tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67467286019713148322024-03-12T22:53:14.080-07:00Dog Laws At LargeThe problem is that law makers feel they need to make lawsI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.comBlogger301125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-1924935725544228472011-05-09T15:04:00.000-07:002011-05-09T15:45:16.827-07:00TX: Stop HB 1451 In the Senate!HB 1451 passed the House on 4/27/11 and has been assigned to the Senate<br />Committee on Criminal Justice chaired by Sen. John Whitmire (D-15). It is<br />anticipated that Whitmire will be the bill's advocate in the Senate.<br /><br /><strong>HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels for simply owning more than 10 intact female dogs even if breeding is occasional</strong>. <strong>The bill classifies these<br />owners as commercial if even a single litter a year is bred to be used as<br />hunting, working, security, herding and livestock guardian dogs, service dogs,<br />or family pets. </strong>Sara Chisnell-Voigt, Legal Counsel United Kennel Club, writes, "UKC believes<br />that the health and well-being of dogs are of the utmost importance, and are<br />significant concerns. However, this bill will do more harm to the responsible<br />breeders than they will to protect the welfare of dogs. Defining a commercial<br />kennel by 11 or more intact adult female dogs is an unacceptable threshold."<br /><br />Bill author, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) and supporting animal rights<br />groups continually mislead the media claiming the bill is only designed to<br />ensure that breeders meet health and safety standards and that animals have food<br />and clean water. However, <strong>the Federal engineering standards required by HB 1451<br />are not compatible with home-based breeding programs. Compliance with Federal regulations would require small and mid-size sporting dog and hobby breeders to construct temperature, humidity, and diurnal lighting controlled kennel buildings costing tens of thousands of dollars. Labeling and registering<br />breeders as commercial businesses simply because of the number of intact dogs<br />owned will end many hunting and hobby kennels throughout the state.</strong><br /><br />Mary Beth Duerler, RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,<br />explained, "<strong>HB 1451 is not written to regulate dog and cat breeders in Texas. It<br />is written to eliminate them</strong>. The Standards for Care; Confinement and<br />Transportation adopted must meet federal USDA regulations at a minimum. Bill<br />sponsors and proponents know they cannot be met in a home environment."<br /><br />Following the House vote to pass HB 1451, Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) posted<br />the following commentary on his blog, "It establishes a new licensing and<br />regulatory bureaucracy for breeders. I spoke and voted against the bill because<br />it increased state government by $2.6 million for the biennium and increased<br />state bureaucrats by 14. Moreover, I believe it will be ineffective. I doubt<br />that criminal and cruel breeders, who are already operating outside the law,<br />will submit themselves to be licensed and regulated and pay a $1300-$4300 fee<br />per year. It will certainly hinder responsible breeders though and probably<br />cause some to go out of business. <strong>The bill also violates the 4th Amendment by<br />authorizing inspectors to come unannounced and without the owner or licensee<br />onto a breeder's property and even into a breeder's home to access animals or<br />documents without a warrant."<br /><br /></strong>HB 1451 is supported by a number of animal rights organizations, including Texas<br />Humane Legislation Network (THLN), HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA. These groups<br />highlight kennels where hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions and, in<br />true activist style, vilify dog breeders across the board to promote the need<br />for restrictive legislation.<br /><br />Texans pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the State's economy every year<br />hunting, exhibiting, training, and breeding dogs. Their dogs could not hunt,<br />track, herd, search, or compete in shows and trials if they were not well taken<br />care of.<br /><br />ACTION REQUIRED<br /><br />Call, fax, and email your Senator and the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice<br />and request they oppose HB 1451.<br /><br />Committee Contacts:<br /><br />CHAIR<br />Sen. John Whitmire (D-15)<br />(512) 463-0115 / Fax: (512) 475-3737<br />John.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />VICE CHAIR<br />Sen. Joan Huffman (R-17)<br />(512) 463-0117 / Fax: (512) 463-0639<br />Joan.huffman@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />MEMBERS<br /><br />Sen. John Carona (R-16)<br />(512) 463-0116 / Fax: (512) 463-3135<br />John.carona@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-13)<br />(512) 463-0113 / Fax: (512) 463-0006<br />Rodney.ellis@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-18)<br />(512) 463-0118 / Fax: (512) 475-3736<br />Glenn.hegar@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-20)<br />(512) 463-0120 / Fax: (512) 463-0229<br />Juan.hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />Sen. Dan Patrick (R-7)<br />(512) 463-0107 / Fax: (512) 463-8810<br />Dan.patrick@senate.state.tx.us<br /><br />HB 1451 is opposed by: <a href="http://www.adbadog.com/p_home.asp">American Dog Breeders Association</a>; <a href="http://www.akc.org/">American Kennel Club</a>;<br /><a href="http://www.animaloat.com/">Animal Owners Association of Texas</a>; <a href="http://www.endangeredbreedsassociation.org/">Endangered Breeds Association</a>; <a href="http://www.naiaonline.org/">National<br />Animal Interest Alliance</a>; <a href="http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/">RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners<br />Alliance</a>; <a href="http://saova.org/">Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance</a>; <a href="http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/Home">United Kennel Club</a>;<br /><a href="http://www.ussportsmen.org/">U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance</a>; and many more local and national organizations.<br /><br />Additional information can be found at the <a href="http://saova.org/">SAOVA website</a>:<br /><br /><a href="http://http//www.saova.org/TexasHB1451.html">http://http://www.saova.org/TexasHB1451.html</a>And at U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance:<br /><a href="http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2727">http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2727</a>Susan Wolf<br />Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance<br />Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators<br />Visit SAOVA News <a href="http://saovanews.blogspot.com/">http://saovanews.blogspot.com/</a>I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-72815160016297050732011-05-05T19:22:00.000-07:002011-05-05T19:34:35.390-07:00MA: May 11 will be a big day for dog legislation in Massachusetts<a href="http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4399">May 11 is a big day in MA</a><br />The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government will consider a series of dog bills at its hearing on May 11, 2011. Responsible dog owners in Massachusetts are encouraged to attend the hearing or contact the committee with comments on any of the bills on the agenda.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J10">View the names and contact information for the committee here.</a><br />If you are interested in attending the hearing on May 11, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed) at info@massfeddogs.org. <br /><br />Summary:<br /><br /> Over 10 bills are scheduled to be considered by the joint committee, including<br /> <br /><strong><a href="">House Bill 562 </a></strong>– The AKC and MassFed both support this bill, which strengthens the Commonwealth’s dangerous dog laws by creating a number of provisions, including:<br /><br />· Allowing dogs declared “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit the behavior again within two years.<br /><br />· Preventing municipalities from establishing breed-specific at-risk or dangerous dog policies<br /><br /> <br /><strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01455">House Bill 1455 </a></strong>– The AKC and MassFed both <strong>oppose</strong> this bill, which makes numerous changes to the animal control laws, including:<br /><br />· Requiring an intact animal permit for all owners of intact dogs (current law already requires a special license for unspayed females). The AKC opposes all differential licensing for owners of intact dogs.<br /><br />· Allowing municipalities to ban or regulate specific breeds. Once approved, the local government must develop a 3-person board “to identify and determine the breed of dogs”. This board would include two members of the public (one who must be an “expert in the field of animals”) and the local animal control officer.<br /><br />· Providing a list of recommended penalties for nuisance violations, including sterilization or euthanasia<br /><br />Other bills to be considered by the committee include:<br /><br /> <strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S01033">Senate Bill 1033 </a></strong>– This bill makes numerous changes to the animal control and licensing laws, including differentiating between commercial breeder kennels, personal kennels and commercial boarding/training kennels. <br /><br /><strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H01437">House Bill 1437 </a></strong>– This legislation mandates the sterilization of all cats, unless the owner possesses an intact animal permit. As currently written, cats would be the only animals subject to this license.<br /><br /><strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H02326">House Bill 2326 </a></strong>–Among other provisions, this bill expands the crime of animal cruelty to include “knowingly and unjustifiably” failing to provide veterinary care “that results in unnecessary suffering.” It is unclear how these terms would be defined. <br /><br /><strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H02885">House Bill 2885 </a></strong>– Current law requires all cities and towns to appoint an animal control officer or contract with a charitable organization to perform these duties. HB 2885, among other provisions, would impose a $500/day fine on cities that are not in compliance with this mandate. <br /><br /> <strong><a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H02886">House Bill 2886 </a></strong>– This bill would prohibit the sale of a dog or cat that is under 8 weeks of age.<br /><br />For more information on these and other bills on the agenda, visit the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners website at <a href="http://www.massfeddogs.org/">www.massfeddogs.org </a>or contact the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-87189175974309205742011-05-05T19:07:00.000-07:002011-05-05T19:19:44.084-07:00TX: HB 1451 calll 11 female dogs a "commercial Kennel"<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/history.aspx?legsess=82r&bill=hb1451">HB 1451 </a>is gets through the House of Representatives with little opportunity for public input. House Bill 1451 does the following:<br /><br /><a href="http://saova.org/TexasHB1451.html">SYNOPSIS</a>HSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/history.aspx?legsess=82r&bill=hb1451">HB 1451 </a>a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. <strong>HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups </strong>including HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, and Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN). Commercial breeder is defined as a person who possesses 11 or more intact female dogs or cats over 6 months of age. Criminal background checks for both kennel owners and staff would be required for kennel license approval. A kennel license can be denied, suspended, or revoked for any infraction of the regulations or record-keeping rules or failure to complete a corrective action in the time allotted in an inspection report. Breeding females must have adequate rest between breeding cycles and a yearly veterinary exam. HB 1451 is only an outline of intended future regulations. The Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation would be required to adopt the rules, standards, procedures, and fees necessary to implement the Act by March 31, 2012. Future rules and regulations established must meet or exceed current federal regulations for the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats. <br /><br /><br />•Classifies sporting dog kennels or hobby breeders who have 11 female dogs that have not been spayed to be classified the same as a huge commercial dealer if they sell just two dogs.<br />•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs. <br />•Creates an unelected commission to create kennel construction requirements, record keeping requirements and other expensive red tape that hobby breeders cannot afford because their primary purpose is not to sell dogs. <br />•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house. <br />•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant. <br />•Threatens to drive sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders out of business because they do not have the commercial revenue to offset high fees, and expensive regulations. <br />•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breedersI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-12313707750978089352010-10-02T04:46:00.000-07:002010-10-02T05:01:49.104-07:00Dogs quarantined; many die<a href="http://www.lcni5.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?073+article+News+2010092908020073073004"><strong>Dogs quarantined; many die</strong></a><br />By Larry Clifton<br /><br />An offer to provide refuge for 222 puppies and dogs from Puerto Rico for four days in their air-conditioned warehouse in Bushnell has cost Ronnie and Linda Graves, founders of Sumter Disaster Animal Response Team (DART) between $50,000 and $75,000 and taxed the stamina of a group of dedicated DART volunteers.<br /><br />The animals were supposed to be disease free, at least four months old and 10 pounds or less in weight, according to Ronnie Graves, but that was found not to be the case upon their arrival.<br /><br />A report by Brenda Eggert Brader, spokeswoman for the Florida Veterinary Medical Association (FVMA), states that the dogs ranged in age from 4 weeks to greater than 1 year when they arrived.<br /><br />Since Aug. 30, Sumter DART volunteers in Bushnell, a handful of Florida veterinarians and University of Florida veterinarians have battled to contain an explosive epidemic of distemper and parvovirus that, as of Sept.22, claimed the lives of 107 of the dogs and puppies.<br /><br />Allegedly the animals were vaccinated and wormed in Puerto Rico, however fecal exams showed that many dogs, particularly the youngest puppies, also carried coccidia, roundworm, and hookworm parasite infestations, according to the FVMA report.<br /><br />Several calls made Tuesday to the Puerto Rico PAWS shelter were not returned by press time. <br /><br />The puppies and dogs were en route to Yonkers, N.Y., to be distributed to various PetSmart stores for an “adopt-a-thon;” the trip included a scheduled two-day layover in Bushnell.<br /><br />The Puerto Rico Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) shelter in Isabela, that shipped the dogs was one of 50 shelters across the U.S. competing in an ASCPA contest to win $100,000 and a second grant of $25,000 to be awarded to the shelter with largest adoption participation. <br /><br />DART had agreed to transport and care for the animals for the hastily planned two-day layover in Bushnell. Hurricane Earl was set to come ashore in Puerto Rico a day after the animals were flown out on a cargo plane to Orlando where DART picked them up.<br /><br />This is a situation where so many have stepped up to contribute so much to save the lives of the dogs that it is humbling to be a part of it all, said Connie Brooks, director of Sumter DART.<br /><br />“As the puppies came off our truck, it became apparent that the minimum age requirement stipulated in the agreement had not been met,” said Brooks. <br /><br />“Many of the puppies were just starting to open their eyes and were obviously only weeks old,” said Brooks.<br /><br />The Puerto Rico PAWS animal shelter was reportedly “running in first place” to win the ASPCA cash award for a national adoption campaign sponsored by PetSmart when PAWS veterinarian Dr. Gwen Davis contacted DART to assist by sheltering and transporting the animals her organization had rounded up in Puerto Rico for the contest, according to Brooks.<br /><br />But according to Graves, there was an agreement that all animals were free of infectious diseases, weighed no more than 10 pounds and were at least four months old.<br /><br />Instead, the Puerto Rican PAWS facility shipped a mixture of animals that included larger dogs, puppies only a few weeks old and many that were infected by distemper and parparvovirus, said Graves.<br /><br />The total estimated cost of medical care, medical testing and all other related expenses to various organizations right now is $185,000, he said.<br /><br />Sumter DART called the state veterinarian association immediately after DART volunteers began unloading the puppies and an immediate quarantine was ordered, according to Graves.<br /><br />DART volunteers have worked tirelessly during the crisis and Bushnell veterinarians Dr. Shannon Kennedy offered his services from day one and even helped clean their cages, said Brooks.<br /><br />Dr. Cynda Crawford of Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program and UF VETS became an on-site consultant during the state-ordered quarantine and stayed in Bushnell for a week to care for the animals, said Brooks.<br /><br />According to a report by the Florida Veterinary Medical Association (FVMA), as of Sept. 22, 53 healthy dogs determined to be free of distemper or parvo were transported to the Florida SPCA in Orlando to be adopted and 20 had been adopted from that location.<br /><br />Thirty-three of the youngest puppies testing positive for distemper but clinically well were transferred to six veterinarians across central Florida who graciously agreed to care for them under isolation conditions until they recover, according to the FVMA report. <br /><br />Twenty-nine more dogs infected with distemper were accepted in isolation in Altamonte Springs, by Dr. Bruce Keene.<br /><br />As of the FVMA report, 115 of the 222 dogs are still alive and have a chance at recovering and being adopted.<br /><br />“I work with volunteers and I am a volunteer, but I haven’t seen so many step up for so long in quite a while,” said Brooks, as tears clouded her eyes. The people in this community have simply been wonderful, I can’t say enough about the support we have received from volunteers working twenty-hour days to the veterinarians, and everyone else.<br /><br />For his part, Graves said even local restaurants contributed, adding, “Odd Couples on County Road 48 sent over about 50 fajita wraps and even made the volunteers a pineapple cake.”<br /><br />Putting animals with highly contagious diseases together in cages is the easiest way to create a disease epidemic, according to Graves, who hopes that other rescue organizations can learn from the Puerto Rican dog quarantine.<br /><br />What happened in Bushnell is a lot of wonderful volunteers and people came together and contributed their valuable time and resources to save the lives of a lot of animals as they were being decimated by two of the most deadly canine diseases, said Graves.<br /><br /><br />Sumter County Times articleI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-8053557112295282342010-04-20T19:14:00.000-07:002010-04-20T19:31:55.846-07:00Spread the word- If you support animals- don't support HSUSThe Truth About HSUS from Missourians for Animal Care Coalition<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ettJtlmr4wM&feature=channel">YouTube video</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5iKVM5FKAw&NR=1">YouTube video 2</a><br />Can YOU imagine a life without a pet? The Humane Society of the United States is actively working on laws to make pet ownership a thing of the past. If you support animals, don't support HSUS. Don't be misled by HSUS- they are NOT for animalsI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-13251853494434119052010-03-23T17:18:00.000-07:002010-03-23T17:22:21.698-07:00<a href="http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=658787&sk=&date=&&pageID=1">Breed wars: Imports</a><br />As states crack down on puppy mills, imports spike and so do health concerns<br />Mar 1, 2010<br />By: Rachael Whitcomb<br />DVM NEWSMAGAZINE<br /><br />NATIONAL REPORT At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the <br />United States' borders, and veterinary officials fear the problem is <br />getting worse.<br /><br />Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict <br />new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers <br />even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal <br />regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are <br />brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and <br />whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for <br />underage puppies.<br /><br />"One thing that really concerns veterinarians is, underage puppies come <br />in and not only are they at greater risk of zoonotic diseases, but also <br />other canine diseases," says Nina Marano, DVM, of the Center for Disease <br />Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Global Migration and <br />Quarantine. "It is a concern. It's a consumer issue; it's a public <br />health issue; it's a veterinary issue. Really, it's a moral and ethical <br />issue."<br /><br />CDC has a rough idea of how many puppies are crossing United States <br />borders, but only anecdotally, Marano says.<br /><br />"The fact is that we have a very big country and many, many ports of <br />entry to monitor," she explains. "We've been looking at this closely <br />over the last five to six years and ... the takeaway message is that, <br />anecdotally, we do believe there has been an increase in imported animals."<br /><br />No definitive data is available on the number of dogs and puppies <br />imported to the United States each year since no single agency is <br />required to keep track of those numbers. The United States Department of <br />Agriculture (USDA) monitors only commercial breeders who sell animals <br />through pet stores, brokers and research facilities. The CDC monitors <br />rabies vaccinations in imported pets, but its regulations neither <br />require a health screen for dogs prior to arrival to the United States, <br />nor an evaluation for specific zoonoses of concern. Enforcement of <br />regulations are "problematic, because there is no federal requirement <br />mechanism, or capacity for documenting compliance," according to a 2008 <br />article in the journal Zoonosis and Public Health by Marano and fellow <br />CDC veterinarian G. Gale Galland, DVM.<br /><br />Plus, CDC can't man all the nation's ports of entry, leaving Customs and <br />Border Protection, whose officers have no veterinary training, as the <br />first line of defense to ensure all imported animals meet federal agency <br />requirements.<br /><br />CDC has taken "snapshots" of data to gauge dog import trends and found <br />that 287,000 dogs were imported in 2006. About a quarter of them were <br />too young to have rabies vaccinations. Their importers were required to <br />sign agreements stating the dogs would be confined until the vaccine was <br />administered, but enforcement is passed on to local animal-control <br />agencies once the dogs are in the country. And critics contend most <br />imported dogs are sold as soon as the dogs are brought home from the <br />airport, not after the agreement is fulfilled.<br /><br />More than 5,100 confine agreements were signed between January 2006 and <br />September 2007 at just 15 of the 20 quarantine stations monitored by the <br />CDC, but about 4,000 of those agreements were violated in 2006 alone, <br />with the puppies being sold before the confinement period ended. There's <br />no telling if any had been vaccinated at all.<br /><br />"Based on import trends suggesting that the annual number of <br />unvaccinated puppies being imported into the United States increased <br />substantially from 2001 to 2006, imported dogs pose a risk for <br />introducing zoonotic pathogens such as rabies into the United States," <br />Galland and Marano wrote.<br /><br />At John F. Kennedy International Airport, reports of unvaccinated dog <br />imports doubled from 2003 to 2006. Reports of unvaccinated dogs imported <br />into California increased by more than 500 percent from 2001 to 2006, <br />the article adds.<br /><br />But dogs aren't the only imports on the rise. According to another <br />article co-authored by Galland that appeared in a May 2009 edition of <br />Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, the volume <br />of live animal imports to the United States has roughly doubled since 1991.<br /><br />"From 2003 through 2006, annual increases in wildlife trade ranged from <br />6 percent to 11 percent. From 2000 through 2004, approximately 588,000 <br />animals were imported into the United States each day," the article <br />states, adding those are just the animals that border agents find. <br />"Interpol estimates that wildlife smuggling ranks third on the <br />contraband list of items of value, behind drugs and firearms."<br /><br />Some blame falls on federal regulators, who lack the time and resources <br />to follow up on every animal import.<br /><br />"In 2000, most imported dogs were single import," Galland wrote in the <br />2009 article. "In 2003, the number of imports of multiple puppies per <br />shipment began to increase. The number of puppies imported into <br />California through airports increased from 110 multi-dog imports in 2003 <br />to 365 in 2004. Each shipment contained as many as 40 puppies. A similar <br />increase was seen nationally ... As the number of shipments containing <br />more than one dog increased, tracking puppies became increasingly <br />difficult."<br /><br />But the problem also can be attributed to market demand, uneducated <br />consumers and puppy millers turned irresponsible importers.<br /><br />"It's getting tougher to raise dogs in the United States. The USDA is <br />requiring more of commercial breeders," Marano says, adding many former <br />puppy millers are believed to have turned to importing to increase profits.<br /><br />In Pennsylvania — a state known for its concentration of puppy mills — <br />256 kennels were closed in 2009 compared to just 65 kennels closed in 2004.<br /><br />The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks anti-puppy <br />mill legislation and saw a huge jump after 2008, with 90 bills <br />introduced across 33 states — five of them adopted in 2009. "There's a <br />campaign, clearly well-organized, to bring these bills forward," says <br />Adrian Hochstedt, AVMA's assistant director of state legislative and <br />regulatory affairs.<br /><br />Additionally, foreign countries make it easier to breed dogs because of <br />loose animal-health standards, contends California attorney John <br />Hoffman, who has crusaded against puppy importers on behalf of various <br />breed groups.<br /><br />For instance, one French Bulldog group he provided services for claims <br />there are now more French Bulldogs imported into the United States than <br />are bred here, because artificial insemination and cesarean deliveries <br />can be performed cheaper by unlicensed veterinary workers in other <br />countries.<br /><br />"The sale over the Internet of both commercially bred puppies and <br />imported puppies has become a big business — and probably considerably <br />outstrips sales of puppies through pet shops," Hoffman said during <br />testimony before Congress in 2006 on an importation law that never <br />passed. "USDA regulations prohibit carriers from accepting animals for <br />transport without a health certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian <br />and from transporting puppies younger than 8 weeks. It appears that both <br />regulations are routinely flouted by commercial puppy exporters abroad. <br />That health certificates are being forged is evidenced by the large <br />incidence of illness and death among puppies within a day or two of <br />arrival in the United States."<br /><br />Many of these imported dogs are irresponsibly bred with a host of <br />genetic problems and are shipped young — too young to vaccinate — to <br />meet market demand. Importers often lie about age and health issues on a <br />dog's records and get away with it, Hoffman claims.<br /><br />Confinement agreements<br />"If the form said 8 weeks, nobody questioned it," Hoffman says, adding <br />that rabies requirements are treated with disdain by some importers. <br />"There's been no enforcement of (confinement agreements) and the <br />importers have been thumbing their noses at it for years."<br /><br />But importers for profit aren't the only violators. One rescue <br />organization alone imported 295 dogs from the Middle East in 2006, <br />according to Galland and Marano's article, and even veterinarians can be <br />pulled into a laissez-faire attitude about pet importation.<br /><br />Galland's 2009 article reveals a 2007 case of a puppy imported from <br />India by a Washington state veterinarian. The dog was given to another <br />veterinarian, bit veterinary clinic staff and another dog while showing <br />signs of rabies, but wasn't diagnosed with the disease until another <br />veterinarian brought it to Alaska. Eight people had to be treated for <br />rabies.<br /><br />Several rabies cases in imported dogs have been tracked in recent years, <br />as well as cases of other diseases long-eradicated in the United States, <br />like screwworm. Screwworms are monitored by the USDA and could cause up <br />to $750 million in livestock production losses, the article notes. New <br />World screwworms were eradicated from the United States in 1966, and Old <br />World screwworm had never been seen in this country until it was found <br />in a puppy imported from Singapore to Massachusetts in 2007.<br /><br />"Veterinarians should be vigilant when examining new puppies" Galland <br />wrote. "Many imported dogs are never confined properly or inspected for <br />infectious diseases, and many diseases may not be detected readily in <br />imported dogs ... a veterinarian could be the one who prevents the next <br />outbreak."<br /><br />A lot of imported puppies arrive at U.S. ports dehydrated, but not <br />really ill. It's a few days after entering the country that they become <br />symptomatic.<br /><br />"Rabies is of particular concern in imported dogs because of its long <br />incubation period," wrote Galland and Marano. "Because of this, dogs may <br />be admitted on the basis of apparent good health, but may be incubating <br />the virus and could develop disease after entry."<br /><br />An importation clause in the recently passed Farm Bill could provide <br />some relief, as it prohibits the commercial importation of any dog <br />younger than 6 months of age, Marano says. But USDA must write the <br />regulations to put the Farm Bill into effect, and that has not even been <br />started, Hoffman says.<br /><br />"Buyers and veterinarians report that imported puppies suffer from <br />higher than normal incidences of pneumonia, parvovirus, rabies, ringworm <br />and severe congenital defects," wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who <br />supported passage of the Farm Bill, in a press release about the <br />legislation. "The CDC lacks the staff, law enforcement powers and <br />resources to ensure each shipment is safe."<br /><br />CDC is reviewing its regulations — written in 1956 and last updated in <br />1983, when international travel was less frequent and dog imports <br />consisted of the occasional family pet — and has found that the general <br />public would like to see more stringent laws. But changes take time, <br />Marano says.<br /><br />"There are only two ways to attack: regulations to dry up supply and <br />education to dry up demand," she explains.<br /><br />"Veterinarians are really one of the first lines of defense, and they <br />need to be educated on the regulations of their state so they can <br />educate their clients about the risk involved in buying these puppies," <br />adds Galland.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-21960104625804233712010-03-01T10:46:00.000-08:002010-03-01T10:58:51.172-08:00KY: HB 517 seeks to establish an Unconstitutional Forfeiture Bond Bill<a href="http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/2010/02/kentucky-hsus-introduces.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheEndangeredOwner+%28The+Endangered+Owner%29">Kentucky: HSUS Introduces Unconstitutional Forfeiture Bond Bill</a><br /><a href="http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/10RS/HB517.htm">Kentucky House Bill 517</a> seeks to give "ownership" of animals to third parties <em>PRIOR</em> to finding guilt of the accused. It also seeks to force those accused in crimes relating to animal cruelty to post a bond. It does not matter whether or not someone can afford to post this type of bond, the bottom line is that no one has the right to give "ownership" of YOUR PROPERTY to someone else!<br /><br />What this bill dose NOT address is what happens to the animal if the original owner is found to be <em>innocent</em>? Do you think the "new owners" will REALLY give the animal BACK? <br /><br />The very concept of a "forfeiture" or "seizure" bond greatly undermines the idea that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; depriving someone (or attempting to deprive someone) of their personal property by their ability (or inability) to cough up huge sums of cash flat-out crushes the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />Our judicial system is not perfect; however, we are afforded certain protections under the U.S. Constitution. More and more, the animal rights industry (namely the Humane Society of the United States) would have us to believe that animal owners are somehow different; that we are not entitled to those same protections against warrantless searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-11379074365651800522010-03-01T10:29:00.000-08:002010-03-01T10:37:46.882-08:00IA: HF 2280 seeks to provide regulations of commercial establishements for dogs and catsIowa Legislative Recap <br />Print This Article <br />[Monday, March 01, 2010] <br />Recently, both houses of the Iowa General Assembly passed versions of <a href="http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/HF2280_Enrolled.pdf">House File 2280</a>, which seeks to provide for regulation of commercial establishments that handle dogs and cats. The now–enrolled version of this bill provides the following: <br /><br />Major Provisions: <br /><br />•With only one small change regarding racing Greyhounds, the bill continues to use the definition of <strong>"commercial breeder"</strong> currently found in Iowa law. While arguably low, <strong>the threshold contained in the definition—a person must own or harbor four or more breeding males or females to be considered a commercial breeder—</strong>was not under consideration for change by this bill. If an individual was considered a commercial breeder or kennel before this bill passed – they will be considered one now. The exception to this is kennels that raise greyhounds for racing. Henceforth, they will be considered commercial kennels, regardless of whether they sell, lease exchange their dogs for a consideration or offer to do so. As always, we encourage all breeders to ensure that they know, understand and follow the laws of their jurisdiction.<br /> <br />•The bill does not change the current law that exempts noncommercial kennels (dogs for the purpose of hobby, hunting, training, show, field, obedience, and guard dog kennels) from having to adhere to the requirements that commercial establishments must adhere to. <br /><br />•The bill will permit the Iowa Department of Agriculture to monitor a commercial establishment for the limited purpose of determining whether the permittee is providing the proper standard of care. Such inspections may be conducted only during normal working hours, and only if the Department has reasonable cause to suspect that the permittee is not providing for the required standard of care. Reasonable cause is to be proven only by a written complaint made by an identified person or a USDA report for federal licensees ordering the correction of a breach in standard of care. <br /><br />•Pounds, animal shelters, research facilities, pet shops, boarding kennels, commercial kennels, dealers, commercial breeders, and public auctions are now required to maintain records. The Iowa Department of Agriculture is permitted to inspect those records. <br /><br />•The bill empowers the Iowa Department of Agriculture to develop care and conditions standards for commercial establishments. <br /><br />•A person operating a commercial establishment that violates a standard of care will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $500; and will be provided a period of up to 15 days to come correct care and conditions violations. A person operating a commercial establishment without being licensed will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000. <br /><br />•The fee to license a commercial kennel is $175. <br /><br />If you live in Iowa and have concerns about <a href="http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/linc/HF2280_Enrolled.pdf">HF 2280</a>, please contact Governor Chet Culver and express your concerns. The Governor has three days from the day he receives the bill from the General Assembly to veto the bill. <br />Governor Chet Culver <br />State Capitol <br />1007 East Grand Avenue <br />Des Moines, IA 50319 <br />(515) 281-5211I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-41361768137071167212010-03-01T10:22:00.000-08:002010-03-01T10:39:15.759-08:00Is Mandatory spay-neuter what we really want?<a href="http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/GJCOMMUNITY_01/702289971/-1/FOSLIFESTYLES">Be cautious about mandatory pet spay-neuter legislation</a><br /><br />Sunday, February 28, 2010<br />Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously. <br /><br />Something like this happened to me this week. I had been wondering how it is possible for Americans to be so enchanted with dogs as pets, and at the same time, to hold beliefs that, if put into action, would actually eliminate the species in a relatively short time. Let me review the situation, and let's see if you agree with my conclusions.<br /><br />Roughly 37 percent of American homes include at least one pet dog. Most people at least pay lip service to an appreciation of how much dogs add to our lives and to our culture. While dogs no longer have the job of warning cave dwellers of approaching danger, the jobs they do perform for us could be even more valuable. <br /><br />Some very special dogs and their handlers search destroyed buildings seeking for survivors, and for the bodies of those who did not survive. Perhaps you noticed the news clips of search and rescue dogs working in the jumble of what used to be homes and businesses in Haiti? <br /><br />If you ever fly, them perhaps you have seen bomb or drug detection dogs making us safer at airports? Military dogs are described by their handlers as their most valuable and reliable protection against roadside bombs. <br /><br />The Dover Public Library is just one of many where dogs patiently help children learn to read. Dogs can also predict epileptic seizures, and locate and predict cancers in humans. <br /><br />Certainly the tasks performed by dogs no longer fit their job description when they lived with prehistoric people, but an argument could easily be made that their modern jobs are even more important.<br /><br />Studies show that dogs help us maintain good health. They encourage exercise and social contacts. I've been told that walking with a dog is the best way to meet new friends. I think it is safe to say that dogs have earned their place in our hearts and in our society. And yet ...<br /><br />And yet laws requiring the mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs are spreading throughout the country. I wonder if people have given much thought to the only possible result if the MSN laws become universal? Logically, if all dogs are surgically neutered, then in about 10 years there will be no dogs. <br /><br />If all breeding is stopped — where will you find the replacement for the dogs you love now? If you should want to add a purpose-bred dog to your family — will you still be able to in another 10 or so years?<br /><br />James Serpell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said: "The thing about mandatory spay-neuter is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you're doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population. What will become of dog ownership if only the ill-tempered puppies from disreputable breeding programs are available?"<br /><br />Dog and cat owners have certainly grasped the idea that responsible pet ownership entails being responsible for the reproductive capacity of their pets. Somehow, the idea is pushed that vast numbers of dogs are roaming around the country, reproducing at any and every opportunity. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nationally, over 87 percent of dogs have already been surgically neutered. <br /><br />Our figures here in the northeast are even more impressive. Last August, I asked three friends to help me perform a survey of veterinary hospitals throughout New Hampshire. I was surprised to learn that 98 percent of owned cats and 95 percent of dogs had been surgically neutered. Yes, we have a population of feral cats. But our pet owners have taken their responsibility to heart, as do owners throughout the north-east.<br /><br />Here is one example of the adage "no good deed goes unpunished." Since this area of the country has a dearth of available dogs, and especially shelter dogs — we have become the repository of dogs, many with physical or behavioral problems that make them difficult for novice dog owners to deal with, from third-world countries and from parts of our South — where laws and programs such as we have are not established. <br /><br />So — should we welcome these imported dogs, even if in so doing we put some of our own dogs at risk? Or should we help other parts of our country to grasp the lessons we have learned? <br /><br />Being a responsible dog owner does not mean that all of our dogs should be neutered. What it does mean is that instead of importing potentially problematic dogs here, those groups who are profiting from these imports should focus their attention on changing attitudes in the areas these dogs come from.<br /><br />So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-40646935919736234222010-03-01T08:22:00.000-08:002010-03-23T17:16:53.110-07:00Should You Surgically Debark Your Dog?In this country it seems we are always faced with how to regulate morality. I put debarking in this class. Although the AR groups claim it is "inhumane", I can not buy that argument. I have witnessed this surgical procedure done and feel that if this surgery is deemed "inhumane"- then there are far more surgeries and procedures that we do to ourselves, our children, and yes- even our pets- that we should also label "inhumane". No, I think that the question of debarking is a moral question- not a "humane" question. <br /><br />This article addresses the pros and cons of surgical debarking and also addresses the arguments people have that are for or against the procedure. This author concludes it should be a last resort, but still be allowed. I think it should be the decision of the owner. Personally, I think issue of "humanity" involve being a good neighbor. There is a lot of talk about dogs needing to use their bark to warn people of impending danger- but what about the dog who "crys wolf" (you do know that story don't you?)- You know, the dog that barks incessantly at the squirrels at the neighbors bird feeder, the dog barks so much that no one would believes them anyway, even if there was an intruder entering the neighbors house instead of just another squirrel. If a person wants to surgically debark their dog so that they can co-exist peacefully in a residential neighborhood, and still keep the dog they love, well I think that should be their own decision. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2715321/should_you_surgically_debark_your_dog.html?cat=53">Should You Surgically Debark Your Dog?</a><br />Linda Cole<br />February 21, 2010<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html">Debarking, or bark softening, saves lives and helps neighbor relations</a><br /><br />By Charlotte Clem McGowan, a dog show judge for the American Kennel Club and author of "The Shetland Sheepdog in America." She has been a hobby dog breeder for more than 40 years.<br /><br />I have debarked dogs for decades. Debarking has made it possible to keep my dogs in a residential neighborhood and be a good neighbor. A skilled surgeon can debark a dog in a very simple procedure using an adenoid punch to make a tiny hole in each vocal chord. This method is virtually bloodless. The dog recovers quickly and is not stressed by the surgery. The dog will not be silent, but his bark will be reduced in pitch and volume.<br /><br />Breeds like shelties were used to keep livestock out of gardens, to keep birds of prey from taking lambs and as guards and alarms. They are very, very talkative. Shelties bark for all kinds of reasons, including joy. They also bark with a generally high-pitched, piercing bark that can be extremely annoying. Debarking takes them from annoying to manageable. Since shelties, by nature, will bark at birds and squirrels and while playing and having fun, keeping shelties in any number larger than one is difficult.<br /><br />Veterinarians provide a valuable service with debarking. A dog that can bark at squirrels and while playing without being constantly disciplined is a happy dog. The urge to bark does not diminish, but the noise level does. The chief reason shelties are dumped in shelters is barking. Sheltie rescuers can easily re-home these dogs when they are debarked. So debarking saves lives.<br /><br />While some people believe you can train any dog not to bark, I know from 40 years of extensive experience with shelties that this is not true. Some dogs just bark to bark.<br /><br />More information at <a href="http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/debark_qna.htm">http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/debark_qna.htm</a>I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-14433865198520329592009-12-31T07:22:00.000-08:002009-12-31T07:32:31.455-08:00PA: Penn High Court says SPCA Not State Agency, Can Be Sued<a href="http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/Pa.Supreme.Court.2.1396115.html">The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the SPCA is Not a State Agency </a>and is not entitled to the defense of sovereign or governmental immunity. <br /><br />The court upheld a Philadelphia jury's verdict that awarded a women $155,000 from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) after about a dozen dogs taken from her home were euthanized. The dog owner, Laila Snead of Reading, says she's pleased with the decision but nothing will bring her dogs back. <br /><br />Thank goodness for this ruling. Although Ms.Snead's dogs are gone, it has implications for others whose animals are stolen and disposed of by over-zealous non-profit organizations.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-52419333451549878772009-12-02T15:18:00.000-08:002009-12-02T15:21:18.076-08:00An Obituary For Words: Puppy Mill<a href="http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate06012009">http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate06012009</a><br />Posted on 06/01/2009<br />Permanent Link <br /><br />An Obituary For Words <br />by Cindy Cooke<br /><br />You can't really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don't like people censoring our speech. So I'm not going to tell you not to say "puppy mill". I'm going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase.<br /><br />I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called "anti-puppy-mill" laws. When I ask these people to define "puppy mill," invariably the definitions given include:<br />. People who "overbreed" their dogs;<br />. People who don't take care of their dogs;<br />. People who have too many dogs;<br />. People who breed dogs "just for money"; and<br />. People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs.<br /><br />Let's look at these definitions in turn. What is "overbreeding"? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to "rest" the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six.<br /><br />The "overbreeding" argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn't do if they had a choice. Dogs aren't people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they're in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It's not an unwelcome event for dogs.<br /><br />People who don't take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced.<br /><br />One of our biggest problems now is that animal radicals insist that every dog be raised like a hothouse flower. One bill proposed this year would have required every kennel to be air conditioned. Many owners of working dogs prefer that their dogs be acclimated to hot weather so that they can work when the temperature goes up. Likewise, sled dogs in the north often sleep outdoors in the snow. Dogs can live and thrive in a wide range of environments. The Arctic Circle, the jungles of Africa, and the deserts of Arabia have all produced breeds of dogs that can live happily in conditions that might not suit all dogs. It is important that we not let activists redefine the needs of dogs to the extent that we are forced to provide a brass bed and a down pillow for every animal in the kennel!<br /><br />What is "too many" dogs? Most of our breeds were developed by wealthy people who kept large numbers of dogs. Hound breeders traditionally kept good-sized packs, and early show breeders did as well. Now that our sport includes more mainstream people - people with jobs or people who need jobs - it's hard for many of us to keep large numbers of dogs. There is no inherent link between numbers of dogs and neglect. People who have the resources to keep big kennels provide a service for all of us, particularly if they maintain a good number of useful stud dogs.<br /><br />Breeding dogs is expensive, and getting more so daily. It's just plain silly to pretend that none of us needs the money generated by puppy sales and stud services. Without that income, the vast majority of middle class breeders could not afford this sport. When our sport was solely in the hands of rich people, it was the norm to sneer at people in "trade", and part of that attitude was handed down to us with the culture of our sport. Today, however, the majority of us in the sport are "in trade", in the sense that we have to work to support ourselves. Our dogs must, at least in part, support themselves or most of us would have to get out of the game.<br /><br />We have among us a small but vociferous group of people who think that breeders only care about producing great hunting or show dogs, and nothing about health. In fact, I've never met a breeder who wasn't concerned about the health of his dogs and the health of his breed. Most health problems in dogs don't have simple solutions, so it is only natural that breeders are often going to disagree about how to address health problems. When there's no right answer to a question, then breeders who follow a different path than you might choose are not necessarily wrong or unconcerned. I know that many believe that commercial breeders don't care about health, but the fact is that their professional organizations provide some of the most sophisticated health seminars in the country for their breeders.<br /><br />Twenty years ago, animal activists created the phrase "puppy mill". Back then, it was only applied to commercial breeders, and then only to those who were breaking the law by neglecting their dogs. In a futile attempt to placate activists, many hobby breeders adopted the term "puppy mill" and used it to separate "them" from "us". It was a mistake then, and it's rapidly becoming fatal today. Every one of these so-called "anti-puppy-mill bills" has a definition that could easily include breeders of hunting and show dogs. Every time you use that phrase, you're contributing to the idea that dog breeders need to be regulated out of existence.<br /><br />The message we need to send to America is that purebred dogs are good, not just because they have pedigrees, but because of their predictability, and that people should shop at least as carefully for a puppy as they do for a car. We don't need to help the animal radicals spread their message by using their favorite term: puppy mill.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-67598933157330791302009-11-28T18:17:00.000-08:002009-11-28T18:27:16.909-08:00Why you should give money to LOCAL shelters- NOT HSUSRemember- HSUS dose NOT operate a SINGLE shelter. Your local shelter shoulders the burden of care and expenses for the consequences of the legislative actions the HSUS works to pass. <br /><br />Also take a look at HSUS Federal 990 for 2008. <br /><br />For those of you looking for a little extra reading to do over the weekend, HSUS' 2008 New York tax return is up on the <a href="http://bartlett.oag.state.ny.us/Char_Forms/show_details.jsp?id={B3C8148D-0D21-4AF7-983C-AB67EF0DBFC7}">CharitiesNY.com </a>website. This is a huge file, some 370 pages. It has multiple attachments.<br /><br /><http://tinyurl.com/yjgzpzr> <a href="http://bartlett.oag.state.ny.us/Char_Forms/show_details.jsp?id={B3C8148D-0D21-4AF7-983C-AB67EF0DBFC7}">http://tinyurl.com/yjgzpzr </a><br /><br />Revenue was down in 2008 vs 2007 only because they lost money on their <strong>investments ($7M). </strong>They paid out less in grants (about $1.4M less), but increased compensation /benefits by $10M for a loss of almost $14M.<br /><br />Attachments:<br /><br />1.) Disclosure of agreements between HSUS and fund raising professionals (i.e., Share Group), fund raising counsel, and commercial co-ventures (i.e, PetPlan, MBNA America Bank, etc). Copies of the letters of agreement with the fund raising professionals/counsel/co-venturers are attached. The co-ventures agreements are at the end of the file.<br /><br />2.) Copy of the public disclosure copy of the federal 990 for 2008. I'm not sure if this is a complete copy, but it looks like it might be.<br /><br />A few of their grants: <br /><br />Californians for Humane Farms (Prop 2 sponsor) $2,250,000 in cash, $44,480 noncash assistance. (Add to that $1,360,000 given per their 2007 tax return).<br /><br />The Committee to Protect Dogs (MA Greyhound Protection Act) $200,000. (They also list a grant to them in 2007 for $200,000).<br /><br />PETA $10,000 - I guess Ingrid was short on funds last year<br /><br />WSPA $35,000<br /><br />Tufts Univ School of Vet Medicine $22,625<br /><br />Univ of Florida Foundation $25,000<br /><br />Alliance Contraception in Dogs & Cats $50,000 (might want to keep tabs on these guys. They have a website).<br /><br /><br />3.) Copy of their consolidated financial statements<br /><br />Enjoy.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-14695706489218713462009-11-28T18:12:00.000-08:002009-11-28T18:15:46.034-08:00Want to give to animal related charities this year? Give locally- not to national animal rights groups<a href="http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/nov/12/animal-lovers-should-stop-sending-money-to-zealots/?print-friendly">Animal lovers should stop sending money to zealots</a>Rich Landers<br />The Spokesman-Review <br /><br />I took a beating in the letters-to-the-editor pages a few weeks ago for pointing out the threat national-scale animal rights groups pose to the sports of hunting and fishing.<br /><br />Now I’m turning the other cheek.<br /><br />Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.<br /><br />Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.<br /><br />The published letters came mostly from one group of Spokane-area animal rights activists and Wayne Pacelle, the national figurehead for the Humane Society of the United States.<br /><br />But many phone calls and e-mails called for more scrutiny of these groups and the moral fascism they are trying to impose on society’s use and enjoyment of animals.<br /><br />One veterinarian pointed out that these groups are clawing their way through legal and legislative channels toward giving pets individual rights rather than leaving them designated as the property of their owners. <br /><br />The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.<br /><br />“Can you imagine the costs of routine pet procedures if we have to run unnecessary tests and insure ourselves for protection against possible multimillion-dollar lawsuits?” he said.<br /><br />One e-mail came from a woman who works with a small-town animal welfare organization that does the dirty work of caring for the epidemic of lost, abused or unwanted pets. She thanked me for pointing out that these local nonprofit animal rescue groups – including the local Humane Societies that have no connection with the Humane Society of the United States – are always scrapping for money to do their work.<br /><br />“I used to donate (to HSUS), years ago, but all the money seemed to go to mailings with another free key chain and a request for more money,” she wrote. “I was never sure that my donation was helping homeless animals.<br /><br />“I now only donate locally, like to the Spokane Humane Society, or to our organization, where 100 percent of funds are spent on vet care.”<br /><br />This woman, the veterinarian and others asked not to be identified because they didn’t want to endure the crap animal rights groups like to dish out to dissenters.<br /><br />Speaking out publicly can start a smear campaign and financial burden for a pet care professional or local animal charity.<br /><br />A story in Tuesday’s paper detailed how the HSUS, PETA and other animal rights zealots are trying to prevent the use of animals in veterinary training and biomedical research.<br /><br />Medical and veterinary students cannot learn the complexities of hemorrhage on a computer model. Period.<br /><br />Scientists who are trying to find cures for diseases and test surgical procedures and devices are having their lives threatened by the moral fascists.<br /><br />“I’d rather see (animals) euthanized than go to a research facility,” said Minnesota Animal Rights Coalition president Charlotte Cozzetto.<br /><br />These are the nuts who are draining millions of dollars from the checking accounts of little old ladies and others in the uninformed masses who think they are saving puppies and kittens.<br /><br />But in most cases, these national groups donate little or nothing back to the actual care and welfare of those unwanted animals that are euthanized by the hundreds of thousands every year.<br /><br />Pacelle smugly wrote The Spokesman-Review to charge me with misinforming the public about the ramifications of his recent testimony before the Supreme Court. He said the case had nothing to do with possibly making hunters and anglers criminals for being filmed or photographed with their quarry.<br /><br />What he failed to say was that it was Justices Scalia, Sotomayor and others in the Supreme Court chambers who were making that association, not this lowly scribe in Spokane.<br /><br />He also failed to acknowledge the numbers I shared with readers from the HSUS tax forms showing that more than half of the $4.8 million the group raised in one year for its feeble facade of creating wildlife sanctuaries goes back into mailing and propaganda.<br /><br />This is the huge difference between sportsmen-supported wildlife conservation groups and national animal zealot groups.<br /><br />When you write a check to Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or The Nature Conservancy, the money goes into preserving habitat for wildlife survival and human quality of life.<br /><br />A check written to HSUS largely supports moral fascism.<br /><br />These zealots must constantly squeal about animal atrocities, because to be reasonable and effective would curtail the heavy flow of cash into their pockets.<br /><br />Contact Rich Landers at 509 459-5508 or richl@spokesman.com.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-80774535307584107642009-11-04T11:37:00.000-08:002009-11-04T11:50:05.042-08:00Spay/neuter..... not so fast<a href="http://www.gpmcf.org/respectovaries.html">A Healthier Respect for Ovaries</a> - a research study conducted by David J. Waters, DVM,PhD, Diplomate ACVS reveals shortened longevity as a possible complication associated with ovary removal in dogs. <br /><br />Thank you Dr. for doing a study to show that spaying dogs at an early age (less than <strong>4 years</strong> of age) will significantly decrease the life of a female dog. Really, is keeping track of your girl for a few weeks every <strong>6 months</strong> so difficult? Is convenience worth more than a few more years with your dog? Not for me. Spaying and neutering causes serious "complications"- ie DEATH.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-87138496960271322832009-10-27T08:07:00.000-07:002009-10-27T08:13:20.001-07:00LA- New Orleans to Consider MSN & Breeding Limits<a href="http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3964">UPDATE: New Orleans City Council MSN Vote Scheduled for November 5</a><br />The AKC has confirmed that the New Orleans City Council has delayed the vote on the mandatory spay/neuter proposal until Thursday, November 5. <br /><br />It is imperative that dog owners in the New Orleans area use the next few weeks to continue contacting the city council and expressing opposition to this proposal. Read our previous alert for more information on the proposal, as well as obtain contact information for the council.<br /><br />The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to provide updates as they become available. <br />NEW ORLEANS UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20! VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION NOW! <br /><br />[Thursday, October 15, 2009]<br /><br />The New Orleans City Council will consider Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell’s mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at its meeting on Tuesday, October 20th. The American Kennel Club vehemently opposes this draconian and ineffective proposal. All responsible dog breeders and owners in the New Orleans area are encouraged to attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting to speak in opposition to the ordinance, and to contact the City Council members (listed below). Respectfully yet strongly express your opposition to this unreasonable and unenforceable proposal, and urge them to vote against it. Encourage them to begin an in-depth study of any existing animal population issues in New Orleans, and to work on better enforcement of the City’s existing animal ordinance. (For detailed talking points and a sample letter of opposition that you can customize, please click here.) <br /><br />Meeting details:<br />Tuesday, October 20, 2009<br />10:00 AM<br />City Hall Council Chamber<br />1300 Perdido Street<br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br /><br />(Those attending the meeting are encouraged to arrive at least one hour prior to the meeting’s 10:00 AM start time to secure parking near City Hall. Parking is available at several nearby locations.) <br /><br />Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large) <br />City Hall, Room 2W40<br />1300 Perdido Street<br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1060<br />Fax: (504) 658-1068<br />afielkow@cityofno.com<br /><br />Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large) <br />City Hall, Room 2W50<br />1300 Perdido Street<br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1070<br />Fax: (504) 658-1077<br />jbclarkson@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A) <br />City Hall, Room 2W80 <br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1010<br />Fax: (504) 658-1016<br />smidura@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)<br />City Hall, Room 2W10<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1020<br />Fax: (504) 658-1025<br />shead@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilman James Carter (District C)<br />City Hall, Room 2W70<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1030<br />Fax: (504) 658-1037<br />jcarter@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor <br />City Hall, Room 2W20<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1040<br />Fax: (504) 658-1048<br />chmorrell@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E) <br />City Hall, Room 2W60<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1050<br />Fax: (504) 658-1058<br />cwlewis@cityofno.com<br /><br />For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org. <br /><br />[Wednesday, September 23, 2009] <br /><br />A mandatory spay/neuter and breeding restrictions ordinance is under consideration by the New Orleans City Council. The ordinance, which was introduced by Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell, will require all dogs to be sterilized by six months of age or force their owners to purchase a costly breeder permit. It is likely that the ordinance will be considered at the city council’s upcoming meeting on Thursday, October 1st. The American Kennel Club, which opposes the ordinance, believes that this proposal is unreasonable, difficult and costly to enforce, potentially unconstitutional, and will do nothing to protect the health and welfare of dogs. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog owners and breeders in New Orleans contact the members of the New Orleans City Council and respectfully yet strongly urge them to vote down this proposal. <br /><br />The American Kennel Club opposes mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.<br /><br />If enacted, the new ordinance will impose many new unreasonable requirements on responsible dog owners in New Orleans, which include:<br /><br />•Requiring all dogs six months of age or older (with few exceptions) to be spayed or neutered or force owners to purchase costly $50 breeder permits to keep any dog intact. Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have not been effective anywhere they have been adopted. In fact, in many cases the euthanization rates in surrounding areas have declines faster than in those areas with mandatory spay/neuter policies. Additionally, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have both issued policy statements in the past year stating that mandatory spay/neuter policies are not effective. Enforcement of existing law, including leash laws, is a better alternative. <br /><br />•Limiting female dogs from whelping more than one litter per year, or whelping a litter if the female is younger than 18-months of age. The AKC opposes any arbitrary limitation on the responsible breeding of purebred dogs, and believes health and reproduction decisions are best made by owners in consultation with their dogs’ veterinarian. <br /><br />•Permitting the Louisiana SPCA, which will be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance, to determine whether or not an applicant for a breeder license has “space determined to be suitable…in which to breed dogs and raise puppies.” As there are no specific guidelines included in the ordinance, it is not clear what a breeder would need to do to be approved. This will allow for subjective and arbitrary decisions that may cost responsible breeders thousands of dollars to come into compliance, or may prohibit them from breeding at all. <br /><br />•Imposing significant fines for those who are found to be in violation of the ordinance, with the income from the fines to be used to further finance the LaSPCA’s animal control efforts. The AKC contends that the cost of enforcement of the ordinance will be far greater than any revenues gained through fines or fees assessed. Further, it may cause a drop in licensing compliance, as otherwise responsible may owners seek to avoid high fees they are unable to pay. It may also lead owners to avoid proper veterinary care and vaccinations in order to avoid detection. <br />Please click here for a copy of the proposal.<br /><br />WHAT YOU CAN DO:<br /><br />The American Kennel Club strongly urges all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New Orleans to contact the City Council members. Let them know that you strongly oppose this ordinance, and urge them to vote against it. Instead, encourage them to strengthen enforcement of New Orleans’ existing animal control laws. For a sample letter that you can download and customize, please click here. <br /><br />Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large) <br />City Hall, Room 2W40<br />1300 Perdido Street<br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1060<br />Fax: (504) 658-1068<br />afielkow@cityofno.com<br /><br />Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large) <br />City Hall, Room 2W50<br />1300 Perdido Street<br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1070<br />Fax: (504) 658-1077<br />jbclarkson@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A) <br />City Hall, Room 2W80 <br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1010<br />Fax: (504) 658-1016<br />smidura@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)<br />City Hall, Room 2W10<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1020<br />Fax: (504) 658-1025<br />shead@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilman James Carter (District C)<br />City Hall, Room 2W70<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1030<br />Fax: (504) 658-1037<br />jcarter@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor <br />City Hall, Room 2W20<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1040<br />Fax: (504) 658-1048<br />chmorrell@cityofno.com<br /><br />Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E) <br />City Hall, Room 2W60<br />1300 Perdido Street <br />New Orleans, LA 70112<br />Phone: (504) 658-1050<br />Fax: (504) 658-1058<br />cwlewis@cityofno.com<br /><br />For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-42001415927889948832009-10-20T19:42:00.000-07:002009-10-20T19:44:43.286-07:00PA: Harrisburg Human Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizes<a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/pa_state_inspector_issues_warn.html">Harrisburg Humane Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizes</a>By John Luciew <br />October 14, 2009, 3:44PM<br />UPDATE: A Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture inspector warned the Harrisburg Humane Society last month that a number of its cages were too small for the dogs being housed, according to department press secretary Justin Fleming.<br /><br />Fleming sought to correct a earlier statement made by his staff that the animal agency was warned by the state that its Swatara Township, Dauphin County, kennel was overcrowded following a Sept. 22 inspection. That was not the case, Fleming said.<br /><br />As a nonprofit shelter, the Humane Society is allowed to have an unlimited number of dogs provided there is ample space so as to not endanger the welfare of the dogs, Fleming said. At the time of the Sept. 22 inspection, the Humane Society housed 178 dogs, including 20 puppies, he said.<br /><br />The state does require that dogs have at least six inches of head room in their cages. The state inspector found that a number of dogs at the Humane Society of Harrisburg Area were in cages that were too small for them, Fleming said.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-24426925855240382222009-10-20T19:31:00.000-07:002009-10-20T19:52:29.817-07:00PA: Humane Society takes a dog from a homeless man- and won't return him even after a court order to do soGood Grief! Give the man his dog back! This man lost his home, his job, his wife and family, and now the HS takes his DOG!!! You have got to be kidding! <br />What are the buzz words the Human Society always uses to make the public think they were doing a "service"?- words like "cruelty", but more and more they are just STEALING people's pets! Is Baron REALLY better off in an over crowded shelter? I think not. Every day that dog is experiencing stress of being in in what amounts to JAIL- Give Thomas his dog back!!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/pa_state_inspector_issues_warn.html">At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs</a>,<br />by John Luciew<br /><br />Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time. <br /><br />Miles Thomas, the formerly homeless owner of Baron the collie, has been battling the Humane Society for the return of his dog since July 26 when the agency's canine officer seized Baron from Thomas’ ventilated car as he lunched in Middletown. The animal agency said it took the dog as part of a cruelty investigation after receiving a call from Middletown police. Thomas, who was battling bouts of homelessness, was never charged and went to the Humane Society to recover Baron the next day, but was denied. <br /><br />Last week, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III halted a hearing on the custody of the dog and outlined a plan for co-adoption of the dog by Thomas and Steve Conklin with monitoring by the Humane Society for six months. After that, Thomas stood to regain full ownership of the 7-year-old collie. <br /><br />However, Andrew Ostrowski, attorney for Thomas, said Wednesday that the Humane Society is balking over what Ostrowski called "slight modifications" in the adoption form requested by Conklin, who is housing the formerly-homeless Thomas and would be co-adopter of the dog. Baron remains at the shelter.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-49336542802992322182009-10-08T13:40:00.000-07:002009-10-08T13:51:01.890-07:00TX- SPCA steals livestock while claiming abuse<strong><a href="http://cbs11tv.com/local/sunnyvale.seized.animals.2.1234197.html">Community Rallies Around Seized Animals' Owners</a></strong><br /><br />The SPCA says the animals were abused, but supporters say the accused is an excellent care giver.<br /><br />Living things get sick from time to time. If a calf has scours, which is caused by a bacteria or virus- that alone dose not mean the animal is abused. Did any person you know make it through a year without coming down with a cold? Those too are caused by bacteria and viruses. We live in a world full of them. <br /><br />Chickens that have feather loss? Oh NO! You are kidding! (said in jest)- have you even seen a playground of children with no cuts or scrapes? I hope not- because that is what happens when children interact.<br /><br />The SPCA is out to steal animals and raise money to end "abuse"- but look carefully- they are the ones doing the abuse- they are abusing power and authority and it is time it is stopped!I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-61257545242151716592009-10-08T13:16:00.000-07:002009-10-08T13:29:31.697-07:00NY- Conflict of Interests: Human Societies should not be given authority to seize animalsHere is yet another case of Human Societies stealing animals. Of course it is a conflict of interest to allow shelters to enforce animal cruelty cases- they are the ones who BENEFIT from such cases. Yes- benefit is the right word. Shelters get donations when they cry, "help stop abuse" and they get to SELL (yes, that's right- it is a sale- you don't have the option of NOT donating if you want an animal) the pets they take in. Cover their costs? Maybe, but their costs include staff and a building. Not everyone is a VOLUNTEER. Of course they want to stay in business. They have almost make theft legal- expect that sometimes it smells like a Rat!<br /><br />Our Towns<br /><strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/nyregion/08towns.html?_r=2">A Case of Pet Care and Politics </a></strong><br /><br />By PETER APPLEBOME<br />Published: October 7, 2009 <br />GARRISON, N.Y.<br /><br />Two things struck many people as odd three years ago when sheriff’s deputies came to Sandy Saunders’s 150-acre farm, said they had found “shocking” conditions, arrested him on nine counts of animal cruelty, and seized five horses, three sheep and a goat that have never been returned.<br /><br />The first was that the barn owned by Mr. Saunders, a well-known local environmentalist and gadfly, was a popular and quite public gathering place. In the five weeks before the animals were seized, an annual barn dance there brought out perhaps 200 people, and a political fund-raiser drew 150. A woman who had visited with her children said that she had seen dozens of farms and that Mr. Saunders’s was “one of the cleanest and well-maintained I have come across.”<br /><br />The second was that Barbara Dunn, the deputy who seized the animals and participated in a separate raid and arrest involving the care of purebred Maltese dogs that same month, was also the president of the Putnam Humane Society, where the animals were taken, which struck many people as an unfortunate mixing of responsibilities.<br /><br />The two arrests set in motion a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the indictment of Deputy Dunn this week on 28 counts, including grand larceny, perjury and official misconduct, some stemming from her testimony in the investigation involving the dogs.<br /><br />It would be nice if the indictment suggested a clear motivation. Instead, it’s more of a reminder that while politics involving humans can be pretty complicated, they’re nothing compared to the politics of people and critters.<br /><br />Mr. Saunders’s case had no direct bearing on the indictment, a result of an 18-month investigation. Deputy Dunn was accused of larceny, insurance fraud and official misconduct for claiming workplace injuries when, in fact, she had fallen off a horse, prosecutors say. And she was accused of perjury and official misconduct in connection with her testimony about the seizure of the dogs from Linda Nelson, a breeder in Kent.<br /><br />Deputy Dunn pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Monday. William Aronwald, her lawyer, said the notion that she was improperly acting in the interests of the Humane Society ignored the evidence. “She took six Maltese dogs that hadn’t been fed, had no water, were sitting in their own excrement from a sweltering, hot room and took them to the Humane Society,” he said. “What other recourse did she have? Just leave them there? I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that the Humane Society benefited from this.”<br /><br />The problem is that a State Supreme Court judge, Justice Andrew P. O’Rourke, in dismissing charges against Ms. Nelson, ruled otherwise, saying: “Deputy Dunn, in her position as president of the Humane Society, engaged in a public campaign to garner support for the renewal of the society’s contract with the county. She increased the number of seizures of animals and sought increased fines for animal-related violations in order to increase the coffers of the Humane Society.”<br /><br />It’s small potatoes, unless you’re the one accused. In addition to the worthy work that animal protection groups do, there have been allegations elsewhere of animals improperly seized and reputations ruined out of excess zeal. An investigation by “20/20” in 2005 included numerous claims from people who said that instead of helping them care for wanted pets, the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals confiscated their animals, sold them within days and kept the money.<br /><br />BUT if that kind of conflict was at work, it didn’t show up in the indictment. Christopher York, the chief assistant district attorney in Putnam County, said he had no way of knowing if any improprieties in Deputy Dunn’s conduct were affected by excess zeal for animal rights, the interests of the Humane Society or a belief that she was acting properly. “We don’t have to prove motivation,” he said.<br /><br />Still, regardless of whether she’s found guilty, you could deduce three things. The first is that an accusation of animal abuse can be as damaging as one of child abuse. Mr. Saunders found himself reported on animal abuse Web sites. (He agreed to give up the animals in return for the dismissal of the charges against him.) The second is that being on the side of the animals doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the side of the angels. And the third is that giving the president of the local Humane Society a badge and a license to investigate animal abuse isn’t the smartest move.<br /><br />E-mail: peappl@nytimes.comI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-38226945721286557972009-09-29T06:08:00.000-07:002009-09-29T06:15:49.290-07:00New Zealand: Supermarket chain bans shepherds from using dogs to help manage lambs<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5100025/New-Zealand-shepherds-stop-using-dogs-as-stresses-lambs.html">New Zealand shepherds stop using dogs as stresses lambs</a><br />For centuries shepherds have herded their flock with the help of their expert sheep dogs. But one man and his dog has been replaced by one man and his stick, after Tesco claimed shepherds' faithful canine companions "stressed" the sheep. <br /> <br />By Harry Wallop and Matthew Moore <br />Published: 6:13PM BST 03 Apr 2009<br /><br />Tesco has told farmers, who supply the supermarket giant with lamb, to stop using the dogs unless they can be retrained to be "more considerate" towards the flock.<br /><br />The shepherds have reacted with outrage, and claimed up to 60 dogs have now joined the ranks of the unemployed. <br /><br />However, Tesco was adamant that one of its largest suppliers in New Zealand, Silver Fern Farms in Fairton, should stop using dogs to herd sheep into the abattoir.<br /><br />Unlike in Britain, most abattoirs are attached to farms in New Zealand, ensuring the farm does not need to truck its flock down the motorway to a slaughterhouse. <br /><br />The supermarket wants the shepherds to wave their arms, beat sticks or wave flags, to move the sheep into the abattoir.<br /><br />The surprise order from Tesco, which comes into force next week, came to light thanks to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph by an upset reader.<br /><br />Mick Petheram, one of the shepherds, said: "New Zealand sheep are used to dogs, they know dogs. There's more stress in a human herding and manhandling them, waving their arms and beating sticks. Dogs are part of a sheep's life. This is absolute baloney."<br /><br />He said that he and his fellow workers would have to sell their dogs, or worse, put them down. "We'll be desperately trying to sell them, but most of us will end up putting down three or four each. These are bloody good dogs. Taking away our dogs is like taking a hammer away from a builder; we can't do our job without them," he said.<br /><br />New Zealand is the biggest source of lamb in Britain at this time of year, and it is understood that the Silver Fern Farms is one of Tesco's biggest suppliers. <br /><br />It was visited by Tesco buyers earlier this year, who were "upset" at seeing the dogs "running riot", according to a spokesman for the supermarket. <br /><br />The National Farmers' Union said that it was not aware of any research indicating that farm animals suffered stress because of sheepdogs.<br /><br />"Sheepdogs are trained specifically to herd sheep and in some cases cattle and we have heard no problems about them being harmful to the animals," a spokesman said.<br /><br />Tesco stood by its decision. "We don't have a problem with sheep dogs, but we need to make sure they move the sheep in a considerate manner, so they don't stress the sheep out," said a spokesman.<br /><br />Scientists have found some evidence that if animals that are "stressed" immediately before slaughter the pH level of the meat increases, creating a pale, watery cut.<br /><br />Leading animal welfare charity the RSPCA said it had concerns about the anxiety suffered by sheep as they are circled and pursued by dogs, but did not believe a ban was necessary. <br /><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/5100025/New-Zealand-shepherds-stop-using-dogs-as-stresses-lambs.html"></a><br /><br />Meanwhile: At a sheep workshop I attended this year, an unrulely 12 year old girl caused a lamb to break its leg as she chased the sheep around the pen attempting to catch it. Multiple lambs in the group ended up limping as she dove on animals to catch them, only to have them get away causing her to attempt to catch another. Humans cause more stress than well trained herding dogs.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-68776363284927598272009-09-22T07:20:00.000-07:002009-09-22T07:25:45.328-07:00Animal Rights group claiming not enough affectionAnimal Rights group changing their language to include "care and affection'. Boy oh boy- I really, really hope this makes it into laws protecting humans. Lets advocate that anyone who has foster children has to demonstrate they can provide care and affection for the children they care for- THAT would save taxpayer dollars down the road.<br />(from <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-locdog-track-protest-092009092009sep20,0,7070830.story">Protesters dog Longwood greyhound-racing track</a>)<br />"Wilson, a regional coordinator for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, or ARFF, said trainers don't provided greyhounds with the proper care and affection — which track officials and patrons dispute."I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-31493092518948144692009-09-22T07:05:00.000-07:002009-09-22T07:17:29.976-07:00Thousands of dollars are spent to transport 2 dogsAre all animals that end up in a shelter Puppy Mill puppies? They are according to the Animal Rights organizations that are using the slogan End Puppy Mills to generate donations. From the article- "Volunteer pilots took two puppies on the ride of their lives Saturday, whisking them from a puppy mill in Virginia to a safe, new home at a Massachusetts shelter."- If they were "whisked from a puppy mill" then why didn't the volunteers take more dogs? Was the "puppy mill" giving them away? Most likely they were transported from one shelter to another. But donations are generated by buzz words- not the truth!<br /><br />If there is really an over population problem, then the shelters in Boston must be full too- so sorry folks, end over population and put them to sleep. BUT- since there IS NO over population problem, Americans can spend thousands to save a few dogs that were ABANDONED in the first place. Remember, the issue is ABANDONMENT- NOT over population!!!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/21010953/detail.html">Pilots Fly Puppy Mill Pets To Safety</a><br />Volunteer Aviators Bring Dogs To New Home In Mass.<br /><br />"If animals are amputees, older, pregnant or have medical needs, flying is easier and safer. Boies says ground transportation is an option for rescues traveling short distances, but for new homes that are far away, "the journey is long and the animals need to change vehicles every hour. It's stressful for them," she said.<br /><br />Flying animal rescue missions is not cheap. Volunteer pilot Steve Edwards said the average animal airlift will cost $2,500. "Between the fuel, maintenance and plane permits, it's expensive," Edwards told "Good Morning America".<br /><br />Edwards hopes other pilots will follow his example and sign up to save shelter animals from being put to sleep."I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-88286209216177694022009-09-22T06:59:00.000-07:002009-09-22T07:04:20.332-07:00MA: State plots dog surchargehttp://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1198278&format=email<br /><a href="http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1198278&format=email">State plots dog surcharge</a><br />By Hillary Chabot and Benjamin Bell<br />Friday, September 18, 2009 - Updated 2m ago<br /><br /><br /> State Republicans are howling mad over yet another tax hike being slipped through the Legislature that would slap an annual $3 state surcharge on municipal licensing fees canine owners pay for their pet pooches.<br />Annual license fees range from $6 a year in Boston for neutered or spayed canines (and $17 for unfixed dogs) to a flat $20 in Plymouth. Angry GOP senators are pushing to name the bill “Toby’s Law,” after Gov. Deval Patrick’s wriggling Labrador puppy.<br />“We’re trying to collar or neuter these onerous fees and counter the Democrats’ rabid obsession with increases,” said state Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth).<br />But state Sen. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) argued the fee is necessary to fund a state spay-and-neutering plan meant to snip the state’s out-of-control problem with strays.<br />“The number of abandoned animals has gone through the roof over the past few years,” Jehlen said. “Shelters are euthanizing animals because they have too many.”<br />Jehlen pointed out that the MSPCA and several dog kennels and purebred pooch clubs throughout the state support the bill.<br />But French bulldog owner Megan Doerrer said she’s tired of the dog pile of state fees and taxes.<br />“I don’t want to pay more and I don’t think anyone else does either. It’s a weird time to choose to raise prices,” said Doerrer, 25, a math teacher who lives in the South End and was walking her dog Brady in Peters Park.<br />Clerks from cities and towns also oppose the additional fee, saying the state is snatching even more money away after cutting local aid.<br />“Given the fact that the state has the money and is giving it to cities and towns, it makes no sense to us at all that they should be taking away money from cities and towns,” said Laurence Pizer, Plymouth town clerk.<br />Pizer added that the state surcharge would deter many residents from licensing their dogs - a practice that is already a tough sell.<br />State Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield) said while the bill has many good sections - including creating a dangerous dog directory - it ultimately punishes dog owners. Said Knapik: “The citizens already have to pay millions for a sales tax hike. Let’s leave Fido aloneI Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6746728601971314832.post-81057081534141944612009-09-14T10:16:00.000-07:002009-10-12T12:01:40.093-07:00Cass Sunstein- As Radical as they ComeOn September 10th, while the Nation focuses on the health care debate, Cass Sunstein was confirmed as the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. If you think this Radical (with a capital R) was confirmed narrowly by a Democrat majority- look again- only 6 Republicans voted against him!<br /><br />What is so Radical about Sunstein?<br />1. He has written a book advocating Animal Rights in which he suggests that animals should be allowed to sue human beings in courts of law.<br />2. He believes we should all be vegetarians<br />3. He believes hunting should be banned<br /><br />He represents a segment of society who feels that Americans should be regulated more! People like him should NOT be in government.<br /><br />The American Conservative Union started a website <a href="http://stopsunstein.com/">Stop Sunstein</a> - looks like it didn't help.I Love Dogshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099427069445451369noreply@blogger.com2