unhealthy animals must establish or utilize existing sanctuaries at which to retire these animals. Humane euthanasia should only be used as a last resort. Sec. 7. `Feral' wildlife.
(a) It is acknowledged that previously-domesticated animals running at large are a substantial problem in urban and other areas. These animals should be treated humanely and carefully while taking into account the public health and safety concerns they present.
(b) The local governing body shall:
(1) Implement a program for spay/neuter clinics to prevent population growth of these animals. [These clinics should be staffed by a veterinarian or veterinary technician],
(2) Encourage volunteers from the community to staff these clinics,
(3) Discourage citizens from feeding these wild populations,
(4) Establish easy contact information for citizens to report to the clinics as to the whereabouts and living conditions of these populations,
(5) Either release altered animals back to the place where they were found, or relocate them elsewhere,
(6) Provide funding for these clinics to administer vaccinations and veterinary care for the animals,
(7) Use humane euthanasia of these populations only as a last resort,
(8) Educate the community as to the proper ways to approach, trap, and transport these animals to the clinics,
(9) Educate the community as to the public health and safety concerns surrounding these animals.
Sec. 8 Enforcement.
(a) Both national and local police officials shall enforce the provisions of this law. Local government may appoint animal control officers to specifically deal with the requirements of this law,
(b) Private non-profit animal shelters may have employees authorized by local police as capable of engaging in criminal investigations and arrest under this law. Such a candidate must show a full understanding of law enforcement generally and the provisions of this law specifically,
(c) The National Agency may seek an injunction to stop an ongoing violation of this law. It may initiate a civil proceeding against any party who violates any regulation or procedure adopted by the National Agency. The outcome of such civil proceeding shall include to revoke or modify any permits granted, and/or to impose fines up to $1,000 per violation,
(d) Private non-profit animal shelters, designated by the National Agency for this purpose, are authorized to bring lawsuits to stop by injunction ongoing violations of this law. While such organizations may not seek money damages, the court may award cost of attorney fees.
Sec. 9. Penalties
(a) If a court finds that a defendant has violated Section 3 (b) or 6 (a), then the penalty shall be up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first such offence. For second and subsequent convictions, the penalty shall be up to three years in jail and $10,000 fine for each conviction, and a minimum of two months in jail shall be required. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(b) For all other violations of the provisions of this law, the court shall impose a penalty of up to 60 days in jail and a $100 fine for a first offence and six month and $1,000 fine for subsequent convictions. Each animal impacted by defendant's actions shall constitute a separate count under the law,
(c) A person or organization that is caring for an animal pending the resolution of criminal proceeding concerning the animal may make a motion to the court for the cost of caring for the animal and the court may require the owner to either pay the cost of care or relinquish title of the animal to the party holding the animal,
(d) A court may require a convicted defendant to give up the animal in question and may limit future ownership and possession of animals by the defendant.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stmodelanimalact.htm
Friday, August 17, 2007
Defending Dog- a good website on BSL
To find out where BSL is being proposed across the country
and how YOU can help,
click here for the latest weekly BSL update!
Breed Specific Legislation or "BSL" is exactly what it sounds like...regulation of your right to own or, in many cases, not own, a dog based solely on the breed or "type" of dog - not your responsibility as an owner. BSL can also refer to regulations and/or requirements placed only on a specific breed of dog and their owners.
No matter how you define it, BSL targets all dogs of a breed -- the innocent as well as the guilty, and it removes the responsibility from the dog's owner and towards the dog itself. Simple common sense tells you that laws are created to punish or deter the actions of humans - not those of animals.
Laws are being proposed every day that are intended to take away our rights to own particular dogs for no reason other than their breed - the way they look, the hype that surrounds them. BSL is the politician's inadequate and uneducated band-aid solution to address the gushing "wound" of irresponsible ownership and lack of personal accountability.
We made a lot of strides in 2006, including the Appellate Court ruling in Toledo v. Tellings (which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio). In addition, we made our collective voices heard and won several battles against BSL across the country. Click here to see the 2006 victories.
I certainly don't claim to be an "expert" on BSL, I am simply a concerned pit bull owner who wants to help other owners of dogs targed by breed discrimination. For me personally, the fight against BSL is incredibly intimidating, so I hope this helps and encourages people to stand up for their rights and their dogs.
This site was created to support the FightBSL Yahoo group:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightBSL).
and how YOU can help,
click here for the latest weekly BSL update!
Breed Specific Legislation or "BSL" is exactly what it sounds like...regulation of your right to own or, in many cases, not own, a dog based solely on the breed or "type" of dog - not your responsibility as an owner. BSL can also refer to regulations and/or requirements placed only on a specific breed of dog and their owners.
No matter how you define it, BSL targets all dogs of a breed -- the innocent as well as the guilty, and it removes the responsibility from the dog's owner and towards the dog itself. Simple common sense tells you that laws are created to punish or deter the actions of humans - not those of animals.
Laws are being proposed every day that are intended to take away our rights to own particular dogs for no reason other than their breed - the way they look, the hype that surrounds them. BSL is the politician's inadequate and uneducated band-aid solution to address the gushing "wound" of irresponsible ownership and lack of personal accountability.
We made a lot of strides in 2006, including the Appellate Court ruling in Toledo v. Tellings (which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio). In addition, we made our collective voices heard and won several battles against BSL across the country. Click here to see the 2006 victories.
I certainly don't claim to be an "expert" on BSL, I am simply a concerned pit bull owner who wants to help other owners of dogs targed by breed discrimination. For me personally, the fight against BSL is incredibly intimidating, so I hope this helps and encourages people to stand up for their rights and their dogs.
This site was created to support the FightBSL Yahoo group:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fightBSL).
PA-USSA urges State to give Increased Dog Law Enforcement A Chance To Work
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Beth Ruth (614) 888-4868 ext. 214
Aug. 17, 2007
The State Must Give Increased Dog Law Enforcement a Chance to Work
(Columbus) – Sportsmen want Pennsylvania to scrap new dog care regulations that will eliminate hunting with dogs while new enforcement measures for dog law violators are implemented and evaluated.
On Aug. 15, the attorney general’s office granted a recent Department of Agriculture request to allow prosecutors to try criminal cases dealing with the state dog law. The department had been requiring law enforcement officials, not lawyers, to represent the state in such cases. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, prosecutors have been acting strictly as advisors to dog wardens who have often been unable to convict animal abusers, many of whom are represented by professional attorneys.
While violators escaped justice, the department has pursued a restrictive set of new regulations that will put sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business. Breeders who can afford to remain in operation after complying with the regulations will be forced to raise prices, since the state estimates the cost of implementation will be as much as $10,000 per breeder. These factors will leave hunters seeking to buy quality puppies to retrieve ducks, chase rabbits or point pheasants high and dry.
The regulations were proposed at the direction of Gov. Ed Rendell, whose stated goal is to “remove the stain of puppy mills from the commonwealth.” Unfortunately, the proposal will reach far beyond that target.
“The regulations will apply to the hobbyist the same as it will to the large commercial breeder,” explained Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president for government affairs. “It makes as much sense as having the same worker rules for U.S. Steel as for a neighborhood lemonade stand.”
The USSA and its allies in the fast-growing Sporting Dog Defense Coalition have tried for months to convince the Department of Agriculture to withdraw the regulations and rewrite the dog law to create a distinction between commercial operations and hobbyists. Sportsmen have repeatedly inquired whether there is sufficient enforcement ability to address abusive breeders. The exposé by the Philadelphia Inquirer and the resultant request by the Rendell administration to the attorney general prove that enforcement has been lacking.
Sportsmen’s groups continue to implore the department to abandon the meat-cleaver approach to the problem and give the new prosecutorial abilities a chance to show results. They have also committed to help change the dog law, which will allow the department to isolate the abusive commercial breeders.
However, the Department of Agriculture insists that the regulations continue to move forward. Making matters worse, recent rhetoric from the agency and the governor’s office refers to a need for “uniform regulations that apply to all kennels” in Pennsylvania.
A one-size-fits-all policy has contributed to many hunters’ beliefs that there is an anti-hunting agenda behind the effort.
“Hunters support bringing abusive commercial breeders to justice,” said Sexton. “However, the governor and the Department of Agriculture know how sportsmen will be hurt by the proposed rules, so our members and allies wonder who is behind the continual push that ignores hunters’ pleas.”
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both support a ban on hunting and have advocated strongly for the regulations.
Sportsmen must continue to urge Gov. Ed Rendell to withdraw the dog care regulations. For a sample letter, use the Legislative Action Center at to take action. Send letters to Gov. Ed Rendell, 225 Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg, PA, 17120. Sportsmen should also take time to call the governor’s office and leave a message opposing the regulations. Phone: (717) 787-2500. Fax (717) 772-8284.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website,
Aug. 17, 2007
The State Must Give Increased Dog Law Enforcement a Chance to Work
(Columbus) – Sportsmen want Pennsylvania to scrap new dog care regulations that will eliminate hunting with dogs while new enforcement measures for dog law violators are implemented and evaluated.
On Aug. 15, the attorney general’s office granted a recent Department of Agriculture request to allow prosecutors to try criminal cases dealing with the state dog law. The department had been requiring law enforcement officials, not lawyers, to represent the state in such cases. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, prosecutors have been acting strictly as advisors to dog wardens who have often been unable to convict animal abusers, many of whom are represented by professional attorneys.
While violators escaped justice, the department has pursued a restrictive set of new regulations that will put sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business. Breeders who can afford to remain in operation after complying with the regulations will be forced to raise prices, since the state estimates the cost of implementation will be as much as $10,000 per breeder. These factors will leave hunters seeking to buy quality puppies to retrieve ducks, chase rabbits or point pheasants high and dry.
The regulations were proposed at the direction of Gov. Ed Rendell, whose stated goal is to “remove the stain of puppy mills from the commonwealth.” Unfortunately, the proposal will reach far beyond that target.
“The regulations will apply to the hobbyist the same as it will to the large commercial breeder,” explained Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president for government affairs. “It makes as much sense as having the same worker rules for U.S. Steel as for a neighborhood lemonade stand.”
The USSA and its allies in the fast-growing Sporting Dog Defense Coalition have tried for months to convince the Department of Agriculture to withdraw the regulations and rewrite the dog law to create a distinction between commercial operations and hobbyists. Sportsmen have repeatedly inquired whether there is sufficient enforcement ability to address abusive breeders. The exposé by the Philadelphia Inquirer and the resultant request by the Rendell administration to the attorney general prove that enforcement has been lacking.
Sportsmen’s groups continue to implore the department to abandon the meat-cleaver approach to the problem and give the new prosecutorial abilities a chance to show results. They have also committed to help change the dog law, which will allow the department to isolate the abusive commercial breeders.
However, the Department of Agriculture insists that the regulations continue to move forward. Making matters worse, recent rhetoric from the agency and the governor’s office refers to a need for “uniform regulations that apply to all kennels” in Pennsylvania.
A one-size-fits-all policy has contributed to many hunters’ beliefs that there is an anti-hunting agenda behind the effort.
“Hunters support bringing abusive commercial breeders to justice,” said Sexton. “However, the governor and the Department of Agriculture know how sportsmen will be hurt by the proposed rules, so our members and allies wonder who is behind the continual push that ignores hunters’ pleas.”
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both support a ban on hunting and have advocated strongly for the regulations.
Sportsmen must continue to urge Gov. Ed Rendell to withdraw the dog care regulations. For a sample letter, use the Legislative Action Center at to take action. Send letters to Gov. Ed Rendell, 225 Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg, PA, 17120. Sportsmen should also take time to call the governor’s office and leave a message opposing the regulations. Phone: (717) 787-2500. Fax (717) 772-8284.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website,
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Los Angeles City Council considers mandatory spay/neuter laws
Oppose AB 1634 http://petpac.net/r/1131/7440/
No on AB 1634 in L.A!
We need you to take action TODAY by phoning and emailing the Los Angeles City Council Members and asking them to vote NO on the city wide AB 1634 proposal.
We need your immediate help! The Los Angeles City Council is considering adopting a city wide AB 1634, mandatory spay/neuter law, at a City Council Meeting tomorrow Tuesday, August 14, 2006. We need you to take action TODAY by phoning and emailing the City Council Members and asking them to vote NO on the city wide AB 1634 proposal. We've provided a link to all of the office phone numbers and email addresses. http://petpac.net/r/1134/7440/Members of the California Legislature have already heard and rejected AB 1634 as bad policy. Now our opponents are pushing a Los Angeles city wide AB 1634 proposal, a misguided and invasive measure, which will cause more pets to be relinquished to shelters. Please call and/or email the Los Angeles City Council Members today. If you can attend the City Council Meeting, it will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, at 10:00 a.m. Don't let AB 1634 get a foothold in the City of Los Angeles. Call and email the fifteen Council Members today! <http://petpac.net/r/1135/7440/> Sincerely, Bill Hemby Chairman, PetPAC Spread the word about PetPAC.
Have you signed the PetPAC petition opposing AB 1634?
Please help PetPAC fight AB 1634.
Tell Your Friends <http://petpac.net/r/1136/7440/>
Sign the Petition <http://petpac.net/r/1137/7440/>
Make a Contribution <http://petpac.net/r/1138/7440/>
Paid for by PetPAC, P.O. Box 1019, Sacramento, CA 95812
No on AB 1634 in L.A!
We need you to take action TODAY by phoning and emailing the Los Angeles City Council Members and asking them to vote NO on the city wide AB 1634 proposal.
We need your immediate help! The Los Angeles City Council is considering adopting a city wide AB 1634, mandatory spay/neuter law, at a City Council Meeting tomorrow Tuesday, August 14, 2006. We need you to take action TODAY by phoning and emailing the City Council Members and asking them to vote NO on the city wide AB 1634 proposal. We've provided a link to all of the office phone numbers and email addresses. http://petpac.net/r/1134/7440/Members of the California Legislature have already heard and rejected AB 1634 as bad policy. Now our opponents are pushing a Los Angeles city wide AB 1634 proposal, a misguided and invasive measure, which will cause more pets to be relinquished to shelters. Please call and/or email the Los Angeles City Council Members today. If you can attend the City Council Meeting, it will be held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring St., John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, at 10:00 a.m. Don't let AB 1634 get a foothold in the City of Los Angeles. Call and email the fifteen Council Members today! <http://petpac.net/r/1135/7440/> Sincerely, Bill Hemby Chairman, PetPAC Spread the word about PetPAC.
Have you signed the PetPAC petition opposing AB 1634?
Please help PetPAC fight AB 1634.
Tell Your Friends <http://petpac.net/r/1136/7440/>
Sign the Petition <http://petpac.net/r/1137/7440/>
Make a Contribution <http://petpac.net/r/1138/7440/>
Paid for by PetPAC, P.O. Box 1019, Sacramento, CA 95812
Federal Dog Protection Act
U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly Serving the 24th District of California
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/media/media2007/media2007.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2007
Contact: Tom Pfeifer, (202) 225-5811
Gallegly & Blumenauer Introduce Federal Dog Protection Act
WASHINGTON, DC-Congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Earl Blumenauer(D-OR) today introduced the Federal Dog Protection Act to further protect animals from human cruelty. The Gallegly/Blumenauer bill would:
a.. Ban animal fighting and anything associated with it, such astraining tools, videos and magazines.
b.. Allow private entities that care for and house animals that have been rescued by federal agents to recoup their expenses.
c.. Would allow private citizens to sue any person alleged to be inviolation of the law.
Previously, Gallegly and Blumenauer worked together to pass the Animal Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on May 3. That law makes violations a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a felonyto transport an animal across state or international borders for the purpose ofanimal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting. "The Michael Vick case has proven that stricter federal laws against animal fighting are necessary," Gallegly said. "If the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act had been in effect when these alleged atrocities occurred, Mr. Vick would be facing three felonies instead of a felony and two misdemeanors."The Federal Dog Protection Act takes this further by outlawing the paraphernalia that goes along with animal fighting and empowering private citizens to fight this scourge."Violators of the Federal Dog Protection Act would face up to a 5-year sentence and a $250,000 fine for each count."Congress made great progress earlier this year by passing the Gallegly-Blumenauer Animal Fighting Protection Act, which the President signed into law in May," Blumenauer said. "Yet we must get at the root of the problem by penalizing spectators and removing all economic incentives for cultivating dog fighting networks."The Michael Vick case has demonstrated that these networks are extensive and fueled by money. Our new legislation takes important steps to crack down on any and all incentives to promote these sordid and violent dog fighting rings,and I am confident that our bill will have broad support."Gallegly noted that criminals who commit violent acts against other humans often started their acts of cruelty against animals. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s and the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria for later violent behavior."Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling and drug trafficking," Gallegly said."In the last six months, virtually every reported arrest at an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities."
The bill was introduced with 52 original cosponsors.
http://www.house.gov/gallegly/media/media2007/media2007.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 2, 2007
Contact: Tom Pfeifer, (202) 225-5811
Gallegly & Blumenauer Introduce Federal Dog Protection Act
WASHINGTON, DC-Congressmen Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Earl Blumenauer(D-OR) today introduced the Federal Dog Protection Act to further protect animals from human cruelty. The Gallegly/Blumenauer bill would:
a.. Ban animal fighting and anything associated with it, such astraining tools, videos and magazines.
b.. Allow private entities that care for and house animals that have been rescued by federal agents to recoup their expenses.
c.. Would allow private citizens to sue any person alleged to be inviolation of the law.
Previously, Gallegly and Blumenauer worked together to pass the Animal Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on May 3. That law makes violations a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a felonyto transport an animal across state or international borders for the purpose ofanimal fighting, and prohibits the interstate and foreign commerce in knives and gaffs designed for use in cockfighting. "The Michael Vick case has proven that stricter federal laws against animal fighting are necessary," Gallegly said. "If the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act had been in effect when these alleged atrocities occurred, Mr. Vick would be facing three felonies instead of a felony and two misdemeanors."The Federal Dog Protection Act takes this further by outlawing the paraphernalia that goes along with animal fighting and empowering private citizens to fight this scourge."Violators of the Federal Dog Protection Act would face up to a 5-year sentence and a $250,000 fine for each count."Congress made great progress earlier this year by passing the Gallegly-Blumenauer Animal Fighting Protection Act, which the President signed into law in May," Blumenauer said. "Yet we must get at the root of the problem by penalizing spectators and removing all economic incentives for cultivating dog fighting networks."The Michael Vick case has demonstrated that these networks are extensive and fueled by money. Our new legislation takes important steps to crack down on any and all incentives to promote these sordid and violent dog fighting rings,and I am confident that our bill will have broad support."Gallegly noted that criminals who commit violent acts against other humans often started their acts of cruelty against animals. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s and the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria for later violent behavior."Other crimes often go hand-in-hand with animal fighting, including illegal gambling and drug trafficking," Gallegly said."In the last six months, virtually every reported arrest at an animal fight also led to additional arrests for at least one of these criminal activities."
The bill was introduced with 52 original cosponsors.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Animal Rights Organizations have found a way to "Electioneer" - Have We?
The following question and answers come form the Humane USA website which is a great place to go find out who the Animal Rights organizations support. These are the Congressmen & women that we need to focus our efforts on. We are 10 years behind the "Humane" movement when it comes to elections.
Who formed Humane USA?
Established by Wayne Pacelle and Linda Nealon, the organization is supported by leaders of most of the major animal welfare groups in the country as well as many influential individuals. Our boards of directors, associate directors, and advisors are comprised of representatives from the following organizations: Humane Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Welfare Institute, The Ark Trust, Doris Day Animal League, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Pegasus Fund, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, EarthSave and others.
How do local and national animal protection organizations support Humane USA?
By law, charitable organizations are not allowed to donate any funds to support Humane USA's electioneering activities. Individual board members and staff can help as volunteers and donors. All of the advisors and directors associated with Humane USA volunteer their time.
What's the difference between lobbying and electioneering?
Lobbying entails persuading elected officials to support a specific position on legislation. Electioneering involves endorsing a specific candidate, donating money to his or her campaign, holding a fundraiser for a candidate, or otherwise attempting to influence the outcome of an election. Nonprofit groups can and should lobby (although there are limits to the amount of time and money that can be devoted to lobbying under Internal Revenue Service rules). However, nonprofit groups cannot electioneer without breaking the law. If they do, they jeopardize their tax-exempt status.
Who formed Humane USA?
Established by Wayne Pacelle and Linda Nealon, the organization is supported by leaders of most of the major animal welfare groups in the country as well as many influential individuals. Our boards of directors, associate directors, and advisors are comprised of representatives from the following organizations: Humane Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Welfare Institute, The Ark Trust, Doris Day Animal League, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Pegasus Fund, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, EarthSave and others.
How do local and national animal protection organizations support Humane USA?
By law, charitable organizations are not allowed to donate any funds to support Humane USA's electioneering activities. Individual board members and staff can help as volunteers and donors. All of the advisors and directors associated with Humane USA volunteer their time.
What's the difference between lobbying and electioneering?
Lobbying entails persuading elected officials to support a specific position on legislation. Electioneering involves endorsing a specific candidate, donating money to his or her campaign, holding a fundraiser for a candidate, or otherwise attempting to influence the outcome of an election. Nonprofit groups can and should lobby (although there are limits to the amount of time and money that can be devoted to lobbying under Internal Revenue Service rules). However, nonprofit groups cannot electioneer without breaking the law. If they do, they jeopardize their tax-exempt status.
PA- Step by step all breeds could be banned
"To be considered dangerous, a breed has to be responsible for 40 percent or more of the bites within a year."
Let's just start with that for a moment. OK- so first we eliminate the "pit bull" (which is not actually a breed itself anyway). Since they have been eliminated the next breed on the list now accounts for 40 % of the bites and they are deemed dangerous and eliminated. When we work with PERCENTS and not NUMBERS there will always be some breed on the chopping block. Eventually we get to ALL dogs are dangerous. That is what the Animal Rights people want.
Innocent until proven guilty clearly dose not apply to dogs!
Let's just start with that for a moment. OK- so first we eliminate the "pit bull" (which is not actually a breed itself anyway). Since they have been eliminated the next breed on the list now accounts for 40 % of the bites and they are deemed dangerous and eliminated. When we work with PERCENTS and not NUMBERS there will always be some breed on the chopping block. Eventually we get to ALL dogs are dangerous. That is what the Animal Rights people want.
Innocent until proven guilty clearly dose not apply to dogs!
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Calf. Democrates- Get out and VOTE!
This is an urgent message for Dog-Loving Dems in California. Today's Huffington Post is reporting that Jackie Speier - that dog-hating Wicked Witch Of The West, plans to pick up her broomstick for a flight to D.C. in a bid for Congress, running against fellow Dem Tom Lantos.
Today is your opportunity to stop the AR agenda at the National Level!
Today is your opportunity to stop the AR agenda at the National Level!
Breeds, mixes, "look-a-Likes" All BANNED
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Updates Current as of August 5, 2007
BSL Passed - McFarland, Kansas Passed BSL against the following breeds:
American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Terrier
Bull Terrier
Rottweiler
Dogo Argentino
Presa CanarioVizla
Dogue de Bordeux
Cane Corso
Wolf
(and any dog resembling the above named breeds)
Southgate, Kentucky Already had BSL. Council voted unanimously to add"pit bull mixes" in addition to "purebred" pit bulls.
Spencer, South Dakota Passed BSL with respect to the following breeds:
Pit bulls
Rottweilers
Dobermans
Blue Heelers
Wolves (wolf hybrids)
Beebe, Arkansas Passed a ban on "pit bulls" and vicious dogs.
Owners have until August 23 to comply with the restrictions of the ordinance.
**Of note, according to Police Chief Don Inns, the city "does not have any more attacks with pit bulls than other breeds."
Canton, Ohio Passed ordinance restricting pit bulls. A pit bull is now considered vicious simply because of the breed,and doesn't have to engage in violent behavior.
South Pittsburg, Tennessee City passed a ban on pit bulls. The ordinance states pit bulls have a "genetic predisposition to aggressiveness" that makes the breed dangerous.
Union County, Kentucky A new ordinance makes it more expensive to own pitbulls and wolf hybrid dogs. UPDATES(Click on city for contact and additional information)
Jackson, Alabama According to the city clerk, the city is considering a non-breed specific ordinance. We may want to keep an eye on this as the newspaper article stated the dirctor of animal control was asked to come up with a list of breeds considered dangerous by the next city council meeting.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama Considering a ban on pit bulls.
Cabot, Arkansas A breed specific ordinance is pending. They are currently "changing the wording." The issue is no texpected to come up until September or October.
Batesville, Arkansas The pit bull ordinance has been tabled FOR NOW.
Manila, Arkansas The pit bull ordinance has been tabled. They are going to try enforce the current vicious dog ordinance.
Ward, Arkansas A pit bull ban is currently being considered. City officials are concerned they will become a "dumping ground" for pit bulls as every city in the county has a pit bull ordinance.
Lonoke County, Arkansas The sheriff is pushing a county wide pit bull ban.
Little Rock, Arkansas Officials from Calgary, Canada worked with Little Rock officials in an effort to get them to reconsider a banon pit bulls. The ban is tabled, but Little Rock is still looking at restrictions for pit bulls.
Dover, Delaware The city is considering expanding their list of dangerous dogs to include rottweilers, dobermans, akitas, chows and mastiffs.
Crossville, Illinois REPEALED BSL! (BSL prohibited by state law)
Westville, Illinois
According to the mayor, the local newpaper staff"misinterpretted" the city council meeting minutes andpublished a story that the city was considering a pitbull ban. Per the mayor, the city is not, nor has it ever been, considering BSL. (Thank you Westville!)
Clive, Iowa REPEALED BSL!
Wichita, Kansas Considering ban on pit bulls.
Louisville, Kentucky Reviewing the dangerous dog ordinance passed earlier this year.
Sulphur, Louisana The proposed pit bull ban will be addressed at theAugust 13 city council meeting.
Massachusetts (State wide)Researching the possibility of a state wide pit bullban.
Minnesota (State wide) Gearing up to propose a state wide ban on five breeds.
Laurel, Mississippi The city council is considering a pit bull ban
St. Ann, Missouri Considering an ordinance that would target breeds deemed dangerous, and specifically targeting pit bulls.
Lexington, Oklahoma Researching the possibility of a pit bull ban.
Reading, Pennsylvania Reading is looking to push up the start date of a dangerous dog ordinance specific to pit bulls. To beconsidered dangerous, a breed has to be responsiblefor 40 percent or more of the bites within a year. Sofar- pit bulls account for more than 60 percent of the dog bites in Reading.
Sumpter County, South Carolina The city clerk is out until next week. I could not get any information on what the county is considering.
Warden, Washington TABLED proposed pit bull ban!
Bluefield, West Virginia Looking at a "proactive" ordinance on pit bulls. Several phone calls and e-mails to the city clerk have not been returned.
OF NOTE Tellings v. Toledo The Ohio Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling. In doing so, the court opined that breed specific legislation was not unconstitutional. Armed with his new "victory," Tom Skeldon now plans to introduce mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls.
Fayetteville, Tennessee City pit bull ban went into effect on July 1, 2007. To date, 60 pit bulls have been surrendered because owners were unable to adhere to the new restrictions.
Springfield, Missouri Former city council woman Sheila Wright received one year of probation as part of a plea agreement in a vicious-dog complaint filed against her. Ms. Wrightwas one of the city council members who pushed for the city's ban on pit bulls. Ms. Wright and her husband own a Alaskan malamute that attacked a neighbor's dog on more than one occassion.
BSL Passed - McFarland, Kansas Passed BSL against the following breeds:
American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Terrier
Bull Terrier
Rottweiler
Dogo Argentino
Presa CanarioVizla
Dogue de Bordeux
Cane Corso
Wolf
(and any dog resembling the above named breeds)
Southgate, Kentucky Already had BSL. Council voted unanimously to add"pit bull mixes" in addition to "purebred" pit bulls.
Spencer, South Dakota Passed BSL with respect to the following breeds:
Pit bulls
Rottweilers
Dobermans
Blue Heelers
Wolves (wolf hybrids)
Beebe, Arkansas Passed a ban on "pit bulls" and vicious dogs.
Owners have until August 23 to comply with the restrictions of the ordinance.
**Of note, according to Police Chief Don Inns, the city "does not have any more attacks with pit bulls than other breeds."
Canton, Ohio Passed ordinance restricting pit bulls. A pit bull is now considered vicious simply because of the breed,and doesn't have to engage in violent behavior.
South Pittsburg, Tennessee City passed a ban on pit bulls. The ordinance states pit bulls have a "genetic predisposition to aggressiveness" that makes the breed dangerous.
Union County, Kentucky A new ordinance makes it more expensive to own pitbulls and wolf hybrid dogs. UPDATES(Click on city for contact and additional information)
Jackson, Alabama According to the city clerk, the city is considering a non-breed specific ordinance. We may want to keep an eye on this as the newspaper article stated the dirctor of animal control was asked to come up with a list of breeds considered dangerous by the next city council meeting.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama Considering a ban on pit bulls.
Cabot, Arkansas A breed specific ordinance is pending. They are currently "changing the wording." The issue is no texpected to come up until September or October.
Batesville, Arkansas The pit bull ordinance has been tabled FOR NOW.
Manila, Arkansas The pit bull ordinance has been tabled. They are going to try enforce the current vicious dog ordinance.
Ward, Arkansas A pit bull ban is currently being considered. City officials are concerned they will become a "dumping ground" for pit bulls as every city in the county has a pit bull ordinance.
Lonoke County, Arkansas The sheriff is pushing a county wide pit bull ban.
Little Rock, Arkansas Officials from Calgary, Canada worked with Little Rock officials in an effort to get them to reconsider a banon pit bulls. The ban is tabled, but Little Rock is still looking at restrictions for pit bulls.
Dover, Delaware The city is considering expanding their list of dangerous dogs to include rottweilers, dobermans, akitas, chows and mastiffs.
Crossville, Illinois REPEALED BSL! (BSL prohibited by state law)
Westville, Illinois
According to the mayor, the local newpaper staff"misinterpretted" the city council meeting minutes andpublished a story that the city was considering a pitbull ban. Per the mayor, the city is not, nor has it ever been, considering BSL. (Thank you Westville!)
Clive, Iowa REPEALED BSL!
Wichita, Kansas Considering ban on pit bulls.
Louisville, Kentucky Reviewing the dangerous dog ordinance passed earlier this year.
Sulphur, Louisana The proposed pit bull ban will be addressed at theAugust 13 city council meeting.
Massachusetts (State wide)Researching the possibility of a state wide pit bullban.
Minnesota (State wide) Gearing up to propose a state wide ban on five breeds.
Laurel, Mississippi The city council is considering a pit bull ban
St. Ann, Missouri Considering an ordinance that would target breeds deemed dangerous, and specifically targeting pit bulls.
Lexington, Oklahoma Researching the possibility of a pit bull ban.
Reading, Pennsylvania Reading is looking to push up the start date of a dangerous dog ordinance specific to pit bulls. To beconsidered dangerous, a breed has to be responsiblefor 40 percent or more of the bites within a year. Sofar- pit bulls account for more than 60 percent of the dog bites in Reading.
Sumpter County, South Carolina The city clerk is out until next week. I could not get any information on what the county is considering.
Warden, Washington TABLED proposed pit bull ban!
Bluefield, West Virginia Looking at a "proactive" ordinance on pit bulls. Several phone calls and e-mails to the city clerk have not been returned.
OF NOTE Tellings v. Toledo The Ohio Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling. In doing so, the court opined that breed specific legislation was not unconstitutional. Armed with his new "victory," Tom Skeldon now plans to introduce mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls.
Fayetteville, Tennessee City pit bull ban went into effect on July 1, 2007. To date, 60 pit bulls have been surrendered because owners were unable to adhere to the new restrictions.
Springfield, Missouri Former city council woman Sheila Wright received one year of probation as part of a plea agreement in a vicious-dog complaint filed against her. Ms. Wrightwas one of the city council members who pushed for the city's ban on pit bulls. Ms. Wright and her husband own a Alaskan malamute that attacked a neighbor's dog on more than one occassion.
Monday, August 6, 2007
PETA- Death Makes good PR
PETA's PR babe, Director Daphna Nachminovitch, issued this press release last week,
"For Immediate Release: April 27, 2007
Contact: Daphna Nachminovitch 757-622-7382
Dorchester County, S.C. — This morning, PETA sent an urgent letter to Dorchester County Council Chair Larry Hargett and other council members urging them to follow the lead of dozens of other jurisdictions across the country by banning or strictly regulating pit bull ownership.
Continue reading "Exploiting The Death Of Brian Palmer - PETA Calls For Pitbull Ban" »
"For Immediate Release: April 27, 2007
Contact: Daphna Nachminovitch 757-622-7382
Dorchester County, S.C. — This morning, PETA sent an urgent letter to Dorchester County Council Chair Larry Hargett and other council members urging them to follow the lead of dozens of other jurisdictions across the country by banning or strictly regulating pit bull ownership.
Continue reading "Exploiting The Death Of Brian Palmer - PETA Calls For Pitbull Ban" »
Iams Company pulls funding from Petfest America due to HSUS involment
Dear Dog Enthusiast:
You recently contacted us regarding our affiliation with the HSUS. We'd like to thank you for taking the time to express your concern as well as update you on a recent decision made by our organization. The Iams Company will not be funding the Petfest America events with HSUS again next year. We appreciate all of the direct feedback we have received from the dog community and apologize for the frustration that this sponsorship has caused. We have a lot of exciting innovations planned next year, which will require our focused time and resources. As a leader in the pet industry, The Iams Company is about educatingall pet owners on pet health care and nutrition - from the family pet to the active competitor. We are definitely pro-dog and clearly not anti-hunting. We look forward to continuing our long history of support of the sporting dog community and leadership in the industry with innovative research to improve the health and well-being of athletic dogs. We hope that we can put this behind us and focus on the future -- great performing foods for great performing dogs. Iams and Eukanuba Sponsorships and Support of the Sporting DogCommunity:* AKC Master National Hunt Test* AKC National Gun Dog Championship* AKC Pointer National Championship* Brittany National Amateur Championship* Canadian National Amateur Retriever Championship* Canadian National Retriever Championship* ESPN Great Outdoor Games* Eukanuba Beagle Championship* German Wirehaired Pointer Nationals & Specialty* GSPCA National Specialty* National Amateur Retriever Championship* National Bird Dog Championship* National German Pointing Dog Championship* National Retriever Championship* NGSPA Championship* Official U.S. Gun Dog Team, 2004 National Countrysports Fair,Northern Ireland* Vizsla Nationals & Specialty* Weimaraner Nationals & Winter SpecialtyOther facts regarding Iams and past support:* The Iams Company is the only dog food company to support the Armbruster Test, an international hunt test for Deutsche Drahthaars.*
The Iams Company is the only dog food company to financially support the quail restoration project on the Ames Plantation, home to the National Bird Dog Championship and for many years we have commissioned original oil paintings by Ross B. Young, of the National Champion Bird Dog.* We conducted the Iams Retriever Symposium for breeders and trainersof retrievers and also support Team Eukanuba Seminars around the country.* We support Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, The Ruffed GrouseSociety, and Ducks Unlimited.* We publish Care and Nutrition of the Sporting Dog, one of the only manuals for hunters and field trialers.* For over 20 years, The Iams Company has been the acknowledged leader in nutritional research for performance dogs. We developed the only "in the field" research study of pointing dogs and hunting performance.
Again, we appreciate you sharing your concern and for giving us the opportunity to respond. If you need further information or havespecific questions, please contact Consumer Care at 800-525-4267. We areavailable Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday. If you prefer, please email us anytime!
Best regards,Marti Hissong Iams Consumer Care NA
You recently contacted us regarding our affiliation with the HSUS. We'd like to thank you for taking the time to express your concern as well as update you on a recent decision made by our organization. The Iams Company will not be funding the Petfest America events with HSUS again next year. We appreciate all of the direct feedback we have received from the dog community and apologize for the frustration that this sponsorship has caused. We have a lot of exciting innovations planned next year, which will require our focused time and resources. As a leader in the pet industry, The Iams Company is about educatingall pet owners on pet health care and nutrition - from the family pet to the active competitor. We are definitely pro-dog and clearly not anti-hunting. We look forward to continuing our long history of support of the sporting dog community and leadership in the industry with innovative research to improve the health and well-being of athletic dogs. We hope that we can put this behind us and focus on the future -- great performing foods for great performing dogs. Iams and Eukanuba Sponsorships and Support of the Sporting DogCommunity:* AKC Master National Hunt Test* AKC National Gun Dog Championship* AKC Pointer National Championship* Brittany National Amateur Championship* Canadian National Amateur Retriever Championship* Canadian National Retriever Championship* ESPN Great Outdoor Games* Eukanuba Beagle Championship* German Wirehaired Pointer Nationals & Specialty* GSPCA National Specialty* National Amateur Retriever Championship* National Bird Dog Championship* National German Pointing Dog Championship* National Retriever Championship* NGSPA Championship* Official U.S. Gun Dog Team, 2004 National Countrysports Fair,Northern Ireland* Vizsla Nationals & Specialty* Weimaraner Nationals & Winter SpecialtyOther facts regarding Iams and past support:* The Iams Company is the only dog food company to support the Armbruster Test, an international hunt test for Deutsche Drahthaars.*
The Iams Company is the only dog food company to financially support the quail restoration project on the Ames Plantation, home to the National Bird Dog Championship and for many years we have commissioned original oil paintings by Ross B. Young, of the National Champion Bird Dog.* We conducted the Iams Retriever Symposium for breeders and trainersof retrievers and also support Team Eukanuba Seminars around the country.* We support Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, The Ruffed GrouseSociety, and Ducks Unlimited.* We publish Care and Nutrition of the Sporting Dog, one of the only manuals for hunters and field trialers.* For over 20 years, The Iams Company has been the acknowledged leader in nutritional research for performance dogs. We developed the only "in the field" research study of pointing dogs and hunting performance.
Again, we appreciate you sharing your concern and for giving us the opportunity to respond. If you need further information or havespecific questions, please contact Consumer Care at 800-525-4267. We areavailable Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Saturday. If you prefer, please email us anytime!
Best regards,Marti Hissong Iams Consumer Care NA
North Carolina- Henderson County proposed ordinance includes mandatory spay/neuter
August 1, 2007
The Honorable William MoyerChairman, Henderson County Board of Commissioners
100 N. King Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Dear Mr. Chairman:Concerned dog owners and citizens of Henderson County have contacted the American Kennel Club regarding an ordinance that dramatically affects their ability to own dogs. We respectfully write to you on their behalf. The American Kennel Club (AKC) was established in 1884 to promote the study, breeding, exhibiting, and advancement of purebred dogs. AKC now represents over 4,500 dog clubs nationally, including 115 clubs in the state of North Carolina. The American Kennel Club supports sound, enforceable, non-discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership. We understand that it can be a rather daunting task to formulate legislation that will allow the responsible citizen to enjoy a myriad of activities with his/her dog while at the same time protecting all people from the actions of irresponsible dog owners. We believe, however, that this is an attainable goal. We understand that Henderson County will soon consider changes to the animal control ordinance that include mandatory spay/neuter of dogs unless one purchases a $100 permit each year for each intact dog or cat. The AKC opposes the concept of differential licensing, breeding permits, breeding bans and mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. These breeders are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership. Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being required to purchase the expensive intact animal permits that would be mandated by this new provision. The AKC believes the answer to animal control issues is strict enforcement of current laws, rather than passage of new burdensome regulation. The key to resolving this issue is to implement and expand the wide range of programs available to educate the public about responsible breeding practices. The AKC offers a wealth of material on this subject, and we would be happy to provide you with more information in this regard.The American Kennel Club and your constituent dog owners are willing to assist you in developing reasonable animal control regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities. We look forward to working with you as this issue progresses.
Sincerely,
Sarah Sprouse
Manager, Canine Legislation
cc: Asheville Kennel Club, Appalachian Houndsmen Association, North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs, North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance
The Honorable William MoyerChairman, Henderson County Board of Commissioners
100 N. King Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Dear Mr. Chairman:Concerned dog owners and citizens of Henderson County have contacted the American Kennel Club regarding an ordinance that dramatically affects their ability to own dogs. We respectfully write to you on their behalf. The American Kennel Club (AKC) was established in 1884 to promote the study, breeding, exhibiting, and advancement of purebred dogs. AKC now represents over 4,500 dog clubs nationally, including 115 clubs in the state of North Carolina. The American Kennel Club supports sound, enforceable, non-discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership. We understand that it can be a rather daunting task to formulate legislation that will allow the responsible citizen to enjoy a myriad of activities with his/her dog while at the same time protecting all people from the actions of irresponsible dog owners. We believe, however, that this is an attainable goal. We understand that Henderson County will soon consider changes to the animal control ordinance that include mandatory spay/neuter of dogs unless one purchases a $100 permit each year for each intact dog or cat. The AKC opposes the concept of differential licensing, breeding permits, breeding bans and mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. These breeders are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership. Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being required to purchase the expensive intact animal permits that would be mandated by this new provision. The AKC believes the answer to animal control issues is strict enforcement of current laws, rather than passage of new burdensome regulation. The key to resolving this issue is to implement and expand the wide range of programs available to educate the public about responsible breeding practices. The AKC offers a wealth of material on this subject, and we would be happy to provide you with more information in this regard.The American Kennel Club and your constituent dog owners are willing to assist you in developing reasonable animal control regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities. We look forward to working with you as this issue progresses.
Sincerely,
Sarah Sprouse
Manager, Canine Legislation
cc: Asheville Kennel Club, Appalachian Houndsmen Association, North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs, North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance
PA- State Barking Up the Wrong Tree with new proposed Regulations
Outdoors: Don Steese's Outdoor Perspectives column, State barking up wrong tree with new regulations
If you're the owner of a sporting dog in Pennsylvania, be afraid...be very afraid. According to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the state of Pennsylvania is taking steps to regulate sporting dog breeders with the same "iron fist" it intends for abusive commercial breeders. Recently, sportsmen who tried to object to the oppressive dog care proposal were abruptly silenced. At issue, according to the Alliance, is a set of dog care regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in December 2006. Among the requirements are expensive animal housing upgrades, mandatory daily exercise, (hunting doesn't count), and the keeping of daily sanitation and cleaning records. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Sporting Dog Defense Coalition and other dog organizations have been urging Gov. Ed Rendell, state lawmakers and the Department of Agriculture to rewrite the dog law so that sportsmen will not be caught up in the regulations. More than 200 Pennsylvania sportsmen who realize the threat that the regulations pose to hunting attended a Dog Law Advisory Board hearing July 11 at the Radnor Hunt Club in Malvern. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to focus on sportsmen's concerns about the proposal. However, when USSA Associate Director of State Services Evan Heusinkveld began to offer testimony, Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Jesse Smith ruled him out of order, and seized the microphone. National Beagle Club of America Board Member Wanda Borsa, a New Freedom resident whose beagle pack is called Holly Hill Beagles, also tried to comment. She, too, was stopped before being able to express her concerns. "Ms. Smith and the Department of Agriculture do not want the public to know how insidious these regulations are for the future of hunting dogs," said Heusinkveld. "State regulators could not find a single existing kennel that would be in compliance with the proposal."In a recent message to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Deputy Secretary Smith wrote, "The Department is attempting to apply more uniform and enforceable regulations to all kennels." Until now, the department had, according to the Alliance, been trying to convince sportsmen that the dog care policy was aimed at unscrupulous commercial breeders and was not meant to impact hunters."The Department of Agriculture has admitted its anti-hunting stance. Sportsmen are not sure if this is a position of the Rendell administration or merely one loose cannon within the administration," said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. "We do know that the governor himself sparked the issue, but hope the anti-hunting position doesn't reflect his true feeling about hunting dogs.">From the outset, sportsmen have, according to USSA, suspected that the regulations are a product of animal rightists. Groups like the Philadelphia-based Main Line Animal Rescue, and the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have certainly had more access to the process, and their representatives have yet to be muzzled at public hearings. USSA is urging Pennsylvania sportsmen and sporting dog enthusiasts to contact Gov. Rendell and state lawmakers and demand that these dog care regulations be withdrawn. I spoke with a USSA representative who said that parts of the proposed regulations were more stringent than regulations which govern children's day care centers.Nobody wants to see dogs being treated inhumanely, but it would seem that these regulations, if adopted, would put most sporting dog kennels, and hobby breeders out of business. A call to Rob Miller, advisor to Governor Rendell for hunting, fishing, and conservation was not returned. n Don Steese of Northumberland is a lifelong outdoorsman whose column appears weekly in The Daily Item. E-mail comments to jdsteese@yahoo.com.
If you're the owner of a sporting dog in Pennsylvania, be afraid...be very afraid. According to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, the state of Pennsylvania is taking steps to regulate sporting dog breeders with the same "iron fist" it intends for abusive commercial breeders. Recently, sportsmen who tried to object to the oppressive dog care proposal were abruptly silenced. At issue, according to the Alliance, is a set of dog care regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in December 2006. Among the requirements are expensive animal housing upgrades, mandatory daily exercise, (hunting doesn't count), and the keeping of daily sanitation and cleaning records. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Sporting Dog Defense Coalition and other dog organizations have been urging Gov. Ed Rendell, state lawmakers and the Department of Agriculture to rewrite the dog law so that sportsmen will not be caught up in the regulations. More than 200 Pennsylvania sportsmen who realize the threat that the regulations pose to hunting attended a Dog Law Advisory Board hearing July 11 at the Radnor Hunt Club in Malvern. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to focus on sportsmen's concerns about the proposal. However, when USSA Associate Director of State Services Evan Heusinkveld began to offer testimony, Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Jesse Smith ruled him out of order, and seized the microphone. National Beagle Club of America Board Member Wanda Borsa, a New Freedom resident whose beagle pack is called Holly Hill Beagles, also tried to comment. She, too, was stopped before being able to express her concerns. "Ms. Smith and the Department of Agriculture do not want the public to know how insidious these regulations are for the future of hunting dogs," said Heusinkveld. "State regulators could not find a single existing kennel that would be in compliance with the proposal."In a recent message to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Deputy Secretary Smith wrote, "The Department is attempting to apply more uniform and enforceable regulations to all kennels." Until now, the department had, according to the Alliance, been trying to convince sportsmen that the dog care policy was aimed at unscrupulous commercial breeders and was not meant to impact hunters."The Department of Agriculture has admitted its anti-hunting stance. Sportsmen are not sure if this is a position of the Rendell administration or merely one loose cannon within the administration," said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. "We do know that the governor himself sparked the issue, but hope the anti-hunting position doesn't reflect his true feeling about hunting dogs.">From the outset, sportsmen have, according to USSA, suspected that the regulations are a product of animal rightists. Groups like the Philadelphia-based Main Line Animal Rescue, and the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have certainly had more access to the process, and their representatives have yet to be muzzled at public hearings. USSA is urging Pennsylvania sportsmen and sporting dog enthusiasts to contact Gov. Rendell and state lawmakers and demand that these dog care regulations be withdrawn. I spoke with a USSA representative who said that parts of the proposed regulations were more stringent than regulations which govern children's day care centers.Nobody wants to see dogs being treated inhumanely, but it would seem that these regulations, if adopted, would put most sporting dog kennels, and hobby breeders out of business. A call to Rob Miller, advisor to Governor Rendell for hunting, fishing, and conservation was not returned. n Don Steese of Northumberland is a lifelong outdoorsman whose column appears weekly in The Daily Item. E-mail comments to jdsteese@yahoo.com.
The Myth of Pet Over-Population
by Cherie Graves
The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Over-Population
May 23, 2007 01:00 PM EST
We have all heard, and seen HSUS, and PeTA promotions to stop pet over-population. Many people accept without question that there really is a pet-overpopulation crises in the United States. They cite the numbers of animals that are killed in shelters as their proof. That "proof" will increase dramatically in shelters across the county that took in animals that were "rescued" from the areas hit by the Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita. These animals will considerably add to the shelter's kill numbers, and will lead to legislation to quell the crisis. California Shelters are importing plane loads of dogs from China, Romania, the Carribean, and with these animals come their diseases. In California there was the recent death of an 11 year old boy attributable to a strain of rabies that is not indiginous to the United States. The boy did not respond to standard rabies protocols. In order to prove "pet-overpopulation" the animal rights movement has a huge animal transport system in place that rapidly moves animals from one area to another in order to stack intake, and euthanasia figures in areas targeted for introduction of their legislation of removing pets from our ownership. One such shipment was videotaped in Las Vegas. A van bearing the logo of an AR group from Utah, and Utah license plates pulled into the night deposit of the animal shelter and dropped off numerous dogs. More will come out on this incident at a later date. Let us take a real look at over-population. It is usually caused by an environmental situation that affects the whole population, such as drought, or crop failure, or even war. It means that there are no life sustaining resources to keep the populace alive. Over-population affects every living thing within the confines of the afflicted area. It would mean that there is no food, no potable water, no shelter, no medical supplies, no clothing, nothing to keep the whole population alive, and thriving. If we truly had a pet-overpopulation here in the USA, we wouldn't just be talking about the sterile killing of animals for disposal in so-called shelters. We would be eating those animals to save ourselves from starvation. If there was truly an overpopulation, there would be empty super- market shelves. No medical supplies, or services. Lines for potable water. We would all look like the people who have honestly suffered from the real situation of no sustaining resources available. We wouldn't be a diet conscious nation, we would be in serious nutritional trouble. Over-population doesn't play favorites. It affects the entire population. We live in the richest nation on the face of the earth. We lack for nothing. We as a society are so spoiled we do not value life. We get an animal on a whim, and dispose of it just as readily. That irresponsibility has nothing at all to do with over-population, and everything to do with our throw-away mentality. The animal rights movement relies upon our gullibility to foster their agenda. Look back about forty years, and see that before the manufactured crisis, there was not the huge need for shelters. Animal rights groups basically built the shelters, and told people that they didn't have to be responsible for their animals anymore. Just dump them at the shelter. It's become big business, and the shelters are not only thriving, but they are getting bigger, and better multi-million dollar facilities. Interestingly the Humane Society of the United States operates no shelters at all, and uses a large portion of it's donations to make even more money. They recently have come under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for misuse of funds obtained after Hurricane Katrina, some $30,000.000.00. PeTA with all of it's millions in revenue operates one shelter where it kills 83% of all the animals that it brings in. We need to question what we are being told by these animal rights groups, and not be so quick to accept what they tell us as truths. Look at their real agenda. They post it on their websites. That agenda is to liberate all animals from our ownership, use, and care. No more pets. If we can't own pets, there can't be an "over- population". No more domesticated animals of any kind. Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991) "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" (Animal People, May, 1993)
Cherie Graves is chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Over-Population
May 23, 2007 01:00 PM EST
We have all heard, and seen HSUS, and PeTA promotions to stop pet over-population. Many people accept without question that there really is a pet-overpopulation crises in the United States. They cite the numbers of animals that are killed in shelters as their proof. That "proof" will increase dramatically in shelters across the county that took in animals that were "rescued" from the areas hit by the Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita. These animals will considerably add to the shelter's kill numbers, and will lead to legislation to quell the crisis. California Shelters are importing plane loads of dogs from China, Romania, the Carribean, and with these animals come their diseases. In California there was the recent death of an 11 year old boy attributable to a strain of rabies that is not indiginous to the United States. The boy did not respond to standard rabies protocols. In order to prove "pet-overpopulation" the animal rights movement has a huge animal transport system in place that rapidly moves animals from one area to another in order to stack intake, and euthanasia figures in areas targeted for introduction of their legislation of removing pets from our ownership. One such shipment was videotaped in Las Vegas. A van bearing the logo of an AR group from Utah, and Utah license plates pulled into the night deposit of the animal shelter and dropped off numerous dogs. More will come out on this incident at a later date. Let us take a real look at over-population. It is usually caused by an environmental situation that affects the whole population, such as drought, or crop failure, or even war. It means that there are no life sustaining resources to keep the populace alive. Over-population affects every living thing within the confines of the afflicted area. It would mean that there is no food, no potable water, no shelter, no medical supplies, no clothing, nothing to keep the whole population alive, and thriving. If we truly had a pet-overpopulation here in the USA, we wouldn't just be talking about the sterile killing of animals for disposal in so-called shelters. We would be eating those animals to save ourselves from starvation. If there was truly an overpopulation, there would be empty super- market shelves. No medical supplies, or services. Lines for potable water. We would all look like the people who have honestly suffered from the real situation of no sustaining resources available. We wouldn't be a diet conscious nation, we would be in serious nutritional trouble. Over-population doesn't play favorites. It affects the entire population. We live in the richest nation on the face of the earth. We lack for nothing. We as a society are so spoiled we do not value life. We get an animal on a whim, and dispose of it just as readily. That irresponsibility has nothing at all to do with over-population, and everything to do with our throw-away mentality. The animal rights movement relies upon our gullibility to foster their agenda. Look back about forty years, and see that before the manufactured crisis, there was not the huge need for shelters. Animal rights groups basically built the shelters, and told people that they didn't have to be responsible for their animals anymore. Just dump them at the shelter. It's become big business, and the shelters are not only thriving, but they are getting bigger, and better multi-million dollar facilities. Interestingly the Humane Society of the United States operates no shelters at all, and uses a large portion of it's donations to make even more money. They recently have come under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for misuse of funds obtained after Hurricane Katrina, some $30,000.000.00. PeTA with all of it's millions in revenue operates one shelter where it kills 83% of all the animals that it brings in. We need to question what we are being told by these animal rights groups, and not be so quick to accept what they tell us as truths. Look at their real agenda. They post it on their websites. That agenda is to liberate all animals from our ownership, use, and care. No more pets. If we can't own pets, there can't be an "over- population". No more domesticated animals of any kind. Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991) "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" (Animal People, May, 1993)
Cherie Graves is chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
My Dog Votes Candlelight Vigil Against Breed Bans August 19th
I'm glad you'll be joining us for the My Dog Votes 3rd Annual Worldwide Candlelight Vigil Against Breed Bans on August 19th at 8 PM.
We'd like to announce the launch of a new website as the official site of the vigil: www.LightACandleSav eALife.com LIGHT A CANDLE, SAVE A LIFE Light A Candle, Save A Life has the news, information, and sharing to help people connect, get organized or just learn more about how they can help stop breed bans. We started the vigil three years ago to stand in solidarity with dog owners in Ontario, Canada, who were also holding a vigil to mark the enactment of the province-wide breed ban, and as the means to commemorate the breed ban that had just been re-enacted in Denver. I posted it on the DogPolitics. com blog to tell the world that these horrific laws were killing innocent dogs - and hurting good dog owners. The vigil as grown from 24 locations in 2005 to over 200 locations scheduled for 2007. STAND UP FOR INNOCENT DOGS We need you now more than ever, as breed bans, fear and ignorance are sweeping the world. We invite you stand up for innocent dogs, no matter who you are, or where you may live. You can hold just about any kind of vigil, whether it's a vigil for one in your own backyard or for one hundred of your closest friends or more in a public park. Please do whatever is comfortable and meaningful for you. SIGN UP ONLINE - IMPORTANT! Please visit www.LightACandleSav eALife.com and use the online Sign Me Up form - this helps us keep track of all the vigil locations - and please include your zip or postal code. This helps us to keep track of and map all of the vigil locations and help to connect all of you! PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?Also -using the online sign up form, please indicate whether your vigil be private - just you & friends - or will it be public - will you allow other people gather with you? People are asking where they can find a local vigil & just want to know you're holding a public vigil in case someone in your area would like to join you, so please let us know. SHARE VIGIL PIX & VIDEO Take pictures & videos! You can now easily share your vigil images and videos on YouTube and Flickr!YouTube http://youtube. com/group/ MyDogVotesVigil Flickr http://www.flickr. com/groups/ mydogvotesworldv igil We've had lots of people take pictures of their vigil in the past& send us beautiful photos, which are now loaded into the Flickr flash badge. Also - anyone can join the My Dog Votes World Vigil YouTube group and add their videos there. Angie Linnet - this one's for you! NEW VIGIL TOOLS! Organizing a local vigil? Now you've got tools Press Kit Vigil Guide Checklist Online sign up form Petitions More on the way. Thank you all for the work that you do each day, and thank you for standing up for innocent dogs and innocent dog owners. We can make a difference- and we can let the world know that we have a voice and we have a vote. Please join the 3rd Annual My Dog Votes Candlelight Vigil Against Breed Bans on Sunday, August 19th at 8 PM and help us Light A Candle, Save A Life.Thank you, Barbara My Dog VotesPS - Tell a friend! PPS - Please vote in your next local election for the dog-friendly candidate of your choice!
Lick Voter Apathy! Get Your My Dog Votes U.S. Postage Stamps Today! Visit: www.zazzle.com/ MyDogVotes* /product/ 1723609594544991 56
We'd like to announce the launch of a new website as the official site of the vigil: www.LightACandleSav eALife.com LIGHT A CANDLE, SAVE A LIFE Light A Candle, Save A Life has the news, information, and sharing to help people connect, get organized or just learn more about how they can help stop breed bans. We started the vigil three years ago to stand in solidarity with dog owners in Ontario, Canada, who were also holding a vigil to mark the enactment of the province-wide breed ban, and as the means to commemorate the breed ban that had just been re-enacted in Denver. I posted it on the DogPolitics. com blog to tell the world that these horrific laws were killing innocent dogs - and hurting good dog owners. The vigil as grown from 24 locations in 2005 to over 200 locations scheduled for 2007. STAND UP FOR INNOCENT DOGS We need you now more than ever, as breed bans, fear and ignorance are sweeping the world. We invite you stand up for innocent dogs, no matter who you are, or where you may live. You can hold just about any kind of vigil, whether it's a vigil for one in your own backyard or for one hundred of your closest friends or more in a public park. Please do whatever is comfortable and meaningful for you. SIGN UP ONLINE - IMPORTANT! Please visit www.LightACandleSav eALife.com and use the online Sign Me Up form - this helps us keep track of all the vigil locations - and please include your zip or postal code. This helps us to keep track of and map all of the vigil locations and help to connect all of you! PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?Also -using the online sign up form, please indicate whether your vigil be private - just you & friends - or will it be public - will you allow other people gather with you? People are asking where they can find a local vigil & just want to know you're holding a public vigil in case someone in your area would like to join you, so please let us know. SHARE VIGIL PIX & VIDEO Take pictures & videos! You can now easily share your vigil images and videos on YouTube and Flickr!YouTube http://youtube. com/group/ MyDogVotesVigil Flickr http://www.flickr. com/groups/ mydogvotesworldv igil We've had lots of people take pictures of their vigil in the past& send us beautiful photos, which are now loaded into the Flickr flash badge. Also - anyone can join the My Dog Votes World Vigil YouTube group and add their videos there. Angie Linnet - this one's for you! NEW VIGIL TOOLS! Organizing a local vigil? Now you've got tools Press Kit Vigil Guide Checklist Online sign up form Petitions More on the way. Thank you all for the work that you do each day, and thank you for standing up for innocent dogs and innocent dog owners. We can make a difference- and we can let the world know that we have a voice and we have a vote. Please join the 3rd Annual My Dog Votes Candlelight Vigil Against Breed Bans on Sunday, August 19th at 8 PM and help us Light A Candle, Save A Life.Thank you, Barbara My Dog VotesPS - Tell a friend! PPS - Please vote in your next local election for the dog-friendly candidate of your choice!
Lick Voter Apathy! Get Your My Dog Votes U.S. Postage Stamps Today! Visit: www.zazzle.com/ MyDogVotes* /product/ 1723609594544991 56
HSUS' Wayne Pacelle no longer speaking at Cat Writers Association Annual Conference
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/08/03/hsus-speaker-out/
HSUS speaker outAugust 3, 2007
As Gina blogged last week, the board of the Dog Writers Association of America voted to back out of its participation in the Cat Writers Association annual conference because CWA had lined up the HSUS' Wayne Pacelle as its keynote speaker — and quite a folks in CWA weren't too happy about it, either. Many of the members of both organizations are responsible breeders or exhibitors of dogs and cats. Given that the event is being held in California and HSUS had recently spearheaded the campaign for AB 1634, a California mandatory spay/neuter law that many felt targeted responsible breeders while doing nothing to reduce puppy mills, unethical breeders, or shelter death rates, this was probably not the best year for Pacelle to be on the podium. Today, CWA president Nancy Peterson announced that Pacelle would no longer be addressing the members, and that there would be, this year, no speaker at the annual banquet. I had planned on being there either way. Despite the fact that I don't agree with HSUS on this issue and, in fact, quite a few others, I don't think a speaker being controversial is a reason not to attend their speech. I've been known to enjoy a good catfight. Still, I hope it's a chance for the dogs and cats to kiss and make up, and that DWAA will vote to restore its support of the event, which is in November.
HSUS speaker outAugust 3, 2007
As Gina blogged last week, the board of the Dog Writers Association of America voted to back out of its participation in the Cat Writers Association annual conference because CWA had lined up the HSUS' Wayne Pacelle as its keynote speaker — and quite a folks in CWA weren't too happy about it, either. Many of the members of both organizations are responsible breeders or exhibitors of dogs and cats. Given that the event is being held in California and HSUS had recently spearheaded the campaign for AB 1634, a California mandatory spay/neuter law that many felt targeted responsible breeders while doing nothing to reduce puppy mills, unethical breeders, or shelter death rates, this was probably not the best year for Pacelle to be on the podium. Today, CWA president Nancy Peterson announced that Pacelle would no longer be addressing the members, and that there would be, this year, no speaker at the annual banquet. I had planned on being there either way. Despite the fact that I don't agree with HSUS on this issue and, in fact, quite a few others, I don't think a speaker being controversial is a reason not to attend their speech. I've been known to enjoy a good catfight. Still, I hope it's a chance for the dogs and cats to kiss and make up, and that DWAA will vote to restore its support of the event, which is in November.
Ohio- Two State Laws Upheld Bred Specific Legislation
http://www.sconet. state.oh. us/Communication s_Office/ summaries/ 2007/0801/060690.asphttp://tinyurl. com/32kzha
Opinion Summaries Two State Laws, Toledo City Ordinance Regulating Pit Bulls Upheld As Constitutional 2006-0690. Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724.Lucas App. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975. Judgment reversed.Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.O'Connor, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/rod/newpdf/ 0/2007/2007- Ohio-3724. pdf Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/ROD/newpdf/ . In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."(Aug. 1, 2007)
The Supreme Court of Ohio today held that two state statutes and a Toledo city ordinance that restrict and regulate the ownership of pit bull dogs do not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners. In a 7-0 decision authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court reversed rulings of the 6th District Court of Appeals that held the challenged laws unconstitutional. The case involved Paul Tellings of Toledo, who was cited by a dog warden for violating a city ordinance that limits ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one such animal per household, and imposes specific muzzling and confinement requirements whenever a pit bull is off its owner's premises. Tellings entered a plea of not guilty in Toledo Municipal Court. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, challenging the constitutionality of Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a) and two state statutes R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4) (a)(iii). The challenged provision of R.C. 955.11 includes all pit bulls within its definition of a "vicious dog."The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on Tellings' motion, and several witnesses testified for both parties regarding the traits and characteristics of pit bulls. The court found that as a breed, pit bulls are not more dangerous than other breeds, but that the evidence supported the city's claim that pit bulls present dangers in an urban setting. Based on that finding, the trial judge issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the challenged laws as a reasonable exercise of the government's police powers. Tellings appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeals, which reversed the municipal court's decision. Citing the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2004 decision in State v. Cowan, the court of appeals held that the Toledo ordinance and challenged provisions of state law were unconstitutional on the basis that they denied pit bull owners procedural due process. The 6th District also held that the challenged laws denied pit bull owners equal protection of the law, and were unconstitutionally vague because they lacked a precise definition of what dogs qualify as "pit bulls."The city appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case. Writing for the Court in today's decision, Chief Justice Moyer reversed the 6th District's holdings on each of the constitutional issues raised by Tellings.With regard to Tellings' procedural due process claims, the Chief Justice distinguished the facts of this case from the facts of Cowan, in which the Supreme Court held that a dog warden could not unilaterally determine that a dog was "vicious" based on a reported attack on a person without giving the owner notice and a hearing."In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden's unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious," he wrote. "However, in this case, the `vicious dogs' at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process."In rejecting Tellings' substantive due process and equal protection claims, Chief Justice Moyer noted thatthe trial court heard extensive testimony regarding problems associated with pit bulls in urban settings, and cited that evidence as grounds to sustain the constitutionality of the challenged statutes."The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people," Moyer wrote. "The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."Chief Justice Moyer's opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of R.C. 995.11(A)(4) (a)(iii), the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training." Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."
Contacts Adam Loukx, 419.245.1020, for the City of Toledo. Sol Zyndorf, 419.244.7482, for Paul Tellings
Opinion Summaries Two State Laws, Toledo City Ordinance Regulating Pit Bulls Upheld As Constitutional 2006-0690. Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724.Lucas App. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975. Judgment reversed.Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.O'Connor, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/rod/newpdf/ 0/2007/2007- Ohio-3724. pdf Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/ROD/newpdf/ . In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."(Aug. 1, 2007)
The Supreme Court of Ohio today held that two state statutes and a Toledo city ordinance that restrict and regulate the ownership of pit bull dogs do not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners. In a 7-0 decision authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court reversed rulings of the 6th District Court of Appeals that held the challenged laws unconstitutional. The case involved Paul Tellings of Toledo, who was cited by a dog warden for violating a city ordinance that limits ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one such animal per household, and imposes specific muzzling and confinement requirements whenever a pit bull is off its owner's premises. Tellings entered a plea of not guilty in Toledo Municipal Court. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, challenging the constitutionality of Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a) and two state statutes R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4) (a)(iii). The challenged provision of R.C. 955.11 includes all pit bulls within its definition of a "vicious dog."The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on Tellings' motion, and several witnesses testified for both parties regarding the traits and characteristics of pit bulls. The court found that as a breed, pit bulls are not more dangerous than other breeds, but that the evidence supported the city's claim that pit bulls present dangers in an urban setting. Based on that finding, the trial judge issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the challenged laws as a reasonable exercise of the government's police powers. Tellings appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeals, which reversed the municipal court's decision. Citing the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2004 decision in State v. Cowan, the court of appeals held that the Toledo ordinance and challenged provisions of state law were unconstitutional on the basis that they denied pit bull owners procedural due process. The 6th District also held that the challenged laws denied pit bull owners equal protection of the law, and were unconstitutionally vague because they lacked a precise definition of what dogs qualify as "pit bulls."The city appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case. Writing for the Court in today's decision, Chief Justice Moyer reversed the 6th District's holdings on each of the constitutional issues raised by Tellings.With regard to Tellings' procedural due process claims, the Chief Justice distinguished the facts of this case from the facts of Cowan, in which the Supreme Court held that a dog warden could not unilaterally determine that a dog was "vicious" based on a reported attack on a person without giving the owner notice and a hearing."In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden's unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious," he wrote. "However, in this case, the `vicious dogs' at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process."In rejecting Tellings' substantive due process and equal protection claims, Chief Justice Moyer noted thatthe trial court heard extensive testimony regarding problems associated with pit bulls in urban settings, and cited that evidence as grounds to sustain the constitutionality of the challenged statutes."The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people," Moyer wrote. "The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."Chief Justice Moyer's opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of R.C. 995.11(A)(4) (a)(iii), the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training." Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."
Contacts Adam Loukx, 419.245.1020, for the City of Toledo. Sol Zyndorf, 419.244.7482, for Paul Tellings
Should Pet Owners be Required to Spay/Neuter?
Spaying Animals (1 Letter)
DiggFacebookNewsvin ePermalinkPublished: August 3, 2007
To the Editor: Editorial Observer: Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? (July 30, 2007)
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club's opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits- all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state's shelter population.Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups — such as stray, feral or surrendered pets — to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.California's shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa PetersonDirector of Club Communications,
American Kennel ClubNew York, July 31, 2007
DiggFacebookNewsvin ePermalinkPublished: August 3, 2007
To the Editor: Editorial Observer: Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? (July 30, 2007)
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club's opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits- all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state's shelter population.Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups — such as stray, feral or surrendered pets — to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.California's shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa PetersonDirector of Club Communications,
American Kennel ClubNew York, July 31, 2007
"All American Dog" Under Attack
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=xdY9Z5ub9xw# comment
Please EVERYONE watch this video and join us to stop Breed Specific Laws that have made our All American Dog the first victim of the animal rights' agendas. It is ironic, America's very own breed is the first to be attacked and eliminated. A breed whose traits represent the tenacity, work ethic and loyalty of the American people. We must stand behind this breed before the knock at the door is for our own beloved pets and breeds.We can NEVER let another Denver happen again in America. Step up to the plate my fellow American pet lovers and let's swing this AR agenda OUT OF THE BALLPARK forever! Please help us get signatures for our ROAR direct initiative referendum (soon to be ready for dispersal to all California counties). Let me know if you or your organization will help get signatures in your area. www.wethepeopleusa. us (ROAR tab)I can only hope other states also step up to the plate for their swing. Thank you very much,Diane Amble, Once a Beloved Owner of a Beloved American Pit Bull Terrier "Boots"
P.S. PLEASE Pass this email and video to all friends and family!
Please EVERYONE watch this video and join us to stop Breed Specific Laws that have made our All American Dog the first victim of the animal rights' agendas. It is ironic, America's very own breed is the first to be attacked and eliminated. A breed whose traits represent the tenacity, work ethic and loyalty of the American people. We must stand behind this breed before the knock at the door is for our own beloved pets and breeds.We can NEVER let another Denver happen again in America. Step up to the plate my fellow American pet lovers and let's swing this AR agenda OUT OF THE BALLPARK forever! Please help us get signatures for our ROAR direct initiative referendum (soon to be ready for dispersal to all California counties). Let me know if you or your organization will help get signatures in your area. www.wethepeopleusa. us (ROAR tab)I can only hope other states also step up to the plate for their swing. Thank you very much,Diane Amble, Once a Beloved Owner of a Beloved American Pit Bull Terrier "Boots"
P.S. PLEASE Pass this email and video to all friends and family!
Pennsylvania Moves to Outlaw Hunting With Dogs
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326Website: www.ussportsmen. org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen. org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Beth Ruth (614) 888-4868 ext. 214
July 11, 2007
Pennsylvania Moves to Outlaw Hunting With Dogs
State Muzzles Sportsmen Who Object(Malvern) - Pennsylvania is taking steps to regulate sporting dog breeders with the same iron fist it intends for abusive commercial breeders. Today, sportsmen who tried to object to the oppressive dog care proposal were abruptly silenced. At issue is a set of dog care regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in December 2006. Among the requirements are expensive animal housing upgrades, mandatory daily exercise, and the keeping of daily sanitation and cleaning records. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Sporting Dog Defense Coalition and other dog organizations have been urging Gov. Ed Rendell, state lawmakers and the Department of Agriculture to rewrite the dog law so that sportsmen will not be caught up in the regulations. More than 200 Pennsylvania sportsmen who realize the threat that the regulations pose to hunting attended a Dog Law Advisory Board hearing today at the Radnor Hunt Club in Malvern. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to focus on sportsmen's concerns about the proposal.However, when USSA Associate Director of State Services Evan Heusinkveld began to offer testimony, Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Jesse Smith ruled him out of order, and seized the microphone.National Beagle Club of America Board Member Wanda Borsa, a New Freedom resident whose beagle pack is called the Holly Hill Beagles, also tried to comment. She too was stopped before being able to express her concerns."Ms. Smith and the Department of Agriculture do not want the public to know how insidious these regulations are for the future of hunting dogs," said Heusinkveld. "State regulators could not find a single existing kennel that would be in compliance with the proposal."In a recent message to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Deputy Secretary Smith wrote, "The Department is attempting to apply more uniform and enforceable regulations to ALL kennels." Until now, the department had been trying to convince sportsmen that the dog care policy was aimed at unscrupulous commercial breeders and was not meant to impact hunters."The Department of Agriculture has admitted its anti-hunting stance. Sportsmen are not sure if this is a position of the Rendell administration or merely one loose cannon within the administration, " said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. "We do know that the governor himself sparked the issue, but hope the anti-hunting position doesn't reflect his true feelings about hunting dogs." From the outset, sportsmen have suspected that the regulations are a product of animal rightists. Groups like the Pennsylvania- based Main Line Animal Rescue, and the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have certainly had more access to the process, and their representatives have yet to be muzzled at public hearings.Joining with other dog enthusiast such as the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, and dog rescue organizations, USSA and its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition partners have raised the awareness about the regulations across the commonwealth. Sportsmen and sporting dog enthusiasts must continue to contact Gov. Rendell and state lawmakers and demand that these dog care regulations be withdrawn. Use the Legislative Action Center on the USSA website to make contact.The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen's organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen. org.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Beth Ruth (614) 888-4868 ext. 214
July 11, 2007
Pennsylvania Moves to Outlaw Hunting With Dogs
State Muzzles Sportsmen Who Object(Malvern) - Pennsylvania is taking steps to regulate sporting dog breeders with the same iron fist it intends for abusive commercial breeders. Today, sportsmen who tried to object to the oppressive dog care proposal were abruptly silenced. At issue is a set of dog care regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture in December 2006. Among the requirements are expensive animal housing upgrades, mandatory daily exercise, and the keeping of daily sanitation and cleaning records. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Sporting Dog Defense Coalition and other dog organizations have been urging Gov. Ed Rendell, state lawmakers and the Department of Agriculture to rewrite the dog law so that sportsmen will not be caught up in the regulations. More than 200 Pennsylvania sportsmen who realize the threat that the regulations pose to hunting attended a Dog Law Advisory Board hearing today at the Radnor Hunt Club in Malvern. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to focus on sportsmen's concerns about the proposal.However, when USSA Associate Director of State Services Evan Heusinkveld began to offer testimony, Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Jesse Smith ruled him out of order, and seized the microphone.National Beagle Club of America Board Member Wanda Borsa, a New Freedom resident whose beagle pack is called the Holly Hill Beagles, also tried to comment. She too was stopped before being able to express her concerns."Ms. Smith and the Department of Agriculture do not want the public to know how insidious these regulations are for the future of hunting dogs," said Heusinkveld. "State regulators could not find a single existing kennel that would be in compliance with the proposal."In a recent message to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, Deputy Secretary Smith wrote, "The Department is attempting to apply more uniform and enforceable regulations to ALL kennels." Until now, the department had been trying to convince sportsmen that the dog care policy was aimed at unscrupulous commercial breeders and was not meant to impact hunters."The Department of Agriculture has admitted its anti-hunting stance. Sportsmen are not sure if this is a position of the Rendell administration or merely one loose cannon within the administration, " said Rob Sexton, USSA vice president for government affairs. "We do know that the governor himself sparked the issue, but hope the anti-hunting position doesn't reflect his true feelings about hunting dogs." From the outset, sportsmen have suspected that the regulations are a product of animal rightists. Groups like the Pennsylvania- based Main Line Animal Rescue, and the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have certainly had more access to the process, and their representatives have yet to be muzzled at public hearings.Joining with other dog enthusiast such as the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs, and dog rescue organizations, USSA and its Sporting Dog Defense Coalition partners have raised the awareness about the regulations across the commonwealth. Sportsmen and sporting dog enthusiasts must continue to contact Gov. Rendell and state lawmakers and demand that these dog care regulations be withdrawn. Use the Legislative Action Center on the USSA website to make contact.The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen's organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen. org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)