Animal rescuers go to great lenghts to save doomed dogs
by Bob Shaw
To Jimmie Williams, the pickup truck looked like salvation on wheels.
"There they are! I can see 'em!" he shouted as the truck pulled into a parking lot.
Out tumbled three dogs, bedraggled after their three-day journey. Saved from being euthanized in Kentucky, they sniffed around the legs of their rescuers, looking a little confused.
"I can't tell you how good this feels," said Williams, who was delighted to be adopting a rescued dog.
The trip was another small triumph for a new — and controversial — transportation system for animals.
In only a few years, the network has sprung up, saving thousands of dogs and cats from euthanasia in states that can't — or won't — support their own animal-welfare systems.
Supporters call it a new "underground railway." And like the transportation system that saved slaves in the 19th century, this one runs only one direction — from south to north.
It can involve truck caravans carrying up to 100 dogs. Or it can include a 900-mile airplane relay from Virginia to Minnesota to save a single cat, as happened June 25.
The flow into Minnesota is swelling rapidly — despite the fact that this state kills more than 20,000 of its own dogs and cats every year.
"This is compassion run amok," said Lynae Gieseke, director of the Minnesota Valley Humane Society.
Critics say the volunteers want to feel like heroes by making 11th-hour cross country rescues — when they could be saving animals in their own local shelters.
"This is like a mental illness in the animal-welfare community," said Mike Fry, manager of the Animal Ark No-Kill Shelter in Hastings. "We have a huge problem in shelters here. Why would you bring in any more dogs? We are oversaturated with dogs."
"It is crazy — it is insane. I don't get it," said Laura Johnson, president of the cat-rescue group SCRAM. "We have so many here who need help."
Even as they are swept up in the thrill of their missions, some volunteers wonder about the wisdom of what they are doing.
"It does seem odd to transport into a state that euthanizes. Maybe we should get our own house in order first," said Pete Howell, of Falcon Heights, who has flown his airplane on two missions to rescue two dogs.
"My attitude is: I am going to go flying anyway, so I might as well help."
CRIES FOR HELP
An animal's ticket to salvation begins on the Internet.
Of the estimated 4 million dogs and cats euthanized annually in America, a lucky few are targeted to be rescued, shortly before their deaths.
The dozens of transport groups often focus on certain breeds, as with the Chihuahua Rescue Transport or Dalmatian Overland Transport Service. Others help dogs of any breed, such as the Petsmart-sponsored Rescue Waggin' and the Georgia Puppy Pipeline.
The pleas for help often have a desperate tone, as shown in typical e-mails from June:
* "Jack will DIE at 4PM unless saved!" said one e-mail from Franklin, Ga., concerning a Labrador. "Hennessy (a collie) will DIE TODAY AT 4PM UNLESS SAVED AS THE SHELTER IS TOTALLY FULL!"
* "I am begging ... PLEASE someone step forward and help. ... This boy's eyes speak only of sadness and betrayal," said one plea from Raleigh, N.C., on behalf of a boxer.
* From Bowling Green, Ky.: "Shelter is desperately overcrowded, and euthing (sic) hundreds of animals for space. ... They DO NOT WANT to kill, they need rescue help NOW!"
Big-hearted animal-lovers respond.
They work with groups like Save Our Strays, which moved 15,000 unwanted dogs out of Missouri from 1998 to 2006.
After that, group founder Connie Guthrie moved to Oklahoma — and now Oklahoma is a source of dogs bound for Minnesota.
"We are very, very blessed to have Minnesota helping us," Guthrie said. "To give these dogs another chance is remarkable."
Local groups organize their own rescues, as Minnesota Boxer Rescue, of Woodbury, did in June. The group saves only boxers — and responded to an e-mail about three of them in Kentucky.
On June 28, Jon Wiswell, of Minneapolis, volunteered to drive from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis, the final leg of a relay to save three dogs. "If I were in their position, I would want someone to do that for me," Wiswell said.
Sometimes pilots respond. A South Carolina-based group called Pilots N Paws started 18 months ago — and has already made 1,000 flights to rescue animals.
The group's flight log shows that a paralyzed kitten was flown June 21 from Fremont, Mich., to Wichita, Kan. On May 11, two pit bulls — a breed often euthanized in Minnesota — were flown from Greenville, S.C., to Milaca, Minn.
Co-founder Debi Boies is looking forward to the "Pilots N Paws 5000" — with a goal of airlifting 5,000 animals in one week, Sept. 12-20.
Boies said gleefully: "Are we crazy people or what?"
TROUBLED TRIP
Some rescues end in sadness.
Last summer, volunteers from Puppy Porch, a St. Paul rescue group, heard about a troubled shelter in California about to euthanize about 100 dogs.
Why can't a state as big as California take care of its own dogs?
In fact, board member Britt Gage said, five rescue groups in California were offering to help. But the Puppy Porch volunteers wanted to save the dogs themselves.
"We approve of rescues, period. We do not care who is rescued, or how," Gage said. "We want to save every life, here or in California." The group has rescued animals as far away as the island of St. Maarten in the Caribbean.
When the Minnesota rescuers arrived in California, some dogs were sick. About 11 died after the group arrived. Some dogs remained behind, and 75 were loaded aboard three vans.
Seventeen more died during the cross country trek or shortly afterward.
Gage said that in Minnesota, the group spent "thousands" on medical care for the dogs. "We thought they had all been vaccinated. They came down with an illness we were not familiar with," she said.
"We did the best we could."
DEMAND FOR DOGS
The Animal Humane Society joined the system this year. So far, it has accepted 400 dogs from other states.
The society is Minnesota's largest animal-welfare agency, with an $11 million annual budget and five locations.
Giving a tour of the society's complex in Golden Valley, Director Janelle Dixon gingerly opened a door with a sign saying, "Hearing protection recommended." Inside was a new batch of dogs from Oklahoma.
"Yesterday, we got in 34," Dixon shouted over the barking.
Dixon said more dogs do not mean more euthanasia — at least within the Animal Humane Society's system. She said the demand for dogs to adopt is high. A dog typically has to wait only three days in the society's kennels once it is cleared for adoption.
She said about 4 percent of the imported dogs are euthanized. The rest are adopted or are expected to be adopted quickly.
"We have a demand for dogs here. Where are people going to go? Pet stores? Puppy mills?" Dixon said.
"Doesn't it make sense to bring dogs from states where they aren't wanted into states where they are?"
Dixon showed off the spotless surgery rooms, where the society performs some of its 14,000 sterilizations a year.
Of the 10,000 dogs admitted each year, about 42 percent are euthanized — below the national rate of about 50 percent.
Like every shelter, she said, the Animal Humane Society kills only animals that are too sick or dangerous to be adopted.
No dogs, she said, are killed because of the interstate imports.
HERO COMPLEX
Other animal-welfare groups say that claim is short-sighted.
"For every dog brought in, there is a Minnesota dog euthanized because it could not find a home," said the Minnesota Valley Humane Society's Gieseke.
"It is just much more cool to save the life of a dog from Kentucky than to adopt one here."
Critics of the Animal Humane Society say it could adopt out many of the dogs and cats it kills — by spending more money to cure diseases or working harder to solve behavior problems.
Said Animal Ark's Fry: "We have a very large, very wealthy Animal Humane Society painting a pretty picture of Minnesota.
"They want people to think animals here are safe. If they were not killing those dogs for bogus reasons, they would not be able to take in those dogs from other states."
Cheryl Anderson, a volunteer with Minnesota Boxer Rescue, said that when the Animal Humane Society gets ready to euthanize dogs, it doesn't plead for help from local rescue groups — at least, not the way out-of-state groups send impassioned cries for help.
So volunteers rescue animals they do learn about, from other states.
Gieseke said the surge of animals being brought to Minnesota is partly because of another overpopulation problem — of rescue groups. Petfinder.com lists more than 180 in Minnesota. When those groups can't find local dogs to save, Gieseke said, they look to other states.
She said the only long-term solution to pet overpopulation is a nationwide spay and neuter program.
"You see all these desperate e-mails from Georgia or California. Might their time be better spent trying to sterilize more animals in their states?" Gieseke said.
She sees the same herocomplex phenomenon when a puppy mill is shut down, the dogs are confiscated, and the stories are told by local news outlets. Calls pour into her office from people wanting those dogs — while ignoring hundreds of others.
"I say: 'Wait a minute. Were you planning to add a dog to your family? Or does this just give you a good story to tell?' " Gieseke said.
FINDING A HOME
On a Sunday evening in June, Williams waited with a group of people outside a McDonald's Restaurant in Minneapolis for the delivery of dogs from Kentucky.
"It breaks your heart when you see these dogs online," said Megan Tholl, of Woodbury, as she ate a fish sandwich at a picnic table.
Finally, the pickup truck pulled in. The pitiful dogs climbed out. Eight people watching made a single sound in unison: "Awww ..."
Williams took an instant liking to his new dog, Tacoma. It took only a few licks in the face for Williams to start with the baby talk. "Oooh, oooh, you little kisser, you," he cooed to the dog.
Williams climbed into a car with his partner, Ron Snell, and they headed to their Minneapolis home.
"He needs a bath," Williams shouted out the window. His words were interrupted by licks on his face. "But he's giving me a bath!"
One badly starved dog looked like a skeleton in a pillowcase. "God, you can see every single bone," whispered driver Jon Wiswell.
He stroked the dog's scrawny back, and the dog looked up at him gratefully. "How could you say no to this face?" Wiswell said.
Bob Shaw can be reached at 651-228-5433.
1ST
U.S. rank in dog and cat populations among all countries, with 145 million total
17,000
Animals euthanized annually by Twin Cities animal shelters
15,000
Dogs shipped to northern states from Missouri by a single rescue group from 1998 to 2006.
42 PERCENT
Share of dogs euthanized by Animal Humane Society, of Golden Valley, compared with about 56 percent nationally.
70 PERCENT
Share of U.S. cats admitted to shelters that are euthanized
Sources: National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, Humane Society of the U.S., Mapsoftheworld.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
AL- Three Dog Limit?
Three Dog Limit?
July 17, 2009 - 4:12 PM | by: Brooks Blanton
When it comes to man's best friend, how many is too many? Cities and towns across the country struggle with how to balance the rights of pet owners with their neighbors who complain about too many dogs. Many cities have recently enacted or are currently considering ordinances that would limit the number of pets per household within city limits, unless the owner applies for a special license. Earlier this month the Reading, Pennsylvania City Council set the pet limit to six. In May the Village of Wheeling, Illinois recently said four was enough and the city of San Marcos, Texas was a little more generous saying four dogs or a combination of seven dogs and cats was plenty of pets for one house.
The City of Jacksonville, Alabama recently considered an ordinance that would put a three pet limit on any homes inside the city. Some homes housed at least 15 dogs and last year one home was found to have 34 dogs inside. While a few houses seemed to be bursting at the seams with dogs and cats and their neighbors complained loudly, the mayor asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance limiting the number of pets to three.
"It's a really tough issue because it's one of those things where your rights end and mine begin," said Jacksonville Mayor Johnny L. Smith. "People have a right to have dogs and we don't want to limit that. Their neighbor has the right to be comfortable on their premises as well."
Public meetings filled up after word got out that the council was considering a cap similar to those found in other Alabama cities. Some residents who owned just a few pets joined those who had several, to let the council know how they felt about the idea.
"The government's got no right to tell me how many dogs I can have," one angry dog owner told the city council. "This is a free country and that's what it's based on."
Many residents who own more than the proposed limit say as long as they take care of their animals, the city shouldn't limit how many they can have. Others saw the proposed ordinance as a big-brother style government intrusion on rights. But Kurt and Jill Turner, who live next to a house with at least 15 dogs, see it differently.
"There's an old saying," Kurt Turner, a city firefighter, told the council and fellow residents at a July meeting. "Trouble isn't trouble isn't trouble until trouble is at home. And this is at my home."
The Turners say city residents who opposed the ordinance should try living next to the noise and smell that comes along with 15 dogs in one yard. They say simple pleasures of home ownership, like kids playing in the backyard or cookouts, is not possible when you have foul smells and constant barking coming over the fence.
"I would like to invite any of you to come over and have an evening on our back porch without gagging or puking," Jill Turner said as she addressed the crowd. "We've complained to the police, we have made informational reports with the street department, the dog catcher."
Despite the Turner's comments, city leaders killed the idea this week. But they warn this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time they have to deal with too many dogs and cats. Mayor Smith says it's one of the most prominent issues that small and medium sized cities struggle with and says he won't be surprised if the Jacksonville City Council to deal with houses overrun by cats and dogs again.
"When you buy a home you need to be comfortable when you walk into your back yard as well," Smith says. "Too much government restricts folks, but if it interferes with other's peoples rights then maybe we're going to have to do something."
July 17, 2009 - 4:12 PM | by: Brooks Blanton
When it comes to man's best friend, how many is too many? Cities and towns across the country struggle with how to balance the rights of pet owners with their neighbors who complain about too many dogs. Many cities have recently enacted or are currently considering ordinances that would limit the number of pets per household within city limits, unless the owner applies for a special license. Earlier this month the Reading, Pennsylvania City Council set the pet limit to six. In May the Village of Wheeling, Illinois recently said four was enough and the city of San Marcos, Texas was a little more generous saying four dogs or a combination of seven dogs and cats was plenty of pets for one house.
The City of Jacksonville, Alabama recently considered an ordinance that would put a three pet limit on any homes inside the city. Some homes housed at least 15 dogs and last year one home was found to have 34 dogs inside. While a few houses seemed to be bursting at the seams with dogs and cats and their neighbors complained loudly, the mayor asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance limiting the number of pets to three.
"It's a really tough issue because it's one of those things where your rights end and mine begin," said Jacksonville Mayor Johnny L. Smith. "People have a right to have dogs and we don't want to limit that. Their neighbor has the right to be comfortable on their premises as well."
Public meetings filled up after word got out that the council was considering a cap similar to those found in other Alabama cities. Some residents who owned just a few pets joined those who had several, to let the council know how they felt about the idea.
"The government's got no right to tell me how many dogs I can have," one angry dog owner told the city council. "This is a free country and that's what it's based on."
Many residents who own more than the proposed limit say as long as they take care of their animals, the city shouldn't limit how many they can have. Others saw the proposed ordinance as a big-brother style government intrusion on rights. But Kurt and Jill Turner, who live next to a house with at least 15 dogs, see it differently.
"There's an old saying," Kurt Turner, a city firefighter, told the council and fellow residents at a July meeting. "Trouble isn't trouble isn't trouble until trouble is at home. And this is at my home."
The Turners say city residents who opposed the ordinance should try living next to the noise and smell that comes along with 15 dogs in one yard. They say simple pleasures of home ownership, like kids playing in the backyard or cookouts, is not possible when you have foul smells and constant barking coming over the fence.
"I would like to invite any of you to come over and have an evening on our back porch without gagging or puking," Jill Turner said as she addressed the crowd. "We've complained to the police, we have made informational reports with the street department, the dog catcher."
Despite the Turner's comments, city leaders killed the idea this week. But they warn this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time they have to deal with too many dogs and cats. Mayor Smith says it's one of the most prominent issues that small and medium sized cities struggle with and says he won't be surprised if the Jacksonville City Council to deal with houses overrun by cats and dogs again.
"When you buy a home you need to be comfortable when you walk into your back yard as well," Smith says. "Too much government restricts folks, but if it interferes with other's peoples rights then maybe we're going to have to do something."
Friday, July 17, 2009
Il- Effingham County Committee discusses fines for loose dogs
Committee discusses fines for loose dogs
Bill Grimes
Effingham Daily News
Effingham County officials are considering changes to the county’s animal control ordinance.
“It’s been brought up quite a bit over the past year,” said State’s Attorney Ed Deters at Monday’s meeting of the Legislative Committee of the county board.
The current county ordinance allows a $35 fine for those who let their dogs run loose. Deters said he wasn’t sure an increase in fines would make a difference.
“I question whether raising fines would make dog owners more responsive,” he said. “Fines should serve as an incentive to keep dogs chained or fenced. But I question whether the amount of the fine would have the desired effect.”
Deters said the key conflict was between dog owners who are accustomed to have their canines run free and athletic types — such as joggers and cyclists — who are increasingly taking to rural roads for their workouts.
“We are a rural community where a lot of people have dogs in the country and don’t necessarily keep them fenced in,” he said. “But we have a growing bicycling crowd, as well.”
Board member Mark Percival said the growth of rural subdivisions is also a factor in increased dog-human interaction.
“Where you have people, dogs and roads, there’s a conflict,” Percival said.
Deters said one thing the new ordinance should have is some sort of incentive for pet owners to spay and neuter their dogs. Nick Antonacci, an intern in Deters’ office, said his study showed most dog bites are caused by male dogs who have not been neutered.
Deters said any increase should be in the form of a range. For example, he noted Fulton County fines its animal control offenders anywhere from $50 to $500.
Other options include mandatory microchipping of dogs for identification purposes.
Deters said he would report back to the board by the Sept. 21 meeting. Board Chairwoman Carolyn Willenburg said there would likely be a public informational meeting before the board took any action.
Also Monday, the committee recommended signing a letter of intent with the Effingham Water Authority to lease a plot of land at the corner of Beach and Marina roads in the Lake Sara area of rural Effingham. The land would be the new home of the county’s Dive-Rescue Team.
The committee also agreed to recommend ratification of contracts with the Fraternal Order of Police and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. FOP represents sheriff’s deputies, while AFSCME represents other sheriff’s department personnel.
Sheriff John Monnet said both contracts would provide union members with 3 percent annual raises. The FOP deal is for three years, while the AFSCME deal is for two.
Also Monday, the committee recommended appointment of board members Percival, Larry Vahling and Jim Reeves to the county’s new Economic Development Committee. Several non-board members will be appointed later.
The committee also recommended more board members serve on the county’s Tax & Finance Committee. Tax & Finance Chairman Vahling said he’d like to see up to five board members on that committee.
“We just feel we need more board involvement to provide more oversight to the committee,” he said.
The Legislative Committee also recommended a number of appointments Monday, including William McClain, Effingham Civic Foundation; Dr. Henry Poterucha, Andrew Grunloh, Shirley Muchow and Dorothy Behrns to the Health Department Board; and Barb Utz to the 708 Mental Health Board.
Bill Grimes can be reached at 217-347-7151 ext. 132 or bill.grimes@effinghamdailynews.com.
Bill Grimes
Effingham Daily News
Effingham County officials are considering changes to the county’s animal control ordinance.
“It’s been brought up quite a bit over the past year,” said State’s Attorney Ed Deters at Monday’s meeting of the Legislative Committee of the county board.
The current county ordinance allows a $35 fine for those who let their dogs run loose. Deters said he wasn’t sure an increase in fines would make a difference.
“I question whether raising fines would make dog owners more responsive,” he said. “Fines should serve as an incentive to keep dogs chained or fenced. But I question whether the amount of the fine would have the desired effect.”
Deters said the key conflict was between dog owners who are accustomed to have their canines run free and athletic types — such as joggers and cyclists — who are increasingly taking to rural roads for their workouts.
“We are a rural community where a lot of people have dogs in the country and don’t necessarily keep them fenced in,” he said. “But we have a growing bicycling crowd, as well.”
Board member Mark Percival said the growth of rural subdivisions is also a factor in increased dog-human interaction.
“Where you have people, dogs and roads, there’s a conflict,” Percival said.
Deters said one thing the new ordinance should have is some sort of incentive for pet owners to spay and neuter their dogs. Nick Antonacci, an intern in Deters’ office, said his study showed most dog bites are caused by male dogs who have not been neutered.
Deters said any increase should be in the form of a range. For example, he noted Fulton County fines its animal control offenders anywhere from $50 to $500.
Other options include mandatory microchipping of dogs for identification purposes.
Deters said he would report back to the board by the Sept. 21 meeting. Board Chairwoman Carolyn Willenburg said there would likely be a public informational meeting before the board took any action.
Also Monday, the committee recommended signing a letter of intent with the Effingham Water Authority to lease a plot of land at the corner of Beach and Marina roads in the Lake Sara area of rural Effingham. The land would be the new home of the county’s Dive-Rescue Team.
The committee also agreed to recommend ratification of contracts with the Fraternal Order of Police and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. FOP represents sheriff’s deputies, while AFSCME represents other sheriff’s department personnel.
Sheriff John Monnet said both contracts would provide union members with 3 percent annual raises. The FOP deal is for three years, while the AFSCME deal is for two.
Also Monday, the committee recommended appointment of board members Percival, Larry Vahling and Jim Reeves to the county’s new Economic Development Committee. Several non-board members will be appointed later.
The committee also recommended more board members serve on the county’s Tax & Finance Committee. Tax & Finance Chairman Vahling said he’d like to see up to five board members on that committee.
“We just feel we need more board involvement to provide more oversight to the committee,” he said.
The Legislative Committee also recommended a number of appointments Monday, including William McClain, Effingham Civic Foundation; Dr. Henry Poterucha, Andrew Grunloh, Shirley Muchow and Dorothy Behrns to the Health Department Board; and Barb Utz to the 708 Mental Health Board.
Bill Grimes can be reached at 217-347-7151 ext. 132 or bill.grimes@effinghamdailynews.com.
NC- McDowell County approves new animal ordinance
County approves new animal ordinance
By Mike Conley | The McDowell News
Published: July 14, 2009
After months of discussion and listening to different viewpoints, the McDowell County Commissioners adopted a new animal ordinance at their regular Monday meeting.
The new rules, which become effective Aug. 13, were approved by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Michael Lavender voted against adopting the new ordinance.
The decision to make the rules effective on Aug. 13 will give officials time to post the changes on the county's Web site. The animal control officers will come under the Sheriff's Office while the operation of the animal shelter remains under the Public Works Department.
The revised 12-page ordinance requires local people to give their pets an adequate shelter, food, water and humane treatment. It covers how animals should be treated, the keeping of dangerous ones, how animals should be confined, rabies control, the unlawful killing of animals, the euthanization of feral dogs and cats and what to do with stray or abandoned ones. It does not require people to get their animals spayed and neutered. It also has rules for the keeping of exotic animals in McDowell County.
It replaces the old ordinance previously on the books and would give animal control officers an important tool as they do their jobs.
The new rules require owners or keepers of an animal to provide adequate food, water, shelter and humane treatment. The ordinance also applies to people who engage in dog fighting, cock fighting or any other combat between animals or animals and humans. Those activities are already prohibited in McDowell County. But the ordinance makes it unlawful for a person to possess any materials used in animal fighting or the training for animal fighting.
The new rules also prohibit the owners or keepers from abandoning an animal, except for when they are taken to the county's animal shelter during normal business hours. Persons also cannot transport any animal in an automobile or trailer in such a way that would cause pain, suffering or death.
The adopted ordinance creates a dangerous canine appeals board, which will consist of five members appointed from the county's Planning Board. This new board will hear and determine all appeals from the owners of such animals. If an animal control officer has determined that a dog is dangerous and should be euthanized, then the owner can appeal this decision to the newly created board.
At Monday's meeting, the commissioners deleted a $500 fine that could be assessed against violators of the ordinance. The highest fine that can be imposed is $200.
After months of work, the McDowell County Planning Board presented in March a revised animal ordinance to the County Commissioners.
"I appreciate our Planning Board," said Commission Chairman David Walker. "They spent five to six months working on this document. Chairman Max Boyd and his group did an outstanding job. Everybody's viewpoint was heard and examined."
Last month, the commissioners held a special workshop meeting so they could listen to different opinions. About 15 people showed up to attend the workshop meeting.
The commissioners listened to representatives from local animal welfare groups who asked that the ordinance contain more rules about inhumane tethering and specifications for a proper shelter. They also heard comments from residents who are opposed to the county placing more rules on property owners. Under North Carolina law, animals are considered property.
Several local animal welfare advocates asked county officials to consider rules that would ban the inhumane tethering of animals, especially dogs. They feel that animals should not be left tied up in someone's back yard without shelter. Tethered dogs can have behavioral problems and the practice could be considered inhumane, they said.
The adopted ordinance states, "It shall be unlawful to tether an animal to a stationary object under conditions that Animal Control Officer(s) deem harmful or potentially harmful to the animal."
Under the new ordinance, McDowell County will provide a manual of best practices for the proper tethering of animals. These will be guidelines for pet owners to follow. They won't be rules that can be enforced by animal control officers.
Under the new rules, every person who owns any pen, lot, kennel, shelter or other place where animals are kept shall maintain them in a sanitary and humane manner. All animals shall be provided with adequate shelter from the weather.
Animal welfare advocates also wanted to see a section in the ordinance stating what kind of materials should be used in a proper shelter, adding that a metal barrel is not good enough. The barrels can become hot in the summer and quite cold in the winter, they said.
With the new rules, the county will set up a metal barrel exchange program. The owner of a dog that is kept in a metal barrel could get a plastic one for free through this program.
"We do appreciate all the animal rights groups and their contributions as we prepared this ordinance," said Walker. "We appreciate their input."
By Mike Conley | The McDowell News
Published: July 14, 2009
After months of discussion and listening to different viewpoints, the McDowell County Commissioners adopted a new animal ordinance at their regular Monday meeting.
The new rules, which become effective Aug. 13, were approved by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Michael Lavender voted against adopting the new ordinance.
The decision to make the rules effective on Aug. 13 will give officials time to post the changes on the county's Web site. The animal control officers will come under the Sheriff's Office while the operation of the animal shelter remains under the Public Works Department.
The revised 12-page ordinance requires local people to give their pets an adequate shelter, food, water and humane treatment. It covers how animals should be treated, the keeping of dangerous ones, how animals should be confined, rabies control, the unlawful killing of animals, the euthanization of feral dogs and cats and what to do with stray or abandoned ones. It does not require people to get their animals spayed and neutered. It also has rules for the keeping of exotic animals in McDowell County.
It replaces the old ordinance previously on the books and would give animal control officers an important tool as they do their jobs.
The new rules require owners or keepers of an animal to provide adequate food, water, shelter and humane treatment. The ordinance also applies to people who engage in dog fighting, cock fighting or any other combat between animals or animals and humans. Those activities are already prohibited in McDowell County. But the ordinance makes it unlawful for a person to possess any materials used in animal fighting or the training for animal fighting.
The new rules also prohibit the owners or keepers from abandoning an animal, except for when they are taken to the county's animal shelter during normal business hours. Persons also cannot transport any animal in an automobile or trailer in such a way that would cause pain, suffering or death.
The adopted ordinance creates a dangerous canine appeals board, which will consist of five members appointed from the county's Planning Board. This new board will hear and determine all appeals from the owners of such animals. If an animal control officer has determined that a dog is dangerous and should be euthanized, then the owner can appeal this decision to the newly created board.
At Monday's meeting, the commissioners deleted a $500 fine that could be assessed against violators of the ordinance. The highest fine that can be imposed is $200.
After months of work, the McDowell County Planning Board presented in March a revised animal ordinance to the County Commissioners.
"I appreciate our Planning Board," said Commission Chairman David Walker. "They spent five to six months working on this document. Chairman Max Boyd and his group did an outstanding job. Everybody's viewpoint was heard and examined."
Last month, the commissioners held a special workshop meeting so they could listen to different opinions. About 15 people showed up to attend the workshop meeting.
The commissioners listened to representatives from local animal welfare groups who asked that the ordinance contain more rules about inhumane tethering and specifications for a proper shelter. They also heard comments from residents who are opposed to the county placing more rules on property owners. Under North Carolina law, animals are considered property.
Several local animal welfare advocates asked county officials to consider rules that would ban the inhumane tethering of animals, especially dogs. They feel that animals should not be left tied up in someone's back yard without shelter. Tethered dogs can have behavioral problems and the practice could be considered inhumane, they said.
The adopted ordinance states, "It shall be unlawful to tether an animal to a stationary object under conditions that Animal Control Officer(s) deem harmful or potentially harmful to the animal."
Under the new ordinance, McDowell County will provide a manual of best practices for the proper tethering of animals. These will be guidelines for pet owners to follow. They won't be rules that can be enforced by animal control officers.
Under the new rules, every person who owns any pen, lot, kennel, shelter or other place where animals are kept shall maintain them in a sanitary and humane manner. All animals shall be provided with adequate shelter from the weather.
Animal welfare advocates also wanted to see a section in the ordinance stating what kind of materials should be used in a proper shelter, adding that a metal barrel is not good enough. The barrels can become hot in the summer and quite cold in the winter, they said.
With the new rules, the county will set up a metal barrel exchange program. The owner of a dog that is kept in a metal barrel could get a plastic one for free through this program.
"We do appreciate all the animal rights groups and their contributions as we prepared this ordinance," said Walker. "We appreciate their input."
AZ- She should have had them Debarked!
Woman gets 3 years' probation, $940 fine for barking dogs
by Jenna Davis - Jul. 15, 2009 12:29 PM
The Arizona Republic
Renee Maurer was sentenced to three years' probation and a $940 fine charge today in Phoenix Municipal Court for allowing her dogs to disturb the peace of her Northeast neighborhood.
Several neighbors filed a petition earlier this year to have Maurer prosecuted in court for her barking Pomeranian and miniature poodle.
Neighbors testified in court on Monday that the dogs have barked constantly for the last three years. Immediately following the sentencing, Maurer filed for appeal.
The Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.
Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurers' two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.
Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and her neighbors.
"I feel ostracized in my own community," said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be "extremely awkward and uncomfortable."
Certa also expressed sentiments about the situation.
"I feel bad," said Certa. "It's always the same-after an hour I have a new case and my life will go on. But these people have to live next door to each other."
Certa said she didn't want Maurer to face jail time, but thought her sentence was "appropriate," because "the case came down to being a good neighbor."
Certa said many barking-dog cases have gone through her courtroom in the past 10 years, but she couldn't give an exact number.
The maximum sentence for violating the barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and a misdemeanor charge.
Municipal Court records show most fines are $300 or less, and there is no indication that anyone was ever sent to jail for owning a barking dog. Seventy-five dog owners were prosecuted in Phoenix last year.
2005 law in Phoenix states: "No person shall keep a dog within the city limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the city."
Maurer's predicament mirrors similar barking-dog conflicts across the Valley: Anxious or lonely dogs bark incessantly, causing tempers to flare and neighbors to use city noise ordinances.
After Maurer received a note about her dogs from an angry neighbor last year, she tried a training class and a bark-deterrent device for her dogs.
The notes persisted from Ilona Hirsch and her boyfriend Robert Shaw, neighbors Maurer had never met. Maurer and Shaw exchanged several phone calls about her dogs.
In February a police officer told Maurer that a criminal complaint had been filed against her.
Hirsch and Shaw had gathered signatures from five other neighbors who were also bothered by the dogs - a step required before criminal charges can be filed, city records show. Phoenix requires at least three signatures on a petition. Hirsch decline to comment on the case.
Later, two neighbors recalled their signatures after they realized Maurer was facing criminal charges.
Hirsch also had a log of times when the dogs were barking. The log, introduced as evidence in court, indicates Maurer's dogs barked for 7 1/2 hours at one time
by Jenna Davis - Jul. 15, 2009 12:29 PM
The Arizona Republic
Renee Maurer was sentenced to three years' probation and a $940 fine charge today in Phoenix Municipal Court for allowing her dogs to disturb the peace of her Northeast neighborhood.
Several neighbors filed a petition earlier this year to have Maurer prosecuted in court for her barking Pomeranian and miniature poodle.
Neighbors testified in court on Monday that the dogs have barked constantly for the last three years. Immediately following the sentencing, Maurer filed for appeal.
The Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.
Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurers' two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.
Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and her neighbors.
"I feel ostracized in my own community," said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be "extremely awkward and uncomfortable."
Certa also expressed sentiments about the situation.
"I feel bad," said Certa. "It's always the same-after an hour I have a new case and my life will go on. But these people have to live next door to each other."
Certa said she didn't want Maurer to face jail time, but thought her sentence was "appropriate," because "the case came down to being a good neighbor."
Certa said many barking-dog cases have gone through her courtroom in the past 10 years, but she couldn't give an exact number.
The maximum sentence for violating the barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine, and a misdemeanor charge.
Municipal Court records show most fines are $300 or less, and there is no indication that anyone was ever sent to jail for owning a barking dog. Seventy-five dog owners were prosecuted in Phoenix last year.
2005 law in Phoenix states: "No person shall keep a dog within the city limits which is in the habit of barking or howling or disturbing the peace and quiet of any person within the city."
Maurer's predicament mirrors similar barking-dog conflicts across the Valley: Anxious or lonely dogs bark incessantly, causing tempers to flare and neighbors to use city noise ordinances.
After Maurer received a note about her dogs from an angry neighbor last year, she tried a training class and a bark-deterrent device for her dogs.
The notes persisted from Ilona Hirsch and her boyfriend Robert Shaw, neighbors Maurer had never met. Maurer and Shaw exchanged several phone calls about her dogs.
In February a police officer told Maurer that a criminal complaint had been filed against her.
Hirsch and Shaw had gathered signatures from five other neighbors who were also bothered by the dogs - a step required before criminal charges can be filed, city records show. Phoenix requires at least three signatures on a petition. Hirsch decline to comment on the case.
Later, two neighbors recalled their signatures after they realized Maurer was facing criminal charges.
Hirsch also had a log of times when the dogs were barking. The log, introduced as evidence in court, indicates Maurer's dogs barked for 7 1/2 hours at one time
Thursday, July 16, 2009
TX- City of Ferris to discuss mandatory euthanasia on July 20th at 7:00pm
Mandatory Euthanasia This is a link to the article in The Ellis County Prss
Also view: Fight In Ferris Over Animal Euthanasia Rules
Animal control officer is to hold the animals for the minimum of 3 days required by law, and then immediately euthanize them.
The next City Council meeting is July 20th at 7:00pm. Although it is too late to submitt a request to speak at this meeting, it is not too late to attend.
Also view: Fight In Ferris Over Animal Euthanasia Rules
Animal control officer is to hold the animals for the minimum of 3 days required by law, and then immediately euthanize them.
The next City Council meeting is July 20th at 7:00pm. Although it is too late to submitt a request to speak at this meeting, it is not too late to attend.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
CA- "Forcible entry" GRANTED
“FORCIBLE ENTRY” GRANTED….. Orange County, CA dog Owner
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.
It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.
IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:
“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”
What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?
Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.
This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!
It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.
SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!
And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!
July 10, 2009
SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff? Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California. Approximately 5,000 views of this post so far, indicate this is a valid concern for all owners. This is the type of stuff that should not be happening, yet it is.
It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license. Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged. No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that. Read it for yourself.
IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:
“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives. Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”
What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling? It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony. So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog?
Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.
This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles. Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building! And that’s after his dogs were seized!
It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises. The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.
SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware. H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, TO PUSH H$U$ anti-pet legislation. By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing, these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!
And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)