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.
Friday, July 17, 2009
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$U$ !!!!
CA- New data shows LA shelter admissions and euthanasia 11x higher than state average
New Data Shows Slaughterhouse
After Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Law
LA Shelter Admissions and Euthanasia 11 Times Higher Than
State Average, Predict Disaster If SB 250 Becomes State Law
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
SACRAMENTO, CA (July 10. 2009) – Yesterday, the California Department of Public Health released 2008 annual data for every county’s animal shelter system.
In comparison to 2007 data, last year saw an expected increase in shelter admissions, owner surrenders, abandoned dogs and euthanasia rates that can be attributed mostly to the severe recession that has devastated the entire state’s economy.
But one county’s animal control and sheltering program stood out as being 11 times worse off than the rest of the state: Los Angeles County, which passed a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance last year. The data conclusively proves the murderous impact of pet sterilization mandates that far exceeds anything that can be attributed to the statewide recession.
This data has special importance now, as the California Assembly is considering Senate Bill 250, which would mandate the sterilization of almost every dog in the state, either directly or indirectly. If California follows the path of destruction caused by the Los Angeles ordinance, passage of SB 250 will become an unfunded mandate to the counties to handle 11 times as many dogs and cats at animal shelters, and to kill 11 times more of them, the data shows clearly.
If the state mirrors the Los Angeles statistics, counties would have to pay for handling 4.4 million dogs and cats a year (up from 402,430 in 2008), and killing 1.7 million dogs (up from 153,793 in 2008).
It is IMPERATIVE for California dog owners and animal lovers to make this information available to members of the California General Assembly, and especially to members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which has set a July 15 hearing on SB 250. Contact information will be provided below.
Here is a summary of yesterday’s release of the statewide shelter data:
· In 2008, 404,430 animals were admitted to shelters statewide, an increase of 42,422 from 2007. That is an 11.8-percent increase.
· In 2008, 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law. If compared to the state, it is apparent that Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.
· Euthanasia data is equally dramatic. In 2008, the entire state saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).
· However, almost all of the entire statewide increase in shelter euthanasia came from Los Angeles County alone, in the year following a mandatory pet sterilization ordinance. The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance wants our readers to check out the official shelter data, and to verify that all of our assertions are true and accurate. We are not exaggerating. This is how the official data adds up.
Here is a link to view the data: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discon....Activities.aspx
The data shows many other things that accurately predict the bloody outcome of a mandatory pet sterilization law, such as SB 250.
In Los Angeles, following the spay/neuter ordinance, this has included a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans, the official state data shows.
The images of what would happen statewide if SB 250 passes are truly frightening to comprehend, based on what actually has happened in Los Angeles, and what also has happened in every community in America that has passed a similar law.
The results will be dramatic increases in municipal costs for animal control and sheltering, with the most terrible price paid by the millions of dogs that will be killed needlessly because of this kind of law.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action, before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations holds a hearing on SB 250 on July 15. It is urgent that a large number of Californians – not just dog owners, but everyone who cares - express clear opposition to SB 250, which is very close to being passed into law.
Remember that the Appropriations Committee deals mostly with financial aspects of legislation, such as the outlay of government funds.
Please phone and also email each member of the committee as soon as possible. Members of legislative committee represent all Californians, not just their own constituents. Here is contact information for all of the committee members:
Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Joe Coto Dem-23 (916) 319-2023 Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
John A. Pérez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037 Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov
The California Legislature is slated to adjourn on July 18 for summer recess, and SB 250 could face a vote of the full Assembly on July 17.
To read our analysis of the legislation, please visit http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.....neral&thread=48
To read the actual text of the legislation, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill....d_sen_v95.html.
Thank you for helping California pet owners and the dogs and cats that they love.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
After Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Law
LA Shelter Admissions and Euthanasia 11 Times Higher Than
State Average, Predict Disaster If SB 250 Becomes State Law
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net
SACRAMENTO, CA (July 10. 2009) – Yesterday, the California Department of Public Health released 2008 annual data for every county’s animal shelter system.
In comparison to 2007 data, last year saw an expected increase in shelter admissions, owner surrenders, abandoned dogs and euthanasia rates that can be attributed mostly to the severe recession that has devastated the entire state’s economy.
But one county’s animal control and sheltering program stood out as being 11 times worse off than the rest of the state: Los Angeles County, which passed a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance last year. The data conclusively proves the murderous impact of pet sterilization mandates that far exceeds anything that can be attributed to the statewide recession.
This data has special importance now, as the California Assembly is considering Senate Bill 250, which would mandate the sterilization of almost every dog in the state, either directly or indirectly. If California follows the path of destruction caused by the Los Angeles ordinance, passage of SB 250 will become an unfunded mandate to the counties to handle 11 times as many dogs and cats at animal shelters, and to kill 11 times more of them, the data shows clearly.
If the state mirrors the Los Angeles statistics, counties would have to pay for handling 4.4 million dogs and cats a year (up from 402,430 in 2008), and killing 1.7 million dogs (up from 153,793 in 2008).
It is IMPERATIVE for California dog owners and animal lovers to make this information available to members of the California General Assembly, and especially to members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which has set a July 15 hearing on SB 250. Contact information will be provided below.
Here is a summary of yesterday’s release of the statewide shelter data:
· In 2008, 404,430 animals were admitted to shelters statewide, an increase of 42,422 from 2007. That is an 11.8-percent increase.
· In 2008, 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law. If compared to the state, it is apparent that Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.
· Euthanasia data is equally dramatic. In 2008, the entire state saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).
· However, almost all of the entire statewide increase in shelter euthanasia came from Los Angeles County alone, in the year following a mandatory pet sterilization ordinance. The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance wants our readers to check out the official shelter data, and to verify that all of our assertions are true and accurate. We are not exaggerating. This is how the official data adds up.
Here is a link to view the data: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discon....Activities.aspx
The data shows many other things that accurately predict the bloody outcome of a mandatory pet sterilization law, such as SB 250.
In Los Angeles, following the spay/neuter ordinance, this has included a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans, the official state data shows.
The images of what would happen statewide if SB 250 passes are truly frightening to comprehend, based on what actually has happened in Los Angeles, and what also has happened in every community in America that has passed a similar law.
The results will be dramatic increases in municipal costs for animal control and sheltering, with the most terrible price paid by the millions of dogs that will be killed needlessly because of this kind of law.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all California dog owners to take immediate action, before the Assembly Committee on Appropriations holds a hearing on SB 250 on July 15. It is urgent that a large number of Californians – not just dog owners, but everyone who cares - express clear opposition to SB 250, which is very close to being passed into law.
Remember that the Appropriations Committee deals mostly with financial aspects of legislation, such as the outlay of government funds.
Please phone and also email each member of the committee as soon as possible. Members of legislative committee represent all Californians, not just their own constituents. Here is contact information for all of the committee members:
Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045 Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov
Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov
Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058 Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov
Joe Coto Dem-23 (916) 319-2023 Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072 Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov
Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039 Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov
Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052 Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov
Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov
Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071 Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov
John A. Pérez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046 Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014 Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037 Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov
The California Legislature is slated to adjourn on July 18 for summer recess, and SB 250 could face a vote of the full Assembly on July 17.
To read our analysis of the legislation, please visit http://eaglerock814.proboards.com/index.....neral&thread=48
To read the actual text of the legislation, go to: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill....d_sen_v95.html.
Thank you for helping California pet owners and the dogs and cats that they love.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
Monday, July 13, 2009
MA- Devocalization is not inhumane
LETTER: Devocalization is not inhumane, 07-11-09
The Herald News
Posted Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly-funded, out-of-state animal rights groups are trying to outlaw a medical procedure that saves lives.
Devocalization, more properly described as bark softening, is a humane procedure when properly done to help keep loved dogs in homes when all efforts at behavior modification have failed to stop the barking. Like any surgery, a vet has to know how to do it. In Massachusetts a handful of surgeons perform the surgery.
Is it reasonable to say a life-saving surgery (for instance heart by-pass surgery) should be outlawed because some surgeons botch it and some results are bad? No. Is it reasonable to outlaw spay/neuter surgery because some dogs die during the procedure or have serious long-term health problems afterwards? No.
I suggest you check the NAIA link on that one to learn more.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdfNational to
What’s going on?
National groups that support themselves by raising funds on animal issues, like the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other out-of-state animal rights groups squeeze the last dollar out of people who truly care for animals by calling a rare procedure cruel and the media buys in.
Having been an owner and lover of dogs for more than 50 years, a trainer, a breeder, dog show judge and involved in dog rescue, I can tell you from firsthand experience this procedure saves lives. We encourage people with noisy dogs to train them, try non-surgical methods, but if they fail, there is debarking.
Some people are so disturbed by barking they will abuse a dog. Our rescue groups have seen it all. Our national rescue workers reports include, “We have gotten in several extreme abuse cases where the dog was abused because of its non-stop barking. Oven cleaner down the throat; throat slit open; bailing wire tying the dogs muzzle.” http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html
I also heard of a of a dog turned into a rescue with an electronic bark collar embedded in its throat. (Jpeg attached)
Alanna Kelly of Massachusetts has a wonderful dog named Striker that at an advanced age is winning all kinds of awards as an agility dog. Kelly debarked Striker for his own safety. “I was threatened he would be killed if he continued to bark,” she said. Kelly reported the threat to the Police and had Stiker’s bark softened. Striker has never had a problem since and is still happily barking away – just more softly.
I own one 16-year-old dog that was debarked when a neighbor complained. She has never had a complication or problem since.
Despite claims to the contrary, debarked dogs don’t have emotional issues with being debarked.
Contrary to what animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society Veterinary Medical group — formerly called the Veterinarians for Animal Rights — suggest, the AVMA has a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association also has taken a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. Properly done, the surgery is quick, nearly bloodless and recovery is quick.
It should also be noted that cats are not devocalized. Why are they included in the bill? Maybe the out-of-state animal rights person who wrote the bill now pending before the state Legislature didn’t know that.
The bill, promoted by a 15-year-old animal rights activist and written by an out-of-state group, would ban this life-saving procedure.
Many legislators signed on after a massive Internet campaign that didn’t get the facts straight.
True animal lovers would not want to remove the last tool we have to save a happy noisy dog from being separated from a family that loves it.
Charlotte McGowan
Newton
The Herald News
Posted Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly-funded, out-of-state animal rights groups are trying to outlaw a medical procedure that saves lives.
Devocalization, more properly described as bark softening, is a humane procedure when properly done to help keep loved dogs in homes when all efforts at behavior modification have failed to stop the barking. Like any surgery, a vet has to know how to do it. In Massachusetts a handful of surgeons perform the surgery.
Is it reasonable to say a life-saving surgery (for instance heart by-pass surgery) should be outlawed because some surgeons botch it and some results are bad? No. Is it reasonable to outlaw spay/neuter surgery because some dogs die during the procedure or have serious long-term health problems afterwards? No.
I suggest you check the NAIA link on that one to learn more.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdfNational to
What’s going on?
National groups that support themselves by raising funds on animal issues, like the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other out-of-state animal rights groups squeeze the last dollar out of people who truly care for animals by calling a rare procedure cruel and the media buys in.
Having been an owner and lover of dogs for more than 50 years, a trainer, a breeder, dog show judge and involved in dog rescue, I can tell you from firsthand experience this procedure saves lives. We encourage people with noisy dogs to train them, try non-surgical methods, but if they fail, there is debarking.
Some people are so disturbed by barking they will abuse a dog. Our rescue groups have seen it all. Our national rescue workers reports include, “We have gotten in several extreme abuse cases where the dog was abused because of its non-stop barking. Oven cleaner down the throat; throat slit open; bailing wire tying the dogs muzzle.” http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html
I also heard of a of a dog turned into a rescue with an electronic bark collar embedded in its throat. (Jpeg attached)
Alanna Kelly of Massachusetts has a wonderful dog named Striker that at an advanced age is winning all kinds of awards as an agility dog. Kelly debarked Striker for his own safety. “I was threatened he would be killed if he continued to bark,” she said. Kelly reported the threat to the Police and had Stiker’s bark softened. Striker has never had a problem since and is still happily barking away – just more softly.
I own one 16-year-old dog that was debarked when a neighbor complained. She has never had a complication or problem since.
Despite claims to the contrary, debarked dogs don’t have emotional issues with being debarked.
Contrary to what animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society Veterinary Medical group — formerly called the Veterinarians for Animal Rights — suggest, the AVMA has a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association also has taken a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. Properly done, the surgery is quick, nearly bloodless and recovery is quick.
It should also be noted that cats are not devocalized. Why are they included in the bill? Maybe the out-of-state animal rights person who wrote the bill now pending before the state Legislature didn’t know that.
The bill, promoted by a 15-year-old animal rights activist and written by an out-of-state group, would ban this life-saving procedure.
Many legislators signed on after a massive Internet campaign that didn’t get the facts straight.
True animal lovers would not want to remove the last tool we have to save a happy noisy dog from being separated from a family that loves it.
Charlotte McGowan
Newton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)