Animal welfare vs. animal rights: understanding the difference
by Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
In the world of animal advocacy, it sometime can be difficult to keep an accurate scorecard between Animal Welfare and Animal Rights groups. One of the keys to telling the difference: if someone says there is no difference, they are on the animal rights side of the debate. As a responsible pet owner, it is critical to recognize the difference and support Animal Welfare organizations.
Animal welfare is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association as "The ethical responsibility of ensuring animal well being". Some of the primary activities this includes are:
*The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.
*Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.
*Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.
*Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.
*Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.
*Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.
*Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.
* The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations.
(retreived 7-5-09 from AVMA.com, "Issues in Animal Welfare")
The other half of the equation are animal rights groups. These include well-known names like PETA and HSUS, as well as many of the local shelters that they support in the guise of animal welfare groups. These organizations:
*Advocate pure veganism
*Object to any form of companion animal in principle and any planned breeding of companion animals in practice
*Seek to outlaw all forms of medical research requiring any type of animal other than human
*Seek to outlaw any form of medicine requiring animal inputs, such as natural forms of insulin
*Seek to outlaw the use of any form of animal skin for use in clothing or other manufacturing
*Oppose any form of animal cruelty
The one goal they both share is the ending of animal cruelty. Where the true difference lies is in the definition of cruelty. To the animal rights activist, the 20,000 years we have shared with dogs as companions, cooperative hunters, and fellow herdsmen is a form of slavery and cruelty rather than a beneficial relationship for both species.
Know the facts before you donate to an organization.
For more info: Vist the AVMA.com and the Animal Welfare Committee.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
MA- HB344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
HB 344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
For more info: Full text of HB344
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
For more info: Full text of HB344
Quotes from Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's Founder and President
"I'm not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having
children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is
nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and
president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003
"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any
reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a
blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at
least I wouldn't be harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president
and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PeTA), as quoted in Chip Brown, "She's a Portrait of Zealotry in Plastic
Shoes," Washington Post, November 13, 1983, p. B10.
children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is
nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and
president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003
"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any
reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a
blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at
least I wouldn't be harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president
and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PeTA), as quoted in Chip Brown, "She's a Portrait of Zealotry in Plastic
Shoes," Washington Post, November 13, 1983, p. B10.
CA- 65-Year-Old Women Faces Jail Time for Feeding Cats
65-Year-Old Woman Faces Jail Time For Feeding Cats Amanda Peabody
Published 07/02/2009 - 6:29 p.m. CST
Katherine Varjian, 65, had been feeding feral cats, or felines that are not under her ownership, in her Beverly Hills neighborhood for the past 12 years. The Beverly Hills Municipal Court will now decide whether or not her actions are within the confines of the law.
Varjian was feeding between 20 and 30 cats daily in the alley behind the 100-200 blocks of Palm, Maple and Oakhurst Drives. She was issued citations twice for this behavior – first in January of this year, then again in February. The violation is considered a misdemeanor by the City and will be heard by Beverly Hills criminal court. The charge carries with it a possible six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.
The problem lies in a deleted code (5-2-104, subdivision B and C).
In an effort to streamline practices when handling animal control, the City retained the City of Los Angeles’ Animal Services Department for certain animal care and control services, consequently adopting their ordinances.
“As part of the adoption of the Los Angeles animal control regulations, provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code that were designed to prevent the feeding of animals, including stray and feral cats, in such a manner that attracts coyotes and other predatory animals or otherwise endangers the health, safety and welfare of the general public, were inadvertently deleted,” said Cheryl Burnett, City spokesperson.
The code explicitly prohibits the feeding of feral cats and dogs on any public property, any property that is open to the public or any private property is not completely enclosed by a secured wall.
It is under this omitted code that Varjian has been charged.
Although Varjian has taken what is argued as excellent care of these cats – routinely spaying, neutering and adopting out kittens through various local organizations – her actions have also created a nuisance in the neighborhood, said local residents.
“(Varjian’s feeding of the feral cats) is a big problem that is not being looked at realistically,” said resident Darian Bojeaux. “The food brings coyotes to the neighborhood. Neighbors have had to clean up excess food. It brings roaches and I am afraid for my own pets.”
Bojeaux and several other neighbors organized a petition against Varjian, asking her to stop feeding the alleged feral cats; 30-40 signatures were secured.
“Varjian has spayed and neutered at her own expense countless feral cats and has probably done more in the City to control the homeless cat population,” said Ben Lehrer, president of Kitten Rescue (www.kittenrescue.org), an organization that rescues stray, abandoned or sheltered cats and kittens that are slated for euthanasia from the surrounding area.
According to Lehrer, Varjian has adopted out over 120 cats and kittens, a vast majority from her neighborhood, he says.
The court will now decide whether or not to proceed with charges against Varjian in a hearing slated for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel for Varjian has requested dismissal of the case (two counts were dismissed at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing) based on the grounds that Varjian has been charged against a non-existent code.
The City Council will be addressing an urgency ordinance either correcting the omission or clarifying its non-presence at the July 7 meeting.
Published 07/02/2009 - 6:29 p.m. CST
Katherine Varjian, 65, had been feeding feral cats, or felines that are not under her ownership, in her Beverly Hills neighborhood for the past 12 years. The Beverly Hills Municipal Court will now decide whether or not her actions are within the confines of the law.
Varjian was feeding between 20 and 30 cats daily in the alley behind the 100-200 blocks of Palm, Maple and Oakhurst Drives. She was issued citations twice for this behavior – first in January of this year, then again in February. The violation is considered a misdemeanor by the City and will be heard by Beverly Hills criminal court. The charge carries with it a possible six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.
The problem lies in a deleted code (5-2-104, subdivision B and C).
In an effort to streamline practices when handling animal control, the City retained the City of Los Angeles’ Animal Services Department for certain animal care and control services, consequently adopting their ordinances.
“As part of the adoption of the Los Angeles animal control regulations, provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code that were designed to prevent the feeding of animals, including stray and feral cats, in such a manner that attracts coyotes and other predatory animals or otherwise endangers the health, safety and welfare of the general public, were inadvertently deleted,” said Cheryl Burnett, City spokesperson.
The code explicitly prohibits the feeding of feral cats and dogs on any public property, any property that is open to the public or any private property is not completely enclosed by a secured wall.
It is under this omitted code that Varjian has been charged.
Although Varjian has taken what is argued as excellent care of these cats – routinely spaying, neutering and adopting out kittens through various local organizations – her actions have also created a nuisance in the neighborhood, said local residents.
“(Varjian’s feeding of the feral cats) is a big problem that is not being looked at realistically,” said resident Darian Bojeaux. “The food brings coyotes to the neighborhood. Neighbors have had to clean up excess food. It brings roaches and I am afraid for my own pets.”
Bojeaux and several other neighbors organized a petition against Varjian, asking her to stop feeding the alleged feral cats; 30-40 signatures were secured.
“Varjian has spayed and neutered at her own expense countless feral cats and has probably done more in the City to control the homeless cat population,” said Ben Lehrer, president of Kitten Rescue (www.kittenrescue.org), an organization that rescues stray, abandoned or sheltered cats and kittens that are slated for euthanasia from the surrounding area.
According to Lehrer, Varjian has adopted out over 120 cats and kittens, a vast majority from her neighborhood, he says.
The court will now decide whether or not to proceed with charges against Varjian in a hearing slated for Aug. 7 at 1:30 p.m. Counsel for Varjian has requested dismissal of the case (two counts were dismissed at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing) based on the grounds that Varjian has been charged against a non-existent code.
The City Council will be addressing an urgency ordinance either correcting the omission or clarifying its non-presence at the July 7 meeting.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
CA- New pet proposal needs to be sterilized
LOCAL VIEWS: New pet proposal needs to be sterilized
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT
"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."
California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.
The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.
And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.
Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.
Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.
After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.
Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.
Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."
Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?
As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"
Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.
And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."
Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.
One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.
Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.
Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.
Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."
Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT
"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."
California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.
The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.
And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.
Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.
Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.
After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.
Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.
Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."
Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?
As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"
Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.
And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."
Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.
One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.
Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.
Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.
Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."
Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
PA- Proposed limiting pets in Reading advances
Last Update: 7/7/2009 12:22:00 AM
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
CA- Legislators consider a limit on pet ownership
California Legislators Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)