Dog Laws At Large

TX: Stop HB 1451 In the Senate!

2011-05-09T15:04:00.000-07:00

HB 1451 passed the House on 4/27/11 and has been assigned to the Senate
Committee on Criminal Justice chaired by Sen. John Whitmire (D-15). It is
anticipated that Whitmire will be the bill's advocate in the Senate.

HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels for simply owning more than 10 intact female dogs even if breeding is occasional. The bill classifies these
owners as commercial if even a single litter a year is bred to be used as
hunting, working, security, herding and livestock guardian dogs, service dogs,
or family pets. Sara Chisnell-Voigt, Legal Counsel United Kennel Club, writes, "UKC believes
that the health and well-being of dogs are of the utmost importance, and are
significant concerns. However, this bill will do more harm to the responsible
breeders than they will to protect the welfare of dogs. Defining a commercial
kennel by 11 or more intact adult female dogs is an unacceptable threshold."

Bill author, Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) and supporting animal rights
groups continually mislead the media claiming the bill is only designed to
ensure that breeders meet health and safety standards and that animals have food
and clean water. However, the Federal engineering standards required by HB 1451
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
breeders as commercial businesses simply because of the number of intact dogs
owned will end many hunting and hobby kennels throughout the state.

Mary Beth Duerler, RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
explained, "HB 1451 is not written to regulate dog and cat breeders in Texas. It
is written to eliminate them. The Standards for Care; Confinement and
Transportation adopted must meet federal USDA regulations at a minimum. Bill
sponsors and proponents know they cannot be met in a home environment."

Following the House vote to pass HB 1451, Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) posted
the following commentary on his blog, "It establishes a new licensing and
regulatory bureaucracy for breeders. I spoke and voted against the bill because
it increased state government by $2.6 million for the biennium and increased
state bureaucrats by 14. Moreover, I believe it will be ineffective. I doubt
that criminal and cruel breeders, who are already operating outside the law,
will submit themselves to be licensed and regulated and pay a $1300-$4300 fee
per year. It will certainly hinder responsible breeders though and probably
cause some to go out of business. The bill also violates the 4th Amendment by
authorizing inspectors to come unannounced and without the owner or licensee
onto a breeder's property and even into a breeder's home to access animals or
documents without a warrant."

HB 1451 is supported by a number of animal rights organizations, including Texas
Humane Legislation Network (THLN), HSUS, ALDF, and ASPCA. These groups
highlight kennels where hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions and, in
true activist style, vilify dog breeders across the board to promote the need
for restrictive legislation.

Texans pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the State's economy every year
hunting, exhibiting, training, and breeding dogs. Their dogs could not hunt,
track, herd, search, or compete in shows and trials if they were not well taken
care of.

ACTION REQUIRED

Call, fax, and email your Senator and the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
and request they oppose HB 1451.

Committee Contacts:

CHAIR
Sen. John Whitmire (D-15)
(512) 463-0115 / Fax: (512) 475-3737
John.whitmire@senate.state.tx.us

VICE CHAIR
Sen. Joan Huffman (R-17)
(512) 463-0117 / Fax: (512) 463-0639
Joan.huffman@senate.state.tx.us

MEMBERS

Sen. John Carona (R-16)
(512) 463-0116 / Fax: (512) 463-3135
John.carona@senate.state.tx.us

Sen. Rodney Ellis (D-13)
(512) 463-0113 / Fax: (512) 463-0006
Rodney.ellis@senate.state.tx.us

Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-18)
(512) 463-0118 / Fax: (512) 475-3736
Glenn.hegar@senate.state.tx.us

Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-20)
(512) 463-0120 / Fax: (512) 463-0229
Juan.hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us

Sen. Dan Patrick (R-7)
(512) 463-0107 / Fax: (512) 463-8810
Dan.patrick@senate.state.tx.us

HB 1451 is opposed by: American Dog Breeders Association; American Kennel Club;
Animal Owners Association of Texas; Endangered Breeds Association; National
Animal Interest Alliance; RPOA Texas Outreach and Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance; Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance; United Kennel Club;
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; and many more local and national organizations.

Additional information can be found at the SAOVA website:

http://http://www.saova.org/TexasHB1451.htmlAnd at U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance:
http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2727Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit SAOVA News http://saovanews.blogspot.com/

MA: May 11 will be a big day for dog legislation in Massachusetts

2011-05-05T19:22:00.000-07:00

May 11 is a big day in MA
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.

View the names and contact information for the committee here.
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.

Summary:

Over 10 bills are scheduled to be considered by the joint committee, including

House Bill 562 – The AKC and MassFed both support this bill, which strengthens the Commonwealth’s dangerous dog laws by creating a number of provisions, including:

· Allowing dogs declared “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit the behavior again within two years.

· Preventing municipalities from establishing breed-specific at-risk or dangerous dog policies

House Bill 1455 – The AKC and MassFed both oppose this bill, which makes numerous changes to the animal control laws, including:

· 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.

· 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.

· Providing a list of recommended penalties for nuisance violations, including sterilization or euthanasia

Other bills to be considered by the committee include:

Senate Bill 1033 – 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.

House Bill 1437 – 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.

House Bill 2326 –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.

House Bill 2885 – 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.

House Bill 2886 – This bill would prohibit the sale of a dog or cat that is under 8 weeks of age.

For more information on these and other bills on the agenda, visit the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners website at www.massfeddogs.org or contact the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.

TX: HB 1451 calll 11 female dogs a "commercial Kennel"

2011-05-05T19:07:00.000-07:00

HB 1451 is gets through the House of Representatives with little opportunity for public input. House Bill 1451 does the following:

SYNOPSISHSUS Funded Representative Senfronia Thompson (D, 141) filed HB 1451 a bill to regulate Texas dog and cat breeders. HB 1451 is supported by a coalition of animal rights groups 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.

•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.
•Charges kennel license fees likely to be at least $1,300 per kennel even for hobby breeders who hardly ever sell dogs.
•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.
•Allows for unannounced inspections of kennels and the homes of their owners if they keep their kennel records on a computer inside their house.
•Allows for the inspection of records within a home without any suspicion of wrong doing or even a search warrant.
•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.
•Discloses personal information about dog breeders to the public by creating a public directory containing information on all registered breeders

Dogs quarantined; many die

2010-10-02T04:46:00.000-07:00

Dogs quarantined; many die
By Larry Clifton

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Several calls made Tuesday to the Puerto Rico PAWS shelter were not returned by press time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“Many of the puppies were just starting to open their eyes and were obviously only weeks old,” said Brooks.

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.

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.

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.

The total estimated cost of medical care, medical testing and all other related expenses to various organizations right now is $185,000, he said.

Sumter DART called the state veterinarian association immediately after DART volunteers began unloading the puppies and an immediate quarantine was ordered, according to Graves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Twenty-nine more dogs infected with distemper were accepted in isolation in Altamonte Springs, by Dr. Bruce Keene.

As of the FVMA report, 115 of the 222 dogs are still alive and have a chance at recovering and being adopted.

“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.

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.”

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.

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.

Sumter County Times article

Spread the word- If you support animals- don't support HSUS

2010-04-20T19:14:00.000-07:00

The Truth About HSUS from Missourians for Animal Care Coalition
YouTube video

YouTube video 2
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 animals

2010-03-23T17:18:00.000-07:00

Breed wars: Imports
As states crack down on puppy mills, imports spike and so do health concerns
Mar 1, 2010
By: Rachael Whitcomb
DVM NEWSMAGAZINE

NATIONAL REPORT At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the
United States' borders, and veterinary officials fear the problem is
getting worse.

Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict
new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers
even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal
regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are
brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and
whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for
underage puppies.

"One thing that really concerns veterinarians is, underage puppies come
in and not only are they at greater risk of zoonotic diseases, but also
other canine diseases," says Nina Marano, DVM, of the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of Global Migration and
Quarantine. "It is a concern. It's a consumer issue; it's a public
health issue; it's a veterinary issue. Really, it's a moral and ethical
issue."

CDC has a rough idea of how many puppies are crossing United States
borders, but only anecdotally, Marano says.

"The fact is that we have a very big country and many, many ports of
entry to monitor," she explains. "We've been looking at this closely
over the last five to six years and ... the takeaway message is that,
anecdotally, we do believe there has been an increase in imported animals."

No definitive data is available on the number of dogs and puppies
imported to the United States each year since no single agency is
required to keep track of those numbers. The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) monitors only commercial breeders who sell animals
through pet stores, brokers and research facilities. The CDC monitors
rabies vaccinations in imported pets, but its regulations neither
require a health screen for dogs prior to arrival to the United States,
nor an evaluation for specific zoonoses of concern. Enforcement of
regulations are "problematic, because there is no federal requirement
mechanism, or capacity for documenting compliance," according to a 2008
article in the journal Zoonosis and Public Health by Marano and fellow
CDC veterinarian G. Gale Galland, DVM.

Plus, CDC can't man all the nation's ports of entry, leaving Customs and
Border Protection, whose officers have no veterinary training, as the
first line of defense to ensure all imported animals meet federal agency
requirements.

CDC has taken "snapshots" of data to gauge dog import trends and found
that 287,000 dogs were imported in 2006. About a quarter of them were
too young to have rabies vaccinations. Their importers were required to
sign agreements stating the dogs would be confined until the vaccine was
administered, but enforcement is passed on to local animal-control
agencies once the dogs are in the country. And critics contend most
imported dogs are sold as soon as the dogs are brought home from the
airport, not after the agreement is fulfilled.

More than 5,100 confine agreements were signed between January 2006 and
September 2007 at just 15 of the 20 quarantine stations monitored by the
CDC, but about 4,000 of those agreements were violated in 2006 alone,
with the puppies being sold before the confinement period ended. There's
no telling if any had been vaccinated at all.

"Based on import trends suggesting that the annual number of
unvaccinated puppies being imported into the United States increased
substantially from 2001 to 2006, imported dogs pose a risk for
introducing zoonotic pathogens such as rabies into the United States,"
Galland and Marano wrote.

At John F. Kennedy International Airport, reports of unvaccinated dog
imports doubled from 2003 to 2006. Reports of unvaccinated dogs imported
into California increased by more than 500 percent from 2001 to 2006,
the article adds.

But dogs aren't the only imports on the rise. According to another
article co-authored by Galland that appeared in a May 2009 edition of
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, the volume
of live animal imports to the United States has roughly doubled since 1991.

"From 2003 through 2006, annual increases in wildlife trade ranged from
6 percent to 11 percent. From 2000 through 2004, approximately 588,000
animals were imported into the United States each day," the article
states, adding those are just the animals that border agents find.
"Interpol estimates that wildlife smuggling ranks third on the
contraband list of items of value, behind drugs and firearms."

Some blame falls on federal regulators, who lack the time and resources
to follow up on every animal import.

"In 2000, most imported dogs were single import," Galland wrote in the
2009 article. "In 2003, the number of imports of multiple puppies per
shipment began to increase. The number of puppies imported into
California through airports increased from 110 multi-dog imports in 2003
to 365 in 2004. Each shipment contained as many as 40 puppies. A similar
increase was seen nationally ... As the number of shipments containing
more than one dog increased, tracking puppies became increasingly
difficult."

But the problem also can be attributed to market demand, uneducated
consumers and puppy millers turned irresponsible importers.

"It's getting tougher to raise dogs in the United States. The USDA is
requiring more of commercial breeders," Marano says, adding many former
puppy millers are believed to have turned to importing to increase profits.

In Pennsylvania â€” a state known for its concentration of puppy mills â€”
256 kennels were closed in 2009 compared to just 65 kennels closed in 2004.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks anti-puppy
mill legislation and saw a huge jump after 2008, with 90 bills
introduced across 33 states â€” five of them adopted in 2009. "There's a
campaign, clearly well-organized, to bring these bills forward," says
Adrian Hochstedt, AVMA's assistant director of state legislative and
regulatory affairs.

Additionally, foreign countries make it easier to breed dogs because of
loose animal-health standards, contends California attorney John
Hoffman, who has crusaded against puppy importers on behalf of various
breed groups.

For instance, one French Bulldog group he provided services for claims
there are now more French Bulldogs imported into the United States than
are bred here, because artificial insemination and cesarean deliveries
can be performed cheaper by unlicensed veterinary workers in other
countries.

"The sale over the Internet of both commercially bred puppies and
imported puppies has become a big business â€” and probably considerably
outstrips sales of puppies through pet shops," Hoffman said during
testimony before Congress in 2006 on an importation law that never
passed. "USDA regulations prohibit carriers from accepting animals for
transport without a health certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian
and from transporting puppies younger than 8 weeks. It appears that both
regulations are routinely flouted by commercial puppy exporters abroad.
That health certificates are being forged is evidenced by the large
incidence of illness and death among puppies within a day or two of
arrival in the United States."

Many of these imported dogs are irresponsibly bred with a host of
genetic problems and are shipped young â€” too young to vaccinate â€” to
meet market demand. Importers often lie about age and health issues on a
dog's records and get away with it, Hoffman claims.

Confinement agreements
"If the form said 8 weeks, nobody questioned it," Hoffman says, adding
that rabies requirements are treated with disdain by some importers.
"There's been no enforcement of (confinement agreements) and the
importers have been thumbing their noses at it for years."

But importers for profit aren't the only violators. One rescue
organization alone imported 295 dogs from the Middle East in 2006,
according to Galland and Marano's article, and even veterinarians can be
pulled into a laissez-faire attitude about pet importation.

Galland's 2009 article reveals a 2007 case of a puppy imported from
India by a Washington state veterinarian. The dog was given to another
veterinarian, bit veterinary clinic staff and another dog while showing
signs of rabies, but wasn't diagnosed with the disease until another
veterinarian brought it to Alaska. Eight people had to be treated for
rabies.

Several rabies cases in imported dogs have been tracked in recent years,
as well as cases of other diseases long-eradicated in the United States,
like screwworm. Screwworms are monitored by the USDA and could cause up
to $750 million in livestock production losses, the article notes. New
World screwworms were eradicated from the United States in 1966, and Old
World screwworm had never been seen in this country until it was found
in a puppy imported from Singapore to Massachusetts in 2007.

"Veterinarians should be vigilant when examining new puppies" Galland
wrote. "Many imported dogs are never confined properly or inspected for
infectious diseases, and many diseases may not be detected readily in
imported dogs ... a veterinarian could be the one who prevents the next
outbreak."

A lot of imported puppies arrive at U.S. ports dehydrated, but not
really ill. It's a few days after entering the country that they become
symptomatic.

"Rabies is of particular concern in imported dogs because of its long
incubation period," wrote Galland and Marano. "Because of this, dogs may
be admitted on the basis of apparent good health, but may be incubating
the virus and could develop disease after entry."

An importation clause in the recently passed Farm Bill could provide
some relief, as it prohibits the commercial importation of any dog
younger than 6 months of age, Marano says. But USDA must write the
regulations to put the Farm Bill into effect, and that has not even been
started, Hoffman says.

"Buyers and veterinarians report that imported puppies suffer from
higher than normal incidences of pneumonia, parvovirus, rabies, ringworm
and severe congenital defects," wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who
supported passage of the Farm Bill, in a press release about the
legislation. "The CDC lacks the staff, law enforcement powers and
resources to ensure each shipment is safe."

CDC is reviewing its regulations â€” written in 1956 and last updated in
1983, when international travel was less frequent and dog imports
consisted of the occasional family pet â€” and has found that the general
public would like to see more stringent laws. But changes take time,
Marano says.

"There are only two ways to attack: regulations to dry up supply and
education to dry up demand," she explains.

"Veterinarians are really one of the first lines of defense, and they
need to be educated on the regulations of their state so they can
educate their clients about the risk involved in buying these puppies,"
adds Galland.

KY: HB 517 seeks to establish an Unconstitutional Forfeiture Bond Bill

2010-03-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

Kentucky: HSUS Introduces Unconstitutional Forfeiture Bond Bill
Kentucky House Bill 517 seeks to give "ownership" of animals to third parties PRIOR 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!

What this bill dose NOT address is what happens to the animal if the original owner is found to be innocent? Do you think the "new owners" will REALLY give the animal BACK?

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.

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.

IA: HF 2280 seeks to provide regulations of commercial establishements for dogs and cats

2010-03-01T10:29:00.000-08:00

Iowa Legislative Recap
Print This Article
[Monday, March 01, 2010]
Recently, both houses of the Iowa General Assembly passed versions of House File 2280, which seeks to provide for regulation of commercial establishments that handle dogs and cats. The now–enrolled version of this bill provides the following:

Major Provisions:

•With only one small change regarding racing Greyhounds, the bill continues to use the definition of "commercial breeder" currently found in Iowa law. While arguably low, 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—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.

•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.

•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.

•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.

•The bill empowers the Iowa Department of Agriculture to develop care and conditions standards for commercial establishments.

•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.

•The fee to license a commercial kennel is $175.

If you live in Iowa and have concerns about HF 2280, 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.
Governor Chet Culver
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5211

Is Mandatory spay-neuter what we really want?

2010-03-01T10:22:00.000-08:00

Be cautious about mandatory pet spay-neuter legislation

Sunday, February 28, 2010
Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?

Should You Surgically Debark Your Dog?

2010-03-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

Should You Surgically Debark Your Dog?
Linda Cole
February 21, 2010

Debarking, or bark softening, saves lives and helps neighbor relations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

More information at http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/debark_qna.htm

PA: Penn High Court says SPCA Not State Agency, Can Be Sued

2009-12-31T07:22:00.000-08:00

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court says the SPCA is Not a State Agency and is not entitled to the defense of sovereign or governmental immunity.

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.

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.

An Obituary For Words: Puppy Mill

2009-12-02T15:18:00.000-08:00

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Articles/LegislativeUpdate06012009
Posted on 06/01/2009
Permanent Link

An Obituary For Words
by Cindy Cooke

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.

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:
. People who "overbreed" their dogs;
. People who don't take care of their dogs;
. People who have too many dogs;
. People who breed dogs "just for money"; and
. People who don't take health issues into account when breeding their dogs.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why you should give money to LOCAL shelters- NOT HSUS

2009-11-28T18:17:00.000-08:00

Remember- 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.

Also take a look at HSUS Federal 990 for 2008.

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 CharitiesNY.com website. This is a huge file, some 370 pages. It has multiple attachments.

http://tinyurl.com/yjgzpzr

Revenue was down in 2008 vs 2007 only because they lost money on their investments ($7M). They paid out less in grants (about $1.4M less), but increased compensation /benefits by $10M for a loss of almost $14M.

Attachments:

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.

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.

A few of their grants:

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).

The Committee to Protect Dogs (MA Greyhound Protection Act) $200,000. (They also list a grant to them in 2007 for $200,000).

PETA $10,000 - I guess Ingrid was short on funds last year

WSPA $35,000

Tufts Univ School of Vet Medicine $22,625

Univ of Florida Foundation $25,000

Alliance Contraception in Dogs & Cats $50,000 (might want to keep tabs on these guys. They have a website).

3.) Copy of their consolidated financial statements

Enjoy.

Want to give to animal related charities this year? Give locally- not to national animal rights groups

2009-11-28T18:12:00.000-08:00

Animal lovers should stop sending money to zealotsRich Landers
The Spokesman-Review

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.

Now I’m turning the other cheek.

Readers shouldn’t assume that the published letters were the only reaction.

Nor should they think the threat these groups pose is limited to hunters and anglers.

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.

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.

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.

The vet said that, among other problems, this would have huge repercussions in the costs of veterinary care and liability.

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.”

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.

Speaking out publicly can start a smear campaign and financial burden for a pet care professional or local animal charity.

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.

Medical and veterinary students cannot learn the complexities of hemorrhage on a computer model. Period.

Scientists who are trying to find cures for diseases and test surgical procedures and devices are having their lives threatened by the moral fascists.

“I’d rather see (animals) euthanized than go to a research facility,” said Minnesota Animal Rights Coalition president Charlotte Cozzetto.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the huge difference between sportsmen-supported wildlife conservation groups and national animal zealot groups.

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.

A check written to HSUS largely supports moral fascism.

These zealots must constantly squeal about animal atrocities, because to be reasonable and effective would curtail the heavy flow of cash into their pockets.

Contact Rich Landers at 509 459-5508 or richl@spokesman.com.

Spay/neuter..... not so fast

2009-11-04T11:37:00.000-08:00

A Healthier Respect for Ovaries - 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.

Thank you Dr. for doing a study to show that spaying dogs at an early age (less than 4 years of age) will significantly decrease the life of a female dog. Really, is keeping track of your girl for a few weeks every 6 months 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.

LA- New Orleans to Consider MSN & Breeding Limits

2009-10-27T08:07:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: New Orleans City Council MSN Vote Scheduled for November 5
The AKC has confirmed that the New Orleans City Council has delayed the vote on the mandatory spay/neuter proposal until Thursday, November 5.

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.

The AKC Government Relations Department will continue to provide updates as they become available.
NEW ORLEANS UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20! VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION NOW!

[Thursday, October 15, 2009]

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.)

Meeting details:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
10:00 AM
City Hall Council Chamber
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112

(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.)

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

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.

[Wednesday, September 23, 2009]

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.

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.

If enacted, the new ordinance will impose many new unreasonable requirements on responsible dog owners in New Orleans, which include:

•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.

•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.

•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.

•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.
Please click here for a copy of the proposal.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

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.

Council President Arnie Fielkow (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W40
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1060
Fax: (504) 658-1068
afielkow@cityofno.com

Council Vice President Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson (At-Large)
City Hall, Room 2W50
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1070
Fax: (504) 658-1077
jbclarkson@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Shelley Midura (District A)
City Hall, Room 2W80
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1010
Fax: (504) 658-1016
smidura@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Stacy Head (District B)
City Hall, Room 2W10
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1020
Fax: (504) 658-1025
shead@cityofno.com

Councilman James Carter (District C)
City Hall, Room 2W70
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1030
Fax: (504) 658-1037
jcarter@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell (District D) – ordinance sponsor
City Hall, Room 2W20
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1040
Fax: (504) 658-1048
chmorrell@cityofno.com

Councilwoman Cynthia Willard-Lewis (District E)
City Hall, Room 2W60
1300 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 658-1050
Fax: (504) 658-1058
cwlewis@cityofno.com

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.

PA: Harrisburg Human Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizes

2009-10-20T19:42:00.000-07:00

Harrisburg Humane Society warned by Pennsylvania inspectors on cage sizesBy John Luciew
October 14, 2009, 3:44PM
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.

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.

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.

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.

PA: Humane Society takes a dog from a homeless man- and won't return him even after a court order to do so

2009-10-20T19:31:00.000-07:00

Good 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!
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!!

At a federal hearing last week over the custody of on of its dogs,
by John Luciew

Humane Society of Harrisburg Area executive director Amy Kaunas testified that the shelter routinely houses an average of 200 dogs at any given time.

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.

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.

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.

TX- SPCA steals livestock while claiming abuse

2009-10-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

Community Rallies Around Seized Animals' Owners

The SPCA says the animals were abused, but supporters say the accused is an excellent care giver.

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.

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.

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!

NY- Conflict of Interests: Human Societies should not be given authority to seize animals

2009-10-08T13:16:00.000-07:00

Here 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!

Our Towns
A Case of Pet Care and Politics

By PETER APPLEBOME
Published: October 7, 2009
GARRISON, N.Y.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com

New Zealand: Supermarket chain bans shepherds from using dogs to help manage lambs

2009-09-29T06:08:00.000-07:00

New Zealand shepherds stop using dogs as stresses lambs
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.

By Harry Wallop and Matthew Moore
Published: 6:13PM BST 03 Apr 2009

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.

The shepherds have reacted with outrage, and claimed up to 60 dogs have now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

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.

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.

The supermarket wants the shepherds to wave their arms, beat sticks or wave flags, to move the sheep into the abattoir.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

The National Farmers' Union said that it was not aware of any research indicating that farm animals suffered stress because of sheepdogs.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Animal Rights group claiming not enough affection

2009-09-22T07:20:00.000-07:00

Animal 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.
(from Protesters dog Longwood greyhound-racing track)
"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."

Thousands of dollars are spent to transport 2 dogs

2009-09-22T07:05:00.000-07:00

Are 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!

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!!!

Pilots Fly Puppy Mill Pets To Safety
Volunteer Aviators Bring Dogs To New Home In Mass.

"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.

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".

Edwards hopes other pilots will follow his example and sign up to save shelter animals from being put to sleep."

MA: State plots dog surcharge

2009-09-22T06:59:00.000-07:00

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1198278&format=email
State plots dog surcharge
By Hillary Chabot and Benjamin Bell
Friday, September 18, 2009 - Updated 2m ago

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.
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.
“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).
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.
“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.”
Jehlen pointed out that the MSPCA and several dog kennels and purebred pooch clubs throughout the state support the bill.
But French bulldog owner Megan Doerrer said she’s tired of the dog pile of state fees and taxes.
“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.
Clerks from cities and towns also oppose the additional fee, saying the state is snatching even more money away after cutting local aid.
“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.
Pizer added that the state surcharge would deter many residents from licensing their dogs - a practice that is already a tough sell.
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 alone

Cass Sunstein- As Radical as they Come

2009-09-14T10:16:00.000-07:00

On 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!

What is so Radical about Sunstein?
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.
2. He believes we should all be vegetarians
3. He believes hunting should be banned

He represents a segment of society who feels that Americans should be regulated more! People like him should NOT be in government.

The American Conservative Union started a website Stop Sunstein - looks like it didn't help.

PA: Animal Welfare Debate Takes Center Stage

2009-08-26T09:13:00.000-07:00

Animal Welfare Debate Takes Center Stage
From: Lancaster Farming. Follow this link to the article
Submitted by Editor on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 11:25am.

Charlene M. Shupp
Espenshade
Special Sections Editor

HERSHEY, Pa. — The take-home message from last week’s Animal Welfare Forum was simple. Chad Gregory of the United Egg Producers and Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) agreed to disagree.

During the two-hour discussion, farmers, veterinarians and industry professionals heard Gregory and Shapiro discuss the impact of California’s Proposition 2 ballot initiative from 2009. This was the first time both have addressed a group jointly on animal agriculture production. The event was sponsored by PennAg Industries Association and the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association.

Last year, both sides spent millions of dollars to argue their viewpoints on the ballot initiative that would essentially eliminate gestation crates for swine, battery cages for chickens and crates for veal calves.

The question voters had to answer was this: “Should farm animals have the ability to stand up, sit down, turn around, and extend their limbs without touching anything?” Both sides built coalitions before the election to make their case. For Californians, the answer was a resounding “yes,” winning 63 to 37 percent.

Shapiro noted that the ballot garnered more “yes” votes than any other citizen initiative in California history and that it won majorities of all major demographics.
Gregory said the electorate did not understand what they were voting for, and Shapiro countered that the overwhelming support for the measure showed that, for the most part, it was an obvious choice.

The battle over animal welfare has gained momentum in several states in addition to California. In states where the issue was taken through the state legislature, Gregory said his organization has won because they have been able to use science to explain their side of the issue to legislators.

On the other hand, in states where the issue can be decided by a ballot initiative, HSUS has been successful.

Gregory asked this rhetorical question: If all the HSUS wanted to do was ban battery cages, why did they not simplify the language to reflect that? He believes it is so HSUS can expand the meaning of the law as it is implemented.

“We cannot feed these (additional) people without concentrated, commercial-sized farms,” said Gregory. “It’s impossible.” He noted that 95 percent of all egg production is in caged egg production facilities.

In trying to separate the differences between the two groups, Gregory said organizations like his represent “farmers who get dirt under their fingernails.”

Shapiro said that the strength of the HSUS comes from its membership, and that in a recent survey HSUS placed in the top 10 in brand recognition — the only group that did not represent a human welfare topic with that distinction. He also said 1 in 28 Americans support HSUS.

Consumers, Gregory believes, should be allowed to decide how their eggs are produced — caged, cage-free, or organic — at the grocery checkout line.

The egg industry saw welfare-driven production changes happening in Europe and decided to take a proactive approach to the issue. United Egg Producers (UEP) developed an animal welfare committee to craft a scientifically-based set of guidelines for the industry.

“We did not want the guidelines to be driven by government mandates and activist organizations,” said Gregory. “We wanted guidelines to prevent disruption in the industry.”

The program has requirements for space per bird, and also addresses molting, beak trimming and lighting. Participating farms must have 100 percent of their farm audited and file compliance reports.

“This program has incredible teeth, it has been very credible,” Gregory said, noting that 80 percent of farms are participating. Additionally, cage-free programs certified by UEP are also accredited by the American Humane Association.

Gregory challenged Shapiro, saying if HSUS and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) were “really interested in improving the welfare of chickens, they would go after the remaining 20 percent to get them into the program.”

Proposition 2, according to Shapiro, was grassroots driven with countless volunteers reaching out to their neighbors to share their concerns with the welfare of farm animals. Most states do not have laws on the books regarding animal welfare for livestock.

Both Gregory and Shapiro used science and research for their sides of the argument, in some cases using the same study to make their points.

According to Gregory, if cages were banned, the ramifications would include an increase of 15 million hens to produce the same number of eggs, a doubling of chicken mortality, and greater feed needs — to the tune of an additional one million acres of cropland for grain.

Both pointed to the economic study that says it costs one cent more per egg to move from caged to cage free production. Shapiro said that the costs to producers and consumers would not be much. Gregory said the study does not include the upfront investments that will be needed by farmers. He also noted the differences in store costs of more than a $1 dollar per dozen for eggs from cage-free hens and nearly $3 for organic compared to eggs from caged hens.

Both argued food safety points. Gregory used studies demonstrating that eggs produced in a cages system were safer. Shapiro pointed to studies showing the food safety benefits of cage-free.

Shapiro said that the egg industry only has to look to the broiler industry.

Broilers are raised on floors. He said the object of HSUS’s work is not to take farmers out of business.

“We’re not talking about making ideal living conditions for animals,” he said. “We are talking about raising the bar for animal welfare.”
Gregory concluded that Americans need to be careful in their choices because of the long-term effects. Looking to Europe, he said that consumers need to move forward with caution. Since many changes have come to regulations in the European Union, animal food production has been unable to keep pace with demand and those countries are on the verge of an egg shortage. To make up the difference, they will have to import eggs from countries that do not follow animal welfare standards.

Charlene Shupp Espenshade can be reached at cshupp.eph@lnpnews.com.

Sophie's (ur.... Wendy's) Choice- a modern day, dilemna of powerful forces enforcing personal agendas

2009-08-16T10:42:00.000-07:00

Sophie's Choice in Philadelphia
(author unknow at the moment- it will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)

Wendy Willard, a retired school teacher and MBH of the Murder Hollow Bassets, kennels her hounds in a barn near her house located inside a 340-acre nature preserve, the largest single privately-owned parcel of land within the city limits of Philadelphia.

On Monday, July 27, seven officers from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, the Philadelphia Police, and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA), in as many vehicles, staged a full-scale raid on Murder Hollow's kennels apparently in an unsuccessful search for an illegal dog breeding operation.

Murder Hollow had, at the time, ten and 1/2 couple of hounds, and Ms. Willard was additionally keeping two aged and retired bassets in her house. The Commonwealth Dog Law Enforcement officers found no illegal kennels under state law, and took their leave, but PSPCA "Humane Law Officers" accused Wendy Willard of being in violation of Philadelphia's Animal Control Code, which requires a waiver from the Department of Public Health for the keeping of more than 12 dogs or cats in "a residential dwelling unit."

Wendy Willard had found on her front door a card from PSPCA containing no message a few days prior to the raid. On Monday, the authorities arrived again and requested entry, then returned promptly equipped with a warrant after being initially turned away.

In subsequent reports by PSPCA, no mention of a search for a dog kennel violating state law, which according to Jessie Smith, Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, was the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement's basis for obtaining the search warrant used to gain entry to the Murder Hollow property, was ever made. The raid, featuring seven officers from three official organizations with five trucks and two police cars, according to PSPCA's later statements, was simply occasioned by a (never identified) neighbor complaining of dogs barking.

PSPCA Humane Officer Tara Loller proceeded to present Wendy Willard with the kind of cruel dilemma depicted in William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice. In the novel (made into a 1982 film starring Meryl Streep), a young Polish mother sent to Auschwitz is forced by a sadistic Nazi doctor to choose which of her two children she will be allowed to keep and which will be immediately gassed.

"They are my family," a distraught Willard said of her dogs,â€ reported the Philadelphia Daily News on August 7th.

Loller demanded that Wendy Willard immediately surrender eleven hounds, reducing the number on her property to twelve (and agree to have all but four of those remaining neutered), or Willard was warned, PSPCA would take all her hounds. "We can give you enough citations to take your house," the PSPCA officers boasted to Willard.

According to a one former PSPCA humane officer, quoted in a story in the Pocono Record last December, this kind of tactic is a standard part of PSPCA humane officer training statewide. "We were taught to intimidate people into giving their animals up. We were told to tell them "in lieu of charges, surrender your animals." Some former officers told the Record that they were given a quota of surrendered animals to fill, and that humane officers' annual bonus payments were dependent on meeting their quotas. In order to persuade animal owners to sign surrender documents, PSPCA Humane Officers are evidently not above lying.

Three of the hounds on Wendy Willard's property had come from the Sandanona Hare Hounds of Millbrook, New York. Sandanona's Master Betsy Park , specifically in order to avoid any of her hounds ever falling into the hands of an animal shelter, makes a policy of retaining title to any hounds drafted, given as stud fees, or retired from her pack. With any hound originating from Sandanona comes a contract requiring its return to Mrs. Park in the event that it can no longer be cared for at its new home. The PSPC A officers assured Wendy Willard that Betsy Park would be able to reclaim her hounds after their surrender. She would, naturally, have "first claim" to their new adoption. There was, of course, no truth whatsoever in those assurances, but they led Wendy Willard to believe that unlucky Sappho, Anxious, and Harlem would have a better chance of being recovered.

PSPCA, in the case of pedigreed dogs like the Murder Hollow Bassets, channels them into a breed-oriented rescue system, which houses them in private foster homes, and then distributes the basset hounds to new owners in exchange for a $200 adoption fee. Less desirable animals, "rescued" by PSPCA after a 72 hour hold time are simply euthanized.

PSPCA in its press releases has repeatedly claimed the eleven bassets taken had been transferred to foster care by a partner rescue organization. Apparently, however, this is not the case. I personally contacted basset rescue organizations last weekend, trying to identify the location of the seized hounds. The director of adoptions at the regional rescue organization told me he had been scheduled to receive 10 of the bassets taken from Murder Hollow, but that the transfer had been cancelled, and the hounds "frozen" and "locked down" in the PSPCA holding facility as "evidence" is a case now considered under dispute.

Evidently, either efforts by Sandanona to recover their three hounds, or discussion and criticism of the Murder Hollow raid on a variety of dog-breed-oriented bulletin boards on the Internet beginning about the same time early last week was deemed sufficient by PSPCA to cause the animal welfare organization to move to the defensive. As a news report on a similar PSPCA case observes, whenever there is a legal challenge to PSPCA, the confiscated animals become live evidence, and will be kept in storage cages for months, and sometimes years, while court cases drag on. Animals whose ownership is under dispute will not be transferred for adoption.

It may not be completely coincidental that the PSPCA additionally stopped applauding Wendy Willard for "working to clean and improve the kennels" or being "encouraged by her efforts," but instead was disappointed to find on upon its Friday, August 7th follow-up inspection that "overall living conditions remained poor" resulting in 11 citations for unsanitary conditions, 11 citations for lack of veterinary care and two tickets for barking.

The raid on the Murder Hollow kennels and PSPCA's policies, operations, and behavior in the present case have been widely criticized on the Internet and by field sports organizations rallying to Wendy Willard's defense.

William E. Bobbitt, Jr., president of the registry and organizational authority for hunting basset packs, wrote:
"Wendy Willard hasmaintained a pack of Basset Hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club of America since 1989. She frequently brings her hounds to the Institute Farm to compete in the Basset Pack Trials held there and her hounds are always fit and well cared for. In fact, she treats her hounds like family members. We want to support Wendy in her efforts to maintain the 6 couple of hounds that remain with her, but we also have great concern for the welfare of the hounds which were seized and taken.
There are Basset packs that are willing and anxious to take those hounds in and provide them with good hunting homes, which is what they are used to, and we hope that the PSPCA will cooperate in making these placements possible, instead of keeping the hounds confined in cages at a holding facility."

Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (USA, ret.), Executive Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association of America, the senior scenthound organization in the United States, called the PSPCA's actions "a travesty." He described the confiscation of Murder Hollow's hounds as "a classic example of a government agency going out of bounds." Foster dismissed the PSPCA's charges against Ms. Willard and described their subsequent handling of the Murder Hollow bassets as recognizable as the "behavior of people who do not understand hounds."
(This article will appear in the Chronical of the Horse on Friday)

PA- Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL

2009-08-04T11:13:00.000-07:00

Wilkes-Barre mayor wants BSL
A very determined young woman, Samantha Blum of Wilkes-Barre is working to try and prevent Wilkes-Barre's mayor, Thomas M. Leighton form gaining permission from Pennsylvania state legislators to ignore the statewide law disallowing municipalities in the state to enact BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). Leighton wants to create a law disallowing "vicious dogs" from roaming free in public parks.
The impetus behind Leighton's desire is because of two recent yet unrelated incidents at the county owned park known as River Common. On June 29 a man's small, leashed dog was attacked in the park by two loose dogs. The little one was injured to the point of needing euthanization.
On July 4, responding to a call of a dog running wild in River Common Park, police shot and killed a pit bull dog. With no owner in sight and the dog acting aggressively, a police officer shot the dog when it lunged at him.
This isn't the first time Leighton has attempted enacting BSL in Wilkes-Barre. In 2001, when Leighton was a member of city council, he pushed to ban pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Doberman Pinschers from city parks after authorities shot a pit bull during a raid at a Woodward Street home.
Again, in 2005, Leighton pushed new legislation to ban pit bulls from the entire city. At that time local police officials backed him, saying dogs were often kept by criminals, and were a danger to police officers. Both times it was Pennsylvania's law that prevented his efforts.
Blum is leading a campaign to oppose banning dog breeds from public parks stating â€œBreed-specific legislation is not the solution to a problem, but rather a means of punishing responsible pet owners and good dogs for the actions of a few dogs that were brought up in an inappropriate or abusive environment or improperly trained.â€
She is circulating petitions asking people to support the cause. She is asking all area residents to sign her petition which states BSL is wrong and asks for alternative changes in legislation like higher accountability of dog owners, public education and stricter enforcement of leash laws.
Copies of Blumâ€™s petition are available for the public to sign at the following area pet stores and grooming facilities:
Pet Supplies Plus, Scott Street
Tropic Pet Center, South Main Street
K9 Korner, Route 309;
Animal Buddies, East Walnut Street
Pet Wonderland, Blackman Street;
Pets-n-You, Kidder Street
Auntie Lizâ€™s Diamond in the Ruff, North Mountain Boulevard, Mountain Top
The entire petition is quoted below.
A Petition to Oppose Breed Ban in Wilkes-Barre
We, the undersigned, respectfully urge the city of Wilkes-Barre to seek alternate changes in legislation in regard to the proposed breed ban. We feel that the breed ban is drastic and unnecessary. We believe that there are other options available to consider that would be more effective in addressing this issue of the publicâ€™s safety brought about by the recent incidents of unleashed dogs and dog attacks.
This petition is to oppose the ban of any breed of dog. The recent incidents, however, were believed to have involved Pit Bulls, a breed that is often misidentified and because of such has received a negative connotation. The label of â€œPit Bullâ€ is often used incorrectly to generalize a large group of dogs/breeds that have similar physical characteristics of â€œPit Bullsâ€ but arenâ€™t in fact true Pit Bulls (e.g. American Bulldog, Boxer, Cane Corso, Tosa Inu etc.). The only breeds of dog to be true Pit Bulls are the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The APBT are a breed which is historically known to be extremely loyal, obedient, and friendly. How can breed specific legislation be implemented when the line between what is a Pit Bull and what looks like a Pit Bull is blurred to so many?
Although â€œPit Bullsâ€ are infamous for being involved in dog fights and for being very violent, these dogs are not innately driven to be vicious animals. Due to their large stature and strength these dogs, among with other dogs of various breeds and similar attributes, are being victimized and exploited for the sake of greed and a sort of twisted form of entertainment by those who are supposed to protect and care for these animals. These cases have not only hurt the animalâ€™s unfortunate enough to have been involved but have also given an unnecessarily bad reputation to the breed as a whole. Any breed of any animal can become violent if they are in an environment where theyâ€™re being mistreated or improperly trained.
As alternatives to the possible breed ban in the city of Wilkes-Barre, we propose higher accountability for not only pet owners but those interacting with these animals, as well as stricter enforcement of leash laws. It is important for the public to be educated about different breeds of dogs and to be informed and cautious if they encounter a stray, unleashed, or otherwise unaccompanied dog. People need not blindly fear any specific breed but rather have a rational understanding of possible dangers that could accompany any stray or wild animal. Better funding for local shelters can help educate the public and to control and care for the animal population. Animal shelters and rescue groups across the country are overcrowded and under funded and if this plan is put into effect it will create more problems than it solves by leaving more dogs without homes, especially those who are innocent and have been given the false label of â€œa bad dogâ€ or even â€œkillerâ€ based solely on their breed. All dogs are unique and we believe itâ€™s inhumane to hold such prejudice against an entire breed of dog as a basis for a proposed ban of the breed.
We live in an area (like many others) where we have had floods, drugs, murders, animal attacks, crimes against children, etc. and the public deserves to be and needs to be exposed to any threat or danger of any kind that may affect them in a way that informs not terrifies or causes panic. By affixing my signature, I would respectfully ask the city of Wilkes-Barre to review this petition, the support it shows, and consider favorably our proposal for alternative legislation.
So, any and all Wilkes-Barre residents who agree with Blum on the BSL issue please sign the petition and pass it to others. A copy of a printable form of the petition can be obtained from Blum by emailing her at Samantha.blum87@yahoo.com.
For any citizen who disagrees with BSL please contact Mayor Thomas M. Leighton at 570-208-4158 or email him at: cityhall@wilkes-barre.pa.us, letters can be addressed to him at: Wilkes-Barre City Hall, 40 East Market Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711
Please be respectful when contacting the mayor as anything less would negate the seriousness of your message. It is imparative the mayor hears from the public so kindly let him know if you are against BSL.
If you like what you've read from the Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner, consider subscribing; it's FREE and you will receive an email with every newly published article. Your privacy is fully respected and your email address and information is kept private.
Follow Philadelphia Dog Advocate Examiner on Twitter

Sources: Woman wants dogs to remain in parks
Wilkes-Barre police shoot, kill pit bull running loose on River Common
Reaction after pit bull shooting
Wilkes-Barre, PA: City to ask legislature for ability to pass BSL
Woman in favor of dog breed ban in park

Other info: Pit Bulls in America

PA: Shelters claim "too many dogs"- but import dogs from West Virginia

2009-07-29T08:34:00.000-07:00

Coming forth to carry them home
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden

Inquirer Staff Writer

Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.

The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.

These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.

Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.

In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.

It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.

"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."

*

Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.

But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.

Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.

A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.

"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.

Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.

Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.

There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.

Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.

Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.

Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.

"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."

*

Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.

"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.

An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."

Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.

The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.

A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.

Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.

The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.

"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.

The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.

*

Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.

The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.

"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."

Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.

After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.

On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.

It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.

After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.

*

On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.

It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.

Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.

"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."

Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.

OH- There is still time to comment on HB 124

2009-07-27T10:11:00.000-07:00

House Bill 124 was heard by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. No action was taken on the bill. Additionally, Senate Bill 95, HB 124's companion, was temporarily sidelined while the Senate dealt with Ohio's budget crisis. However, since Governor Strickland signed a new budget into law on Friday, July 17th, the AKC expects developments regarding these bills soon.

Take advantage of this additional comment period. Don't delay- contact your Law Maker Today!!!

NC- Bad bill likely to return this week

2009-07-27T10:04:00.000-07:00

From AKC

Senate Bill 460

a bill that seeks to unnecessarily regulate the operations of dog breeders in North Carolina remains under consideration in the state Senate. The AKC believes the bill is likely to be scheduled for consideration by the full Senate as early as This Tuesday. With your help and participation over the next several days, we can prevent this bill from passing the Senate, and we can kill this bill for the remainder of the year.

The American Kennel Club and the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs continue to oppose SB 460. The state Department of Agriculture does not support this bill. Your Senators need to hear that you, their constituents, also oppose this bill.

We have already made a difference. Thanks to the calls and letters that you sent to North Carolina Senators early this month, the Senate delayed voting on the bill on July 8. We are now approaching the end of the session, and it is imperative that we send the message once again that responsible dog owners and breeders oppose this onerous, unnecessary, and expensive legislation.

Problematic provisions of SB 460 include the following:

•Vague definition of "commercial breeder". Commercial breeder" is defined as someone who owns 15 or more intact females "of breeding age" and 30 or more puppies." It is unclear if these numbers refer to the number of dogs on the property at one time, or if this is cumulative over the course of a year. The bill makes a special exception for some kennels or establishments that operate for the purpose of boarding or training certain dogs. However, it is unclear if breeders who also train and sell puppies are exempt from the licensing requirement.

•Inspections of private property at any time. The bill allows law enforcement and local animal control to search the homes and private property at any time of day or night of anyone who falls under the definition of "commercial breeder".

•Allowing for seizure of animals for those who do not comply with the new regulations—with no opportunity to come into compliance. If a commercial breeder is unlicensed, animals will be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment and may be sold or euthanized. The AKC believes that breeders should be given the opportunity to come into compliance with the law.

•Directive for the NC Department of Agriculture to develop standards of care with no public input. SB 460 calls for the Department of Agriculture to develop care and condition policies for dogs belonging to commercial breeders. This does not allow for any input from dog breeders and others who are experts in animal care.
Senate Bill 460 will do nothing to address irresponsible breeding, consumer protection, or cruelty/negligence, but it will cost the state over $400,000 a year to enforce. At a time when our state is facing a projected $4 billion budget gap, enforcement of existing laws would be a better use of taxpayers’ money.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Contact your Senators, identify yourself as a constituent (tell them the town you live in), tell them you oppose SB 460, and respectfully urge them to also oppose this bill. We ask that should you decide to e-mail, you also call their offices.

See links below for assistance in contacting your Senator.

To find your Senator, visit the North Carolina General Assembly web site and type your zip code in the "Who Represents Me?" box on the right side of the page.

View basic phone scripts for breeders and fanciers.

Click here for a sample letter to personalize.

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

DE- Bills Target Dog Licensing, Housing and Tethering

2009-07-27T06:32:00.000-07:00

Delaware Bills Target Dog Licensing, Housing and Tethering
Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 4:32 p.m., EDT

Delaware legislators have passed a measure that seeks to transfer control of the management of dog licenses from the state to individual counties. Legislators are also reconsidering laws that govern primary enclosures for dogs and tethering.

Under House Bill 233, which was recently passed by both the state House of Representatives and Senate, each county would be responsible for issuing the various dog licenses. Currently, dog licenses are issued by the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

The bill grants the counties the authority to determine license fees, appoint licensing agents, enact rules and regulations regarding licensing and provide applications for the following:

•Individual dog owner licenses
•Retail dog outlet licenses
•Kennel licenses
A “retail dog outlet” is defined as “any premise where dogs are sold, offered or maintained for sale, on a retail basis.”

Those who fail to obtain the appropriate dog license would be subject to a fine of at least $50.

The bill, which has been sent to the governor to be signed, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2010.

Click here to view HB 233.

In addition, Delaware legislators have introduced a measure that sets forth amendments pertaining to primary enclosures and tethering.

House Bill 293 establishes a formula for calculating the proper enclosure size for housing a dog. The required floor space is equal to: (length of dog in inches + 6) x (length of dog in inches + 6) x 2.

Size requirements do not apply to:

•Any dog temporarily kept in a smaller enclosure for purposes such as crate training, transportation, or pursuant to a veterinarian’s order.
.
•Any office of a licensed veterinarian.
.
•Any temporary kennel facility where dogs are kept for grooming, boarding, training or other purposes for less than two consecutive weeks (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
.
•A licensed retail dog outlet where dogs are kept on display to patrons of the retail dog outlet during its normal business hours (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
The proposed measure also sets forth instances in which wire flooring may be used in primary enclosures.

HB 293 provides more detailed requirements for the tethering of dogs. The tether would have to be a minimum of either 10 feet-long or three times the length of the dog (which ever is shortest) and allow the dog convenient access to shade, shelter, food and spill-proof water containers.

Tethering would be prohibited under the following circumstances:

•If the tether and/or related attachment(s) is not appropriate for the animal’s weight.
.
•If the tether is attached by means of a pinch-type, prong-type, or choke-type collar, or if the collar is unsafe, or is not properly fitted.
.
•If the tether inhibits the animal’s free movement or causes injury or entanglement.
.
•If a dog is less than four months of age.
.
•Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; unless the tether is used for less than a 15 minute period of time.

Quote of the Day

2009-07-22T07:11:00.000-07:00

"Clever crooks seize power by small steps so as not to waken the populace before the time is right to put their plans into effect. Americans, or some Americans, are witnessing that now." Dorothy A. Seese, 2005

(disclaimer:Dorothy Seese is Not and AR activist (that I know of) and this quote was Not a direct reference to the AR agenda)

Act Now: Ask your Senator to stop Sunstein's nomination for Regulatory Czar

2009-07-22T06:00:00.000-07:00

Radical Animal Rights Attorney Cleared
To Become Obama’s Regulatory Czar

Dog Owners, Hunters, Farmers Urged To Ask
Their Senators To Stop Sunstein Nomination

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

WASHINGTON (July 21, 2009) – Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has lifted his “hold” blocking the nomination of Harvard Law School scholar and animal rights legal strategist Cass Sunstein for the post of regulatory czar in the Administration of his close personal friend, President Barack Obama.

Sen. Chambliss had blocked the nomination based on concerns of farm groups because of Sunstein’s strong animal rights beliefs, including support of stringent regulation of people who raise animals and a ban on hunting. Last week, however, Chambliss met with Sunstein and announced on the Senate floor that he had lifted the hold on the nomination. The Senator added that the way is now clear for the U.S. Senate to confirm Sunstein before its August recess.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all dog owners, hunters, firearms rights advocates, farmers and civil libertarians to take immediate action by urging the U.S. Senate to reject the Sunstein nomination to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House. Taking action now is of the utmost urgency.
Sunstein has the strong support of the Humane Society of the United States, which is the political arm of the radical animal rights movement, according to a July 15 statement by HSUS Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian in The Huffington Post. Referring to the regulations to implement the federal Animal Welfare Act, and new rules about animal fighting and importing dogs, Markarian wrote: “These kinds of legal changes are precisely why Americans need a regulatory czar like Cass Sunstein in charge of OIRA -- to make sure the federal agencies properly implement regulations to enforce these new laws.”
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) “reviews and alters regulations created by federal agencies,” according to Congress Daily.

Sunstein, who has published 15 books, would have broad powers to review, recommend changes and possibly engineer changes in all federal regulations, including those about dog ownership, farming, hunting on federal lands, and enforcement of gun control laws.

In his published writings and speeches, Sunstein has advocated:

· Giving animal rights groups the power to file lawsuits on the behalf of animals against their owners.

· Very strict regulations about animal ownership, farming and hunting.

· The elimination of hunting.

· The elimination of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

· Moving toward a vegan vegetarian society.

· Rewriting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

· And restrictions on free speech.

Each of those assertions will be documented later in this report by direct quotations from Sunstein’s published books and speeches.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes Sunstein would have a severely negative impact on dog owners, farmers, hunters, gun owners and civil libertarians – Indeed, to all Americans!

This is underscored by Sunstein’s status as a close personal friend and advisor to President Obama since they met in 1992, when Sunstein taught law at the University of Chicago. This will give Sunstein unprecedented influence and access to the President.

It is further underscored by numerous mainstream reports that Sunstein is slated to be President Obama’s next nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. This adds to the urgency of convincing the Senate that Sunstein’s beliefs are un-American and in direct contradiction to the basic principles outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Although Sunstein’s nomination had been blocked by Sen. Chambliss until last week, Government Executive reported that he actually has been working at the job in the White House on a daily basis.
Sunstein’s potential use of power – and potential abuse of power – has been increased because President Obama redefined the role of OIRA shortly after taking office. The Wall Street Journal reported July 6: “In a significant, but little noticed, memo written 10 days after taking office, Mr. Obama ordered up a rewrite of how OIRA goes about its work, the first such revision since 1993. ‘Far more is now known about regulation -- not only when it is justified, but also what works and what does not,’ the president wrote. A regulatory review would make use of new tools and would ‘clarify the role of the behavioral sciences in formulating regulatory policy.’ "
The Wall Street Journal called the OIRA “obscure but powerful.”
The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that Sunstein will use this position to influence President Obama’s directives to all federal agencies on how to write, interpret and enforce all federal regulations. This includes regulations about agriculture, raising animals, hunting on public lands, and gun law enforcement and procedures. This is a dangerous power to be held by someone of Sunstein’s clearly radical and unconstitutional beliefs.
Thus, we are urging every American to immediately contact both of his or her U.S, senators, and as many other senators as possible, to urge them to vote against the Sunstein nomination.
This link will provide a search engine to locate each state’s senators, and an alphabetical list of the senators to link to contact information: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. Each state has two U.S. Senators who represent all of the citizens of that state.
We recommend at least two forms of contact: Send an email as a first step, plus also send a letter or fax, and/or make a phone call. Please do this immediately, as a Senate confirmation vote could come at any moment.
In addition, please send this report to all of your friends and contacts and ask them to help, and post it on any message boards that you use. Also, please write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and any other papers you read.
Here are some direct quotes from Sunstein to illustrate our concern:
1. "We ought to ban hunting"
- Cass Sunstein, in a 2007 speech at Harvard University

2. “We should focus attention not only on the enforcement gap, but on the areas where current law offers little or no protection. In short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering. It is easy to imagine a set of initiatives that would do a great deal here, and indeed European nations have moved in just this direction. There are many possibilities.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago

3. “…(R)epresentatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that
anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. If, for example, a farm is treating
horses cruelly and in violation of legal requirements, a suit could be brought, on behalf of those animals, to bring about compliance with the law.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of Chicago

4. “But if, as a practical matter, animals used for food are almost inevitably going to endure terrible suffering, then there is a good argument that people should not eat meat to the extent that a refusal to eat meat will reduce that suffering. Of course a legal ban on meat-eating would be extremely radical, and like prohibition, it would undoubtedly create black markets and have a set of bad, and huge, side-effects. But the principle seems clear: People should be much less inclined to eat meat if their refusal to do so would prevent significant suffering.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago

5. “Less modestly, anticruelty laws should be extended to areas that are now exempt from
them, including scientific experiments and farming. There is no good reason to permit the
level of suffering that is now being experienced by millions, even billions of living
creatures.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer,” John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 157, The Law School, The University of
Chicago

6. “Everything depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses.”
--Cass R. Sunstein, Martha C. Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2004). P. 12

7. “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not
necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
--Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,
Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

8. “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the
community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes
there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth
defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without
placing any burden whatsoever on the public … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes,” The Chicago
Tribune, April 14, 1999

9. “Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”
-- Cass R. Sunstein, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and
Why We Need it More Than Ever, Basic Books, New York, 2004, p. 3

10. “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right,
then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an
individual right to bear arms.”
- Cass Sunstein, writing in his book, “Radicals in Robes”

11. “…[T]he Second Amendment seems to specify its own purpose, which is to protect the"well regulated Militia." If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (as Burger
believed), then we might speculate that it safeguards not individual rights but federalism.”
-- Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review, November
12, 2007

12. In his 2004 book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, Sunstein claims that “citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government.”
Those views are why the American Sporting Dog Alliance adamantly opposes the Sunstein nomination. His track record is frighteningly consistent.
Thank you for helping.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

PA- Wilkes-Barre Mayor Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance- while not enforcing regulations already in place

2009-07-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

OUR OPINION: CITY DOG PROBLEM

July 10

Rein in owners as well as pets

IF WILKES-BARRE outlaws what society considers bully dogs, then only outlaws will own them.

The play on the gun-control cliche� applies here. Consider this: Is it realistic, practical and fair to enact and enforce an all-out ban on pets like pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds and Dobermans from the city?

Of course not. Most dogs of size do not pose a danger, and the city doesn’t have the resources to police what dogs should be banned.

The issue, raised by Mayor Thomas Leighton, was prompted by last week’s mauling of a pet dog by vicious, off-the-leash pit bulls at the newly christened River Common park off River Street. Five days later a city police officer fatally shot a pit bull near the park when the dog charged at him.

For the third time in eight years, Leighton is seeking a more stringent dog ordinance, this time calling for a change in state law that would give municipalities power to enact measures aimed at certain breeds.

One immediate and realistic remedy is for the city to increase animal enforcement patrols. Picking up loose dogs has a twofold advantage: It targets violating owners while reducing the roaming dog population.

What happened last week to the small pet was horrible and sad, but the grim reality is another ordinance would not have protected it. The free-running dogs were already in violation of city and county regulations because they weren’t leashed. The violation carries a fine of up to $1,000 set by a district judge, according to the mayor’s office.

Banning breeds is problematic. For starters, “pit bull” is a term commonly used to describe several breeds of dogs, including breeds that are rarely listed by name in legislation. And how will police make the distinction when a mutt takes on the broad and muscular appearance of a purebred that’s part of its lineage?

Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.

The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.

We applaud the mayor’s passion. We hope he will parlay it into creative enforcement and upgraded fines.

Outlawing breeds, on the other hand, is likely to breed more outlaws.

Compelling pet owners to act responsibly is certainly a good, pro-active measure. Owners must control their pets, keeping them clear of people and other animals.

The mayor said he will review dog fines and consider increasing the cost of breaking the law. Making irresponsibility expensive is a step in the right direction.

http://www.timeslea der.com/opinion/ Rein_in_owners_ as_well_as_ pets_07-10- 2009.html

MN- Hero Complex

2009-07-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

Animal rescuers go to great lenghts to save doomed dogs
by Bob Shaw

To Jimmie Williams, the pickup truck looked like salvation on wheels.

"There they are! I can see 'em!" he shouted as the truck pulled into a parking lot.

Out tumbled three dogs, bedraggled after their three-day journey. Saved from being euthanized in Kentucky, they sniffed around the legs of their rescuers, looking a little confused.

"I can't tell you how good this feels," said Williams, who was delighted to be adopting a rescued dog.

The trip was another small triumph for a new — and controversial — transportation system for animals.

In only a few years, the network has sprung up, saving thousands of dogs and cats from euthanasia in states that can't — or won't — support their own animal-welfare systems.

Supporters call it a new "underground railway." And like the transportation system that saved slaves in the 19th century, this one runs only one direction — from south to north.

It can involve truck caravans carrying up to 100 dogs. Or it can include a 900-mile airplane relay from Virginia to Minnesota to save a single cat, as happened June 25.

The flow into Minnesota is swelling rapidly — despite the fact that this state kills more than 20,000 of its own dogs and cats every year.

"This is compassion run amok," said Lynae Gieseke, director of the Minnesota Valley Humane Society.

Critics say the volunteers want to feel like heroes by making 11th-hour cross country rescues — when they could be saving animals in their own local shelters.

"This is like a mental illness in the animal-welfare community," said Mike Fry, manager of the Animal Ark No-Kill Shelter in Hastings. "We have a huge problem in shelters here. Why would you bring in any more dogs? We are oversaturated with dogs."

"It is crazy — it is insane. I don't get it," said Laura Johnson, president of the cat-rescue group SCRAM. "We have so many here who need help."

Even as they are swept up in the thrill of their missions, some volunteers wonder about the wisdom of what they are doing.

"It does seem odd to transport into a state that euthanizes. Maybe we should get our own house in order first," said Pete Howell, of Falcon Heights, who has flown his airplane on two missions to rescue two dogs.

"My attitude is: I am going to go flying anyway, so I might as well help."

CRIES FOR HELP

An animal's ticket to salvation begins on the Internet.

Of the estimated 4 million dogs and cats euthanized annually in America, a lucky few are targeted to be rescued, shortly before their deaths.

The dozens of transport groups often focus on certain breeds, as with the Chihuahua Rescue Transport or Dalmatian Overland Transport Service. Others help dogs of any breed, such as the Petsmart-sponsored Rescue Waggin' and the Georgia Puppy Pipeline.

The pleas for help often have a desperate tone, as shown in typical e-mails from June:

* "Jack will DIE at 4PM unless saved!" said one e-mail from Franklin, Ga., concerning a Labrador. "Hennessy (a collie) will DIE TODAY AT 4PM UNLESS SAVED AS THE SHELTER IS TOTALLY FULL!"

* "I am begging ... PLEASE someone step forward and help. ... This boy's eyes speak only of sadness and betrayal," said one plea from Raleigh, N.C., on behalf of a boxer.

* From Bowling Green, Ky.: "Shelter is desperately overcrowded, and euthing (sic) hundreds of animals for space. ... They DO NOT WANT to kill, they need rescue help NOW!"
Big-hearted animal-lovers respond.

They work with groups like Save Our Strays, which moved 15,000 unwanted dogs out of Missouri from 1998 to 2006.

After that, group founder Connie Guthrie moved to Oklahoma — and now Oklahoma is a source of dogs bound for Minnesota.

"We are very, very blessed to have Minnesota helping us," Guthrie said. "To give these dogs another chance is remarkable."

Local groups organize their own rescues, as Minnesota Boxer Rescue, of Woodbury, did in June. The group saves only boxers — and responded to an e-mail about three of them in Kentucky.

On June 28, Jon Wiswell, of Minneapolis, volunteered to drive from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis, the final leg of a relay to save three dogs. "If I were in their position, I would want someone to do that for me," Wiswell said.

Sometimes pilots respond. A South Carolina-based group called Pilots N Paws started 18 months ago — and has already made 1,000 flights to rescue animals.

The group's flight log shows that a paralyzed kitten was flown June 21 from Fremont, Mich., to Wichita, Kan. On May 11, two pit bulls — a breed often euthanized in Minnesota — were flown from Greenville, S.C., to Milaca, Minn.

Co-founder Debi Boies is looking forward to the "Pilots N Paws 5000" — with a goal of airlifting 5,000 animals in one week, Sept. 12-20.

Boies said gleefully: "Are we crazy people or what?"

TROUBLED TRIP

Some rescues end in sadness.

Last summer, volunteers from Puppy Porch, a St. Paul rescue group, heard about a troubled shelter in California about to euthanize about 100 dogs.

Why can't a state as big as California take care of its own dogs?

In fact, board member Britt Gage said, five rescue groups in California were offering to help. But the Puppy Porch volunteers wanted to save the dogs themselves.

"We approve of rescues, period. We do not care who is rescued, or how," Gage said. "We want to save every life, here or in California." The group has rescued animals as far away as the island of St. Maarten in the Caribbean.

When the Minnesota rescuers arrived in California, some dogs were sick. About 11 died after the group arrived. Some dogs remained behind, and 75 were loaded aboard three vans.

Seventeen more died during the cross country trek or shortly afterward.

Gage said that in Minnesota, the group spent "thousands" on medical care for the dogs. "We thought they had all been vaccinated. They came down with an illness we were not familiar with," she said.

"We did the best we could."

DEMAND FOR DOGS

The Animal Humane Society joined the system this year. So far, it has accepted 400 dogs from other states.

The society is Minnesota's largest animal-welfare agency, with an $11 million annual budget and five locations.

Giving a tour of the society's complex in Golden Valley, Director Janelle Dixon gingerly opened a door with a sign saying, "Hearing protection recommended." Inside was a new batch of dogs from Oklahoma.

"Yesterday, we got in 34," Dixon shouted over the barking.

Dixon said more dogs do not mean more euthanasia — at least within the Animal Humane Society's system. She said the demand for dogs to adopt is high. A dog typically has to wait only three days in the society's kennels once it is cleared for adoption.

She said about 4 percent of the imported dogs are euthanized. The rest are adopted or are expected to be adopted quickly.

"We have a demand for dogs here. Where are people going to go? Pet stores? Puppy mills?" Dixon said.

"Doesn't it make sense to bring dogs from states where they aren't wanted into states where they are?"

Dixon showed off the spotless surgery rooms, where the society performs some of its 14,000 sterilizations a year.

Of the 10,000 dogs admitted each year, about 42 percent are euthanized — below the national rate of about 50 percent.

Like every shelter, she said, the Animal Humane Society kills only animals that are too sick or dangerous to be adopted.

No dogs, she said, are killed because of the interstate imports.

HERO COMPLEX

Other animal-welfare groups say that claim is short-sighted.

"For every dog brought in, there is a Minnesota dog euthanized because it could not find a home," said the Minnesota Valley Humane Society's Gieseke.

"It is just much more cool to save the life of a dog from Kentucky than to adopt one here."

Critics of the Animal Humane Society say it could adopt out many of the dogs and cats it kills — by spending more money to cure diseases or working harder to solve behavior problems.

Said Animal Ark's Fry: "We have a very large, very wealthy Animal Humane Society painting a pretty picture of Minnesota.

"They want people to think animals here are safe. If they were not killing those dogs for bogus reasons, they would not be able to take in those dogs from other states."

Cheryl Anderson, a volunteer with Minnesota Boxer Rescue, said that when the Animal Humane Society gets ready to euthanize dogs, it doesn't plead for help from local rescue groups — at least, not the way out-of-state groups send impassioned cries for help.

So volunteers rescue animals they do learn about, from other states.

Gieseke said the surge of animals being brought to Minnesota is partly because of another overpopulation problem — of rescue groups. Petfinder.com lists more than 180 in Minnesota. When those groups can't find local dogs to save, Gieseke said, they look to other states.

She said the only long-term solution to pet overpopulation is a nationwide spay and neuter program.

"You see all these desperate e-mails from Georgia or California. Might their time be better spent trying to sterilize more animals in their states?" Gieseke said.

She sees the same herocomplex phenomenon when a puppy mill is shut down, the dogs are confiscated, and the stories are told by local news outlets. Calls pour into her office from people wanting those dogs — while ignoring hundreds of others.

"I say: 'Wait a minute. Were you planning to add a dog to your family? Or does this just give you a good story to tell?' " Gieseke said.

FINDING A HOME

On a Sunday evening in June, Williams waited with a group of people outside a McDonald's Restaurant in Minneapolis for the delivery of dogs from Kentucky.

"It breaks your heart when you see these dogs online," said Megan Tholl, of Woodbury, as she ate a fish sandwich at a picnic table.

Finally, the pickup truck pulled in. The pitiful dogs climbed out. Eight people watching made a single sound in unison: "Awww ..."

Williams took an instant liking to his new dog, Tacoma. It took only a few licks in the face for Williams to start with the baby talk. "Oooh, oooh, you little kisser, you," he cooed to the dog.

Williams climbed into a car with his partner, Ron Snell, and they headed to their Minneapolis home.

"He needs a bath," Williams shouted out the window. His words were interrupted by licks on his face. "But he's giving me a bath!"

One badly starved dog looked like a skeleton in a pillowcase. "God, you can see every single bone," whispered driver Jon Wiswell.

He stroked the dog's scrawny back, and the dog looked up at him gratefully. "How could you say no to this face?" Wiswell said.

Bob Shaw can be reached at 651-228-5433.

1ST

U.S. rank in dog and cat populations among all countries, with 145 million total

17,000

Animals euthanized annually by Twin Cities animal shelters

15,000

Dogs shipped to northern states from Missouri by a single rescue group from 1998 to 2006.

42 PERCENT

Share of dogs euthanized by Animal Humane Society, of Golden Valley, compared with about 56 percent nationally.

70 PERCENT

Share of U.S. cats admitted to shelters that are euthanized

Sources: National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, Humane Society of the U.S., Mapsoftheworld.com

AL- Three Dog Limit?

2009-07-20T13:06:00.000-07:00

Three Dog Limit?
July 17, 2009 - 4:12 PM | by: Brooks Blanton

When it comes to man's best friend, how many is too many? Cities and towns across the country struggle with how to balance the rights of pet owners with their neighbors who complain about too many dogs. Many cities have recently enacted or are currently considering ordinances that would limit the number of pets per household within city limits, unless the owner applies for a special license. Earlier this month the Reading, Pennsylvania City Council set the pet limit to six. In May the Village of Wheeling, Illinois recently said four was enough and the city of San Marcos, Texas was a little more generous saying four dogs or a combination of seven dogs and cats was plenty of pets for one house.

The City of Jacksonville, Alabama recently considered an ordinance that would put a three pet limit on any homes inside the city. Some homes housed at least 15 dogs and last year one home was found to have 34 dogs inside. While a few houses seemed to be bursting at the seams with dogs and cats and their neighbors complained loudly, the mayor asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance limiting the number of pets to three.

"It's a really tough issue because it's one of those things where your rights end and mine begin," said Jacksonville Mayor Johnny L. Smith. "People have a right to have dogs and we don't want to limit that. Their neighbor has the right to be comfortable on their premises as well."

Public meetings filled up after word got out that the council was considering a cap similar to those found in other Alabama cities. Some residents who owned just a few pets joined those who had several, to let the council know how they felt about the idea.

"The government's got no right to tell me how many dogs I can have," one angry dog owner told the city council. "This is a free country and that's what it's based on."

Many residents who own more than the proposed limit say as long as they take care of their animals, the city shouldn't limit how many they can have. Others saw the proposed ordinance as a big-brother style government intrusion on rights. But Kurt and Jill Turner, who live next to a house with at least 15 dogs, see it differently.

"There's an old saying," Kurt Turner, a city firefighter, told the council and fellow residents at a July meeting. "Trouble isn't trouble isn't trouble until trouble is at home. And this is at my home."

The Turners say city residents who opposed the ordinance should try living next to the noise and smell that comes along with 15 dogs in one yard. They say simple pleasures of home ownership, like kids playing in the backyard or cookouts, is not possible when you have foul smells and constant barking coming over the fence.

"I would like to invite any of you to come over and have an evening on our back porch without gagging or puking," Jill Turner said as she addressed the crowd. "We've complained to the police, we have made informational reports with the street department, the dog catcher."

Despite the Turner's comments, city leaders killed the idea this week. But they warn this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time they have to deal with too many dogs and cats. Mayor Smith says it's one of the most prominent issues that small and medium sized cities struggle with and says he won't be surprised if the Jacksonville City Council to deal with houses overrun by cats and dogs again.

"When you buy a home you need to be comfortable when you walk into your back yard as well," Smith says. "Too much government restricts folks, but if it interferes with other's peoples rights then maybe we're going to have to do something."

Il- Effingham County Committee discusses fines for loose dogs

2009-07-17T13:26:00.000-07:00

Committee discusses fines for loose dogs

Bill Grimes
Effingham Daily News

Effingham County officials are considering changes to the county’s animal control ordinance.

“It’s been brought up quite a bit over the past year,” said State’s Attorney Ed Deters at Monday’s meeting of the Legislative Committee of the county board.

The current county ordinance allows a $35 fine for those who let their dogs run loose. Deters said he wasn’t sure an increase in fines would make a difference.

“I question whether raising fines would make dog owners more responsive,” he said. “Fines should serve as an incentive to keep dogs chained or fenced. But I question whether the amount of the fine would have the desired effect.”

Deters said the key conflict was between dog owners who are accustomed to have their canines run free and athletic types — such as joggers and cyclists — who are increasingly taking to rural roads for their workouts.

“We are a rural community where a lot of people have dogs in the country and don’t necessarily keep them fenced in,” he said. “But we have a growing bicycling crowd, as well.”

Board member Mark Percival said the growth of rural subdivisions is also a factor in increased dog-human interaction.

“Where you have people, dogs and roads, there’s a conflict,” Percival said.

Deters said one thing the new ordinance should have is some sort of incentive for pet owners to spay and neuter their dogs. Nick Antonacci, an intern in Deters’ office, said his study showed most dog bites are caused by male dogs who have not been neutered.

Deters said any increase should be in the form of a range. For example, he noted Fulton County fines its animal control offenders anywhere from $50 to $500.

Other options include mandatory microchipping of dogs for identification purposes.

Deters said he would report back to the board by the Sept. 21 meeting. Board Chairwoman Carolyn Willenburg said there would likely be a public informational meeting before the board took any action.

Also Monday, the committee recommended signing a letter of intent with the Effingham Water Authority to lease a plot of land at the corner of Beach and Marina roads in the Lake Sara area of rural Effingham. The land would be the new home of the county’s Dive-Rescue Team.

The committee also agreed to recommend ratification of contracts with the Fraternal Order of Police and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. FOP represents sheriff’s deputies, while AFSCME represents other sheriff’s department personnel.

Sheriff John Monnet said both contracts would provide union members with 3 percent annual raises. The FOP deal is for three years, while the AFSCME deal is for two.

Also Monday, the committee recommended appointment of board members Percival, Larry Vahling and Jim Reeves to the county’s new Economic Development Committee. Several non-board members will be appointed later.

The committee also recommended more board members serve on the county’s Tax & Finance Committee. Tax & Finance Chairman Vahling said he’d like to see up to five board members on that committee.

“We just feel we need more board involvement to provide more oversight to the committee,” he said.

The Legislative Committee also recommended a number of appointments Monday, including William McClain, Effingham Civic Foundation; Dr. Henry Poterucha, Andrew Grunloh, Shirley Muchow and Dorothy Behrns to the Health Department Board; and Barb Utz to the 708 Mental Health Board.

Bill Grimes can be reached at 217-347-7151 ext. 132 or bill.grimes@effinghamdailynews.com.

NC- McDowell County approves new animal ordinance

2009-07-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

County approves new animal ordinance

By Mike Conley | The McDowell News
Published: July 14, 2009
After months of discussion and listening to different viewpoints, the McDowell County Commissioners adopted a new animal ordinance at their regular Monday meeting.
The new rules, which become effective Aug. 13, were approved by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Michael Lavender voted against adopting the new ordinance.
The decision to make the rules effective on Aug. 13 will give officials time to post the changes on the county's Web site. The animal control officers will come under the Sheriff's Office while the operation of the animal shelter remains under the Public Works Department.

The revised 12-page ordinance requires local people to give their pets an adequate shelter, food, water and humane treatment. It covers how animals should be treated, the keeping of dangerous ones, how animals should be confined, rabies control, the unlawful killing of animals, the euthanization of feral dogs and cats and what to do with stray or abandoned ones. It does not require people to get their animals spayed and neutered. It also has rules for the keeping of exotic animals in McDowell County.
It replaces the old ordinance previously on the books and would give animal control officers an important tool as they do their jobs.

The new rules require owners or keepers of an animal to provide adequate food, water, shelter and humane treatment. The ordinance also applies to people who engage in dog fighting, cock fighting or any other combat between animals or animals and humans. Those activities are already prohibited in McDowell County. But the ordinance makes it unlawful for a person to possess any materials used in animal fighting or the training for animal fighting.

The new rules also prohibit the owners or keepers from abandoning an animal, except for when they are taken to the county's animal shelter during normal business hours. Persons also cannot transport any animal in an automobile or trailer in such a way that would cause pain, suffering or death.

The adopted ordinance creates a dangerous canine appeals board, which will consist of five members appointed from the county's Planning Board. This new board will hear and determine all appeals from the owners of such animals. If an animal control officer has determined that a dog is dangerous and should be euthanized, then the owner can appeal this decision to the newly created board.

At Monday's meeting, the commissioners deleted a $500 fine that could be assessed against violators of the ordinance. The highest fine that can be imposed is $200.
After months of work, the McDowell County Planning Board presented in March a revised animal ordinance to the County Commissioners.
"I appreciate our Planning Board," said Commission Chairman David Walker. "They spent five to six months working on this document. Chairman Max Boyd and his group did an outstanding job. Everybody's viewpoint was heard and examined."

Last month, the commissioners held a special workshop meeting so they could listen to different opinions. About 15 people showed up to attend the workshop meeting.
The commissioners listened to representatives from local animal welfare groups who asked that the ordinance contain more rules about inhumane tethering and specifications for a proper shelter. They also heard comments from residents who are opposed to the county placing more rules on property owners. Under North Carolina law, animals are considered property.

Several local animal welfare advocates asked county officials to consider rules that would ban the inhumane tethering of animals, especially dogs. They feel that animals should not be left tied up in someone's back yard without shelter. Tethered dogs can have behavioral problems and the practice could be considered inhumane, they said.
The adopted ordinance states, "It shall be unlawful to tether an animal to a stationary object under conditions that Animal Control Officer(s) deem harmful or potentially harmful to the animal."

Under the new ordinance, McDowell County will provide a manual of best practices for the proper tethering of animals. These will be guidelines for pet owners to follow. They won't be rules that can be enforced by animal control officers.

Under the new rules, every person who owns any pen, lot, kennel, shelter or other place where animals are kept shall maintain them in a sanitary and humane manner. All animals shall be provided with adequate shelter from the weather.

Animal welfare advocates also wanted to see a section in the ordinance stating what kind of materials should be used in a proper shelter, adding that a metal barrel is not good enough. The barrels can become hot in the summer and quite cold in the winter, they said.
With the new rules, the county will set up a metal barrel exchange program. The owner of a dog that is kept in a metal barrel could get a plastic one for free through this program.

"We do appreciate all the animal rights groups and their contributions as we prepared this ordinance," said Walker. "We appreciate their input."

AZ- She should have had them Debarked!

2009-07-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

Woman gets 3 years' probation, $940 fine for barking dogs
by Jenna Davis - Jul. 15, 2009 12:29 PM
The Arizona Republic

Renee Maurer was sentenced to three years' probation and a $940 fine charge today in Phoenix Municipal Court for allowing her dogs to disturb the peace of her Northeast neighborhood.

Several neighbors filed a petition earlier this year to have Maurer prosecuted in court for her barking Pomeranian and miniature poodle.

Neighbors testified in court on Monday that the dogs have barked constantly for the last three years. Immediately following the sentencing, Maurer filed for appeal.

The Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.

Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurers' two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.

Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and her neighbors.

"I feel ostracized in my own community," said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be "extremely awkward and uncomfortable."

Certa also expressed sentiments about the situation.

"I feel bad," said Certa. "It's always the same-after an hour I have a new case and my life will go on. But these people have to live next door to each other."

Certa said she didn't want Maurer to face jail time, but thought her sentence was "appropriate," because "the case came down to being a good neighbor."

Certa said many barking-dog cases have gone through her courtroom in the past 10 years, but she couldn't give an exact number.

The maximum sentence for violating the barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and a misdemeanor charge.

Municipal Court records show most fines are $300 or less, and there is no indication that anyone was ever sent to jail for owning a barking dog. Seventy-five dog owners were prosecuted in Phoenix last year.

2005 law in Phoenix states: "No person shall keep a dog within the city limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the city."

Maurer's predicament mirrors similar barking-dog conflicts across the Valley: Anxious or lonely dogs bark incessantly, causing tempers to flare and neighbors to use city noise ordinances.

After Maurer received a note about her dogs from an angry neighbor last year, she tried a training class and a bark-deterrent device for her dogs.

The notes persisted from Ilona Hirsch and her boyfriend Robert Shaw, neighbors Maurer had never met. Maurer and Shaw exchanged several phone calls about her dogs.

In February a police officer told Maurer that a criminal complaint had been filed against her.

Hirsch and Shaw had gathered signatures from five other neighbors who were also bothered by the dogs - a step required before criminal charges can be filed, city records show. Phoenix requires at least three signatures on a petition. Hirsch decline to comment on the case.

Later, two neighbors recalled their signatures after they realized Maurer was facing criminal charges.

Hirsch also had a log of times when the dogs were barking. The log, introduced as evidence in court, indicates Maurer's dogs barked for 7 1/2 hours at one time

TX- City of Ferris to discuss mandatory euthanasia on July 20th at 7:00pm

2009-07-16T07:47:00.000-07:00

Mandatory Euthanasia This is a link to the article in The Ellis County Prss

Also view: Fight In Ferris Over Animal Euthanasia Rules

Animal control officer is to hold the animals for the minimum of 3 days required by law, and then immediately euthanize them.

The next City Council meeting is July 20th at 7:00pm. Although it is too late to submitt a request to speak at this meeting, it is not too late to attend.

CA- "Forcible entry" GRANTED

2009-07-14T13:13:00.000-07:00

“FORCIBLE ENTRY” GRANTED….. Orange County, CA dog Owner
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.

It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.

IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:

“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”

What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?

Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.

This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!

It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.

SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!

And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!

CA- New data shows LA shelter admissions and euthanasia 11x higher than state average

2009-07-14T12:40:00.000-07:00

New Data Shows Slaughterhouse
After Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Law

LA Shelter Admissions and Euthanasia 11 Times Higher Than
State Average, Predict Disaster If SB 250 Becomes State Law

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 10. 2009) – Yesterday, the California Department of Public Health released 2008 annual data for every county’s animal shelter system.

In comparison to 2007 data, last year saw an expected increase in shelter admissions, owner surrenders, abandoned dogs and euthanasia rates that can be attributed mostly to the severe recession that has devastated the entire state’s economy.

But one county’s animal control and sheltering program stood out as being 11 times worse off than the rest of the state: Los Angeles County, which passed a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance last year. The data conclusively proves the murderous impact of pet sterilization mandates that far exceeds anything that can be attributed to the statewide recession.

This data has special importance now, as the California Assembly is considering Senate Bill 250, which would mandate the sterilization of almost every dog in the state, either directly or indirectly. If California follows the path of destruction caused by the Los Angeles ordinance, passage of SB 250 will become an unfunded mandate to the counties to handle 11 times as many dogs and cats at animal shelters, and to kill 11 times more of them, the data shows clearly.

If the state mirrors the Los Angeles statistics, counties would have to pay for handling 4.4 million dogs and cats a year (up from 402,430 in 2008), and killing 1.7 million dogs (up from 153,793 in 2008).

It is IMPERATIVE for California dog owners and animal lovers to make this information available to members of the California General Assembly, and especially to members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which has set a July 15 hearing on SB 250. Contact information will be provided below.

Here is a summary of yesterday’s release of the statewide shelter data:

· In 2008, 404,430 animals were admitted to shelters statewide, an increase of 42,422 from 2007. That is an 11.8-percent increase.

· In 2008, 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law. If compared to the state, it is apparent that Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.

· Euthanasia data is equally dramatic. In 2008, the entire state saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).

· However, almost all of the entire statewide increase in shelter euthanasia came from Los Angeles County alone, in the year following a mandatory pet sterilization ordinance. The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance wants our readers to check out the official shelter data, and to verify that all of our assertions are true and accurate. We are not exaggerating. This is how the official data adds up.

Here is a link to view the data: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discon....Activities.aspx
The data shows many other things that accurately predict the bloody outcome of a mandatory pet sterilization law, such as SB 250.

In Los Angeles, following the spay/neuter ordinance, this has included a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans, the official state data shows.

The images of what would happen statewide if SB 250 passes are truly frightening to comprehend, based on what actually has happened in Los Angeles, and what also has happened in every community in America that has passed a similar law.

The results will be dramatic increases in municipal costs for animal control and sheltering, with the most terrible price paid by the millions of dogs that will be killed needlessly because of this kind of law.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action, before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations holds a hearing on SB 250 on July 15. It is urgent that a large number of Californians – not just dog owners, but everyone who cares - express clear opposition to SB 250, which is very close to being passed into law.

Remember that the Appropriations Committee deals mostly with financial aspects of legislation, such as the outlay of government funds.

Please phone and also email each member of the committee as soon as possible. Members of legislative committee represent all Californians, not just their own constituents. Here is contact information for all of the committee members:

Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Joe Coto Dem-23 (916) 319-2023 Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
John A. Pérez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037 Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

The California Legislature is slated to adjourn on July 18 for summer recess, and SB 250 could face a vote of the full Assembly on July 17.

To read our analysis of the legislation, please visit http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.....neral&thread=48
To read the actual text of the legislation, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill....d_sen_v95.html.
Thank you for helping California pet owners and the dogs and cats that they love.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

MA- Devocalization is not inhumane

2009-07-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

LETTER: Devocalization is not inhumane, 07-11-09
The Herald News
Posted Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:23 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly-funded, out-of-state animal rights groups are trying to outlaw a medical procedure that saves lives.

Devocalization, more properly described as bark softening, is a humane procedure when properly done to help keep loved dogs in homes when all efforts at behavior modification have failed to stop the barking. Like any surgery, a vet has to know how to do it. In Massachusetts a handful of surgeons perform the surgery.

Is it reasonable to say a life-saving surgery (for instance heart by-pass surgery) should be outlawed because some surgeons botch it and some results are bad? No. Is it reasonable to outlaw spay/neuter surgery because some dogs die during the procedure or have serious long-term health problems afterwards? No.

I suggest you check the NAIA link on that one to learn more.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdfNational to
What’s going on?

National groups that support themselves by raising funds on animal issues, like the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other out-of-state animal rights groups squeeze the last dollar out of people who truly care for animals by calling a rare procedure cruel and the media buys in.

Having been an owner and lover of dogs for more than 50 years, a trainer, a breeder, dog show judge and involved in dog rescue, I can tell you from firsthand experience this procedure saves lives. We encourage people with noisy dogs to train them, try non-surgical methods, but if they fail, there is debarking.

Some people are so disturbed by barking they will abuse a dog. Our rescue groups have seen it all. Our national rescue workers reports include, “We have gotten in several extreme abuse cases where the dog was abused because of its non-stop barking. Oven cleaner down the throat; throat slit open; bailing wire tying the dogs muzzle.” http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html

I also heard of a of a dog turned into a rescue with an electronic bark collar embedded in its throat. (Jpeg attached)

Alanna Kelly of Massachusetts has a wonderful dog named Striker that at an advanced age is winning all kinds of awards as an agility dog. Kelly debarked Striker for his own safety. “I was threatened he would be killed if he continued to bark,” she said. Kelly reported the threat to the Police and had Stiker’s bark softened. Striker has never had a problem since and is still happily barking away – just more softly.

I own one 16-year-old dog that was debarked when a neighbor complained. She has never had a complication or problem since.

Despite claims to the contrary, debarked dogs don’t have emotional issues with being debarked.

Contrary to what animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society Veterinary Medical group — formerly called the Veterinarians for Animal Rights — suggest, the AVMA has a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association also has taken a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. Properly done, the surgery is quick, nearly bloodless and recovery is quick.

It should also be noted that cats are not devocalized. Why are they included in the bill? Maybe the out-of-state animal rights person who wrote the bill now pending before the state Legislature didn’t know that.

The bill, promoted by a 15-year-old animal rights activist and written by an out-of-state group, would ban this life-saving procedure.

Many legislators signed on after a massive Internet campaign that didn’t get the facts straight.
True animal lovers would not want to remove the last tool we have to save a happy noisy dog from being separated from a family that loves it.

Charlotte McGowan
Newton

MA- July 14 is a big day for dog law

2009-07-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

Massachusetts Alert: 15 Bills to be Heard on Tuesday, July 14th!
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.

Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):

The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:

•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:

•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:

•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.

Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us

Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us

Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us

Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us

Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us

Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us

Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US

Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us

Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us

At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:

•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.

Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.

Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us

Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us

Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US

Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us

Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us

Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us

Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us

Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US

Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US

Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us

Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.

OH- City of Fairborn to enforce the ban on pit bulls

2009-07-10T10:54:00.000-07:00

Fairborn Enforces No Pit Bull Ordinance

The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."

The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.

The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.

This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!

TX- Couple working for a national ban on pit bulls

2009-07-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Leash Law Approved for Portions of Rusk County
By BETTY WATERS
Staff Waters

HENDERSON — Rusk County Commissioners this morning adopted a leash law for portions of the county.

The meeting was packed with people calling for the county to take a tougher stance against pit bull dogs.

Last month a 10-year-old Justin Clinton was mauled to death by pit bull dogs near Leverett’s Chapel School.

Before the meeting, 60 to 70 people gathered on the steps of the Rusk County Courthouse calling for the banning of pit bull dogs.

They hope what would be called “Justin’s Law” would outlaw ownership of pit bull dogs across the nation.

Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.

Serena Clinton and Kevin Clinton, parents of Justin Clinton, speak during an interview this morning in front of the Rusk County Courthouse.
Mrs. Kent called the death a “senseless and preventable tragedy.”

She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.

Commissioner adopted the leash law for the Elderville and Airport Garden areas. A public hearing on enacting restrictions had previously been held for those communities. The court agreed to look at expanding the leash law to other areas.
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.

Michael Jimerson, county and district attorney, said the county is limited to what it can do to prevent pit bull dog attacks.

In another action, the court accepted $15.78 million as the maximum cost for expansion of the county jail.

Updated Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. CDT

RI - Council panel to review Providence Animal Control Center

2009-07-09T08:59:00.000-07:00

Council panel to review Providence Animal Control Center

By Philip Marcelo

Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — The dog pound is being investigated by the City Council after questions were raised about the quality of care it provided to animals and the adequacy of its management staff.

In recent months, the state Department of Environmental Management’s Division of Agriculture, which licenses and inspects animal shelters, kennels, municipal pounds and pet stores, received a complaint of animal cruelty at the Animal Control Center that was ultimately dismissed, and the director of animal control, Peter M. Brown, stepped down in March amid accusations that he sexually harassed a volunteer worker and others at the dog pound, according to members of the City Council.

“The City Council needs to hear from other people what is happening down there so that they can make the right decision. These animals don’t get hurt in their kennels by themselves,” says Dennis Tabella, director of Defenders of Animals, an animal rights group.

Councilman John J. Lombardi, who submitted the resolution calling for the commission, said that the center, which is under the jurisdiction of the Police Department, would benefit from a review of management practices in light of recent events. “As far as I know, there are no policies and procedures in place for how animals are cared for once they are captured,” said Lombardi.

Lombardi’s resolution, which was approved by the council Thursday, calls for the formation of a five-member panel consisting of two council members and representatives of the Defenders of Animals, the Humane Society of Northwestern Rhode Island and the Warwick Animal Shelter.

Maj. Steven Melaragno, head of the Police Department’s Administrative Division, said the department welcomes the oversight, but questioned the validity of the concerns being raised. “The animals are being well cared for. The facilities are clean,” Melaragno said.

The DEM came to a similar conclusion when it inspected the city pound in February 2008, noting in a report that the “animals appear healthy and content” and the “facility [was] clean, free of odor and in excellent repair.”

Then came a complaint in March 2009 from employees at Big Daddy Taxi. Coty, a Great Dane that became a sort of office mascot for the city taxi service, was picked up by a city animal control officer after he ran away.

According to company employees, the otherwise healthy dog came back from a 13-day stay at the pound (all captured dogs are quarantined as a precaution) seriously ill.

“I was alarmed due to his appearance of major weight loss to the point that I was able to see his ribs and spine, his eyes were red, was coughing, and when I took him out to the bathroom I noticed that he was having a nosebleed,” said Suzanne M. Burns in a letter to the state DEM.

Coty had apparently developed an infection as a result of an injury sustained at the pound and spent two days at an animal hospital to recover, according to documents from the DEM.

Still, an investigation into the matter by state Veterinarian Scott Marshall, who works under the Division of Agriculture, said there was no evidence that the dog’s condition was the result of negligence or cruelty by pound workers.

“It’s not unheard of for a dog to develop a cough or an illness after being in a pound. It’s a stressful situation for the animals. With Providence Animal Control, we have not received an inordinate amount of complaints, in fact very few, considering the volume of animals that they handle,” said Marshall. The veterinarian’s office urged the pound to better document the condition of animals prior to their impoundment and the care the animals receive from the staff.

Animal Control is housed in a low-slung concrete bunker on the city’s industrial waterfront on Allens Avenue. It’s well kept, with spotless floors, brightly painted walls and clean kennels. But it’s also clearly dated and awkwardly placed right in the center of the Narragansett Bay Commission’s wastewater treatment complex.

It’s for these reasons that the shelter will soon be getting a new home, fully paid for by the Bay Commission, which has taken the shelter by eminent domain to build a new administrative office building, according Melaragno.

The $1-million shelter will be built on vacant NBC land about a block away on Terminal Road, where the Port of Providence is situated. When it is finished, the facility will be a vast improvement over the existing one, with expanded areas for cats, more dog kennels, including some larger dog kennels for larger breeds, according to Richard Souza, a longtime animal control officer.

Meanwhile, the Police Department is looking for a replacement for Brown, who served for five years as director. Police Inspector Luis Del Rio, who managed the department’s mounted division, has been temporarily placed in charge.

Tabella, of the Defenders of Animals, suggested that the commission look into the possibility of placing the pound under the watch of another city department or an outside agency. “The Police Department,” says Tabella, “has enough to do with real crime.” Shelter numbers

•Number of dogs taken in annually: 1,000

•Number of cats taken in annually: 700

•Annual budget: $400,000

•Full-time staff: 10

pmarcelo@projo.com

ID - Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?

2009-07-09T08:48:00.000-07:00

Are pit bulls getting a bad rap?By Mike Murad
Video
BOISE - Pit bulls can divide people, just like abortion, politics and religion.

There's been a string of reported attacks locally, including when an Ada County Sheriff's deputy had to shoot a pit bull last week when they say it was attacking a Meridian Police officer and a K9. The pit bull died from the gunshot.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, an average of 12 people are killed by dog attacks each year nationwide, including three from pit bulls.

But even though you're still about 20 times more likely to be killed from a lighting strike than a pit bull attack, people still have strong feelings about the breed.

Two years ago, Peter Olson told CBS 2 he was simply outside his home picking up the mail, when two pit bulls appeared from nowhere, and attacked him.

"I knew they were going to kill me," Olson said. "I knew it was a fight for my life. As soon as I looked up they came charging and they didn't stop."

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, about 800,000 people seek medical treatment each year for a dog bite. But, are your chances of getting bitten by a pit bull greater than any other dog?

The answer is no, said Dr. Dianne Soule, a Boise veterinarian. In her 24 years of experience, Soule says she's been bitten by just about every breed, except a pit bull.

"When I talk to other veterinarians about what dogs you see that are most aggressive, pit bull is not in the top 10," she says.

It's Rottweiler, and Chows, and Chihuahuas and Daschunds.

And the science would seem to back that up. A recent study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania indicates you have a much better chance of suffering a snap at the mouth of a Dachshund, Chihuahua, or Jack Russell terrier.

But, where the pit bull did score higher was in aggression toward other dogs, a trait that may have been fostered by their history of being forced to fight, both dogs and other animals.

CBS 2 recently observed dog activity and dog owners at a Meridian dog park, and couldn't find anyone who expressed a bias against the breed in general.

"I'd be a little scared if they were a pit bull that had been in dog fighting or aggressive," said Stephanie Griswold, who owns a German shepherd, "But as a puppy, if you raise it right, I wouldn't have any trouble with it."

Over the last three decades, the American Temperament Test Society has evaluated more than 29,000 dogs. And, of the 14 most tested breeds, only the Labrador retriever scored higher than a pit bull.

ATTS awards a pass or fail to each dog coming through their program. The test is based on the animal's shyness, aggressiveness and friendliness. Since 1977, ATTS has been keeping a running tally, and in terms of overall disposition, when it comes to the most tested dogs, only labs top pit bulls.

Lisa Kauffman is the Idaho director of the Humane Society of the United States. Two years ago, she became a first time pit bull owner when she adopted Barkley, who she brings to the dog park on a regular basis.

"People ask, 'is that a pit bull?' And I say 'yes.' He plays nice, and doesn't cause problems," says Kauffman, "So I think by me taking him places he's a good ambassador for the breed itself."

A pit bull is also the pet of choice for Treasure Valley dog trainer Sandra Sartorius.

"Give them a chance," says Sartorius. "If you've never met one, give them a chance, and you won't go back to any dog," she says.

In 2000, the CDC published a special report spanning 20 years on the breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States. Pit Bulls topped the list, averaging about three deaths a year, followed by Rottweilers at two, and German shepherds at one.

"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bulls and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates," the CDC said in its report.

But, even if other breeds tend to bite more overall, why do pit bulls instill such fear in some people?

"They look tough," says Dr. Soule. "They are a big, beefy dog."

Sartorius says overcoming preconceived notions is the hardest part when explaining the breed to people. "I've met people, and I can't change their mind," says Sartorius. "It's 'oh, pit bulls are bad, and they're going to kill you and your dogs and everything else,' and I can't change people like that."

Kauffman says the problem comes back to any breed's owner. "It's the dogs left tethered on chains 24-7, dogs that aren't made a part of the family, that have no obedience training."

Soule believes owners can bring out the best, or worst, in pit bulls. "I do think pet owners have a big influence on a dog's behavior," she says. "If you want an aggressive dog, and encourage their tendency, that's what you will get. But if you want a dog that's gentle, that's what we see, and they're great."

Last year, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a study from Multnomah County, Oregon. The number of overall dog bites was analyzed, and the study found lower income neighborhoods produced more biting dogs of all breeds, and fewer dogs that were neutered, which is considered to be a biting risk factor.

The study concluded: "Dog bites continue to be a source of preventable injury. Prevention programs should target owners of sexually intact male and purebred dogs and owners who live in lower income neighborhoods."

VA Two-day trial challenges County's Policy on Euthanizing Pit Bulss

2009-07-09T08:40:00.000-07:00

http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2009/may/06/pitbulls/By Derek Kravitz
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

By all accounts, the three-month-old pit bull puppy at Loudoun County's animal shelter was a happy, social and gentle dog. Unlike the vicious and aggressive image that often accompanies his breed, the brown-and-white puppy regularly jumped up on shelter employees' laps, tossed around rawhide toys and loved to play. In evaluations, workers described him as "silly," "wiggly" and "very lovey."

He didn't have a name except for his county-issued identification number, 43063. And, unfortunately for him, he made a few key mistakes in two required behavioral assessments in July 2007. Most puppies would have been able to survive the gaffes, several animal rescue groups allege. But this puppy was a pit bull in Loudoun County, the only Northern Virginia jurisdiction that prohibits public adoptions of the breed. So he was euthanized.

The county's decision to put that dog to sleep, along with 213 others since January 2006, was at the center of a two-day civil trial in Loudoun County Circuit Court about whether Loudoun County violated state and local laws that give people the right to adopt the dog of their choice from a publicly funded shelter. Arguments in the case concluded yesterday.

Loudoun residents and their dogs turned out for a demonstration in front of the courthouse to protest the county's adoption policy that they say discriminates against the pit bull breed. (Erica Garman)

Owners and their dogs protest the Loudoun County adoption policy that they say leads to the euthanasia of more pit bulls and pit bull mixes than that of other breeds.
Chewy, a four-month-old pit bull mix, belongs to Lacy Warner of Middleburg.

Loudoun euthanized all abandoned pit bulls for years before changing its policy in 2007, allowing the animals to be transferred to rescue groups or shelters in other jurisdictions - so long as the dogs passed a temperament test. The change came soon after former Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) issued a nonbinding opinion saying that pit bulls taken to public pounds could not be euthanized based solely on their breed.

After McDonnell's opinion came out, Montgomery, Prince William and Arlington counties approved allowing pit bulls to be adopted after they had been evaluated, joining the District and Fairfax County. Nearby Prince George's County maintains one of the strictest policies in the nation, banning pit bulls unless they were acquired before 1997.

In May 2007, after the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal to allow the public to adopt pit bulls cleared by animal behavior specialists, Animal Rescue of Tidewater, a Norfolk-based animal rights group, and Ronald Litz, a Great Falls computer security consultant who inquired about adopting a pit bull from the Loudoun County shelter, filed the lawsuit.

During Tuesday's arguments, attorneys for the plaintiffs described the county shelter as a mismanaged agency that unfairly euthanizes pit bulls that could have found loving homes. Attorneys played an audio recording of Loudoun County Supervisor Jim Burton (I-Blue Ridge), who said during a November 2007 county meeting that he had a "particular problem" with pit bulls because he had "seen them in action."

"There's an absolute clear bias based on breed," said Anthony F. Troy, a lawyer for the two parties suing the county.

Loudoun County officials argue that there is no "breed bias" but a "characteristic bias" against pit bulls, a term used for a number of different breeds that have long been associated with dogfights, gangs and deadly attacks. Assistant County Attorney Zaida Thompson said shelter staffers were doing the "best job they can" to make all adoptable dogs available to Loudoun residents.

Still, the case has presented problems for the Loudoun shelter, which operates on a 13-acre property in the affluent western part of the county. For years, officials there have been navigating a fine line between following the county Board of Supervisor's rulings on the pit bull issue and openly working with other regional public pounds to develop adoption policies for the breed.

"We're moving toward placing more dogs with rescue groups but a lot of them are full," said Tom Koenig, director of Loudoun County Animal Care and Control, in an interview shortly after the trial ended yesterday afternoon. "I follow the policy direction of the county administrator and the Board of Supervisors. I have to go with their decision. Would I like it to be different? It doesn't really matter because we are consistent with county policy."

Since the county's new transfer policy started, 122 pit bulls have been euthanized at the Waterford shelter. Data culled from evidence presented at this week's trial indicates the county euthanizes 84 percent of all pit bulls, compared to 48 percent of all other dogs.

As expected, the two-day trial featured some passionate displays, including a morning protest outside the county courthouse on Tuesday and a giant photo of a three-month-old pit bull puppy, similar to the one euthanized in 2007, being shown inside the courtroom.

Despite the emotions surrounding the case, the final ruling from Judge Burke F. McCahill, which is expected in coming days, might hinge on a technical, legal issue: whether a nonbinding opinion from an attorney general is enough to dictate county law.

"Unless that [attorney general's] opinion holds water," McCahill said during closing arguments, the county "might be free" to euthanize.

But for Litz, the plaintiff who owns a pit bull named Drew, it's simpler: "I don't understand the legal arguments, really," he said. "But I do understand dogs. And dogs are being killed."

All Bark and Fiscal Bite- Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?

2009-07-09T08:33:00.000-07:00

This article originally appeared in Vol. 18, No. 2 (Winter 2009) of PASS IT ON

All Bark and Fiscal Bite—Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?
by Ledy VanKavage A dog attacks, and city-council members want the city attorney to react—sometimes by drafting an ordinance that restricts or outlaws a specific breed of dog, most often the maligned pit bull.1 After such an ordinance is passed, authorities must then ferret out and kill any dog that slightly resembles a pit bull. Prince George’s County Maryland spends approximately $560,000 every two years enforcing its ban. Miami-Dade County impounds and kills around 800 pit bulls a year, despite a ban dating back to the 1980s, resulting in a significant fiscal impact.2

Given the tremendous costs associated with breed-discriminatory laws, are they a prudent approach to community safety or a costly red herring? With passage of such ordinances comes a host of questions such as: How do you prove in court the identity of a mixed-breed dog? What sort of training do your animal-control or law-enforcement officers have regarding breed identification? If they aren’t trained in breed identification, is a veterinarian employed to determine whether a dog is a certain breed? Now that DNA testing is available, are courts going to require the government to pay for such testing before confiscating and destroying citizens’ property (i.e., their dogs)?

Missing the Mark by Targeting Pit Bulls
Effective public lawyers counsel their clients to make decisions based on research and valid statistics, not emotion. So why the modern-day witch hunt concerning pit bulls? Karen Delise, author of “Fatal Dog Attacks” and “The Pit Bull Placebo,” examined news stories regarding dog attacks that occurred during four days in August 2007. The results are telling:
· On Aug. 18, 2007: A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene, and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 19, 2007: A 16-month-old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked by a mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper.
· On Aug. 20, 2007: A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed-breed dog. This attack was reported in one article and only in the local paper.
· On Aug. 21, 2007: A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home while trying to break up a dog fight involving her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier and two pit bulls. The pit bulls had broken off their chains and followed her neighbor’s Jack Russell terrier in through her dog door. She was hospitalized with severe injuries. Her dog was not injured. This attack was reported in more than 230 articles in national and international newspapers and on major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC, and Fox.

Thus, during those four days, four dog attacks made the news—including a fatality involving a mixed-breed dog—but only the incident involving the pit bulls captured national attention.

Given the hype, it isn’t a surprise that public lawyers may be asked to research and draft ordinances to help stop dog attacks, with the focus frequently on banning pit bulls. However, a smarter approach is to examine the statistics in the community, seek citizen input and weigh the factors involved in the attacks.

Read the full story on the American Bar Association site.

AK- tax payers to pick up tab for increased regulations

2009-07-09T08:25:00.000-07:00

Thrown A Bone
Gerard Matthews
Updated: 7/1/2009

When the General Assembly passed a law earlier this year to make acts of aggravated animal cruelty a felony in Arkansas, Kay Simpson, director of the Humane Society of Pulaski County, cried.

The legislative action brought to an end a long-running battle between animal rights groups and farming interests. Those who neglected or intentionally harmed animals would now suffer stiffer penalties and the threat of felony charges would be a deterrent. It was a happy day for those, like Simpson, who had fought so long to protect animals from abuse.

The bill passed easily, though similar versions had failed in previous sessions. Enforcing it, however, may prove to be more difficult.

The law goes into effect July 31, 90 days after the end of the legislative session.

One major problem will be finding space to house animals seized in abuse cases or puppy mill raids.

“I'm not doing any abuse cases right now because we're just tapped out,” Simpson said in an interview. “We get the calls from different counties all over the state. When there's a cruelty case, we're the ones that house the animals. And that's the same thing that's going to happen after the law goes into effect. Sheriff's departments don't have any room to take them. They don't have the funding to pay for the feed, the medical care, anything.”

Animals that have been seized must remain in the state's care until their owners are brought to trial. For shelters, that long-term placement poses a significant financial burden.

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, who with his staff crafted the legislation over the course of nearly a year, said the question of where to house animals has been, and will continue to be, an issue.

“If a police officer charges you with possession of cocaine, which is a felony, it's pretty easy to put the cocaine in a locker until trial,” McDaniel said. “If they charge you with felony abuse of a German shepherd they can work up the case, take photographs and preserve evidence, but a living, breathing creature can't simply be put into an evidence locker.”

The law requires that those charged with animal cruelty post a bond. Those bonds would, ideally, help the shelters cover the costs of vet care, pet food and housing the animals. But according to Simpson, in most cases the owners just abandon the pets, leaving them in the shelter's care.

“Most of these people knew they couldn't afford the animals in the first place, so how are they going to afford to post a bond?” Simpson said. “And the counties aren't helping us. No county that I can think of has ever given us a bale of hay, sack of feed, dog food, nothing.”

Few counties in Arkansas operate animal shelters. Those that do are constantly full or over capacity, Simpson said. In today's faltering economy, people are dropping off animals they can no longer afford. Humane Society shelters, like the one in Pulaski County, rely on donations to operate, and those are down sharply from a year ago.

Simpson said counties should set funds aside to handle their animal cruelty cases. “Counties are going to have to figure out a way to pay because humane societies can't do it and there's got to be a plan,” she said. “Restitution from court cases is nearly non-existent and when we do get it, it's not much. I just got a check in the mail today from a case that started in 2007.”

Simpson, one of only a few certified animal cruelty investigators in Arkansas, said it is critical that the state's law enforcement officers be trained to deal with cruelty cases. The attorney general's office, in fact, allotted $250,000 for the Criminal Justice Institute to develop a curriculum to train officers. But just weeks before the new penalties are set to go into effect, that money has not been disbursed and the CJI has yet to develop a curriculum for training officers.

McDaniel said he has requested that those funds be distributed, but Beth Green, CJI publications specialist, said the agency has not yet received the money. She said the institute was developing a curriculum and should have something in place by the fall.

“I'm just getting frustrated with folks who don't seem to be getting a game plan together,” Simpson said. “It's great that we got the felony charge we were working toward, but there's a problem when you get a bigger fine and a bigger jail sentence and it's still not going to give you anything to help out with the animals.”

Despite the hurdles law enforcement agencies and shelters are likely to face, McDaniel said there's no question as to whether or not the law should have been passed.

“Do we acknowledge that some counties really have facilities issues? Yeah, but that's no reason not to pass a tougher law,” McDaniel said. “If you're suggesting that we shouldn't have increased the penalties on animal cruelty because it's hard enough to enforce as it is, then that's an argument I wasn't willing to accept.”

Simpson just hopes a solution is found soon.

“We've run into a brick wall,” she said. “We've come across a problem we can't fix. And that's something that's never happened before. I've always figured out a way to manage, but I can't do that anymore.”

Animal-welfare vs. Animal-rights, Understand the Difference

2009-07-09T08:10:00.000-07:00

Animal welfare vs. animal rights: understanding the difference
by Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner

In the world of animal advocacy, it sometime can be difficult to keep an accurate scorecard between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights groups. One of the keys to telling the difference: if someone says there is no difference, they are on the animal rights side of the debate. As a responsible pet owner, it is critical to recognize the difference and support Animal Welfare organizations.

Animal welfare is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as "The ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well being". Some of the primary activities this includes are:

*The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.

*Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.

*Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.

*Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.

*Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.

*Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.

*Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.

* The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.
(retreived 7-5-09 from AVMA.com, "Issues in Animal Welfare")

The other half of the equation are animal rights groups. These include well-known names like PETA and HSUS, as well as many of the local shelters that they support in the guise of animal welfare groups. These organizations:

*Advocate pure veganism

*Object to any form of companion animal in principle and any planned breeding of companion animals in practice

*Seek to outlaw all forms of medical research requiring any type of animal other than human

*Seek to outlaw any form of medicine requiring animal inputs, such as natural forms of insulin

*Seek to outlaw the use of any form of animal skin for use in clothing or other manufacturing

*Oppose any form of animal cruelty

The one goal they both share is the ending of animal cruelty. Where the true difference lies is in the definition of cruelty. To the animal rights activist, the 20,000 years we have shared with dogs as companions, cooperative hunters, and fellow herdsmen is a form of slavery and cruelty rather than a beneficial relationship for both species.

Know the facts before you donate to an organization.

For more info: Vist the AVMA.com and the Animal Welfare Committee.

MA- HB344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps

2009-07-09T07:45:00.000-07:00

HB 344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner

Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".

When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.

Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.

Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.

This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.

While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."

Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.

For more info: Full text of HB344

Quotes from Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's Founder and President

2009-07-09T07:33:00.000-07:00

"I'm not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having
children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is
nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and
president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003

"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any
reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a
blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at
least I wouldn't be harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president
and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PeTA), as quoted in Chip Brown, "She's a Portrait of Zealotry in Plastic
Shoes," Washington Post, November 13, 1983, p. B10.

CA- 65-Year-Old Women Faces Jail Time for Feeding Cats

2009-07-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

65-Year-Old Woman Faces Jail Time For Feeding Cats Amanda Peabody
Published 07/02/2009 - 6:29 p.m. CST

Katherine Varjian, 65, had been feeding feral cats, or felines that are not under her ownership, in her Beverly Hills neighborhood for the past 12 years. The Beverly Hills Municipal Court will now decide whether or not her actions are within the confines of the law.

Varjian was feeding between 20 and 30 cats daily in the alley behind the 100-200 blocks of Palm, Maple and Oakhurst Drives. She was issued citations twice for this behavior – first in January of this year, then again in February. The violation is considered a misdemeanor by the City and will be heard by Beverly Hills criminal court. The charge carries with it a possible six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.

The problem lies in a deleted code (5-2-104, subdivision B and C).

In an effort to streamline practices when handling animal control, the City retained the City of Los Angeles’ Animal Services Department for certain animal care and control services, consequently adopting their ordinances.

“As part of the adoption of the Los Angeles animal control regulations, provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code that were designed to prevent the feeding of animals, including stray and feral cats, in such a manner that attracts coyotes and other predatory animals or otherwise endangers the health, safety and welfare of the general public, were inadvertently deleted,” said Cheryl Burnett, City spokesperson.

The code explicitly prohibits the feeding of feral cats and dogs on any public property, any property that is open to the public or any private property is not completely enclosed by a secured wall.

It is under this omitted code that Varjian has been charged.

Although Varjian has taken what is argued as excellent care of these cats – routinely spaying, neutering and adopting out kittens through various local organizations – her actions have also created a nuisance in the neighborhood, said local residents.

“(Varjian’s feeding of the feral cats) is a big problem that is not being looked at realistically,” said resident Darian Bojeaux. “The food brings coyotes to the neighborhood. Neighbors have had to clean up excess food. It brings roaches and I am afraid for my own pets.”

Bojeaux and several other neighbors organized a petition against Varjian, asking her to stop feeding the alleged feral cats; 30-40 signatures were secured.

“Varjian has spayed and neutered at her own expense countless feral cats and has probably done more in the City to control the homeless cat population,” said Ben Lehrer, president of Kitten Rescue (www.kittenrescue.org), an organization that rescues stray, abandoned or sheltered cats and kittens that are slated for euthanasia from the surrounding area.

According to Lehrer, Varjian has adopted out over 120 cats and kittens, a vast majority from her neighborhood, he says.

The court will now decide whether or not to proceed with charges against Varjian in a hearing slated for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel for Varjian has requested dismissal of the case (two counts were dismissed at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing) based on the grounds that Varjian has been charged against a non-existent code.

The City Council will be addressing an urgency ordinance either correcting the omission or clarifying its non-presence at the July 7 meeting.

CA- New pet proposal needs to be sterilized

2009-07-08T09:53:00.000-07:00

LOCAL VIEWS: New pet proposal needs to be sterilized

By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT

"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."

California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.

The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.

And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.

Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.

Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.

After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.

Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.

Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."

Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?

As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"

Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.

And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."

Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.

One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.

Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.

Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.

Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."

Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.

MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.

PA- Proposed limiting pets in Reading advances

2009-07-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Last Update: 7/7/2009 12:22:00 AM

Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle

A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.

To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.

"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.

Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.

The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.

The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.

The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.

The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.

Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.

The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.

If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.

If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.

But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.

The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.

The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.

The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.

Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.

CA- Legislators consider a limit on pet ownership

2009-06-21T07:17:00.000-07:00

California Legislators Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats

California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.

Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.

AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.

PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.

In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.

Click here to view the bill.

http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT

California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.

Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.

AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.

PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.

In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.

Minister Warns: Anti's Using Religion to Advance Cause

2009-05-28T05:49:00.000-07:00

From The Animal Agriculture Alliance and U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Minister Warns: Anti’s Using Religion to Advance Cause

Groups Use Faith to Sway Youth
5/27/09

Religion is being used by animal rights groups to advance a radical agenda according to an ordained Baptist Minister.

Dr. Wes Jamison, an ordained Minister as well as a professor of Communications at Palm Beach Atlantic University, spoke at the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s eighth annual stakeholder summit, held May 12-13 in Virginia. Dr. Jamison boldly stated, "Animal rights activists are using religious messages to recruit a segment of the millennial generation that has little doctrinal anchor in order to advance their vegetarian agenda."

He went on to explain that there are two factors pushing animal rights’ groups in this direction:

Religiously devout individuals often are generous donors; and

Religiously devout individuals maintain high levels of devotion to causes for long periods of time.

Dr. Jamison warned that animal rights’ groups are intentionally selecting certain biblical passages that focus on individuals’ compassion and guilt. He concluded by cautioning “people against buying in to such messages and encourage people to do their own review of Biblical scripture and literature.”

To hear more, please Click Here for an interview with Dr. Jamison courtesy of the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

HSUS is successfully blocking the Atlanta TV report that Critized where it spends its money

2009-05-26T08:00:00.000-07:00

From PetPac's website

An ABC-TV affiliate in Atlanta aired an Investigative Report on where the Humane Society of the United States spends its money. Twenty four hours later, the story was pulled from the air. I wasn’t able to locate it in their archives either, even though there were older investigative stories still there. I spoke with Mark Winne of Channel 2 and was told that it is routine to take down this type of news report, however he was less specific when asked why it wasn’t saved in their archives. A copy of the video played on YouTube for one day then mysteriously disappeared from that site as well.

PetPAC posted, on our site, the written transcript you see below, sent to us by several of our supporters.

Friday morning PetPAC received an email from an attorney representing WSB-TV ordering us to remove the written word from public view. I have to conclude, as others have already, that this demand has been triggered by some powerful action to squelch the story.

Since HSUS has not come out publicly to protest the facts contained in this story, nor has WSB-TV issued any form of retraction I think it logical to assume the story has to be substantially true and accurate.

So much for freedom of the press and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Since those of us in PetPAC do not want to upset TV broadcasters, we have not made any further attempts to get copies of the video story. However, the transcript sent to us from others, not taken from the station website, unsubstantiated as it is reprinted below.

Where Humane Society Donations Really Go

Posted: 4:03 pm EDT May 14, 2009Updated: 4:20 pm EDT May 14, 2009

ATLANTA -- A Channel 2 investigation is looking into millions of
dollars in donations given to the Humane Society of the United States.

A national consumer organization says the society solicits
pet-lovers for money, but little to none of that money ever goes to
help local shelters.

Critics tell Channel 2 Action News reporter Amanda Rosseter that
this isn´t just consumers misunderstanding who they are giving in to -
but an organization actively misleading donors to get money.

"They do their marketing very well, that's for sure," said Trey Burley of PAWS Atlanta.

Critics say the national organization takes advantage of people who
think they are giving to local shelters. DeKalb's "PAWS" shelter says
there is no regular funding help from the $100 million HSUS budget.

"I think that some of the folks who donate to the national
organization may be under the false pretense that that money is going
to a local cause," said Burley.

While the HSUS does work to stop puppy mills, it also gets media
coverage and donations doing it; but the puppies then go to local
shelters who have to pay and care for them.

"They may initialize the resources for a rescue, but again the
animals go to a shelter somewhere in the country," said Richard Rice,
VP of the Atlanta Humane Society.

Critics say HSUS also takes advantage of high-profile events. After Hurricane Katrina, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle promised on national TV to
reunite pets with their owners-and raised $34 million for the cause;
but public disclosures of where that money went add up to less than $7
million. The Louisiana attorney general launched an 18-month-long
investigation, and it then ended it when HSUS offered to build the
state a new shelter.
Then there's $112 million in expenses -- most of which appears to
have gone to legislation for animal rights bills. The list includes
raccoons, mice, wild horses, burros and primates.

The Center for Consumer Freedom says all worthy causes, but HSUS shouldn't mislead to get money.

So where does all the money go?

"It goes to lobbying, it goes to political contributions, it doesn´t
go to pay huge staff salaries and benefits," said David Marposko with
Center for Consumer Freedom.

Channel 2 Action News went to a local HSUS meeting to find out. The
two hour discussion was about activist plans and lobbying. The Georgia
director for the HSUS agrees that´s mostly what she does.
"I think that in all of our literature, it is very explicit as to
what our campaigns are and what we are doing," said Cheryl McAuliffe,
Georgia Director for HSUS. "We help where we can and focus on our
programs, which are national and international."

McAuliffe said there are just too many local shelters to help.

"I always tell people, contribute to your local shelter first," said McAuliffe.

When asked how much her budget is for the state of Georgia,
McAuliffe said she didn´t have a budget and neither did the other
states. McAuliffe said all money is controlled from headquarters in
Washington, D.C.

Another organization to take away your rights-

2009-05-26T07:40:00.000-07:00

Animal Rescue.

The majority of people who live with animals love them and feel an emotional bond with their animal. The topic of "animal rescue" is also an emotional one. Who wants to see another being suffer? Not many. Advertisements showing those sad, brown eyes staring out of the bars of a cage evoke emotions that lead us to open our wallets and give money to end the "suffering"- but beware! It may not be the animals that are getting your money, but some lawyer or politician! Is that what you intended?

If you really want to help animals, give directly to a local shelter. Giving actual food, towels, bedding, bowels, leashes, collars, flea treatments, shampoo- you get the idea. That is the most helpful of all. If you give money, you may just be paying to limit your rights.

By now we know that HSUS is not who they have claimed to be- the national care-givers- they are just the "voice"- in CONGRESS to LIMIT your rights. It seems that another organization, The Animal Rescue Site, is also nothing more than a political lobbing machine to limit the rights of American citizens and determine where you can get your next pet, how you will care for it, and what activities with that pet will be legal or not.

This is from the website (under the Charitable Partners link):

"In January 2005, with the combination of The Fund for Animals and The
Humane Society of the United States, the groups were able to launch a new
Animal Protection Litigation Section which conducts even more precedent-setting
legal campaigns on behalf of animals in state and federal courts around
the country. With a staff of eight full-time lawyers, as well as numerous law
clerks, administrative staff, outside counsel, and pro-bono attorneys, the
section is the largest in-house animal protection litigation department in
the country."

Be careful who gets your money. The best way to Rescue Animals is to give needed items to the shelters who are actually caring for the animals.

PA- Lehigh County Humane Society hard to wake up

2009-05-25T16:09:00.000-07:00

Lehigh County Humane Society hard to wake up

May 16, 2009
Bill White

bill.white@mcall.com

Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.

When the Lehigh County commissioners Wednesday night rejected funding for the Lehigh County Humane Society's animal control work, they were sending a couple of messages.

One, as articulated by Commissioners Dean Browning and Glenn Eckhart, was that the county shouldn't be sending money to such a well-heeled organization at a time when the county's fiscal situation is dire. They pointed out that the Humane Society's investment portfolio has grown to almost $1.8 million.

The other was that they're not crazy about the shelter's operations. ''I don't want tax dollars going to this facility,'' Eckhart said. He and others complained about the humane society's unwillingness to explore a no-kill approach, its lack of transparency and its euthanization methods.

Even the people who voted to give LCHS the budgeted $22,500 for its services went out of their way to make it clear they don't like what's happening there. Commissioners Percy Dougherty and Bill Leiner both said they hope this will be a ''wake-up call'' for the Humane Society's leaders.

My own feeling is that an atom bomb wouldn't wake those people up. I've been writing about their antiquated approach for years, to no effect, and there have been much more vociferous critics. If the commissioners are just figuring out that LCHS needs an overhaul, they haven't been paying attention.

The Kill vs. No Kill philosophical argument gets most of the attention, but that's never been my main focus. My complaint has been that the Humane Society won't take even the most basic steps toward reducing the need for euthanization of unwanted dogs and cats.

They would include: A comprehensive adoption program that includes convenient hours and an aggressive schedule of off-site adoptions. A comprehensive foster care program. A feral cat trap-neuter- return program. A high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter program. Cooperation with local rescue groups.

Outreach to the community to improve pet retention. In-house medical and behavior rehabilitation. A strong volunteer program. Aggressive public relations efforts.

LCHS has improved a bit in a few of these areas, but for the most part, it seems to run the same way it did years ago. Until it has leaders who acknowledge all the problems, it never will move forward.

My chiding has been too even-handed to suit some of the Humane Society's more rabid critics. But the group's leadership hasn't seen it that way. One of the oddities of the Pennsylvania SPCA's raid on Almost Heaven dog kennel in Upper Milford Township last Oct. 1 was that when LCHS Executive Director Bruce Fritch recognized me there, he went on a wild tirade. I had to lure him to a far corner so his ranting wouldn't turn up as background for the ''Animal Cops'' taping of the raid.

Beyond his complaints that my criticism has been unfair, Fritch was angry because people had posted insulting, even somewhat threatening, comments on the online version of my most recent column about LCHS. I let him scream himself out and tried to explain that I don't moderate -- or even read, in many cases -- the online comments. He wasn't buying it.

I was surprised to see Fritch there at all. It turns out that he wanted raiders to know the Humane Society was prepared to take in any dogs that were confiscated from Almost Heaven. Although he stayed there all day, the rescued dogs were driven to the PSPCA's shelter in Philadelphia.

In light of the Humane Society's history with Almost Heaven owner Derbe ''Skip'' Eckhart, it would have been an unlikely landing place in any event. Thanks to the connection between former LCHS cruelty investigator Orlando Aguirre and Eckhart, the Humane Society at one point was supplying dogs for Eckhart's controversial ''rescue'' operation. What's more, in his later capacity as a state dog warden, Aguirre helped keep Almost Heaven semi-respectable by issuing satisfactory inspection reports, particularly embarrassing in light of the horrible conditions found during the raid. Just six weeks before, a team of four dog law inspectors -- including Aguirre and new director Sue West -- gave the place a clean bill of health once again.

The discrepancy between the awful conditions and dog law's reports, including the role of Aguirre and other inspectors, has been the subject of a months-long investigation by the state Inspector General's Office.

There was a nice crowd of animal welfare people at Wednesday night's meeting, and many of the commissioners said encouraging things. Nevertheless, if any of this served as a real wake-up call for Bruce Fritch and company, I'll be surprised.

They're very sound sleepers.

bill.white@mcall.com 610-559-2146

Possible Investigation into HSUS over whether HSUS imprperly spent the funds collected to benefit pets displaced by Hurricane Katrina

2009-05-25T15:47:00.000-07:00

Attention dog lovers!
PLEASE CROSS-POST

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom has learned that the office of Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell is considering whether to re-open an investigation into the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The investigation concerns whether HSUS improperly spent some of the $34 million it raised for the benefit of pets displace d by Hurricane Katrina.
Apparently, Caldwell's office received a deluge of phone calls last week, beginning the day after Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV aired an exposé of HSUS's fundraising activities. In that report, WSB called HSUS "an organization actively misleading donors to get money." The TV station also explored just how little of HSUS's "Katrina" fundraising appears to have been spent on genuine Katrina-related disaster relief.
This was a fabulous piece of journalism on a subject many news outlets have been too intimidated or too biased to cover. (WSB-TV is working on a follow-up story, but we'll all just have to wait patiently for that.)
An anonymous animal lover has made the video of the May 14 report available at http://is.gd/ BQGu -- Note that there's no way to know if HSUS will be successful at continually censoring this video. (At least one previous version was pulled from YouTube this week after being viewed more than 50,000 times.)
Here's what you can do to help:
(1) CALL the Consumer Protection Section of the Louisiana Attorney General's Office during regular business hours. The toll-free number is 800-351-4889. If you live in Louisiana, please call the local number at 225-326-6465, or the general office number at 225-326-6200.

Tell whoever answers that you would like the Attorney General to re-open his investigation of the Humane Society of the United States. Remind him/her that there's no official accounting of how HSUS spent most of the $34 million it raised after Hurricane Katrina.

Before you hang up, ask to be transferred to Assistant Attorney General Mimi Hunley. If you get through to Ms. Hunley, please be polite and make the same request of her or her staff.
(2) P lease follow-up with a polite e-mail to ConsumerInfo@ag.state.la.us, and let the A.G.'s office read your request in your own words. Drop me an e-mail at Martosko@ConsumerFreedom.com and let me know how everything went. (Or just "BCC" me on your follow-up e-mail.)
(3) Share the video of WSB-TV's exposé with your friends, colleagues, family, and neighbors. It remains available (for now) at http://is.gd/ BQGu -- If this video should disappear, feel free to e-mail me and ask if another version has popped up anywhere.
(4) If you are able, please consider making a donation to the Center for Consumer Freedom so we can keep putting pressure on the Humane Society of the United States. We've got some exciting plans for the months ahead, but we need additional resources to make it all work. For every dollar we raise, HSUS typically raises about $30.

Donations can be made at http://www.consumer freedom.com/donations.cfm and they are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. The Center for Consumer Freedom is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Thanks for all you do to provide for animals. Remember: You are the real animal advocates. And we're on your side.

David Martosko
Director of Research
martosko@ConsumerFreedom.com
www.Twitter.com/DMartosko
The Center for Consumer Freedom
www.ConsumerFreedom.com
www.PETAkillsAnimals.com
www.HumaneWatch.org

Keep The animal rights out of your Church

2009-05-19T08:29:00.000-07:00

http://kysoy.blogspot.com/2009/05/keep-animal-rights-industry-out-of-your.html
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have so much to do today that I
should spend the first three hours in prayer."

I've been thinking about that quote a lot lately. I was raised in a
Christian family, and I don't know how I'd get through a day without
prayer. Blessed with good health, wonderful friends, a loving family,
and fabulous dogs - I spend a lot of time giving thanks. I also ask
for the usual things - strength, inspiration, guidance. Lately I've
had to ask the Lord for something new and unexpected - help in keeping
the animal rights industry out of His church.

A friend contacted me last week because her Daily Devotional had a
segment which seemed like a good thing, but was a hook for a very bad
thing. My friend, a devout Christian, knew what she was looking at
because she knows the subversive nature and destructive agenda of the
animal rights (AR) industry. Therefore, she was alarmed to see a link
to the deceptively named "Humane" Society of the United States (HSUS)
in her Daily Devotional. She showed it to me, and asked my opinion on
the other groups with website links on the same page.

My investigation led to a mixture of good news and bad news. Here's
the verdict. Christians need to be more vigilant in guarding the gate.
The animal rights industry, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds, is coming
soon to a church near you. (Check your Daily Devotional, they may have
already infiltrated your place of worship.)

HSUS President/CEO Wayne Pacelle does his homework. He sees that
American farmers are coming together to stand shoulder-to-shoulder
against the animal rights industry. Farmers, now I'm speaking directly
to you. Pacelle knows that you're ten times tougher and more savvy
than the emotional AR cult members that he moves around like pawns on
a chess board. He sees you speaking out against the animal rights
movement. He knows that you are feeling a growing resolve to protect
your families and your future from the destructive rampage of
HSUS-driven laws.

So how does he fight you? How does he undermine you? Wayne Pacelle is
a master of Machiavellian manipulation. There's nothing random about
the fact that HSUS recently conned Rush Limbaugh into recording a
Public Service Announcement endorsing the “Humane” Society of the
United States "outreach to the faith-based community." (Random, no.
Bizarre, yes. There are so many things wrong with that sentence it's
enough to make your head spin.) Rush Limbaugh a spokesman for an
organization that epitomizes overreaching government and destruction
of individual freedoms? Black is white. Up is down. The sun is cold.

But you can bet your bottom dollar there's a method to the madness.

Limbaugh's PSA's for HSUS exploded in his face. Rush has infuriated
and alienated farmers, hunters, fishermen, gun owners, responsible pet
owners and breeders, scientists, doctors, and pretty much anybody who
loves someone battling a dreaded disease (See "The Irreconcilable
Differences of Rush Limbaugh and HSUS" on this Blog.)

Leaving Rush's credibility in smashed and scattered pieces all over
the left side of the road, Wayne Pacelle didn’t even glance in the
rearview mirror. He had what he wanted. And he was in a hurry. There
was a church up ahead with a side door that Rush Limbaugh had opened.

My dear Christian friends, I say this with love and a protective
instinct. When HSUS is reaching out to you, it isn’t because they want
to trade favorite Scripture verses. Picture yourself loaded with
cash, on election day, in a room full of pickpockets and Washington DC
lobbyists. HSUS wants your vote and they want your money (not
necessarily in that order.) Wayne Pacelle knows that Christians,
compassionate by nature, give generously - and in these tough economic
times, he's getting creative.

After all, HSUS is still a little bit shy of $204 million in assets,
and Pacelle has to earn his six-figure salary. Earn it how? Excellent
question. Less than 4% of HSUS income goes to hands-on care of
animals.

When I checked out the "Web Sites for Animal Lovers" in my friend's
recent Daily Devotional, three were O.K. But one (as previously
mentioned) was the-worst-of-the-worst of the AR groups - HSUS. The
other was a seemingly harmless website called "MyDogIsCool.com" -
which is a "front" page because it contains a link which takes you to
"Born Free USA" and the "Animal Protection Institute." These are both
radical animal rights industry groups which support HSUS - and
demonize farmers. The websites of these two organizations reveal
clearly the true agenda of the animal rights movement - with
inflammatory language listing the supposed cruelty of even organic and
free-range farms.

And yes, of course, all of the websites of these radical AR groups
relentlessly ask for donations, and encourage viewers to join their
mailing lists - so they can inundate the reader daily with their
propaganda/requests for money.

How do you keep the animal rights industry out of your church? Be
proactive. When I spoke to someone on the editorial staff of my
friend’s Daily Devotional, she had no clue about the true agenda of
the AR industry, until I explained it to her. It was an innocent
mistake.

(See "Got 50?" on this Blog.) Put the the editor of your Daily
Devotional at the top of your "Get 50” List. Educate this person. It's
important to them to ensure that Daily Devotional content is
appropriate. Be a good shepherd. Help them out by teaching them the
truth about the AR industry - before they inadvertently make the flock
vulnerable to circling wolves.

It’s wonderful to have messages reinforcing and affirming our love of
animals, in faith-based materials. But website links can be fraught
with peril. The safe recommendation any Daily Devotional can make is
to volunteer or donate money directly to your local animal shelter.

Your Friend in the Fight,

Tina M. Perriguey
P.S. After several days of phone calls, I finally spoke to an editor
who is a decision-maker at the parent publishing company of the Daily
Devotional discussed in my article. He was attentive, thoughtful, and
thanked me for an "enlightening conversation." I sent him several
website links, so that he could further educate himself as to the
truth about the animal rights industry. He promised to get back to me
after he had done some reading. I will send an update after I hear
back from him. --TMP

CA- City Curbs Dog Rescuers

2009-05-19T08:20:00.000-07:00

City curbs dog rescuers

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12387736?source=email
By Dana Bartholomew dana.bartholomew@dailynews.com 818-713-3730 I
Staff Writer
Updated: 05/16/2009 11:56:45 PM PDT
The pooches can cost up to $750. Only they're not breeder dogs but
pound hounds rescued for $40 or less from city animal shelters.

Los Angeles officials have accused private rescuers of cherry-picking
their finest Fidos at cut-rate fees, then selling them for profit.

But allegations surrounding a new city ordinance to ban the practice
have provoked howls from

animal rescue groups who say their veterinary and boarding costs far
exceed returns from marked-up adoptions.

"It's outrageous. I'm so ... mad there's smoke coming out of my ears,"
said Pnina Gersten of Sherman Oaks, who finds shelter animals for many
nonprofit animal rescue agencies. "They do not sell dogs. Everyone is
in the red. You cannot make money off of this. It's impossible."

"It's insane, ridiculous," added Melya Kaplan of Voice for the Animals
in Venice, which charges $150 per dog after spending an average of
$500 per canine. "I don't know of any rescuer making any money and
going to the Bahamas."

The outcry followed a May 8 vote by the City Council to restrict
nonprofit rescue groups from selling shelter animals obtained at
discount rates for more than their cost of upkeep.

The ordinance also allows annual audits of city-approved rescue
agencies.

The city was prepared to give such rescue groups first choice of
mostly dogs and cats - with fees waived for selected agencies. But out
of concerns about gifts of public property, officials opted to
maintain rules that allow residents to choose animals on the first day
they are available, after which those rescue groups - called New Hope
Partners - can rescue the pets in their two-week life at six city
shelters.

Higher adoption prices

The public now pays the city up to $91 to adopt a dog and $68 for a
cat. While more than 80 approved rescue groups now pay only the $40
spay-neuter fee, according to a new fee schedule, many then post
substantially higher adoption prices.

One rescue partner, Beagles and Buddies, demanded donations from $150
to $750 per dog, "depending on the age and the breed," according to
its Web site. The El Monte agency did not return calls last week.

More typical private rescue adoption fees from mutts to purebreds
range from $200 to $500 per dog.

"There was a concern that there might be some bad players who might
take the animals and sell them," Councilman Richard Alarc n said last
week. "I believe that if a nonprofit organization is getting a
donation for the dog that exceeds the cost of its administration ...
it might appear to be a giveaway of public funds.

"We wanted the animals to be distributed fairly."

The decision to limit pet profiteering followed a letter from a former
rescuer that pressed the city to amend its plan to grant rescuers
first dibs on the most desirable animals - then re-sell them at higher
cost.

Phyllis Daugherty had also supplied city officials with a list of
approved rescue groups and their posted adoption fees.

"I had no idea that this would make this uproar," said Daugherty,
director of Animal Issues Movement and a former city employee. "I just
assumed that everyone knew they were selling them to recover the cost.

HSUS is not giving money to dogs- they give money to Politicians

2009-05-19T07:59:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta8GdABQPHA

WSB-TV Aftermath: The Knives Are Out At HSUS
By ESaunders AR-HR.com

It has been an interesting weekend since the May 14th release of the WSB-TV investigation of the Humane Society of the United States' fundraising practises and the use of those funds. The reaction of the Humane Society of the United States executive team and employees has been dramatic, if not over the top.

Apparently the HSUS executive has not been content to stop with the rumored unleashing the HSUS legal team on WSB-TV. This is a rumor supported by the swift removal of both the text, viewer comments and video from the WSB-TV website by the afternoon of Friday, May 15th and the subsequent removal of the text article from Google's cache system by Saturday, May 16th. The speed of this has been startling considering that images in Google's cache can linger for days, weeks and even years in some cases. This process can be accelerated by website owner request.

Since May 14th, the number of personal attacks by both the HSUS executive and employees has been escalating and even some of their own supporters have not been safe from the spatter. Consider the following:

a.. The article posted on "Civil Eats" by the Senior Director of the HSUS factory farming campaign, Paul Shapiro. Aptly titled, "Lose Pretty or Win Ugly", Mr. Shapiro proceeds to launch a series of attacks that could as easily describe HSUS tactics as the opponents named in the article. The comment, "When it comes to campaigning, CCF isn't exactly known for its fidelity to the truth." is particularly ironic after the admissions of HSUS Georgia Director Cheryl McAuliffe that most of her job entails activist planning and lobbying. With her further admission that all finances are controlled from Washington headquarters, it seems unlikely that Georgia is the only state with this proportion of political activity. It is even more ironic considering the HSUS ran an online fundraising campaign using the following soliciting statement beside the donation check box
a.. Yes! I want to make a special gift to help The Humane Society of the United States care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case and to support other vital animal protection programs. (Click here to see the image) As I have written before, HSUS was not the agency caring for the dogs but instead it was the organization Bad Rap in association with the ASPCA, while HSUS was recommending the Michael Vick dogs be euthanized.
a.. HSUS Chief Operating Officer Michael Markarian and HSUS Internet Brand Manager Carie Lewis were actively forwarding the article "CCF Continues to Decieve Journalists, Public" from the blog, Digging Through The Dirt through the social networks via Twitter (pdf of image available in case Twitter post disappears) yet never acknowledge that the CCF statistics are independently confirmed through this website. This raises the question, if the CCF data is accurate (which it is) then why does HSUS continue to claim deception? The "Digging Through the Dirt" Blog even accused CCF of attacking HSUS with Craigslist postings. However, there is one problem with this accusation. Its not CCF, which I know for a fact. No, it isn't me either but I'm going to leave it at that for now.
b.. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has attacked the Center for Consumer Freedom's status as a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt charity despite the evidence provided by WSB-TV which throws the HSUS' own 501(c) 3 tax-exempt staus into doubt.
c.. Andy Vance and I were called the "Limbaugh and Coulter of the meat industry" by HSUS employee Barbara Henderson. This was by far the mildest and most entertaining of the attacks to date for a couple of reasons. (1) I'm not certain that the meat industry really knows or cares much about either AR-HR.com or myself. (2) Didn't Rush Limbaugh just do a couple of public service announcements for the Humane Society of the United States that he has taken ALOT of heat for? It probably isn't good policy to use a celebrity supporter's name as an insult attempt, even in jest.

WSB-TV may have pulled their very brave report from public viewing, but the awareness this story has raised has certainly struck a nerve up to the highest levels of the Humane Society of the United States. If there was nothing to the story or the questions it has raised, why are they waging a war of personal attacks instead of simply laying out the numbers and the data? Equally interesting is the question, "Why are the HSUS executive leveling accusations that match the HSUS as closely, if not more closely, than those they are attacking?"

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

IL- Dog Owners Divided by HSUS Bag of Dirty Tricks

2009-05-19T07:40:00.000-07:00

Illinois Dog Owners Divided
By HSUS Bag Of Dirty Tricks

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@conline.net

This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39

SPRINGFIELD, IL
There is very little good that we can say about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the political arm of the radical animal rights movement. However, we must credit HSUS with being very politically astute, as their leaders, lobbyists and supporters have demonstrated dramatically in Illinois over the past two months.

Illinois dog owners had successfully stopped two pieces of onerous animal rights legislation, which would have repressively regulated all kennels including very small-scale hobby breeders, destroyed constitutional protections of due process under the law, fair and equal treatment under the law and the right to own and enjoy private property, and criminalized docking tails based on emotion and myth and in ignorance of the facts.

A strong outpouring of dog owners'opposition caused these bad bills to be bottled up in committee, and they didn't have enough votes to be passed.

At that point, HSUS was beaten. Dog owners had successfully fought for and protected their rights by stating the facts and telling the truth.

In Illinois, the truth is that existent laws are very stringent and have completely addressed every kennel problem that has been found for many years, and that tail docking is a safe and almost painless procedure that benefits many dogs.

Then, HSUS pulled out its favorite bag of political dirty tricks in order to divide dog owners and send a mixed message to the Legislature. A few organizations representing dog owners fell for these tricks, and the HSUS plot against our rights was given new life.

It was a classic sucker play. The treachery of some dog owners' groups accomplished what HSUS wanted to accomplish, but had failed to do.

The turncoat dog owners agreed to negotiate and support (or not oppose, which amounts to the same thing) the creation of a task force to study the need for new laws. The task force is based on wholly fictitious premises (please see our report from last week at http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=38) and is stacked to give animal rights fanatics as much as a 10-5 voting edge that dooms dog owners to a loss of their rights through bad legislation in the future. HSUS succeeded in convincing some dog owners groups to sign their own death warrants.

In last week's report , we urged dog owners to take action to assure that the resolution creating the task force was under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, which understands animal issues. Through your help, we succeeded, and the resolution was assigned to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee, where it will get the most knowledgeable and unbiased consideration.

Now, we have to restore unity and undo the divisiveness created by HSUS.

HSUS targets six groups of dog owners in their tactics to divide and conquer:

1. Dog owners who are fearful and timid, and think that "compromise" is the only way to preserve even a pathetic vestige of their rights. It is a current example of the "better red than dead" mindset during the Cold War. These people lack the courage to fight for their rights and are willing to deal them away in exchange for some diluted form of survival
2. Dog owners who want to be seen as "part of the process," and seek out "leadership" roles in order to stroke their egos with illusions of self-importance.
3. Dog owner who have an inherent faith in "the system," but who fail to realize that animal rights groups and Illinois "machine" politicians like Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski (the sponsors of the legislation who are HSUS tools) are experts at unfairly manipulating the system to get what they want.
4. Dog owners who are elitists in some sense, such as show people who think people who raise companion animals are inferior, or field trialers who think people who raise hunting dogs are second-class citizens.
5. Selfish dog owners who care only about protecting their own interests, and would sell out anyone else in order to save their own hides.
6. And dog owners who accept parts of the animal rights agenda, such as opposition to "puppy mills," and are not able to see the true goals of HSUS, which are to gradually eliminate all ownership of animals in America. These peop le have bought into the HSUS propaganda, even though it completely contradicts the facts.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly believes that the vast majority of dog and kennel owners are the good guys. We are the people who love dogs, breed dogs that are healthy, genetically sound and have great temperaments, and who have done 99% of the hard work to make the lives of dogs in America better than at any time in history.

We will never agree to any legislation that takes away or compromises our rights to continue to do what's best for the welfare of our dogs.

Thus, we are urging all Illinois dog owners to help us to restore unity in the face of the HSUS onslaught that has divided dog owners. Our unity was damaged when some groups decided to negotiate with HSUS, and the sham task force Senate resolution (SJR 56) was the result.

We are asking all Illinois dog owners to do four things now:

1. Do not support or contribute money to any organization that will participate on the task force, hires lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS or which supports the concept of a task force. It is absurd to have a task force based on the fraud of solving nonexistent problems. The only result will be to steal the rights of dog owners through a Devil's compromise in some form.
2. If you belong to a club or organization representing dog owners on the local, state or national level, please contact its officers immediately and ask them to withdraw all support for the task force or negotiations with HSUS. Instead, ask them to have their lobbyists concentrate only on informing the senators and representatives of the facts and encouraging them to vote against HSUS-anointed legislation.
3. Immediately contact members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee and ask them to oppose SJR 56. Please clearly state your reasons why. Here is a link for contact information for all members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee: http://www.ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?CommitteeID=626&GA=96 4. Please contact your own state representative and ask him or her to refuse to concur with SJR 56, and state your reasons. Here is a link to contact information: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp.
5. And please join at least one organization that is fighting for your rights.

If enough Illinois dog owners take these actions, we can restore unity and defeat HSUS-inspired legislation. If you fail to act now, your rights to own and enjoy your dogs are doomed.

Our unity was broken when four dog owners'groups in Illinois hired or supported lobbyists to negotiate with HSUS and agents of Rep. John A. Fritchey and Sen. Dan Kotowski. Negotiations were held every Thursday for more than a month, and are ongoing on a more informal "hidden backroom" level. The result was the creation of the task force, which was the HSUS "Plan B"strategy.

We want to emphasize that most of the groups supporting lobbyists who negotiated with HSUS are among the good guys, who believe in and defend the rights of dog owners. These are good people who are on our side, but we simply think they were manipulated by HSUS into agreeing to the task force. In particular, we admire lobbyist George Fleischli of the Illinois Association of Outdoor Resources, who is helping Illinois Brittany owners and field trial clubs.

Please do not attack good people simply because they make an occasional mistake. They deserve our continued support and loyalty.

Instead, please ask them to join our efforts to restore unity and stop SJR 56 in its tracks. We need their help.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .

TX- HB 3180 "Puppymill Bill"

2009-05-14T13:51:00.000-07:00

May 13, 2009
There's a lot of confusion regarding what's happening at the Texas State Legislature. RPOA can't broadcast all we're doing but will send alerts when we need your help with clear instructions. FORGET ABOUT HB 2310.

Call and tell your senator you are passionate about your animals and will not vote for him if he votes for HB 3180 nor will you financially support him/her in the future!

The bill that has been received in the Senate is HB 3180 and that is the bill we MUST DEFEAT. The Engrossed Version of HB 3180 that passed on the House Floor is on the state's website:
www.capitol.state.tx.us

As you know from past experience, all rules can be suspended and this bill could be passed in record time. So get on the horn! We can still kill this bill if each of you contact your senator and explain that this bill is not about "puppymills" at all.

It takes 21 Senate votes to get it to a Floor Vote. That is out of 31 senators. So let's get busy. We can do this! Just a couple more weeks to go.
Ask your senator how he or she is going to vote and let us know. It's a good idea to start contacting Governor Rick Perry -- just in case.

Find out who represents you: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Some talking points are below:
HB 3180, the misnamed "Puppymill Bill," by Thompson

* Will our senators stand up to the political powers in Austin to do what is right or will they let pet owners down as the House did? Do they own pets now and hope to own pets in the future?

* If every dog and cat in Texas is sterilized (as mandated in Senator Van de Putte's bill) and breeders face overly restrictive regulations (as in Representative Thompson's bill), where will pets come from in the future?

* Animal owners all over the country have their eyes on Texas to see how our legislators vote this session on anti-pet bills.

* HB 3180 is being sold as a "Puppymill" Bill and it is not. It regulates anyone that sells a dog or cat in the state whether they bred it or not, even rescuers. This is a big misconception.

* This is a radical national legislative agenda from Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) who have no connection to local humane societies. HSUS is an "animal rights" organization opposed to all use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment, including pet "ownership," preferring to call us pet "guardians.

* This bill will not stop anything as there are already strict animal cruelty laws in Texas and USDA regulates brokers and commercial breeders who sell to pet shops. Raids are made and animals seized on a regular basis in substandard facilities.

* HSUS uses sad pictures to sell all their legislation which is never written as publicized. The general public has no idea what is in this bill. They will find out eventually.

* Chapter 803. Dog and Cat Dealers; Subchapter A. General Provisions; Sec. 803.002. Definitions. In this chapter: (6) "Dealer means a person who is required to collect sales tax for the sale of animals to a retail purchaser. The term does not include a humane society or local animal control authority."
If this were a public health and safety issue as claimed, humane societies and animal controls should have to be classified as "dealers" also.

* "Commercial Breeder is defined as a person who possesses adult intact female animals that produce 20 or more litters in one calendar year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale."
This will be a bureaucratic nightmare to enforce.

* The bill sets up a whole new expensive state bureaucracy for regulations and enforcement in a time of economic downturn all across the country.

* "Registered Breeder Inspector means an individual employed and certified by the department to conduct investigations and inspections under this chapter."

This can be "animal rights" zealots like those who dressed as Klansmen and demonstrated at the Westminster Dog Show or the PETA members who demonstrate at every zoo, rodeo and circus protesting the use of animals.

Do we want these radical extremists coming into our homes for inspections and investigations?

I don't think so!

RPOA Texas Outreach (501C4 Nonprofit)
www.rpoatexasoutreach.org
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (501C3 Nonprofit)
www.responsiblepetowners.org

IL- Proposed 5 dog limit in City

2009-05-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/05/chicago-alderman-lets-have-a-five-dog-limit-in-city.html
Originally posted: May 13, 2009

Chicago alderman: Let's have a five dog limit in city
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos at 6:50 p.m.

Chicago pet owners would not be allowed to have more than five dogs in their homes under a new City Council proposal.

Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) introduced the ordinance to cap pooch occupancy at today's council meeting. He said a majority of aldermen---27 out of 50---quickly indicated their support.

"There are a lot of people who can't enjoy their backyards because of irresponsible dog owners," he said.

The proposal was prompted, Suarez said, by a recent case of 11 dogs at one house in his Northwest Side ward. The alderman alleged that the stench of doggie doo-doo made neighbors barking mad.

"It smells really bad, especially in the summer," Suarez said.

He quickly added that he didn't want to be labeled anti-canine for his latest legislative effort. "We have a dog who is like a member of the family," he explained.

The ordinance will be debated by the council's License Committee. A date for that public hearing has not yet been set.

TX- Breeder Regulatory Legislation is now very close to becoming LawBecause of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh

2009-05-11T07:20:00.000-07:00

Because of procedural maneuvering in the Texas Legislature, harsh
breeder regulatory legislation is now very close to becoming law in the
Lone Star State. It is vital that all concerned responsible dog
breeders and owners in Texas take immediate action in opposition to this
bill.

On Wednesday, May 6, Senator Tommy Williams of The Woodlands had House
Bill 2310 considered, which originally concerned the powers and duties
of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. HB 2310 already
passed the House of Representatives, and was being considered by the
full Senate. Then, while the bill was being considered, Senator John
Whitmire of Houston, the chief sponsor of Senate Bill 1910, which seeks
to impose harsh regulations and limits on responsible dog breeders but
had until now received little attention from the Texas Senate, moved to
amend CSHB 2310, adding the same harsh breeder regulatory language to
this bill. The amendment was accepted. In short order, the Senate's
rules were suspended, allowing the full Senate to put the newly-amended
HB 2310 up for a final vote. The Senate voted unanimously in favor of HB
2310. (Click here for the Texas Senate Journal's entry detailing the
actions taken on HB 2310.)

These procedural moves effectively prevented concerned Texans from
exercising their right to speak out about this legislation. Now, the
bill will be sent back to the Texas House of Representatives for final
approval, also known as concurrence. AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE, IT IS
VITAL THAT ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS AND OWNERS IN TEXAS FLOOD THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH LETTERS, CALLS, AND E-MAILS OF OPPOSITION.
URGE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SENATE'S AMENDMENTS
TO HB 2310. ADDITIONALLY, ALL CONCERNED TEXANS SHOULD CONTACT GOVERNOR
PERRY AND EXPRESS THEIR RESPECTFUL YET STRONG OPPOSITION TO HB 2310 AND
THE PROCEDURAL MANEUVERING THAT DENIED TEXANS THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

If enacted, the amended HB 2310 will negatively affect many responsible
breeders in Texas. The AKC opposes these changes including the following
provisions:

* Defining "commercial breeder" as a person who possesses 11 or
more adult intact female animals and is engaged in the business of
breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return
for consideration.

* Requiring licensure of anyone considered a commercial breeder.

* Limiting commercial breeders from possessing more than 50 adult
intact female animals in a facility at any time.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

It is imperative that all concerned Texans immediately contact their
member of the House of Representatives. Urge them to not concur with
the Senate's amendments to HB 2310. To find your Representative, go to
http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/ and enter your information.

Contact Governor Rick Perry in opposition to this bill now.
Respectfully yet strongly let him know that you oppose HB 2310, and
insist that he veto this bill.

> Office of the Governor Rick Perry
> Mailing Address:
> P.O. Box 12428
> Austin, Texas 78711-2428
>
> Delivery Address:
> State Insurance Building
> 1100 San Jacinto
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> Citizen's Opinion Hotline [for Texas callers]: (800) 252-9600
>
> Fax: (512) 463-1849
>
> To e-mail Governor Perry's office, go to
> http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/, click "I am registering my
> opinion", click "Submit", complete the information on the following
> page, and click "Submit".

It's Where the Obama's Didn't Purchase Their Pup That Matters

2009-05-11T07:09:00.000-07:00

It's Where the Obama's Didn't Purchase Their Pup That Matters
By Steve Dale

No, they didn't get a shelter dog. So what?

The First Family's First Puppy is as pure bred as they come, a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy's family, who have three Portuguese Water Dogs of their own.
By accepting 6-month old Bo, who had been returned to the breeder by another family, you'd think animal rights (AR) groups would be pleased with the President's choice Instead, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society of the United States were sharply critical of Obama because he didn't adopt a shelter dog, as if somehow dogs in shelters are suffering only because Obama chose a dog from a breeder.
To be absolutely clear - adopting a shelter animal is one way ordinary people can do something extraordinary, it's relatively inexpensive and you may potentially be saving a life. It's a great thing to adopt a shelter animal. However, I'm sick and tired of the AR groups blaming responsible breeders for the ills of animal shelters, as if they are somehow to blame for too many animals being given up and too few being adopted.
When I began writing this column nearly 15 years ago, most people considered shelter dogs and cats damaged goods, and were reluctant to adopt. That false perception is no longer accepted as fact. Shelter adoptions are up, and in many places way up. In fact, today, some communities even have shortages of adoptable dogs, so they 'import' them from other cities, counties or states where there's an abundance in packed shelters. Meanwhile, spay/neuters are up, and overpopulation is down in many parts of America. A complex web of caring volunteers rescue pure-bred dogs and pedigreed cats, yanking them from shelters (freeing space there for others), and bringing those rescued into home environments to be adopted.
When you subtract the dogs and cats considered unadoptable for behavior and/or health reasons, we're doing better than ever when it comes to adoptions. Still, YES YES YES - absolutely too many animals languish and die in shelters. I'm not disregarding that tragic fact.
Unfortunately, animal rights (AR) organizations have blasted Obama for not choosing a shelter dog. Obama's not alone. Joe Biden was attacked for purchasing a pure bred German Shepherd dog. In fact, according to these extreme AR groups, anyone who purchases a pure bred dog or pedigreed cat from a breeder is considered to be directly responsible animals dying in shelters. That leap of faith is simply wrong.
Pets purchased from conscientious breeders rarely land in shelters because, according to most contracts they must be spayed or neutered, and if anything goes wrong those pets are supposed to be returned to the breeder. That's exactly what happened to the Obama puppy that unfortunately turned out to be a poor fit for his first home. He was returned to the breeder, rather than dumped at the door of a shelter. If somehow, some way that puppy did land in a shelter, Portuguese Water Dog Rescue would have saved him.
In fact, the AR groups have it backwards - responsible breeders are a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. The problems begin with the idiots who breed animals for all the wrong reasons, they don't belong to a breed club or consider genetics in their haphazard breeding; they simply hope to make a buck.
Totally at fault are the pet stores (whose supplies are from puppy mills and commercial warehouses) selling to anyone who has cash (credible breeders are discerning and interview perspective buyers).
Most of all, according to data, here are reasons animals most often land in shelters: it's owners who can't deal with a behavior problem and can't find or don't bother to seek suitable help; relocate but without taking the pet; people who rent an apartment or buy a condo where pets aren't allowed but are soon discovered so the pet losses; or increasingly they simply can no longer afford to maintain the pet. Increasingly, lots of dogs are confiscated from gangs and other 'bad guys.'
Dealing with all these issues is what we should all be working on - not worrying about the breeders who are acting responsibly.
If the AR groups literally had their way - based on their own statements - there would be no breeding whatsoever. Their mantra is to advocate all breeders go away and that each and every animal is "Bob Barkerized" (spayed or neutered). If that were to literally happen, Maine Coon cats would soon be as endangered as the Cheetah; and American Cocker Spaniels or, for that matter, Portuguese Water Dogs would be as threatened as the African Wild Dog.
Made to feel guilty, and pushed to do positive PR, the Obama's will make a contribution the Washington (D.C.) Humane Society. That's nice. But the Obama's have nothing to feel guilty about. If you purchase a dog from a pet store or a reckless breeder, now you should feel guilty. But that is not what the Obama's did. In fact, they didn't make any purchase since Bo was a gift from the Kennedy family. Rescuing an animal from a shelter is good, but so is choosing a loving and responsible breeder - these two choices are not mutually exclusive.

NY- Strict Breeders Bill introduced in New York State Senate

2009-05-07T08:45:00.000-07:00

New Strict Breeders Bills Introduced In New York State Senate

[Friday, May 01, 2009]
Two new bills in the New York State Senate would severely limit the operations of responsible dog breeders in the Empire State. The American Kennel Club opposes these bills, and strongly encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New York to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of both bills, and respectfully express their opposition to the bills.

Senate Bill 4515 would require the registration and regulation of animal breeders. SB 4515 features many problematic provisions, including:

•Defining "breeder" as any person who breeds three or more animals for sale per year for profit. Any person defined as a "breeder" will be required to obtain a breeder license annually. The definition exempts from the definition duly incorporated humane societies. The threshold contained in this definition is overbroad and will apply the vast majority of dog breeders, thereby making enforcement impossible.

•Imposing stringent engineering requirements for animals' primary enclosures. As currently worded, these strict requirements will apply to all locations where dogs are housed, including the private residences of those classified as a 'breeder' under this law. This will potentially require thousands of dollars in extensive upgrades to be made to some individuals' residences.

•Mandating twice-a-year inspections of breeders' facility to be conducted at the breeder's expense. This additional, undefined fee could significantly the resources breeders need for caring for their animals. Additionally, due to the low threshold contained in the definition of "breeder" listed above, the number of inspections required under this new law will create an enforcement nightmare for New York state officials.

•Limiting "pet dealers" in New York to obtaining dogs only from New York State licensed "breeders." This requirement will inhibit many responsible purebred dog breeding programs by arbitrarily limiting operations; and will affect the health of many breeding programs by unreasonably and arbitrarily limiting gene pool diversity.

Senate Bill 4690 seeks to impose ownership limits and allow seizure of certain animals. The AKC opposes the following measures in SB 4690:

•Limit any person from owning more than 50 unsterilized dogs. The AKC believes that numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. Additionally, this definition does not exclude dogs under a certain age; as such, many responsible purebred dog breeders could inadvertently exceed this arbitrary limit by having several large litters.

•Allow any police officer, any agent or officer of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or any agent or officer of any duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to seize dogs kept in violation of the proposed 50 dog limit if certain due process requirements are met. The bill does not detail the fate of animals seized pursuant to this bill.

•Amend the existing definition to "pet dealer" to include any person who engages in the sale or offering for sale of more than nine animals per year for profit at wholesale or to the public, including breeders who sell animals directly to consumers or at wholesale. By expanding this definition, more New Yorkers will be required to adhere to the many statutory provisions required of pet dealers in New York.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Concerned New Yorkers are strongly encouraged to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee listed below. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose both Senate Bill 4515 and Senate Bill 4690, and urge them to do the same.

New York Senate Agriculture Committee:

Senator Darrel J. Aubertine, Chairman
Room 903,Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2761
E-mail: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us

Senator William T. Stachowski
Room 802,Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2426
Fax: (518) 426-6851
E-mail: stachows@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Room 306, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY12247
Phone: (518) 455-3451
Fax: (518) 426-6854
E-mail: montgome@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Neil D. Breslin
Room 502, Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2225
Fax: (518) 426-6807
E-mail: breslin@senate.state.ny.us

Senator David J. Valesky
Room 416, Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2838
Fax: (518) 426-6885
E-mail: valesky@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Catharine M. Young
Room513, Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3563
Fax: (518) 426-6905
To e-mail Senator Young, click here.

Senator James L. Seward
Room711B, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3131
To e-mail Senator Seward, click here.

Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Room415, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2091
Fax: (518) 426-6976
To e-mail Senator Winner, click here.

Senator Michael Ranzenhofer
Room315, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3161
Fax: (518) 426-6963
To e-mail Senator Ranzenhofer, click here.

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

CT- SB 499 Bad News For Responsible Dog Breedres

2009-05-07T08:39:00.000-07:00

URGENT: Connecticut SB 499 Bad News For Responsible Dog Breeders

[Monday, May 04, 2009]
On Thursday, April 30, Connecticut Senate Bill 499, which seeks to impose several changes to Connecticut's consumer protection laws, passed the state's Senate with burdensome last-minute amendments. The bill is now in the House of Representatives. While the American Kennel Club (AKC) supports reasonable consumer protection laws that protect both puppy purchasers and responsible dog breeders, the changes contained in SB 499 are not reasonable. As such, the AKC and the Connecticut Dog Federation, both strongly oppose SB 499 as currently written. Because this bill may be considered tomorrow, all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Connecticut are strongly urged to immediately contact their state representative. Let them know that you oppose SB 499 as currently written, and urge them to do the same.

The American Kennel Club supports reasonable laws and regulations intended to protect the pet-buying public in obtaining a sound dog of the breed represented. Breeders and/or sellers should be responsible for providing certain refunds, replacements or reimbursements should the dog sold become ill or die from a condition contracted prior to purchase. Such remedies should be conditioned upon the buyer's scrupulous adherence to the care and feeding program prescribed by the breeder and/or seller, as well as a timely examination by a state-licensed veterinarian once the puppy has gone to its new home. Breeders and/or sellers should provide buyers with a written bill of sale detailing the responsibilities of both the buyer and seller. This bill of sale should also detail any exclusions to refunds, replacements or reimbursements.

As currently written, Senate Bill 499 includes several provisions that go far beyond any measure of reasonableness, including:

•Requiring anyone who breeds two or more litters a year to have each puppy being sold examined by a veterinarian prior to the initial offering for sale, and examined every 15 days after the initial examination. The AKC believes that the provision requiring additional veterinary examinations every 15 days after the initial examination, regardless of whether a puppy is in sound health, is burdensome and unreasonable, and does not take into consideration the potential length of time responsible breeders may keep a puppy—in many instances, several months—prior to sale.

•Directing all sellers of dogs to file a certificate of origin with the Department of Agriculture within two days of sale, or otherwise be subject to a $100 fine, 30 days imprisonment, or both. The AKC argues that not only is this provision unreasonable, but if enacted, would create an enforcement nightmare of Connecticut's Department of Agriculture, which will be required to enforce this provision.

•Limiting kennel licensees from purchasing a dog or cat for resale from a breeder or other person, firm, or corporation located outside Connecticut that is not in possession of a current license issued by the USDA and any applicable state agency. This provision is both unreasonable and unenforceable because the various states have different breeder licensing regimes; as such, many breeders will not be able to meet the requirement of being licensed by both the USDA and a state. Additionally, the AKC believes that this provision opens the door to limiting the acquisition of all dogs from sources from outside Connecticut, regardless of intended purpose. This may result in many responsible breeders in Connecticut not being able to acquire appropriate dogs for their breeding programs from outside of Connecticut.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Connecticut are strongly urged to immediately contact their state representative. Let them know that you oppose SB 499 as currently written, and urge them to do the same. Click here to find your legislator.

If your Representative is a Democrat, please call the House Democrats at (860) 240-8500. If your Representative is a Republican, please call the House Republicans at (860) 240-8700. Ask for your Representative by name. Tell them that you are calling about SB 499 and respectfully let them know that you oppose the bill.

For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, click here.

For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, click here.

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

AKC's new Legislative Tracking

2009-05-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

The AKC now has a clickable map of the US where they are tracking Legislative issues. This site is located Here
http://www.trendtrack.com/texis/cq/viewrpt?event=49bfaef9bd

ALL Breeders are Commercial Breeders according to Wayne Parcelle

2009-04-30T08:51:00.000-07:00

Just ask Wayne Pacelle, all breeders are commercial breeders, even show/hobby breeders. From Wayne Pacelle's blog, dated April 1, 2009. The following is taken from his blog:

"This year, with all of the awareness and exposés of puppy mill abuses, there are more reform efforts than ever in the states-from Maine to California, and more than half the states in between. And again, what we get is vitriol and antagonism from zealous dog breeders, silence or opposition from the American Kennel Club on the legislation, and even resistance from a few state veterinary medical organizations." [snip]
"But there is a class of commercial dog breeders out there-apparently, a good number of them who are not even high-volume puppy mills-who raise their voices loudly against any attempt to impose reasonable standards of care for dogs and limits on how large these operations can be. Since they can hardly attack the substance of the legislation-because the provisions are so obviously rational (such as giving the animals an opportunity to exercise, or not forcing them to live on wire flooring their entire lives)-they attack The HSUS, almost unable to restrain themselves. They spew knowingly false things about The HSUS wanting to ban all pet ownership. In the past, in my blog and elsewhere, I've addressed these prevarications, where they take one quote completely out of context from 15 or 20 years ago, and treat that fragmented comment as doctrine, even though there are decades of public statements and action on my part and that of my colleagues that unmistakably celebrate the human-animal bond and The HSUS's vigorous support of pet keeping." [snip]
"The opponents of any and all reform efforts-led by Patti Strand, a board member of the American Kennel Club and a founder of an organization called the National Animal Interest Alliance (supported by the full gamut of fur retailers, trophy hunters, and other animal-abuse industries)-never propose anything positive. They are just naysayers and knee-jerk opponents, and they just want to tear down any law to help animals. They don't advance reform ideas of their own, because the fact is they want no laws to protect animals. In some cases, it's because they operate under the assumption that there's just no problem, or the ludicrous notion that passing a piecemeal reform will inevitably lead to a ban on all breeding. In other cases, it's simple self-delusion or hatred of government regulation.In the face of these desperate and malicious tactics, we will only step up our efforts. We’ll put more resources into the fight, knowing more than ever that we are on the side of right and that God’s creatures need us to stand up for them more than ever.”

-End of Wayne's comments-

If you've never been moved to get personally involved in the fight to protect our rights to own, breed and show dogs of our choosing, I suggest that the time is now!
Wayne's full blog for April 1st can be found here - read it and be afraid...be very afraid! Take action now!!!
http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/04/page/2/

My Personal Comments:
Take note of the red/bolded text in the above blog of Wayne Pacelle’s. According to this blog there are no more hobby breeders. We are a class of commercial dog breeders. Further, most commercial dog breeders are high-volume puppy mills. In one fell swoop of his pen, Wayne Pacelle has eliminated hobby breeders and reclassified us all.Then the scariest part of it all he accuses us of having being self-delusional and/or having a hatred of government regulation.

I don’t know about anyone else out there but I still live in the United States of America, where our forefathers spoke out against over-regulation of/from government. Where we have a Declaration of Independence that states
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The train of abuses and usurpations are beginning and I am tired of it. This is supposed to be a country of less government not more.
Further the Founding Fathers stated that after petitioning the British government to correct these wrongs and not receiving any redress, it became necessary to Declare their Freedom from the British Government.
They consequently set up a government with Constitutional Rights to guarantee that the government would not usurp our basic freedoms and a petitioning process to redress wrongs and unnecessary laws.
But when we, the people and common citizen of the USA, follow these dictates of Our Founding Fathers in the way to petition unnecessary laws/legislation as set up by our forefathers, we have come up against a Would-Be-Dictator of unending money supply, that demands that we give into them and are wrong to oppose them. Further, we are a group of zealous dog breeders spewing forth vitriol and antagonism because we dare to confront and fight against the legislation that would be dictated on us by an organization as they attempt to lure/con/dictate to the legislators of these state and federal governments (who are elected to office to follow the will of their constituents) to pass their legislation not the legislation of the people. To me this is Dictatorship. This Would-Be-Dictator, Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States, demands that we are self-delusional and have a hatred of governmental regulation.

I stand up and say, “NO, I am NOT SELF-DELUSIONAL and YES, I am AGAINST unnecessary GOVERNMENT REGULATION, especially when there are federal and state laws already covering these areas.”

This country is undergoing drastic changes at this time. It is not a time to sit down at the table and try to come to a compromise. Compromises will not work. Once passed into law and the legislators that did the compromising are no longer in office to protect the law the way it was meant to be, changes come about. It is much harder to rescind a law then to stop legislation, but it is very easy for legislators and lobbyists to change existing laws to fit their design as they see fit.

The calling out of citizens following the constitutional procedures of legislation as desperate and malicious tactics is beyond ludicrous. Wayne Pacelle’s self-proclaimed “calling of God’s” to protect creatures, is a self-justification to fool the religious citizens to think that he is justified to take away the freedom and rights of private citizens. All of mankind was given jurisdiction and ownership of animals not just Wayne Pacelle. Wayne Pacelle is not God’s chosen to see that this is accomplished.

Further, his calling our tactics as desperate and malicious is a furtive attempt to call attention away from the HSUS not having the correct numbers when questioned and leading on the legislators in each state to believe that only the HSUS has the solution. HSUS is the liar in all of this. They have misled the USA citizenship into believing that they are concerned about animals while taking donations from an uninformed public. It is time to put a stop to their coffers profiting from their lies.
This is a time when all citizens that want to have animals in their lives, that they can touch and interact with, or breed and own, to stand up and join the fight. This fight is against not only an organization, but against a man that thinks he has the right to dictate to everyone else how they are to treat property. What they can have and what they cannot. How they are to treat this property and when. To me this sounds an awful lot like a Dictator. And I call him out as such. Wayne Pacelle, you are nothing more than a Would-Be-Dictator that will eventually be overthrown by a Grass-Roots Movement of People that will not lay down and take your politics, your lying, or your self-proclamation of being a savior for animals when you have no desire to even be in physical contact with animals. You dare to try and make your organization, HSUS, into the most powerful organization to dictate to state and federal governments what laws need to be made.

We will fight you to the end, for our Animals, for our Children, FOR OUR RIGHTS OF FREEDOM and OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of a LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE.CathyM
Catren's Shar Pei
Catren's Leather Show Accessories

Cracking down on “puppy mills”? , or just limiting your rights?

2009-04-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

This year bills have been proposed in no fewer than 15 states claming to crack down on puppy mills, but upon reading the proposed bills, they do little more than set a limit for the number of intact dogs an individual can keep.

Today in North Carolina, Senate Bill 460- Commercial Breeding of Dogs, will be considered. This is one such bill that could set into law the definition of commercial breeder an arbitrary number of intact female dogs (15). Earlier this year Oregon considered House Bill 2470 which identified as few as 3 litters a year as a pet dealer ,which had legal ramifications, and limited anyone from possessing more than 25 intact dogs total. West Virginia was proposing to set the commercial breeder bar at 20 intact dogs, and finally in Arkansas, the limit was set at 12 dogs, and they didn’t even have to live on your property. Many hobby breeders jointly own dogs with other hobby breeders and obviously that dog is only located at one place at a time, so the proposal in Arkansas would cover that base.

Are these laws really cracking down on puppy mills, or are they just limiting the rights of American Citizens? There is no definition of a puppy mill, but each of these laws is including a definition of a commercial breeder which, when based on an arbitrary number that some law maker sound like “a lot of dogs” creates a regulatory system on a person’s life-style choice . The term puppy mill evokes an imagine of cramped housing, untreated wounds and filth in the mind’s of most Americans. It is this image that has recently, and repeatedly, been portrayed on television by organizations such as the Human Society of the United States (HSUS). This tactic is being used to build public support for so called puppy mill bills, but rarely is the public actually reading the bills that are being proposed.

Laws that impose numerical limits do nothing to address the concerns that most Americans have in regards to the so called puppy mills. They do nothing to protect the citizens of this great nation from one another, or others wishing to do us harm; they do nothing to improve the health and saftey of the residents of this great nation; but rather, only serve to limit the choice residents of this great nation have, and criminalize activities of otherwise ordinary citizens who think they live in the land of the free where having puppies is no one else's business but theirs.

NC- SB 460 To Be Heard -TOMORROW

2009-04-29T10:16:00.000-07:00

URGENT: North Carolina SB 460 Short title: Commercial Breeding of Dogs-To Be Heard Thursday, April 30, 9AM

Senate Bill 460 will be considered by the North Carolina Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30. Details are as follows:

DATE: Thursday, April 30, 2009
TIME: 9:00 AM – Please plan to be arrive no later than 8:30AM, dressed in professional attire.
LOCATION: Room 1027, Legislative Building, 16 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601

All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in North Carolina are encouraged to attend the hearing on Thursday in opposition to the bill. We need to show strong opposition to SB 460. While attendees will not be able to speak in opposition, NUMBERS MATTER! If you are unable to attend, please call or e-mail the members

This Act defines a commercial breeder as (5b) anyone who, during any 12-month period, maintains 15 or more adult female dogs for the primary purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals.
Remember- these dogs do not need to be currently having puppies- just that they are intact females and you intend to sell any offspring as a companion animal.
and defines a commercial breeding operation as (5c) the physical location or facility at which a commercial breeder breeds or maintains adult female dogs and their offspring. Yes- this implies your home if that is where you maintain your dogs. If your puppies are born in your bedroom, it is still part of a "commercial breeding operation"

AL- Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced

2009-04-13T14:56:00.000-07:00

[Thursday, April 02, 2009]
From AKC-
Alabama Senator Del Marsh (R) of Anniston has introduced Senate Bill 554, which would, among other provisions, require the sterilization of all privately-owned dogs six months of age or older. The American Kennel Club opposes SB 554, and strongly urges all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama to contact their elected representatives, bill sponsor Senator Marsh, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.

The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans, or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the health and welfare of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibility seriously. However, the American Kennel Club recognizes the special obligation of dog owners, not only to their pets but also to their neighbors. The AKC supports "curbing" and clean-up ordinances, leash laws, nuisance laws, and other reasonable regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities.

If enacted, SB 554 will:

* Require all dogs six months of age and older to be spayed or neutered.

* Provide that an owner of an unsterilized dog six months of age or older that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and, in addition to any fine, be forced to pay a civil penalty of $50 on the first occurrence; pay a civil penalty of $100 on the second occurrence; and on the third occurrence, require sterilization of the dog.

* Define "complaint" as any oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this act, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means that observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this act, any other provision of state law that relate[s] to dogs or cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

The measure also would exempt owners of dogs from the act, if:

* Their dog is a breed approved by and is registered with a recognized registry or association, and the dog is actively used to show or compete and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association within the last two years;
Their dog is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed;
* Their dog has earned or is in the process of earning a special title, such as agility or herding;
* Their dog is trained or in training for use in law enforcement, military, or rescue activities; or
* By letter from a licensed veterinarian, their dog has been certified to be temporarily or permanently deferred due to age or heath or any other valid reason.

The AKC does not believe that these exemptions adequately address the underlying issue of responsible dog ownership or the right of responsible breeders to maintain an unaltered dog for the purpose of breeding.

As introduced, SB 554 is a substantive copy of a version of California Assembly Bill 1634 that responsible dog breeders and owners in California successfully opposed in 2008. As such, SB 554 is not designed as a solution for any animal control issues for Alabama. Additionally, because SB 554 provides the authority to issue a citation for an unaltered dog (or cat) that is the subject of a complaint (other than for excessive noise or barking) and which includes the consequence of owners being required to sterilize their dog, the bill does not clearly provide animal owners with due process to protect against overzealous enforcement that may result in permanent deprivation of one’s property.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

It is imperative that all responsible dog breeders and owners in Alabama contact their elected representatives, SB 554’s sponsor, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose SB 554, and urge them to do the same.

To find your Alabama State Representative and State Senator, click here and enter your zip code+4 on the left side of the page.

SB 554 Sponsor - Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Myron C. Penn, Chairman
Alabama State House, Room 731
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7868
E-MAIL: myronpenn28@hotmail.com

Senator Roger H. Bedford, Jr.
Alabama State House, Room 730-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7862
E-MAIL: senbedford@aol.com

Senator Kim S. Benefield
Alabama State House, Room 729-C
State House
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7874
FAX: (334) 353-8277
E-MAIL: kbenefield@acs-isp.com

Senator Ben Brooks
Alabama State House, Room 735-A
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7882
E-MAIL: benbrooksiii@aol.com

Senator Vivian Davis Figures
Alabama State House, Room 732
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7871
E-MAIL: vivian.figures@al-legislature.gov

Senator T.D. "Ted" Little
Alabama State House, Room 740
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7865
E-MAIL: tedlittle@mindspring.com

Senator Del Marsh
Alabama State House, Room 735
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7877
FAX: (334) 242-8819
E-MAIL: del.marsh@alsenate.gov

Senator Trip Pittman
Alabama State House, Room 738-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7897
E-MAIL: trip.pittman@alsenate.gov

Senator Henry "Hank" Sanders
Alabama State House, Room 730
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7860
(No e-mail available)

Senator Bobby Singleton
Alabama State House, Room 732-B
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7935
FAX: (334) 242-7191
E-MAIL: BSingle164@yahoo.com

Senator Rodger Mell Smitherman (President Pro Tempore)
Alabama State House, Room 722
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7870
E-MAIL: rodger.smitherman@alsenate.gov

Senator Zeb Little (Senate Majority Leader)
Alabama State House, Room 721
11 S. Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
PHONE: (334) 242-7855
E-MAIL: zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com

Senator Arthur Orr
Alabama State House, Suite 737
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36130-4600
PHONE: (334) 242-7800
FAX: (334) 242-8819
To e-mail Senator Orr, click here for an online form.

RESOURCES:

For tips on how to effectively communicate with legislators, please click here.

For a copy of our Disagree Diplomatically brochure, please click here.

For a sample letter of opposition to SB 554 that Alabama residents can customize, please click here.

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Alabama Canine Coalition at president@alabamacaninecoalition.com.