Coming forth to carry them home
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.
The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.
These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.
Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.
In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.
It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.
"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."
*
Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.
But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.
Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.
A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.
"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.
Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.
Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.
Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.
Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.
Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.
"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."
*
Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.
"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.
An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."
Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.
The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.
A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.
Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.
The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.
"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.
The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.
*
Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.
The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.
"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."
Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.
After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.
On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.
It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.
After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.
*
On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.
It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.
Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.
"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.
Showing posts with label West Virginia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Virginia. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
WV- Oppose HB 2843- April 1st deadline
from Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
OPPOSE HB 2843
There are 472 Bills pending in House Judiciary. Oppose HB 2843 and push this bill to the bottom of the list for consideration. The legislature has an April 1st deadline for moving bills out of committee and back to the floor for final vote.
HB 2843 defines a commercial breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over the age of one year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration, except that any person who breeds only greyhound dogs is not considered a commercial dog breeder under this article. The bill establishes two kennel licenses: Class I-Maintain twenty to forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any one time; Class II-Maintain more than forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any time. Mandates record keeping, sales tracking, veterinary documentation, breeding requirements and certification, establishes fines and penalties up to $2500 for section violations; authorizes searches of premise and records.
HB 2843 text, status, summary
** TALKING POINTS **
* HB 2843 has potential to raise fiscal costs by additional personnel needed for enforcement, and will create legal challenges.
* HB 2843 empowers officials to investigate giving them broad peace officer status and "warrantless search" power. This is a violation of due process and is unconstitutional. Such routine warrantless search cannot be justified under public safety, or health concerns. Any requirement for inspection must show probable cause, and should be clearly articulated, and limited in justification.
* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
*The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification to determine “suitable” could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. Maturity and breeding age is specific to both the individual and the particular breed and should not be broadly legislated. No other species has regulations in place for standards and/or limitations for breeding.
* HB 2843 duplicates provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture for wholesale breeder/sellers making the bills unnecessary.
* In these difficult financial times it would seem prudent for legislators to focus their time and energy on the needs of West Virginia families, employment, and avoiding excessive budget cuts rather than create unnecessary legislation.
* HB 2843 was not introduced to upgrade welfare for dogs in West Virginia. HB 2843 is one of two dozen bills with similar language being lobbied by HSUS and their activists across the country to place restrictions and burdens on those who breed dogs in any number and for any reason. HSUS has crusaded to end commercial breeding of dogs and all domestic animals for years. Please do not yield to their anti-animal use agenda.
ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!
To call Judiciary Committee members follow this link for contact info
OPPOSE HB 2843
There are 472 Bills pending in House Judiciary. Oppose HB 2843 and push this bill to the bottom of the list for consideration. The legislature has an April 1st deadline for moving bills out of committee and back to the floor for final vote.
HB 2843 defines a commercial breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over the age of one year and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration, except that any person who breeds only greyhound dogs is not considered a commercial dog breeder under this article. The bill establishes two kennel licenses: Class I-Maintain twenty to forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any one time; Class II-Maintain more than forty unsterilized dogs over the age of one year at any time. Mandates record keeping, sales tracking, veterinary documentation, breeding requirements and certification, establishes fines and penalties up to $2500 for section violations; authorizes searches of premise and records.
HB 2843 text, status, summary
** TALKING POINTS **
* HB 2843 has potential to raise fiscal costs by additional personnel needed for enforcement, and will create legal challenges.
* HB 2843 empowers officials to investigate giving them broad peace officer status and "warrantless search" power. This is a violation of due process and is unconstitutional. Such routine warrantless search cannot be justified under public safety, or health concerns. Any requirement for inspection must show probable cause, and should be clearly articulated, and limited in justification.
* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
*The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification to determine “suitable” could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. Maturity and breeding age is specific to both the individual and the particular breed and should not be broadly legislated. No other species has regulations in place for standards and/or limitations for breeding.
* HB 2843 duplicates provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture for wholesale breeder/sellers making the bills unnecessary.
* In these difficult financial times it would seem prudent for legislators to focus their time and energy on the needs of West Virginia families, employment, and avoiding excessive budget cuts rather than create unnecessary legislation.
* HB 2843 was not introduced to upgrade welfare for dogs in West Virginia. HB 2843 is one of two dozen bills with similar language being lobbied by HSUS and their activists across the country to place restrictions and burdens on those who breed dogs in any number and for any reason. HSUS has crusaded to end commercial breeding of dogs and all domestic animals for years. Please do not yield to their anti-animal use agenda.
ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!
To call Judiciary Committee members follow this link for contact info
Saturday, March 21, 2009
WV- Professor fights proposed ban on animals at Marshall University
Professor fights proposed ban on animals indoors
by Ashley Adkins
A new policy proposed by the Marshall University Board of Governors that will ban animals from buildings on Marshall's campus may soon pass.
According to proposed Policy No. GA-15, domestic animals are not suitable to bring on campus because people may have a fear or an allergy associated with the animal, the animal may be a nuisance or a distraction and animals can be unpredictable and can exhibit uncontrollable behavior.
The policy says that all the factors present both a safety and health hazard for the university community. Service dogs are the only exception to the new policy because they are authorized on campus at all times.
Bill Palmer, professor of history at Marshall, is one faculty member who will feel the effect of this proposal. He has been bringing his dog, Nemo, a black labrador retriever, to his office on the quiet weekends for about five years.
"My objection to the policy s that it just makes no statement as why this is a problem. It makes no effort to contact or reach out to people that might be effected by it. I think that's very shortsighted," Palmer said.
Palmer said he's willing to listen to what the Board of Governors has to say about the policy but he thinks some guidelines could be set up instead of banning animals from buildings.
Karen Kirtley, assistant vice president for the administration, said the policy was created to defer a potential liability against uncontrollable animals.
Kirtley said she wants students and visitors on campus to understand that dogs are permitted as long as they are on a leash.
"We're trying to take a pro-active approach," Kirtley said. She also said other schools throughout the country have similar policies.
The policy says dogs are permitted outdoors on university property at all times if the dog is on a leash and kept under control and under the possession of the owner. The owner must show responsible care for the dog and ensure safe behavior of the dog, which includes preventing the dog from chasing wildlife. Dog owners are prohibited from bringing a dog on campus, including a service dog, if the dog does not have proper immunization and is not wearing a rabies vaccination tag. Owners are also responsible for cleaning up and disposing of waste properly while on campus.
The policy states it is modeled after the Huntington City Ordinance 507, which states dogs must be on a leash or confined to the owner's property.
At first, Palmer was bringing Nemo to his office but he said he decided to see how Nemo would react in the classroom setting. He said after serious consideration of issues involved with his dog, he began to allow Nemo to sit in the class. The first class Palmer took Nemo to was one he taught last summer.
"As far as I could tell he handled it just well and the students loved him," Palmer said. "The students find him an interesting presence in the classroom and I think he very much contributes to a healthy atmosphere."
Since then, Palmer has brought Nemo to classes he has taught this academic year. He said Nemo sleeps a majority of the time.
Kirtley said the university recognizes the important role domestic animals have in the lives of students and employees.
Keshia Runyon, junior English literature and history major from Huntington, was a student in one of Palmer's classes. She said he would bring Nemo to the class and the dog would act great. She also said he was the best dog to have the pleasure to meet.
"It would be disappointing to not have Nemo in the class because he's a vital part," Runyon said.
"He has never barked at anybody, he's never growled, much less tried to bite or be threatening to anybody," Palmer said. "He stops and lets people pet him."
He said the history department secretary has even deemed Nemo "the world's best dog."
Palmer has written a letter to University President Stephen Kopp, expressing his concerns. He said one part of the policy mentions how dogs can cause allergies in students but he argues that service dogs can cause allergies as well.
"The author of the policy does not seem to be aware that Seeing Eye dogs can cause allergies in students, too," the letter says. "Do we want to ban them from the classroom too on those grounds? In fact, pet dander on the clothing of any student in the classroom, whether they have their pet with them or not, can also trigger allergies. Should we then ban all students with pets because somebody might be allergic to the dander on their clothing?"
Palmer said he has never received any complaints about having Nemo in class with him and he gives his students the option to object anonymously about having the dog in the room.
He said he has a friend who teaches at Harvard University who told him that dogs frequently play along Harvard Yard and even faculty at Harvard, including a law school professor, bring their dogs to their offices. He said the Yeager Scholars visit the University of Virginia as a field trip every year and the group always sees dogs playing on the lawn.
In his letter Palmer states, "If Harvard, and even the Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia aren't freaking out about pets, why does Marshall have to? Isn't this the kind of place we'd like to be, a unique community, with a kinder, gentler atmosphere, rather than some quasi-police state, where people in power simply assume the bad faith of their community?
"Would we like to be on Leno, as we almost certainly will be, being lampooned as the "pet-hostile" university? Marshall has been teaching students since 1837. This can't be the first time people have brought pets to campus."
The letter references the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" because the talk show host made fun of West Virginia for the Barbie ban.
Palmer said he is circulating petitions and urging students who have been in his classes to write letters to the president about the issue. He said he has also started a group on Facebook and is creating T-shirts that say "Save Nemo."
He said students willing to write letters against or for the policy can submit the letters to him and his secretary until 10 a.m. on April 6.
Kirtley said the policy is under review in the administration. The policy will be discussed on April 30 during the Board of Governors meeting.
Ashley Adkins can be contacted at adkins428@marshall.edu.
by Ashley Adkins
A new policy proposed by the Marshall University Board of Governors that will ban animals from buildings on Marshall's campus may soon pass.
According to proposed Policy No. GA-15, domestic animals are not suitable to bring on campus because people may have a fear or an allergy associated with the animal, the animal may be a nuisance or a distraction and animals can be unpredictable and can exhibit uncontrollable behavior.
The policy says that all the factors present both a safety and health hazard for the university community. Service dogs are the only exception to the new policy because they are authorized on campus at all times.
Bill Palmer, professor of history at Marshall, is one faculty member who will feel the effect of this proposal. He has been bringing his dog, Nemo, a black labrador retriever, to his office on the quiet weekends for about five years.
"My objection to the policy s that it just makes no statement as why this is a problem. It makes no effort to contact or reach out to people that might be effected by it. I think that's very shortsighted," Palmer said.
Palmer said he's willing to listen to what the Board of Governors has to say about the policy but he thinks some guidelines could be set up instead of banning animals from buildings.
Karen Kirtley, assistant vice president for the administration, said the policy was created to defer a potential liability against uncontrollable animals.
Kirtley said she wants students and visitors on campus to understand that dogs are permitted as long as they are on a leash.
"We're trying to take a pro-active approach," Kirtley said. She also said other schools throughout the country have similar policies.
The policy says dogs are permitted outdoors on university property at all times if the dog is on a leash and kept under control and under the possession of the owner. The owner must show responsible care for the dog and ensure safe behavior of the dog, which includes preventing the dog from chasing wildlife. Dog owners are prohibited from bringing a dog on campus, including a service dog, if the dog does not have proper immunization and is not wearing a rabies vaccination tag. Owners are also responsible for cleaning up and disposing of waste properly while on campus.
The policy states it is modeled after the Huntington City Ordinance 507, which states dogs must be on a leash or confined to the owner's property.
At first, Palmer was bringing Nemo to his office but he said he decided to see how Nemo would react in the classroom setting. He said after serious consideration of issues involved with his dog, he began to allow Nemo to sit in the class. The first class Palmer took Nemo to was one he taught last summer.
"As far as I could tell he handled it just well and the students loved him," Palmer said. "The students find him an interesting presence in the classroom and I think he very much contributes to a healthy atmosphere."
Since then, Palmer has brought Nemo to classes he has taught this academic year. He said Nemo sleeps a majority of the time.
Kirtley said the university recognizes the important role domestic animals have in the lives of students and employees.
Keshia Runyon, junior English literature and history major from Huntington, was a student in one of Palmer's classes. She said he would bring Nemo to the class and the dog would act great. She also said he was the best dog to have the pleasure to meet.
"It would be disappointing to not have Nemo in the class because he's a vital part," Runyon said.
"He has never barked at anybody, he's never growled, much less tried to bite or be threatening to anybody," Palmer said. "He stops and lets people pet him."
He said the history department secretary has even deemed Nemo "the world's best dog."
Palmer has written a letter to University President Stephen Kopp, expressing his concerns. He said one part of the policy mentions how dogs can cause allergies in students but he argues that service dogs can cause allergies as well.
"The author of the policy does not seem to be aware that Seeing Eye dogs can cause allergies in students, too," the letter says. "Do we want to ban them from the classroom too on those grounds? In fact, pet dander on the clothing of any student in the classroom, whether they have their pet with them or not, can also trigger allergies. Should we then ban all students with pets because somebody might be allergic to the dander on their clothing?"
Palmer said he has never received any complaints about having Nemo in class with him and he gives his students the option to object anonymously about having the dog in the room.
He said he has a friend who teaches at Harvard University who told him that dogs frequently play along Harvard Yard and even faculty at Harvard, including a law school professor, bring their dogs to their offices. He said the Yeager Scholars visit the University of Virginia as a field trip every year and the group always sees dogs playing on the lawn.
In his letter Palmer states, "If Harvard, and even the Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia aren't freaking out about pets, why does Marshall have to? Isn't this the kind of place we'd like to be, a unique community, with a kinder, gentler atmosphere, rather than some quasi-police state, where people in power simply assume the bad faith of their community?
"Would we like to be on Leno, as we almost certainly will be, being lampooned as the "pet-hostile" university? Marshall has been teaching students since 1837. This can't be the first time people have brought pets to campus."
The letter references the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" because the talk show host made fun of West Virginia for the Barbie ban.
Palmer said he is circulating petitions and urging students who have been in his classes to write letters to the president about the issue. He said he has also started a group on Facebook and is creating T-shirts that say "Save Nemo."
He said students willing to write letters against or for the policy can submit the letters to him and his secretary until 10 a.m. on April 6.
Kirtley said the policy is under review in the administration. The policy will be discussed on April 30 during the Board of Governors meeting.
Ashley Adkins can be contacted at adkins428@marshall.edu.
Friday, March 20, 2009
WV- Criminalizing Dog Breeding
From HB 2843:
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)