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 — a state known for its concentration of puppy mills —
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 — 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 — 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 — too young to vaccinate — 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 — written in 1956 and last updated in
1983, when international travel was less frequent and dog imports
consisted of the occasional family pet — 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.
Showing posts with label Veterinary medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Veterinary medicine. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Should You Surgically Debark Your Dog?
In this country it seems we are always faced with how to regulate morality. I put debarking in this class. Although the AR groups claim it is "inhumane", I can not buy that argument. I have witnessed this surgical procedure done and feel that if this surgery is deemed "inhumane"- then there are far more surgeries and procedures that we do to ourselves, our children, and yes- even our pets- that we should also label "inhumane". No, I think that the question of debarking is a moral question- not a "humane" question.
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
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
Monday, March 16, 2009
Shelters should never be exempt from the laws they propose
Dog laws are being proposed at a rapid rate around the country that relate to the standard of care, housing requirements, exercise requirements, and the like, yet interestingly enough, they all only apply to "Breeders"- shelters are exempt.
Talk show host Oprah Winfrey should be advocating that ALL dogs should be given the same level of care- regardless of where they are currently housed. Oprah's Cocker Spaniel puppy, Ivan, just died of Parvo and his litter sister, Sadie, is fighting for her life after contracting Parvo at the Chicago area PAWS animal shelter. Animal shelters, which bring in many pets from un-known origin should be the FIRST places that these strict standards of care should be enacted. Breeders who have a resident population of dogs are far less likely to have diseases introduced than shelters are.
If your state is proposing new changes to the dog laws, please, make sure you visit your Lawmaker and let them know that shelters should NOT be exempt.
Talk show host Oprah Winfrey should be advocating that ALL dogs should be given the same level of care- regardless of where they are currently housed. Oprah's Cocker Spaniel puppy, Ivan, just died of Parvo and his litter sister, Sadie, is fighting for her life after contracting Parvo at the Chicago area PAWS animal shelter. Animal shelters, which bring in many pets from un-known origin should be the FIRST places that these strict standards of care should be enacted. Breeders who have a resident population of dogs are far less likely to have diseases introduced than shelters are.
If your state is proposing new changes to the dog laws, please, make sure you visit your Lawmaker and let them know that shelters should NOT be exempt.
Monday, February 2, 2009
MA- An Act Prohibiting Devocalization of Dogs and Cats
Bill number not available at this time.
Democratic state Rep. Lida Harkins of Needham introduced “An Act Prohibiting Devocalization of Dogs and Cats” earlier this month. The bill, drafted by the Animal Law Coalition of Ithaca, N.Y., seeks to limit devocalization, more commonly known as “debarking,” a procedure in which an animal’s vocal cords are cut to quiet them. If it passes, the law would only allow such a procedure if it was deemed medically necessary. State Rep. Sarah Peake, a Democrat from Provincetown who represents the 4th Barnstable District, said she plans to sign on as a co-sponsor by the Feb. 4 deadline and will vote to stop this “cruel process....”
Does anyone else see a problem with the fact that this Act was drafted by a special interest group?
Democratic state Rep. Lida Harkins of Needham introduced “An Act Prohibiting Devocalization of Dogs and Cats” earlier this month. The bill, drafted by the Animal Law Coalition of Ithaca, N.Y., seeks to limit devocalization, more commonly known as “debarking,” a procedure in which an animal’s vocal cords are cut to quiet them. If it passes, the law would only allow such a procedure if it was deemed medically necessary. State Rep. Sarah Peake, a Democrat from Provincetown who represents the 4th Barnstable District, said she plans to sign on as a co-sponsor by the Feb. 4 deadline and will vote to stop this “cruel process....”
Does anyone else see a problem with the fact that this Act was drafted by a special interest group?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
PA- HB 39 Makes ear cropping, debarking, tail docking & dewclaw removal "cruelty"
HB 39
These proceedures may be done by a licensed Veterinarian, but a certificate must accompany the dog stating the procedure was done by a licensed Veterinarian. I sure hope you don't find a nice dog at a shelter with cropped ears, or a docked tail- those papers will most likely not have been surrendered with the dog, and the shelter will forage them to make the dog "legal"
These proceedures may be done by a licensed Veterinarian, but a certificate must accompany the dog stating the procedure was done by a licensed Veterinarian. I sure hope you don't find a nice dog at a shelter with cropped ears, or a docked tail- those papers will most likely not have been surrendered with the dog, and the shelter will forage them to make the dog "legal"
Friday, January 23, 2009
FL- Proposed House Bill HB451 Mandatory Spay/Neuter for dogs and cats and Licensing of Cats
Proposed HB 451
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
CA: Proposition 2- Even the Vets think it's a bad idea
PRESS RELEASE
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Back
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Tom McPheron
Phone: 847-285-6781
Cell: 773-494-5419
e-mail: tmcpheron@avma.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2008
AVMA issues statement on California Proposition 2
SCHAUMBURG, Ill.
— The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a statement (PDF) today, which, in part, reads: "The AVMA believes Proposition 2, 'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect."
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
For more information, please visit www.avma.org.
Friday, June 27, 2008
TX, CA, PA- Black Wednesday for Dog Owners
Black Wednesday For Dog Owners
Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and Pennsylvania.
Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) cashed in political chips with elected officials.
PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.
Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.
Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:
In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.
In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.
Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.
Advocates of dog owners rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.
We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.
Please stand up and be counted now!
We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact permit.
If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.
We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of participants and their dogs.
Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the 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 division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. 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. 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
Animal Rights Wins In Dallas, California, Pennsylvania
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
Wednesday was a black day for dog owners all across America, as animal rights extremists posted legislative victories in Dallas, California and Pennsylvania.
Dog owner advocacy groups fought hard in all three contests and had clear majority support, but animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) cashed in political chips with elected officials.
PETA and HSUS have been infiltrating local and state advisory boards for many years, backed by a war chest exceeding $150 million, hundreds of paid employees and thousands of volunteers.
Apathy remains th greatest problem faced by dog ownership advocacy groups.
Wednesday's votes also highlighted what is rapidly becoming a partisan division on animal rights legislation. In general, almost all Republicans voted against the legislation, and almost all Democrats voted for the bills. The Democratic Party appears to be lining up behind the animal rights agenda in support of its presumptive presidential candidate, Barrack Obama. Obama has
expressed strong support for animal rights.
Here is a summary of the four issues decided this week:
In Dallas, City Council voted 10-3 to pass an animal control ordinance
requiring mandatory pet sterilization, expensive permits to own intact dogs and cats, mandatory microchipping and pet ownership limits. The ordinance also bans tethering of dogs and imposes strict requirements for keeping dogs outdoors.
Home inspections also are authorized.
In California, the Senate Local Government Committee voted 3-2 to approve AB1634, which now will be sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If this committee approves, it will be sent to the legislature for a vote. This bill allows any person to act as a vigilante and report any dog owner for an unsubstantiated violation of any animal law. If any animal control officer agrees, the accused person will have a choice between paying a fine or sterilizing
the animal. People who are accused of anything have no right to defend themselves or to appeal. An accusation is automatic guilt.
In Pennsylvania, the House Rules Committee voted Tuesday to approve HB2532, which is a de facto ban on tail docking, dewclaw removal and ear cropping. In the absence of proof that the procedure was performed by a veterinarian, the mere possession of a dog that has had one of those three procedures subjects an owner to a criminal citation for animal cruelty. This bill would destroy many rescue operations, dog shows, competitive events and field trials in
Pennsylvania and result in the deaths of thousands of dogs. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Also in Pennsylvania, the House Agriculture Committee approved amendments to the state dog and kennel law that fall short of changes that were promised to dog owner advocacy groups. The actual text of this legislation was not available at this writing, and a follow-up report will be issued when the revised legislation is available. This bill now goes to the full House for a vote, and then to the Senate.
Please see below for more detailed descriptions of all four issues.
Dog ownership advocates clearly outnumbered animal rights sympathizers in public hearings on all four pieces of legislation, as well as in written comments, emails and phone calls received by elected officials. However, many of those officials chose to ignore our voices, and that is doubly true of the Democrats. We are not saying this to be partisan, as many of our officers and members are loyal Democrats. We simply are stating a fact. Democrats voted
against animal owners this week by a shocking margin, and we urge dog owners who are registered with this party to work to reverse this policy.
Advocates of dog owners rights also were hurt by the apathy of many people who support us, but who did little or nothing to voice that support to elected officials. At the Senate hearing in California, for example, only about 10 people showed up. In Dallas, about 200 dog ownership advocates attended the hearing, but that is a tiny percentage of the estimated 300,000 pet owners in the city. Attendance at the two Pennsylvania hearings was described as
moderate.
Apathy by the large but silent majority of dog owners is a major component of the animal rights strategy. While we outnumber them 100-to-one, most of us don't get involved. In contrast, animal rights groups rely on an almost religious fanaticism by their supporters to gain a high percentage of participation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every dog owner in America to join one or more of the several fine organizations that are fighting for your rights. Each of these organizations has its own niche, but all are excellent and deserve your support.
We welcome your membership and hope you will participate fully in our programs. Please visit us online at http://www.americansportingsdogalliance.org.
Please stand up and be counted now!
We also ask all dog owners who belong to field trial clubs, sportsmen's organizations, show specialty clubs, breed clubs and event clubs to urge those organizations to take an active political role to defeat animal rights legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is urging dog owners to boycott all dog events in the City of Dallas for their own safety. Under the terms of the ordinance, even a visitor to the city is subject to citations, fines and dog confiscations. It is known that PETA plans a protest at a July dog show in Dallas, and we expect them to report show dog owners for alleged violations of the ordinance. Because the Dallas animal commission is dominated by PETA members, we expect that there will be a move to raid this dog show. All
professional handlers would be in violation of the possession limit of six dogs, and none of the dogs are expected to have a required Dallas breeding or intact permit.
If the Pennsylvania and California legislation becomes law, it will not be safe for anyone to attend a field trial, dog show or performance event in those states, or even to visit, pass through or take a hunting trip there.
We urge all clubs to cancel or move planned events in Dallas now, and also in Pennsylvania and California if their legislation is signed into law. We believe that clubs have an ethical obligation to protect the safety of participants and their dogs.
Continued apathy and non-involvement will doom dog ownership in America, as well as hunting, field trials and other dog events. We can't do it without you.
Here are the highlights of the four pieces of legislation that were voted on this week.
California
We support the first part of AB1634, which calls for fines for dogs that are allowed to roam and mandates sterilization after the third offense.
However, the second part of the legislation violates basic constitutional rights and human decency.
Here are the provisions of the second part of the legislation (Italics are
direct quotes, and words that are not italicized are our comments):
“The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint may be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance." In the first sentence, the committee substituted “may" for “shall", which appears to leave the
issuance of a citation up to the discretion of an animal control officer.
However, the basis for this decision is not defined.
“The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local
animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered." There is no provision for a dog owner to defend him/herself in court or at a hearing, and no appeal is
allowed. If you are accused, you are guilty. Period. This is a violation of constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law.
“Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint also means the 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 division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance."An example of what this means is that a hunting or field trial dog that is in excellent health and conditioned for performance could result in a complaint of animal
cruelty if anyone believes the dog looks thin.
"Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances." This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws. Many members of these groups support a radical animal rights agenda.
The Senate Local Government Committee approved this legislation by a party-line 3-2 vote Wednesday, with Democrats in the majority. It now goes to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and then to the Senate floor for a final vote.
Please contact members of the Appropriations Committee immediately to voice opposition to the second half of this bill, and also individual senators.
This link gives contact information for committee members:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/APPROP/_home1/PROFILE.HTM. The committee meets on Monday.
This link gives contact information for all senators:
http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. While Sen. Michael Machado voted for this bill on Wednesday, he expressed many concerns and might be convinced to change
his vote.
Dallas
Here is a summary of the dog ordinance passed Wednesday by the Dallas City Council by a 10-3 vote. The ordinance:
Creates a permit for a dog or cat used for breeding or competition.
The cost of the permit is $70 annually for each animal, plus the regular license fee of $30. There is no grace period or exclusion provided for new residents or people who are visiting Dallas, including participants in dog shows or other events. Visitors can be cited, and we expect that they will be cited.
It Requires all other dogs or cats to be spayed or neutered.
Limits a single household to a total of six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty, but they would not be allowed to buy a dog or breed a litter of puppies until their number of dogs drops below the limit. The ordinance applies to anyone who “harbors" more than six dogs, which includes many visitors and participants in dog shows and other events.
Almost all professional handlers would be in this category, as well as many owner/handlers.
Subjects anyone who harbors a group of dogs that exceeds the limits to unannounced inspections. This would include participants in dog shows or other events.
Mandates microchipping of all dogs and cats, including those of
visitors.
Prohibits tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except
"for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary
task."
Forces owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a building or
designed doghouse for a dog confined outdoors.
And provides for confiscation of allegedly dangerous dogs, and other
penalties.
Please contact us at asda@csonline.net if you would like to participate in legal action or boycotts related to the Dallas ordinance.
Pennsylvania
Dog owners in Pennsylvania were beset by two pieces of bad legislation this week.
HB 2525 regulates a million dog owners and owners of 2,700 licensed kennels in the state. It passed the House Agriculture Committee by a 17-12 vote Wednesday. All but one Republican (Rep. K. Boback) voted against the bill, and all Democrats (the majority party) voted in favor of it.
It appears that the final bill reflects some of the promises made to dog ownership advocacy groups during the past several months of negotiations, but that the Democrats have reneged on other promises.
Some dog owners groups have withdrawn their opposition to this legislation, but the American Sporting Dog Alliance continues to oppose it in its present form. While we support changes that affect commercial breeders, these represent only a small part of HB 2525. The rest of the bill has serious impacts on all dog and kennel owners. The text of several amendments has not been published thus far We will issue a full report on this legislation in the next couple of days.
The other legislation is HB 2532, which provides what amounts to be a de facto partial or complete ban on tail docking, ear cropping and dewclaw removal by anyone except a licensed veterinarian. Although most other dog owners' organizations have not taken a clear public stance on this bill, the American Sporting Dog Alliance categorically opposes it.
HB 2532 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-1 vote Tuesday, with only Republican Rep. T. Creighton voting “no."
The bill allows owners to dock the tails of puppies until they pass three days of age, and to remove dewclaws during the first five days. However, the burden of proof is placed on a dog's owner to prove that this work was done legally before the age limits, or by a veterinarian. It would be difficult for most dog owners to prove this, and a large majority would not be able to prove it. The simple possession of a dog with a docked tail or a lack of dewclaws would be considered evidence of an animal cruelty violation, if the owner cannot prove his/her innocence.
The bill continues a total ban against ear cropping, except by a
veterinarian, and anyone who is found in possession of a dog with cropped ears is automatically guilty of criminal animal cruelty in the absence of proof.
For all of these procedures, HB 2532 struck out a provision that would have exempted dogs if their owners filed an affidavit with a county treasurer that the work was done before the bill is passed.
That means a large majority of owners of many of the most popular breeds will have no way of proving that they have complied with the law. These procedures were done legally in the past on many dogs, or legally by breeders in other states. In many cases, a dog owner has no idea who performed these procedures. Thus, they would be guilty of criminal animal cruelty for noncompliance.
This legislation will destroy rescue work for many breeds if it is signed into law. Most dogs that are assisted by rescue groups, animal shelters and private individuals either come from unknown sources, or do not come with medical records. There will be no choice except to euthanize these dogs, since it will be impossible to establish their legality.
This legislation also will have a severe impact on people who live in other states. On one level, Pennsylvanians will no longer be able to buy puppies from dozens of breeds from nonresident breeders who perform these procedures legally in their home states.
On another level, Pennsylvania professional trainers and handlers will not be able to accept many dogs from out-of-state customers, because proof will not be available.
But a larger impact will be on thousands of people who own dogs and come to Pennsylvania for a vacation, to hunt, or to compete in field trials, dog shows and other events. Anyone who brings a dog with a docked tail, missing dewclaws or cropped ears into Pennsylvania is subject to arrest for criminal animal cruelty charges.
This will affect many very popular breeds of dogs, such as almost all
Continental breeds of pointing dogs, flushing dogs, terriers and many working dogs, such as rottweilers and doberman pinchers.
The bill now moves to the full House for a vote. Please contact your own legislator and as many others as possible to express opposition to this legislation. Contact information can be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_alpha.cfm.
Here is a link to the text of the legislation:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H
&billTyp=B&billNbr=2532&pn=4030
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. 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. 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
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Pet Sterilization Raise Health Concerns
Pet sterilization laws raise health concerns
Spayed or neutered dogs more at risk for cancers, other ills, research shows
By Kim Campbell Thornton
MSNBC contributor
updated 8:56 a.m. ET, Mon., May. 19, 2008
As legislators push for more mandatory spay and neuter laws for pets as young as 4 and 6 months in hopes of reducing the number of unwanted animals, critics are crying foul over research showing that such surgeries may raise certain health risks in dogs and therefore shouldn't be required.
Studies have shown that dogs that undergo spaying (removal of the ovaries and uterus) or neutering (removal of the testicles) are at increased risks for certain cancers, thyroid disorder, incontinence and some of the same behavior issues, such as aggression, that the surgeries are said to prevent.
Most of these problems aren't common to begin with, and the increased risks can depend on the type of dog and the age the surgery is performed. Still, the findings are leading some experts to say that, contrary to conventional wisdom, later spay/neuter surgery for dogs, and even vasectomies for male canines, may be better options for some animals, depending on such factors as breed and lifestyle.
The American Veterinary Medical Association has not taken a stand on spay/neuter legislation, but the American College of Theriogenologists, a group of veterinary reproduction specialists that advises the AVMA, is considering a position paper opposing the legislation at its meeting in St. Louis in August, says veterinarian John Hamil of Laguna Beach, Calif., a member of the group's task force that looked at the issue.
“What they’re saying is that because there have been problems associated with spay/neuter surgery, they think it’s improper for it to be mandated, much less at an early age," says Hamil. "They feel the decision should be made after discussion between the owner and veterinarian.”
Proponents of spay/neuter legislation say it's a way to reduce the numbers of animals in shelters and cut down on euthanasia rates. They also cite the health and behavior benefits of the procedures, such as prevention of mammary cancer, spraying and marking territory, and roaming.
Patty Khuly, a veterinarian in Miami, says a better solution to control the animal population than mandatory spay/neutering by a certain age is to offer the surgeries at lower costs so more pet owners can afford them and get them done according to a veterinarian's recommendations.
“I don’t believe that the fourth month is a reasonable window,” she says. “Most veterinarians would agree on that. I think low-cost spay/neuter, making it more available, is the solution, as opposed to mandating a time frame, especially when we don’t know the real impact of early spay/neuter.”
For more than a decade, the cities of San Mateo and Belmont in California have required sterilization of most cats and dogs more than 6 months old. But more attention is being paid to the pros and cons of pet sterilization now because of a recent spate of legislation that has been passed or introduced. Los Angeles, for instance, passed an ordinance requiring cats and dogs more than 4 months old to be neutered or spayed by October or risk fines up to $500. Palm Beach, Fla., and North Las Vegas also have approved such measures, and dozens more cities and counties, including Chicago and Dallas, are considering them. Rhode Island is the only state to have passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and it applies just to cats.
No one-size-fits-all answer
The idea that pets should be spayed or neutered at approximately 6 months of age or earlier dates to studies in the 1960s and 1970s showing that spaying a female before her first estrus cycle almost eliminated mammary cancer — which is common in dogs — and that spayed and neutered dogs showed a decrease in behavior problems that can be fueled by sex hormones.
Spay/neuter surgery also has other benefits, including prevention of unwanted litters, no messy twice-yearly estrus cycles in females and a reduced rate of uterine infections later in life. Spayed and neutered dogs and cats also have longer lifespans.
Since the early studies were conducted, however, research has also shown downsides to the surgeries beyond acute side effects such as bleeding and inflammation.
Margaret V. Root Kustritz, a veterinary reproduction specialist at the University of Minnesota, reviewed 200 studies and found that while spay/neuter surgery has benefits, it is also linked to increases in the incidence of certain diseases and conditions such as bone cancer, heart tumors, hypothyroidism and canine cruciate ligament (CCL) injuries, as well as prostate cancer in male dogs and urinary incontinence in females. The extent of the risk can depend on the problem, as well as the size and sex of the dog, and the age the surgery is performed.
The risk of a type of cardiac tumor called hemangiosarcoma is five times higher in spayed female dogs than unspayed females, noted Kustritz. And neutered males have 2.4 times the risk of unneutered males. The risk was also higher for osteosarcoma (bone cancer): Dogs spayed or neutered before age 1 were up to two times as likely to develop the disease than those that hadn’t been altered.
Spaying and neutering may also heighten behavior problems such as aggression in some breeds and noise phobias in dogs altered at less than 5 months of age, she found.
While it's long been believed that spaying and neutering can improve a dog's behavior, one large study done at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine found that, with a few exceptions, spaying and neutering was associated with worse behavior, although those effects were often specific to certain breeds and depended on the age at which the dog was altered.
Cats seem to fare better, though. The main risk they face from sterilization is that they can become sedentary and obese, according to Kustritz's review of studies. As a result, vets say sterilizing cats before 6 months of age is appropriate.
Reproductive choice
Still, some oppose the mandatory spay/neuter surgery for both cats and dogs based on the grounds that pet owners may not be able to afford the surgery if reduced-cost programs aren't available. Plus, they argue, people should have a choice.
In San Mateo, Calif., Peninsula Humane Society president Ken White says such legislation provides a one-approach answer to a problem that is different from community to community.
White believes low-cost or free spay/neuter programs are a better way to reduce the number of unwanted animals, based on what’s worked in San Mateo. The numbers of animals requiring euthanasia dropped dramatically — a 93 percent reduction since 1970 — as the humane society added ways for people to take advantage of low-cost and no-cost spay/neuter programs.
Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States, says that in general the organization is in favor of spay/neuter laws but "we look at every piece of legislation individually. We generally recommend that those decisions are made with a veterinarian. If an individual pet owner feels they want to wait longer or their veterinarian feels they should wait longer, that's their choice."
Veterinarians should consider the age for spay/neuter surgery based on the individual animal rather than rely on the traditional 6-month standard, says Khuly.
For instance, giant dog breeds are more at risk for some types of cancer, and akitas, German shepherds, golden and Labrador retrievers, Newfoundlands, poodles and Saint Bernards are among the breeds at higher risk for CCL ruptures.
“It seems that the bigger the dog, the less desirable it is to spay them early,” says Hamil. In his practice, he recommends spaying or neutering large or giant-breed dogs later than small or medium-size dogs.
Some veterinarians suggest spaying females at 12 to 14 months of age, after the growth plates have closed and between estrus cycles. Hamil says that’s not unreasonable.
A kinder cut?
Vasectomy is an option, although a rather uncommon one, for dogs that participate in sports with their owners. The main advantage is better musculature, which can help with arthritis later in life, says Khuly. A vasectomy prevents procreation but keeps testosterone production.
“I think it makes a lot more sense to consider a vasectomy,” says Khuly. “Males with their testosterone really do have some advantages over those that don’t have their testosterone.”
While experts debate the timing of spay/neuter surgery, they generally agree that the benefits outweigh the risks.
“The disadvantages, although real, are not stark,” Hamil says. “It’s not like if you neuter them they’re going to get [bone cancer]. You would have a very slight increase in incidence, and it’s going to be breed-related ... [Whatever the increase is] that’s not a very big reason not to spay or neuter your dog.”
Kim Campbell Thornton is an award-winning author who has written many articles and more than a dozen books about dogs and cats. She belongs to the Dog Writers Association of America and is past president of the Cat Writers Association. She shares her home in California with three Cavalier King Charles spaniels and one African ringneck parakeet.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Spayed or neutered dogs more at risk for cancers, other ills, research shows
By Kim Campbell Thornton
MSNBC contributor
updated 8:56 a.m. ET, Mon., May. 19, 2008
As legislators push for more mandatory spay and neuter laws for pets as young as 4 and 6 months in hopes of reducing the number of unwanted animals, critics are crying foul over research showing that such surgeries may raise certain health risks in dogs and therefore shouldn't be required.
Studies have shown that dogs that undergo spaying (removal of the ovaries and uterus) or neutering (removal of the testicles) are at increased risks for certain cancers, thyroid disorder, incontinence and some of the same behavior issues, such as aggression, that the surgeries are said to prevent.
Most of these problems aren't common to begin with, and the increased risks can depend on the type of dog and the age the surgery is performed. Still, the findings are leading some experts to say that, contrary to conventional wisdom, later spay/neuter surgery for dogs, and even vasectomies for male canines, may be better options for some animals, depending on such factors as breed and lifestyle.
The American Veterinary Medical Association has not taken a stand on spay/neuter legislation, but the American College of Theriogenologists, a group of veterinary reproduction specialists that advises the AVMA, is considering a position paper opposing the legislation at its meeting in St. Louis in August, says veterinarian John Hamil of Laguna Beach, Calif., a member of the group's task force that looked at the issue.
“What they’re saying is that because there have been problems associated with spay/neuter surgery, they think it’s improper for it to be mandated, much less at an early age," says Hamil. "They feel the decision should be made after discussion between the owner and veterinarian.”
Proponents of spay/neuter legislation say it's a way to reduce the numbers of animals in shelters and cut down on euthanasia rates. They also cite the health and behavior benefits of the procedures, such as prevention of mammary cancer, spraying and marking territory, and roaming.
Patty Khuly, a veterinarian in Miami, says a better solution to control the animal population than mandatory spay/neutering by a certain age is to offer the surgeries at lower costs so more pet owners can afford them and get them done according to a veterinarian's recommendations.
“I don’t believe that the fourth month is a reasonable window,” she says. “Most veterinarians would agree on that. I think low-cost spay/neuter, making it more available, is the solution, as opposed to mandating a time frame, especially when we don’t know the real impact of early spay/neuter.”
For more than a decade, the cities of San Mateo and Belmont in California have required sterilization of most cats and dogs more than 6 months old. But more attention is being paid to the pros and cons of pet sterilization now because of a recent spate of legislation that has been passed or introduced. Los Angeles, for instance, passed an ordinance requiring cats and dogs more than 4 months old to be neutered or spayed by October or risk fines up to $500. Palm Beach, Fla., and North Las Vegas also have approved such measures, and dozens more cities and counties, including Chicago and Dallas, are considering them. Rhode Island is the only state to have passed a mandatory spay/neuter law, and it applies just to cats.
No one-size-fits-all answer
The idea that pets should be spayed or neutered at approximately 6 months of age or earlier dates to studies in the 1960s and 1970s showing that spaying a female before her first estrus cycle almost eliminated mammary cancer — which is common in dogs — and that spayed and neutered dogs showed a decrease in behavior problems that can be fueled by sex hormones.
Spay/neuter surgery also has other benefits, including prevention of unwanted litters, no messy twice-yearly estrus cycles in females and a reduced rate of uterine infections later in life. Spayed and neutered dogs and cats also have longer lifespans.
Since the early studies were conducted, however, research has also shown downsides to the surgeries beyond acute side effects such as bleeding and inflammation.
Margaret V. Root Kustritz, a veterinary reproduction specialist at the University of Minnesota, reviewed 200 studies and found that while spay/neuter surgery has benefits, it is also linked to increases in the incidence of certain diseases and conditions such as bone cancer, heart tumors, hypothyroidism and canine cruciate ligament (CCL) injuries, as well as prostate cancer in male dogs and urinary incontinence in females. The extent of the risk can depend on the problem, as well as the size and sex of the dog, and the age the surgery is performed.
The risk of a type of cardiac tumor called hemangiosarcoma is five times higher in spayed female dogs than unspayed females, noted Kustritz. And neutered males have 2.4 times the risk of unneutered males. The risk was also higher for osteosarcoma (bone cancer): Dogs spayed or neutered before age 1 were up to two times as likely to develop the disease than those that hadn’t been altered.
Spaying and neutering may also heighten behavior problems such as aggression in some breeds and noise phobias in dogs altered at less than 5 months of age, she found.
While it's long been believed that spaying and neutering can improve a dog's behavior, one large study done at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine found that, with a few exceptions, spaying and neutering was associated with worse behavior, although those effects were often specific to certain breeds and depended on the age at which the dog was altered.
Cats seem to fare better, though. The main risk they face from sterilization is that they can become sedentary and obese, according to Kustritz's review of studies. As a result, vets say sterilizing cats before 6 months of age is appropriate.
Reproductive choice
Still, some oppose the mandatory spay/neuter surgery for both cats and dogs based on the grounds that pet owners may not be able to afford the surgery if reduced-cost programs aren't available. Plus, they argue, people should have a choice.
In San Mateo, Calif., Peninsula Humane Society president Ken White says such legislation provides a one-approach answer to a problem that is different from community to community.
White believes low-cost or free spay/neuter programs are a better way to reduce the number of unwanted animals, based on what’s worked in San Mateo. The numbers of animals requiring euthanasia dropped dramatically — a 93 percent reduction since 1970 — as the humane society added ways for people to take advantage of low-cost and no-cost spay/neuter programs.
Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States, says that in general the organization is in favor of spay/neuter laws but "we look at every piece of legislation individually. We generally recommend that those decisions are made with a veterinarian. If an individual pet owner feels they want to wait longer or their veterinarian feels they should wait longer, that's their choice."
Veterinarians should consider the age for spay/neuter surgery based on the individual animal rather than rely on the traditional 6-month standard, says Khuly.
For instance, giant dog breeds are more at risk for some types of cancer, and akitas, German shepherds, golden and Labrador retrievers, Newfoundlands, poodles and Saint Bernards are among the breeds at higher risk for CCL ruptures.
“It seems that the bigger the dog, the less desirable it is to spay them early,” says Hamil. In his practice, he recommends spaying or neutering large or giant-breed dogs later than small or medium-size dogs.
Some veterinarians suggest spaying females at 12 to 14 months of age, after the growth plates have closed and between estrus cycles. Hamil says that’s not unreasonable.
A kinder cut?
Vasectomy is an option, although a rather uncommon one, for dogs that participate in sports with their owners. The main advantage is better musculature, which can help with arthritis later in life, says Khuly. A vasectomy prevents procreation but keeps testosterone production.
“I think it makes a lot more sense to consider a vasectomy,” says Khuly. “Males with their testosterone really do have some advantages over those that don’t have their testosterone.”
While experts debate the timing of spay/neuter surgery, they generally agree that the benefits outweigh the risks.
“The disadvantages, although real, are not stark,” Hamil says. “It’s not like if you neuter them they’re going to get [bone cancer]. You would have a very slight increase in incidence, and it’s going to be breed-related ... [Whatever the increase is] that’s not a very big reason not to spay or neuter your dog.”
Kim Campbell Thornton is an award-winning author who has written many articles and more than a dozen books about dogs and cats. She belongs to the Dog Writers Association of America and is past president of the Cat Writers Association. She shares her home in California with three Cavalier King Charles spaniels and one African ringneck parakeet.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
CA- Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in L.A.
Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA
Published: 2/26/08, 8:05 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday signed one of
the nation's toughest laws on pet sterilization, requiring most dogs and
cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old.
The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the
thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters
every year.
"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is
the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas said as
he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.
Councilman Richard Alarcon, who like Cardenas is a co-author of the
bill, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in a
van operated by the city.
The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have
competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by
police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or
neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months
with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets
and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law.
First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized
sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still
fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours
of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine
or 40 hours of community service.
The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city into line with
about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.
Many states require animals adopted from shelters to be sterilized, and
New York City requires the same for animals bought from pet shops, but
restrictions such as those in Southern California are rare. A 2006 Rhode
Island law requires most cats to be sterilized.
A measure similar to Los Angeles' passed the California Assembly last
year but did not gain state Senate support.
Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and
euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million, according to
city officials.
Bob Barker, the retired game-show host who famously ended every "Price
is Right" show with a call for sterilizing pets, pushed for the law's
adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.
"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet population,
have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the law in Los
Angeles,'" a jubilant Barker said.
Published: 2/26/08, 8:05 PM EDT
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday signed one of
the nation's toughest laws on pet sterilization, requiring most dogs and
cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old.
The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the
thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters
every year.
"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is
the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas said as
he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.
Councilman Richard Alarcon, who like Cardenas is a co-author of the
bill, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in a
van operated by the city.
The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have
competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by
police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or
neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months
with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets
and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law.
First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized
sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still
fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours
of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine
or 40 hours of community service.
The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city into line with
about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.
Many states require animals adopted from shelters to be sterilized, and
New York City requires the same for animals bought from pet shops, but
restrictions such as those in Southern California are rare. A 2006 Rhode
Island law requires most cats to be sterilized.
A measure similar to Los Angeles' passed the California Assembly last
year but did not gain state Senate support.
Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and
euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million, according to
city officials.
Bob Barker, the retired game-show host who famously ended every "Price
is Right" show with a call for sterilizing pets, pushed for the law's
adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.
"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet population,
have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the law in Los
Angeles,'" a jubilant Barker said.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Veterinarians putting themselves out of business
Get a clueWayne- Vets who join you and the AVAR will only put themselves out of business- or maybe they will have to reslove to some of your tatics such as creating a problem so there is one to fix!
HSUS ABSORBS AVAR; WILL COUNTER AVMA
As we noted last week, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) announced that AVAR is re-forming as a division of the HSUS, to be called the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). Despite the groups framing the move as a "joining of forces" this is hardly a merger of financial equals: In 2006 IRS filings, the AVAR reported assets of just $308,593 while the HSUS reported assets of $225,735,717. As of this writing, over a week since the move was announced, and despite a separate URL, the HSVMA website is merely a section of the HSUS site, with the HSUS/AVAR announcement, a sign-up page, and some items linking to longstanding articles on the old AVAR website. For those who prefer not to access the HSUS or AVAR websites, a version of their announcement is on the independent website of the publication The Horse at http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx? <http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?> ID=11165 The groups' news release and other materials made it clear that HSVA is designed to counter the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) on several fronts. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle blogged: "Veterinarians and veterinary groups should be in the forefront of the animal protection movement. But often times they have not occupied that leadership position. And much to my great disappointment, the leading veterinary organization in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, has often taken positions at odds with animal welfare and proved to be an impediment to social progress for animals. That group, which certainly does have many dedicated staff and members, has gotten off course on a range of subjects and taken stands that favor animal-use industries, not animals." The AVMA posted a question-and-answer page on its website regarding the newly-formed HSVA, what it means for the AVMA, and animal welfare policies of the AVMA. See http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp> . It begins: "Q: What does this mean for the AVMA? "A: The formation of the HSVMA will not affect the services and representation offered for the veterinary profession by the AVMA. As the recognized voice of the profession, the AVMA will continue its focus on compassion, scientific validity, and practicality in its answers to questions raised in the course of caring for animals. And, as always, the AVMA's answers to those questions, and any related policies and recommendations, will represent the expert input and diverse practice experiences of our members. AVMA members are veterinarians who have dedicated their lives to ensuring and improving animal health and welfare, regardless of whether the animals they care for are companion animals; horses; animals used for food, fiber, or research; wild animals; or aquatic species." Contact AMP for additional information.
HSUS ABSORBS AVAR; WILL COUNTER AVMA
As we noted last week, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) announced that AVAR is re-forming as a division of the HSUS, to be called the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association (HSVMA). Despite the groups framing the move as a "joining of forces" this is hardly a merger of financial equals: In 2006 IRS filings, the AVAR reported assets of just $308,593 while the HSUS reported assets of $225,735,717. As of this writing, over a week since the move was announced, and despite a separate URL, the HSVMA website is merely a section of the HSUS site, with the HSUS/AVAR announcement, a sign-up page, and some items linking to longstanding articles on the old AVAR website. For those who prefer not to access the HSUS or AVAR websites, a version of their announcement is on the independent website of the publication The Horse at http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx? <http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?> ID=11165 The groups' news release and other materials made it clear that HSVA is designed to counter the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) on several fronts. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle blogged: "Veterinarians and veterinary groups should be in the forefront of the animal protection movement. But often times they have not occupied that leadership position. And much to my great disappointment, the leading veterinary organization in the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, has often taken positions at odds with animal welfare and proved to be an impediment to social progress for animals. That group, which certainly does have many dedicated staff and members, has gotten off course on a range of subjects and taken stands that favor animal-use industries, not animals." The AVMA posted a question-and-answer page on its website regarding the newly-formed HSVA, what it means for the AVMA, and animal welfare policies of the AVMA. See http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/hsvma_faq.asp> . It begins: "Q: What does this mean for the AVMA? "A: The formation of the HSVMA will not affect the services and representation offered for the veterinary profession by the AVMA. As the recognized voice of the profession, the AVMA will continue its focus on compassion, scientific validity, and practicality in its answers to questions raised in the course of caring for animals. And, as always, the AVMA's answers to those questions, and any related policies and recommendations, will represent the expert input and diverse practice experiences of our members. AVMA members are veterinarians who have dedicated their lives to ensuring and improving animal health and welfare, regardless of whether the animals they care for are companion animals; horses; animals used for food, fiber, or research; wild animals; or aquatic species." Contact AMP for additional information.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)