|
Legislative
News
-- Carol Zielke, Legislative Liaison, Cielcollie@aol.com
January 1, 2007 Louisville Info
The text of the Anti-Pet Ordinance can be found at www.louisville-pets.com . Some of the provisions include:
++ requirement for written permission to sell, advertise, or offer to
sell ANY animal
++ requirement for written approval of any enclosure for an unaltered
dog
++ provisions to require spay/neuter of any animal impounded by Animal
Control
++ humane treatment provisions based on dogs are applied to all
animals; a rabbit kept in a proper wire hutch instead of in a crate
with a wooden floor can be seized and the owner charged with cruelty
++ "irritating or perturbing" anyone is a violation, whether it is the
animal owner or the animal that is found to be "irritating or
perturbing"
++ two violations within 5 years result in forfeiture of all animals
and a prohibition against owning animals for 2 years
This is the most restrictive, anti-pet law in the country. For those of
you who want to help, you can do the following:
Go to www.louisville-pets.com; there is a list of e-mails at the bottom
of the page. Write a message to the Council Members asking them WHY
they voted this horrible piece of legislation through, and let them
know what you think of it!
Write or phone the Mayor (Jerry Abramson) at mayor -at- louisvilleky
-dot- gov or 502-574-2003 and ask him to VETO this ordinance. Simply
not signing is not enough -- it will go into law without his signature
on Friday, January 5th.
DONATE to the LKC Legislative Fund. There is a paypal link at the
bottom of www.louisville-pets.com , or you can send your donation to
royalton -at- earthlink -dot- net .
MANY THANKS from the pet owners of Louisville, KY!
IMPORTANT NOTES:
The January Fun Match that the LKC holds has been canceled for this
year. It is hoped that the match can be rescheduled for the spring, at
a venue outside of Louisville.
People should be aware that the new anti-pet law affects ONLY
Louisville, KY, not the entire state.
The Kentuckiana Cluster of Dog Shows will be held in Louisville in
March 2007. The LKC is looking into moving the Cluster next year
possibly to Lexington. This year, exhibitors are asked to attend the
show, but spend their money outside of Louisville. There will be a big
ad campaign to let the merchants of Louisville know why dog-people are
spending their money elsewhere.
There is a mailing list that has been set up for the purpose of keeping
everyone informed and united in the ongoing fight against bad
legislation in KY--including Louisville. The list is KYDogOwners -at-
yahoogroups -dot- com and is open to ALL pet owners. People can go to
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/KYDogOwners/ to join.
Karen Brinkley
Legislative Liaison, Responsible Dog Owners of Louisville December 30, 2006 Ashland City Council Mtg 1-2-07 to Consider AR Law
Council to consider animal-rights law
Volunteers step up to help regulate; Ashland cops busy with other tasks
By John Darling
for the Mail Tribune
ASHLAND — Boosted by a big e-mail campaign, a proposed law to ban the chaining
of dogs for more than two hours will come before the City Council Jan. 2, but
because the city doesn't have the staff to enforce it, animal rights supporters
say they will take on the job and report violations.
Animal rights activist and writer Barbara E. Rosen pioneered the ordinance,
which would restrict tethering of dogs for no more than an hour and no more than
three times a day and mandates that dog pens have a minimum 97 square feet of
space.
"This is just a bread crumb for animals and its need is so obvious," said Rosen.
"We're just coming out of the dark ages about treating animals as family
members."
The proposed ordinance addresses an array of cruelties to domesticated,
vertebrate animals, including calling for no killing or injuring of an animal,
and no taking healthy animals to the vet to be put down.
In addition, abandoning animals would be banned; animals must be supplied
adequate nutritive food daily and water in tip-proof containers and must have
sufficient space to exercise for 75 percent of the time or be taken on walks for
at least 90 minutes a day. Animals outside must have protection from sunlight
and from cold below 40 degrees, with bedding. If tethered, dogs must have water,
shade, dry ground and collars or harnesses that can't injure or choke them.
The rules about tethering and pens govern only the owner's residence. City law
already prohibits tying animals in public places, such as out front of
restaurants and bars.
The city's main concern with the law is that there is no staff to enforce it,
said City Manager Martha Bennett. Police and code enforcement officers are busy
with other tasks.
However, Rosen has assured the city that a group of volunteers are willing and
ready to observe and file complaints, then police would issue citations, said
city attorney Michael Franell.
The city has received a large number of e-mails, almost all in support of the
law, he said.
Rosen, an activist who has protested and passed petitions while wearing animal
costumes, wanted the tethering law to cover goats, sheep and horses, but city
officials, because there are so few such farm animals in town and no detention
facilities for them, made it apply only to dogs.
Rosen wanted dog pens to be at least 250 square feet, saying anything less would
be a "mere pittance." Rosen argued that dogs should have pen space 75 percent of
the time to prevent people from satisfying the law by putting dogs in pens for a
few minutes, then going to work and leaving them in small travel cages where
they "suffer intensely." She also worked to have cats included in the pen
language so they wouldn't have a "horrible life" in pens, but the city deleted
that. It also wrote the tethering section so it didn't include cats.
"I hate that," said Rosen. "The whole thing has been compromised. No family
member should be tied outside. We're trying to get away from the chronic tying
up of animals. I love when people walk their animals. People can easily have a
fenced yard or an electronic fence. But I'm happy with the one hour maximum on
tethers and it's enforceable." Rosen compared the 97 square foot minimum pen
size to solitary confinement, adding, "we don't even treat murderers that way."
In her talks with the six council members, Rosen said she found two who feel the
proposed law would be a "time drain" for the city and would prefer the county
continue to be in charge of animal code enforcement.
However, Rosen said county enforcement is in response to complaints and is "not
adequate." State law — ORS 167.300 — is general, defining exercise, for
instance, as "adequate space for exercise necessary for the health of the
animal," she said, adding that such vague language is unenforceable.
Rosen disputed the idea that the law would consume city time and resources,
noting that most cited animal owners comply with the law promptly.
The proposed ordinance is based on many others from around the nation and
represents a growing trend of reducing animal cruelty — one that backers hope to
apply county-wide if it works in Ashland, said Rosen.
Most cities have an animal control department to enforce such rules, said
Franell, noting that Ashland is too small to have one, so it's up to volunteers.
"If citizen participation wanes, it would be unenforceable," he said.
The council meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Jan. 2 in council chambers at 1175
E. Main St.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2006/1226/local/stories/animal-ordinance.htm
They say that they've only gotten emails in favor of the anti-tethering,
anti-penning law. Might not be a bad idea for a few of us to send emails on the
other side. Also forbids euthanasia of healthy pets (what if the dog is
aggressive or a biter?)
Contact info for city is at http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1611
Mayor
morrisoj @ ashland.or.us
- - - -
Council Position 1 - - -
Alice Hardesty
ahardesty88 @ charter.net
- - - -
Council Position 2 - - -
Alex Amarotico
alex @ standingstonebrewing.com
- - - -
Council Position 3 - - -
Cate Hartzell
cate @ mind.net
- - - -
Council Position 4 - - -
Kate Jackson
katejackson@opendoor.com
- - - -
Council Position 5 - - -
Russ Silbiger
russcity@zintech.org
- - - -
Council Position 6 - - -
David Chapman
davidchapman@ashlandhome.net December 21, 2006 Pit bull ban dropped in Richland, approved in Royal City
Thursday, December 21, 2006 · Last updated 8:08 a.m. PT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHLAND, Wash. -- The Richland City Council has dropped a move to define pit bulls
as potentially dangerous, while the council in Royal City approved a ban on pit bulls
and Rottweilers even in cars passing through town.
The Richland council voted unanimously Tuesday night to reject a proposed ordinance
that had passed its first reading in November 4 to 2 after a rental property owner
said a neighbor's pit bull was scaring away potential tenants.
"I don't see where amending the (dangerous dog) ordinance will gain anything," said
council member Edward Revell, who voted in favor of the proposal Nov. 21.
"We all have our fears," Revell said, "but I don't think there's any evidence to
support (pit bulls) are any worse."
Mayor Rob Welch, who also changed his stance, said opponents convinced him that a
breed-specific ordinance would be unwarranted.
"At this point in time, I think the community has spoken," Welch said.
In Royal City, population about 1,900, the council voted to banish Rottweilers as
well as pit bulls effective Jan. 12, including dogs used by the State Patrol or in
motor vehicles passing through the Grant County town southwest of Moses Lake.
Violators would be subject to a fine and the dog could be impounded.
Pet owners made the same arguments as in Richland, but to no avail. Two people
brought their pit bull to the meeting to show how well-behaved it was, only to be
told by Mayor Justin Jenks to remove the dog from the council chambers.
Citing a Web site that listed 12 dog deaths blamed on Rottweilers and pit bulls in
the last five months, none in Royal City, Jenks said he wanted to prevent any such
occurrence locally.
"I can look anything up on the Internet and find the answers I want," retorted Cindy
Bartlett, a pit bull owner. "Don't make a family get rid of a family pet. You should
be outlawing dogs who have bit people."
----------------------------------------------------------
-------
"The citizen who stands by his legal rights in the face of lawless government
misconduct
upholds the law and renders a service not only to himself but the public generally."
Justice Sanders, (defending the right to forcibly resist false arrest), writing in
dissent, State v. Valentine, 935 P.2d 1294. WA Supreme Court, 1997.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ORABS
December 20, 2006 Louisville, KY passes new ordinance
On December 20, 2006, after 13 months of consideration and much heated debate, the Louisville Metropolitan Council passed 100 pages of revised dog ordinances. While the effort was undertaken following the fatal maulings of a child and an elderly man and was generally expected to include pit bull and other breed restrictions in the City, the adopted ordinances contained no limitations on dog breeds. Instead, literally at the 11th hour, the ordinance was rewritten to drop BSL and includes mandatory microchipping and $50 annual fees for *ALL* intact animals, rather than a proposed $100 intact pit bull fee. Unaltered dog license costs will remain at $9/each.
In addition, the new law includes the following additional provisions:
Pet limits--3 dogs on up to .5 acre; 7 dogs on up to 2 acres and no limit on tracts greater than 2 acres.
New tethering restrictions
Revaccination/relicensing requirement for all dogs/cats removed from a kennel or cattery.
Breeder licensing.
Prohibits use of invisible fencing for unaltered dogs.
Requires 6 foot fence with one foot underground, 4 foot leash, and microchip for unaltered dogs.
Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.
Requires vets to report rabies vaccination information to Metro Animal Services (MAS) so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.
Allows dogs to be impounded for "irritating" or "perturbing" ANYONE.
Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.
Requires reporting of all litters, including brief description of all puppies.
Requires reporting of all sales of all dogs, with buyers name & address to be sent to MAS, even if buyer is not local.
Requires dog license # to be published in paper in any sale advertisement.
In order to enforce this series of expensive and very intrusive regulations, the city of Louisville requires local veterinarians supply dog owner - dog information to identify intact dogs receiving rabies vaccinations. Vets outside the city's limits will undoubtedly see increased business as people avoid this "gotcha" database. Florida and Texas Veterinary Medical Associations blocked such statewide data collections in their states in past. Unfortunately, in 2006, the Virginia Medical Veterinary Medical Association and certain dog owners supported such a statewide pet owner information reporting law.
Pennsylvania has proposed extensive new rules for that state's dog breeders. These appear to closely mimic the Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005 (PAWS) in their design and potential scope. Ohio also has a troublesome dog statute pending, while California localities continue their assaults on pet ownership and Virginia animal rightists' agenda grows. These assaults will only intensify in 2007. SAOVA's website has been updated to reflect the 2006 election outcomes http://saova.org/results.html and a new SAOVA News and Updates page added http://saova.org/news.html
As you prepare your Holiday gift list, please consider supporting SAOVA's pro-active animal owner advocacy via a website PayPal donation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
December 9, 2006 Louisville City Council Dec 11, 06
**please cross-post as appropriate**
Heads up, dog owners!
December 11 at 3:00 the Louisville, KY, City Council meets and will
once again consider the 8th draft of a 100+ page long dangerous dog
ordinance. The over 100 pages include flaws and failures almost too
numerous to track, including BSL, an assault on the due process
rights of dog owners, a truly nutty limit law, and much, much more.
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2990
http://www.naiatrust.org/actionalertlouisville.htm
If you're debating a last minute phone call, email or fax to the
members of the Louisville City Council, please take a moment to weigh
in against discrimination and in favor of the preservation of civil
rights for dog owners. (Contact info for Louisville City Council
members is in the AKC alert, link above December 8, 2006 Tacoma City Council meeting Dec 12, 06
December 12: Tacoma, WA, City Council will meet to consider a
mandatory spay-neuter proposal --
"[City Councilmember Julie Anderson] knows it's "an encroachment on
people's rights." Even so, she insists tough regulations are "really
necessary until we get the pet population under control."
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6273788p-5473733c.html
Folks: there is no such thing as a temporary encroachment on the
Bill of Rights, and there are far more effective ways to address the
issue of shelter populations.
Further information, along with contact info for the Tacoma City
Councilmembers:
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3067
Please let them hear from you.
October 29, 2006 HSUS Endorsed Candidates in State Legislature
Dear Washington Friends,
Yesterday, the Political Action Committee of the Humane Society of
the U.S. (HSUS), the animal rightist's flagship lobbying organization, added thirty-nine (39) names to its slate of endorsed candidates for the Olympia legislature. The entire list may be seen
at http://saova.org/Washington6.html
HSUS and its allies continually exhort legislators to pass federal
and state laws that restrict or eliminate hunting, fishing, purebred
pets, livestock ownership, circuses, rodeos, medical research and similar activities. If these things are important to you, I strongly urge that you consider voting for the *OPPONENTS* of these state politicians.
Senate
Jerome Delvin (R–8) - NNO
Derek Kilmer (D-26)
Tracey Eide (D-30)
Pam Roach (R–31)
Darlene Fairley (D-32)
Karen Keiser (D-33)
Erick Poulson (D-34)
Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36) - NNO
Adam Kline (D-37)
Ed Murray (D-43)*
Ken Jacobsen (D-46)
Rodney Tom (D-48)*
House
Al O'Brien (D-1) - NNO
Mark Ericks (D-1)
Tom Campbell (R-2)
Timm Ormsby (D-3) - NNO
Edward Foote (D-4)*
Don Barlow (D-6)*
Tim Knue (D-10)*
Bob Hasegawa (D-11)
Zach Hudgins (D-11) - NNO
Deb Wallace (D-17)
Richard Curtis (R-18)
Julie McCord (D-18)*
Sam Hunt (D-22)
Sherry Appleton (D-23)
Lynn Kessler (D-24) - NNO
Kevin Van De Wege (D-24)*
Dawn Morrell (D-25)
Larry Seaquist (D-26)*
Patricia Lantz (D-26)
Jeannie Darneille (D-27)
Troy Kelley (D-28)*
Tami Green (D-28)
Steve Kirby (D-29) - NNO
Mark Miloscia (D-30)
Dan Roach (D-31)
Ruth Kagi (D-32)
Shay Schual-Berke (D-33)
Dave Upthegrove (D-33) - NNO
Kathy Haigh (D-35)
Randy Neatherlin (R-35)
Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) - NNO
Eric Pettigrew (D-37)
Judy Clibborn (D-41)
Fred Jarrett (R-41)
Frank Chopp (D-43)
Jamie Pedersen (D-43)*
Hans Dunshee (D-44)
John Lovick (D-44)
Larry Springer (D-45)
Geoff Simpson (D-47)
Pat Sullivan (D-47)
Ross Hunter (D-48)
Deb Eddy (D-48)*
Jim Moeller (D-49)
* non-incumbent
NNO denotes No November Opponent
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit our new website at http://saova.org
October 28, 2006 HSUS's October Surprise - Anti's Target House Members at a Cost
Dear SAOVA Friends.
Animal Rightists' late October reports to the government indicate that they've targeted five House members for defeat and literally spent one of their treasuries dry in this effort.
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) website at http://saova.org/ARPACS.html contains this statement, "Third quarter PAC reports occasionally contain surprises, such as heavy direct expenditures designed to defeat a targeted candidate."
Careful scrutiny of Federal Election Commission filings since October 17, 2006 by the HSUS's Humane USA PAC and its wholly owned and controlled Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) PAC indicates that Humane USA's balance has been reduced to less than $1000 and that HSLF has spent very significant sums on direct mail, radio and newspaper advertising to defeat targeted House members that are firm friends of sportsmen and animal owners. The vast majority of targeted opposition spending is aimed at Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM1) $155,000 and House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA11) $107,000. This data is current through October 24, 2006. Two years ago, Humane USA PAC went into debt and spent money right up until election day, attempting to defeat pro-hunter, pro-animal owner candidates.
Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) October Political Donations and Direct "Independent" Expenditures
(Most HSUS endorsed and funded candidates listed below previously received campaign donations. Supplemental amounts less than $5000 aren't itemized.)
Northeast
CT4 Shays
NH2 Bass
NY20 Sweeney $14,800 (HSUS anti-horse slaughter bill author)
RI Senate Chafee
VT At-Large Welch
Mid-Atlantic
MD Senate Cardin
PA Senate Santorum (HSUS PAWS and PPA bill author)
PA3 English
PA6 Gerlach (HSUS PAWS bill author)
PA10 $3200 in direct opposition to Rep. Sherwood
NJ2 Ferguson
NJ5 Aronsohn (in addition, $3500 in direct opposition to Rep. Garrett)
Southeast
KY1 Whitfied (HSUS Puppy Protection Act author and anti-horse slaughter bill principal)
KY4 Davis
NC11 Shuler (in addition, $3700 direct opposition to Rep. Taylor)
TN9 Cohen
SC5 Spratt (HSUS anti-horse slaughter bill author)
Florida House 57 Culp
Texas
TX16 Reyes
TX25 Doggett
Midwest
IL8 Bean
IL10 Kirk
IL17 Hare
OH14 LaTourette
OH15 Pryce
Michigan Senate 60 Lipsey
Rockies
AZ8 Giffords
NM1 Madrid $55,000 (in addition, $100,000 in direct opposition to Rep. Wilson)
California
CA4 $7900 in direct opposition to Rep. Doolittle
CA11 McNerney (in addition, $107,000 in direct opposition to Rep. Pombo)
CA24 Gallegly $14,000 (HSUS anti-hunting bill author)
CA45 Bono
CA47 Miller
Northwest
OR4 DeFazio
WA2 Larsen
WA8 Reichert
If these messages from SAOVA have piqued your interest in this election and made you want to get to the polls to vote and take others with you, they've served their purpose. If you've already voted absentee, thank you. In addition to http://saova.org you may also find the following resources helpful http://www.pollster.com/
and http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/on_waves_and_stability_part_ii_1.php
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Visit our new website at http://saova.org
October 22, 2006 Puppy Mill Propaganda and Power 101
Sent to us by a friend. This is great background on what is currently happening in PA.
Puppy Mill Propaganda and Power 101
Pennsylvania article Part one of a series.....
http://givinuthefacts.blogspot.com/
October 19, 2006 Update in PA puppy mills
http://chatevo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2828
ANIMAL LAW COALITION
Pennsylvania Governor Recommends Sweeping Changes To Regulate Puppy Mills
October 17, 2006 : 12:00 AM
The Governor announced a plan today to crack down on the state's more than 1500 puppy mills that breed puppies in deplorable, cruel conditions.
Governor Ed Rendell announced, "'We have a very serious problem with the regulation and sale of dogs in Pennsylvania. The state has become known as the puppy mill capital of the country.'
Rendell proposed legislation that would:
* Strengthen criminal penalties related to the dog law and cruelty statutes;
* Provide the Dog Law Enforcement Bureau with the authority to issue civil penalties for violations of the dog law subject to administrative hearing for both licensed and unlicensed kennels;
* Allow the Bureau's special prosecutor to represent dog wardens in court with the approval of the local district attorney, just as Humane Societies can currently seek such approval for private representation;
* Allow dog wardens to seize dogs in distress;
* Require owners to pay for the care of dogs during pending cruelty cases, or forfeit ownership of the dogs;
* Require kennel owners to post a surety bond prior to receiving a license. When dogs are seized from unlicensed kennels, those kennels must post a surety bond prior to launching any appeal or other legal action; and
* Require that the Secretary of Agriculture revoke a kennel license from any kennel owner who is convicted of cruelty and shall not issue a kennel license to any person that has been convicted of cruelty in the past 10 years.
Governor Rendell's proposed regulatory changes include:
* Doubling cage sizes in all kennels with the exception of humane societies. This is widely viewed as a significant step to improve conditions in Pennsylvania's breeding facilities. Humane societies would be exempted because they provide only temporary shelter;
* Requiring that all dogs housed in kennels be exercised for 20 minutes per day;
* Creating more specific requirements for indoor and outdoor kennel facilities in order to detail numerous health, safety and welfare issues that must be considered in both instances. Currently, there are no separate regulations for outdoor facilities;
* Establishing more detailed specifications so that indoor and outdoor facilities provide dogs with proper shelter, temperature control, ventilation, air movement, lighting, bedding, sanitation, slope of ground and run and footing materials; and
* Creating more detailed record keeping requirements for kennel owners.
The governor also announced new appointments to the Dog Law Advisory Board. Earlier this year the governor fired every member of the Board. The new Board's first meeting is scheduled to take place next month. Most of the appointments appear to be breeders or farmers.
The governor's plan includes six new positions in the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement: special deputy secretary for dog law enforcement, special prosecutor for dog law enforcement, and a team comprised of four kennel compliance specialists, who will be dispatched throughout the state to enforce the kennel provisions of the dog law.
"We are taking strong steps to protect consumers, reputable breeders and kennels, and the defenseless animals whose health and welfare is at the heart of this important issue," Governor Rendell said. October 11, 2006 Rescind HEART: HEART Goes into Effect
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST
October 9, 2006
The Albuquerque Journal ran a story this morning about HEART going into effect tomorrow. This evening KOB-TV also ran a story about HEART going into effect. Earlier today I was contacted by KOAT-TV and did a phone interview for a segment that will run Tuesday morning about HEART (this was short notice from the morning team and there was no time to tape an interview). KOAT-TV wanted reaction about HEART. I raised issues about mismanagement by the city, the ineffectiveness of harsh laws elsewhere in the country, and plans to Rescind HEART. Please note that the city could have had a no-kill shelter without HEART, and could have done so years ago. What we are seeing is gross mismanagement by the current administration (mayor and city council). Just consider the number of animals that have been killed due to this mismanagement..
A friend told me that the segment I recorded about HEART with KOB-TV on Sep 17, finally aired on Sep 23. I missed it. Portions of my interview with KUNM about HEART ran in radio stories on Sep 15 and 18. The stories are available in the KUNM archives. It is going to take some time before the media is more responsive to our perspective on HEART. The Albuquerque Journal has not been willing to even publish letters in opposition to HEART. The "news" stories in the Journal are more like editorials that support HEART.
If anyone is willing to help work with the media, please contact me. Help is needed to plan press releases, develop forums for public debates, and to set up study sessions to educate the media.
Tomorrow evening I talk to a local group about HEART. This is part of the campaign to educate the public. More public awareness is needed before the next effort to Rescind HEART. I am willing to talk to any group about HEART. Please spread the word and help get me on the agenda for meetings or study sessions.
Last Friday I participated in a discussion with the mayor and manager of a local community. During the legislative session starting in January, HEART will become a statewide issue. It is necessary to develop political contacts. If you can help, please contact me. Elections are coming up and I am willing to help with meetings for any of the candidates.
Thanks for your help.
Ronald A. Gustafson
Chairman, Rescind HEART
ron.gustafson@worldnet.att.net
505-864-3515
http://www.icare-usa.org/
Founder, New Mexico Animal Control Forum
"Rational Thinking on Animal Control Issues for the State of New Mexico"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VCNM_Animal_Control_Forum/
October 7, 2006 Last Chance To Pass AETA This Year - Action Needed Now!
When a political cause is used to justify terror, violence, harassment, destruction and even murder, the cause itself becomes tainted grotesque and shameful. So it is with animal-rights extremism. More and more people are saying "no" to terrorists who hold legitimate animal interests hostage to extremist agendas.
On September 30, 2006 , by unanimous consent, the US Senate passed Senate Bill 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which strengthens the federal response to criminal activities conducted against organizations and individuals directly or indirectly related to animal ownership and care, "animal enterprises," as the bill calls them.
The bill now comes before the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives as HR 4239. In order to become law this year, HR 4239 needs support now. Locate your US Representative in Washington or at their home district offices where they are likely to be until after the elections, and urge passage of the bill. http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/ A call or visit to their home office could make a big difference now.
We must say no to terrorist tactics that threaten our Constitutional ideals and certainly have no place in our efforts to promote responsible, legal animal interests. This is our last chance to pass AETA this year.
Among its actions, the bill would:
· Broaden the definition of "animal enterprise" to such private and commercial enterprises as animal shelters, breeders, pet stores, and furriers.
· Define "economic disruption" as losses or increased costs resulting from threats, acts of violence, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation perpetrated against a person or entity on account of their relationship with an animal enterprise.
Contrary to a heavily waged Internet disinformation campaign fomented by animal rights groups claiming that this bill will override First Amendment protections, nothing could be further from the truth. Please note section (e) below. It's from the actual bill passed by the Senate, S. 3880.
''(e) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this section shall be construed
''(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
''(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or
''(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies."
From our beginning in 1991, the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) has worked for laws to protect animal enterprises from terrorist tactics. To this end, NAIA participated in the campaign that culminated in 1992 passage of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. In the intervening years, we have endorsed several necessary amendments to strengthen that law.
But animal-rights extremists found a huge loophole in the Act: There was no prohibition against attacking third parties connected with animal-related businesses. Extremists stepped up their acts of arson, theft and assault against these unprotected targets. They have attacked researchers, shareholders and shelter workers; vandalized country clubs; harassed employees' families; dropped bombs on the doorsteps of researcher's neighbor; and torched homes and negatively impacted personal security in their campaigns to achieve goals that range from ending animal-based research to dominating community animal-control programs and even eliminating the right to own an animal.
Encouraged by NAIA and other concerned citizens, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, convened a hearing on animal rights and environmental terrorism on October 26, 2005. At that session, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a physician who often speaks for the Animal Liberation Front, stood behind his 2003 statement that murdering researchers would be an acceptable tactic in the crusade against animal-based research. Other witnesses described how they had been threatened and victimized by animal-rights extremists and had suffered personal and financial losses as a result.
As a result of this hearing Senator Inhofe and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced S. 1926, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. After being amended with input from the ACLU to protect free speech, the bill came to be known as S. 3880.
NAIA applauds the Senate for their stand against what the FBI reports to be the number one domestic terrorist threat in the US .
"Legitimate businesses and innocent people are suffering," says NAIA national director Patti Strand. "We cannot tolerate criminal activities without forfeiting the rule of law that forms the basis of our democratic society. We are grateful to Senators Inhofe and Feinstein for addressing this critically important threat to our country. We are especially pleased that the bill now protects legal activism, free speech and legal boycott - all good choices for people wishing to express their opinions. However, the bill is tough on arson, vandalism, and campaigns of death threats, all methods of expression that are violent and chilling to the civil liberties and free speech rights of the victims, the defenseless targets of such disgusting campaigns. We hope that everyone working with animals, everyone owning animals will see that AETA protects them from the extremists who use death threats, arson and other criminal acts to make their point. We urge strong support and quick passage of the AETA."
For more background information on this issue, log on to:
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/Stop_Animal%20_Rights_Terrorists.htm
Please feel free to click the forward button below to send this to your friends and associates!
Copyright © 2006. National Animal Interest Alliance Trust. All Rights Reserved. October 4, 2006 Rick Santorum - The Anti-Hunter's Election Choce
Dear Pennsylvania Friends,
Sen. Rick Santorum is endorsed and heavily financially supported by the chief anti-hunting lobbyist in the United States, Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). Pacelle told Santorum at a November 8, 2005 public hearing on his S1139 anti-hunting dog owner bill that he could count on 300,000 HSUS animal rightist votes in Pennsylvania. I was there and had previously been denied the opportunity to testify against this Santorum-HSUS bill.
HSUS is pushing anti-hunting ballot questions this year in Maine and Michigan, in addition to its federal and local lobbying. Here are some Pacelle hunting quotes,
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change."
"Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
"The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the [Fox Hunting] Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds."
Rick Santorum has repeatedly introduced and voted for anti-hunter, animal rights activists’ bills during his time in Washington. Keystone State hunters and animal owners should understand this as they go to the polls on November 7, 2006.
Understand that SAOVA's reviews are single interest efforts. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, social security, medical care, national security, gun control or social issues. To the degree that hunting, fishing, livestock farming and pet ownership are important to you, we offer these election candidate analyses to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote. Study the candidates and support those individuals that will support you. Register and VOTE!
Animal rightist endorsed state legislators have been added to our Pennsylvania page located at http://saova.org/Pennsylvania6.html
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Tue Oct 3, 2006 6:13 pm (PST)
BlankDear Pennsylvania Friends,
Sen. Rick Santorum is endorsed and heavily financially supported by the chief anti-hunting lobbyist in the United States, Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). Pacelle told Santorum at a November 8, 2005 public hearing on his S1139 anti-hunting dog owner bill that he could count on 300,000 HSUS animal rightist votes in Pennsylvania. I was there and had previously been denied the opportunity to testify against this Santorum-HSUS bill.
HSUS is pushing anti-hunting ballot questions this year in Maine and Michigan, in addition to its federal and local lobbying. Here are some Pacelle hunting quotes,
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change."
"Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
"The entire animal rights movement in the United States reacted with unfettered glee at the [Fox Hunting] Ban in England ...We view this act of parliament as one of the most important actions in the history of the animal rights movement. This will energise our efforts to stop hunting with hounds."
Rick Santorum has repeatedly introduced and voted for anti-hunter, animal rights activists’ bills during his time in Washington. Keystone State hunters and animal owners should understand this as they go to the polls on November 7, 2006.
Understand that SAOVA's reviews are single interest efforts. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, social security, medical care, national security, gun control or social issues. To the degree that hunting, fishing, livestock farming and pet ownership are important to you, we offer these election candidate analyses to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote. Study the candidates and support those individuals that will support you. Register and VOTE!
Animal rightist endorsed state legislators have been added to our Pennsylvania page located at http://saova.org/Pennsylvania6.html
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators......
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Tue Oct 3, 2006 6:13 pm (PST) September 29, 2006 Phony Animal-Rights 'Physicians Committee' Plays Chicken With California Lawsuits
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060928/dcth043.html?.v=73
Press Release Source: Center for Consumer Freedom
Phony Animal-Rights 'Physicians Committee' Plays Chicken With California Lawsuits, Says Center for Consumer Freedom
Thursday September 28, 12:55 pm ET
Lawsuit Group's Lead Attorney Protests Life-Saving Medical Research With PETA
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Seven California lawsuits filed yesterday against restaurants that serve grilled chicken are motivated by animal-rights ideology, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) said today. The deceptively named "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" (PCRM) is actually a wealthy animal rights group, not a mainstream health charity.
PCRM's goals include transitioning Americans to a strict vegetarian diet. And publicly available tax records show that two-thirds of the group's operating budget now comes from Nanci Alexander, an animal-rights millionaire who operates a Florida vegetarian restaurant. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has also contributed over $1.3 million.
Yesterday in Los Angeles, City News Service reported that the American Medical Association has in the past called PCRM an organization that uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested in perverting medical science." City News Service also noted that "a Newsweek article in February 2004 stated that less than 5 percent of its members are doctors and it has ties to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights group, which has drawn criticism for some of its tactics."
PCRM lead attorney Dan Kinburn, who filed the California lawsuits yesterday, has also appeared protesting alongside PETA activists against the use of animals by medical research laboratories. A photograph of Mr. Kinburn participating in such a PETA protest can be viewed at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/kinburn.jpg.
CCF Director of Research David Martosko said: "When will people realize that this phony 'physicians' group is just PETA with a lab coat? The animal rights activists at PCRM would rather save lab rats than cure cancer and AIDS. They don't deserve a say in whether or not anyone eats a chicken sandwich."
Martosko continued: "The federal government and the American Cancer Society agree that there's nothing dangerous about eating a chicken sandwich. But letting animal rights activists slowly force us into vegetarianism could be hazardous to everyone's health. The last time I checked, Americans were getting sick from spinach, not grilled chicken."
To learn more about the radical animal rights activists behind the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, visit http://www.PhysicianScam.com. To schedule an interview, contact Sarah Longwell at +1-202-463-7112.
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices September 27, 2006 Indianapolis to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping
The Indianapolis City-County Council Rules and Public Policy Committee is considering a proposal that would require all animals to be spayed or neutered and would require all dogs and cats to be microchipped. The committee will accept written public comment until this Friday, September 29th and will hold a public hearing October 10th. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners write letters and attend this meeting to educate city-county councillors about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
The proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will require all animals to be spayed or neutered unless the animal is a "show, breeder, law enforcement, service or competition animal or crime prevention dog." There are no definitions in the ordinance for show, breeder or competition animals. Indianapolis does not currently require licensing or registration of animals and under this proposal would require registration of only intact animals.
AKC opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.
The mandatory microchipping ordinance will require each dog and cat over the age of three months to be implanted with a microchip. Previously the city-county allowed a collar tag to serve as a means of permanent identification. Veterinarians or others who implant microchips are required to report the names, addresses and phone numbers of dog and cat owners and corresponding microchip number monthly to city-county officials.
As part of AKC's ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification-whether by collar, tattoo or microchip-should be made by the owner, not the government.
It is crucial that all fanciers and concerned dog owners work together to protect our rights as dog owners. The narrow exemptions provided in the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance are not sufficient to justify relinquishing the rights of responsible owners to breed dogs.
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs responsibly. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, working hard to raise healthy, well cared for dogs and to ensure that the puppies are placed with responsible dog owners.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
What You Can Do:
Attend the public hearing on October 10th at 5:30pm.
Room 260
City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Contact Councillor Rozelle Boyd, Rules and Public Policy Committee Chair
The Honorable Rozelle Boyd
200 E. Washington, Room 241T
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-327-4240
Contact your representative on the Indianapolis City Council.
Written comments must be received by September 29th.
To find out who represents you on the Indianapolis City Council, click here.
The Honorable or Councillor (Name)
241 City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Phone: 317-327-4241
For more information, contact:
Indiana Animal Owners Alliance
Patsy Dunn-Jena
padunnje2@yahoo.com
AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
Sportsmen and Animal Owners Endorse Ken Lucas for Congress
The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today endorsed Ken Lucas in Kentucky's 4th district congressional race. SAOVA’s chairman Bob Kane indicated that ex-Rep. Ken Lucas is one of a handful of challengers nationwide that could make a substantial difference in Washington for hunting sportsmen and animal owners.
Kane continued, "The principal November election objective of Kentucky sportsmen, pet owners, stockmen and medical researchers should be to replace animal rightist Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY4) with Ken Lucas. Ken voluntarily gave up his seat in 2004, term-limiting himself, after three very successful terms representing the 4th district. His voting record for those six years was exemplary and he earned wide esteem as a solid, thoughtful, fiscally conservative "Blue-Dog Democratic." Raised on a farm, he also cast vote after vote against the animal rights zealots that are attempting to end or restrict hunting and animal ownership in America.
In contrast, Rep. Davis has spent the last two years fully supporting those same animal rightists. Before his 2004 election, Rep. Davis was asked to complete SAOVA's non-incumbent issues and attitudes questionnaire to gauge his understanding of these anti's threats to us. He repeatedly refused to respond. This is rarely a good sign. Politicians that refuse to answer such legitimate questions frequently don't want you to know their views and their refusal is often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to sportsmen's and animal owners' rights. Never was a warning so prophetic.
The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), the anti's flagship lobbying organization, routinely pushes for federal and state laws that restrict or eliminate hunting, fishing, purebred pets, livestock ownership, circuses, rodeos, medical research and similar activities. HSUS, with justification, favors Rep. Davis."
Make a true difference. Return Ken to Washington.
Support and vote for Ken Lucas!!
~#~
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) is a nationwide, nonpartisan group of volunteers lobbying legislation and seeking to elect politicians who will oppose the animal rightist threat to our rights as Americans. Our members hunt, fish and own livestock, dogs, cats and other pets. For more information about SAOVA visit http://saova.org
Mississippi Canine Coalition Organizes Against BSL
American Kennel Club News Article
Mississippi Canine Coalition Organizes Against Breed-Specific Proposals
Date of Article: September 27, 2006
The Tupelo City Council and the Baldwyn Board of Aldermen will meet next Tuesday to discuss possible breed bans. The Mississippi Canine Coalition invites responsible dog owners to join them tonight from 6-8pm at the Lee County Public Library at 219 N. Madison in Tupelo to organize against breed-specific ordinances being proposed in Tupelo and Baldwyn.
Mississippi has been faced with a rash of breed-specific ordinances in recent months. The Mississippi Canine Coalition and responsible dog owners recently defeated a proposed breed-specific ordinance in Jackson and convinced the City of Brandon to rescind an ordinance that would have banned American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and related breeds. The Clinton K-9 Coalition has sued the City of Clinton over a recently adopted ordinance which bans Rottweilers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers and any mixed breed dogs with a parent from one of these breeds. Your help is needed to prevent more breed bans from being enacted in Mississippi!!
Talking Points for Opposing Breed-Specific Legislation
Breed-specific laws are not the best way to protect communities. An owner intent on using his or her dogs for malicious purposes will simply be able to switch to another type of dog and continue to jeopardize public safety. The list of regulated breeds or types could grow every year without ever addressing responsible dog ownership. Deeds, not breeds, should be addressed.
Breed-specific laws are hard to enforce. Breed identification requires expert knowledge of the individual breeds, placing great burden on local officials.
Breed-specific laws are unfair to responsible owners.
Breed-specific laws increase costs for the community. Shelter costs for the community could rise as citizens abandon targeted breeds, and adoptable dogs of the targeted breeds would be euthanized at the shelter.
In some instances, breed-specific laws have been overturned on constitutional grounds. Because proper identification of what dogs would be included is difficult or impossible, the law may be deemed unconstitutionally vague. It may also be found to involve the taking of property without due process.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), generic guidelines on dealing with dangerous dogs and increased public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership are all better ways to protect communities from dangerous animals.
Since dogs must be unaltered to participate in conformation dog shows and other performance events, many responsible dog owners will be forced to give up a sport that both they and their canine companions enjoy.
Breed-specific legislation is opposed by the AKC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Animal Control Association, the ASPCA, and a host of national animal welfare organizations that have studied the issue and recognize that targeting breeds simply does not work.
What You Can Do
Attend the Mississippi Canine Coalition Meeting TONIGHT
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
6-8pm
Lee County Public Library
219 N. Madison, Tupelo
Contact the Tupelo City Council members and ask them to oppose BSL.
City of Tupelo
P.O. Box 1485
Tupelo, MS 38802-1485
The Honorable Ed Neelly, Mayor
The Honorable Dick Hill, Ward 1
The Honorable Thomas Bonds, Ward 2
The Honorable Smith Heavner, Ward 3
The Honorable Nettie Davis, Ward 4
The Honorable Bill Martin, Ward 5
The Honorable Mike Bryan, Ward 6
The Honorable Berdell Jones, Ward 7
The Honorable Doyce Deas, At Large
The Honorable Carolyn Mauldin, At Large
Contact the Baldwyn Board of Aldermen and ask them to oppose BSL.
City of Baldwyn
P.O. Box 40
Baldwyn, MS 38824
The Honorable Danny Horton, Mayor
The Honorable Lee Bowdry, Ward 1
The Honorable Ronald Michael, Ward 2
The Honorable Richard Kolheim, Ward 3
The Honorable Tammie Waters, Ward 4
The Honorable Steve Scales, At Large
For more information, contact:
Mississippi Canine Coalition
Tere Woody
4aussie@bellsouth.net
AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
State Law Limiting Dog Chaining Modeled on L.A. Ordinance
By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer
12:48 PM PDT, September 27, 2006
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill today outlawing the chaining of dogs for more than three hours a day, saying the new law will help prevent dog attacks.
Animal rights groups sponsored the bill, arguing that chained dogs often don't get adequate food, water or medical attention and are more likely to bite people because they are not socialized and cannot flee perceived threats.
The governor's signature makes California the second state, after Connecticut, to limit dog tethering. The new law is modeled after a city of Los Angeles ordinance.
"This bill helps protect dogs from cruelty," said Schwarzenegger in a statement, "and enhances public safety by preventing aggressive animal behavior that can result from
inhumane tethering."
The governor, the owner of two dogs, signed the bill despite the opposition of policy advisors who called it unnecessary.
The legislation, SB 1578 by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), takes effect in January. It makes it a misdemeanor - punishable by a fine of $1,000 or six months in jail - to tie, chain or tether a dog for more than three hours a day. The law makes exceptions for dogs tied to running lines and pulley systems, used for hunting or herding sheep or cattle and those staying in campgrounds.
Roughly 80 cities or counties in the U.S. have passed similar ordinances, including Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles ordinance is more strict than the new state law. It allows no exception for running lines or pulley systems, said Ed Boks, general manager of the city's Department of Animal Services.
"We have found in Los Angeles that dogs are three times more likely to be involved in a biting situation if they are tethered," he said.
Roughly half of all children are bitten by dogs by the age of 12, said Boks.
"This is a real tool for animal care and control officers," he said. "It's a real tool, too, in helping people understand the value of their own pets. A tethered pet typically doesn't get the love and attention of a household pet."
Pam Runquist, a spokeswoman for California Animal Assn., the coalition of 15 animal rights groups that sponsored the bill, said she understood that some families might not be able to afford a fence so an exception was made for dogs on a running line or pulley system.
Such methods of confinement are not ideal, she said, but allow a dog more movement than chaining.
"This is really a precedent-setting measure, in that we are banning [tethering] for other than short periods of times and demonstrating that California really cares about the treatment of our dogs," said Runquist.
Also today, the governor signed a bill that gives California National Guard members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a leg up on getting state jobs. AB 2550 by Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) gives National Guard members or their
surviving spouses additional preference points when applying for state civil service jobs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-092706dogs,0,6329103.story?coll=la-home-headlines September 24, 2006 BE SURE TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER
Check the SAOVA website for your state if you haven't received anything from your District Director regarding AR vs SAOVA Endorsements for November Election
The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) today unveiled its new website at http://saova.org The site contains additional research and lobbying resources, new SAOVA volunteer identities and our endorsements of 182 candidates running for federal office in November. SAOVA ENDORSED candidates understand the animal rightist, anti-hunting threat and have voting records or exceptionally strong values that demonstrate their commitment to protecting our interests. Key non-incumbent endorsements include
Chuck Basdel (R-OH6)
Joe Courtney (D-CT2)
Ken Lucas (D-KY4)
Ray Meirer (R-NY24)
Peter Rosdam (R-IL6)
Tim Walberg (R-MI7)
Andrea Lane Zinger (R-IL17)
Also displayed there are names of 228 federal and numerous state politicians that are Animal Rightist Endorsed. Please take the time to visit and study our analyses. We make no pretence of evaluating candidates' positions on national security, taxes, education, medical care or social issues. To the degree that hunting and animal ownership are important to you, we offer this review to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote on November 7, 2006. Control of the U.S. House and possibly the Senate are on the line. Be Sure to Vote!
The world is governed by those who show up.
Feel free to distribute this message widely.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
The message above was posted to Oregon, Washington and Alaska residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA) on one of ten regional read only elists.
SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.
Lawsuit vs Albuquerque HEART Ordinance
Permission to cross-post is granted.
Albuquerque HEART Ordinance
As Patte Klecan and I outlined at the caucus and the delegates meeting in Newark, the Albuquerque City Council has passed what many consider to be one of the most onerous and dangerous anti-breeding laws ever to come along. Known as the HEART (Humane and Ethical Animal Regulations and Treatment) ordinance, the law would limit the number of intact dogs that a household may keep to four, impose an annual $150 per dog intact companion animal fee, and abolish hobby breeder permits that have been in effect for decades. That's just a few of its most objectionable provisions.
The ordinance also trivializes animal cruelty to the extent that one could easily face animal cruelty charges for many commonly accepted practices, and it is written so poorly that in many cases it is difficult to figure out just what it says. What's more, it has animal rights fingerprints all over it. For anybody who wishes to read this
manifesto in its abominable entirety, it can be accessed at
_http://daystar2.http://dahttp://daystar2http://da_
(http://daystar2.cabq.gov:81/Attachments/4333.doc.)
The Rio Grande Kennel Club and members of the fancy worked tirelessly to prevent this legislation from passing. We tried talking to the sponsor (she wouldn't listen to us), we tried talking to the mayor (he double-crossed us), and we finally took our case to the city council. Despite a tremendous turnout and testimony running more than
2 to 1 against the ordinance, the political "fix" was in and the ordinance passed on a 6 to 3 vote.
We are now seeking relief from the judiciary. The Rio Grande Kennel Club and eight individual plaintiffs have filed suit against the City of Albuquerque in New Mexico District Court, 2nd Judicial District.
We are currently awaiting a decision on our request for a preliminary injunction (the hearing was held Monday), but whatever the judge's decision on that, we have every intention of pursuing the matter to
trial.
There is strong evidence to indicate that Albuquerque was targeted for this ordinance and that its proponents will consider success here as their "foot in the door" for similar legislation elsewhere. A victory in Albuquerque will only strengthen their position when they push for similar legislation in other communities. That is why we are asking for financial help in our fight against the ordinance, not only for the benefit of fanciers in the Albuquerque area, but also for the benefit of the fancy nationwide. If we can stop HEART here, that will provide valuable precedent for future battles.
Donations can be sent to: RGKC Legal Fund; P.O. Box 25672;
Albuquerque, NM 87125-5672. Please make checks payable to Rio Grande
Kennel Club.
Permission to cross-post as widely as possible is given.
Bill Green, Delegate
Rio Grande KC
October 5th Riverside County Final Open Forum Manadatory Spay/Neuter
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA has rescheduled the final open forum on
the proposed Los Angeles County style mandatory spay/neuter and
microchip ordinances to Thursday, October 5 at Madison Elementary
School in Riverside at 7 p.m.
MULTIPLE UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
September 22, 2006
(Last publication date 8/17/06
Appropriate forwarding encouraged.)
Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility
IN THIS ISSUE:
* CA SB 1806, ANIMALS IN VEHICLE CRIME, SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
* RIPON (SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY) CA, PASSES BSL
* SANTA BARBARA COUNTY INTERESTED IN LA COUNTY STYLE MSN
* LOMPOC CA PASSES DOG MSN, CRIMINALIZES AT LARGE INJURIES
* WINDSOR CA PASSES SONOMA COUNTY-STYLE BSL
* SANTA ROSA CA WANTS STRONGER SONOMA COUNTY STYLE BSL
* SAN JOSE CA LA COUNTY STYLE MSN LAST COMMENT MEETING 10/5
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL'S web site at http://www.theanimalcouncil.com is
updated frequently supplementing advocacy information through these
Updates. The California bill tracking page includes links for
committee hearing audio. Current Legislative Material page has
additional details and materials on local and other significant
matters. Publications and Reference pages have resource material
useful to analyze, address and rebut detrimental proposals.
Additional materials are available for items below marked by an
asterisk.
*****
BRIEFLY NOTED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA has rescheduled the final open forum on
the proposed Los Angeles County style mandatory spay/neuter and
microchip ordinances to Thursday, October 5 at Madison Elementary
School in Riverside at 7 p.m.
CALIFORNIA BILLS
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER today signed SB 1806 by Senator Liz Figueroa,
D-10 of Fremont, co-author Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-40) of Van
Nuys to create a new Penal Code Section 597.7 covering animals in
vehicles. While this bill offers a lower level alternative to
charging animal owners with misdemeanor level cruelty when no harm is
done in jurisdictions that do not have a local ordinance, it also
poses enhanced danger to motorists in the ease of citing a criminal
offense. Think defensively about choice of vehicles and when and how
to transport animals and always monitor temperatures both outside and
inside your vehicle. SB 1806 will take effect January 1, 2007.
*****
RIPON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* City Council on September 5
unanimously passed a San Francisco style breed specific ordinance
requiring spay/neuter of all "pit bulls" without those qualifying for
a permit. The definition of "pit bull" has been extended to include
both Bull Terriers and Miniature Bull Terriers. This will effective
October 5. No Ripon residents opposed this ordinance despite local
publicity.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* has emerged as a potential Los
Angeles County copycat. In a letter to the City of Lompoc, Santa
Barbara County Animal Services Director Jan Glick, stated "In general
it seems the direction we will explore is the potential spay and
neuter of all dogs, with certain exemptions as has recently been
passed and will be implemented in Los Angeles County September 3,
2006.
LOMPOC, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* again took up the SB 861
enabled ordinance first discussed last May, but after discussion on
September 5, the City Council directed preparation of an all
inclusive Los Angeles County style sterilization mandate for dogs as
well as sterilization of all dogs and cats on redemption from impound
subject to an appeal process, and strict criminal liability for
owners of at large dogs injuring another animal or human. This was
introduced at the September 19 City Council meeting and passed 4-1.
WINDSOR, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* in June passed a Sonoma County-
style SB 861 enabled ordinance.
SANTA ROSA, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA* on September 5 the City
Council considered a Sonoma County-style BSL ordinance but directed
the City Attorney to include more stringent provisions. October 10
is the expected public hearing date on the revised proposal.
SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA last week held another
public meeting at the Animal Services facility regarding the still
unseen proposed ordinance described in a Memorandum last June as a
County of Los Angeles copycat with additional local provisions.
There will be one more public meeting in conjunction with the Animal
Advisory Committee prior to presentation to the City Council
anticipated for November 16. Following is the City's announcement
distributed to its email recipients. Information about these public
meetings has not been included on the Division's web site at
http://www.sanjoseanimals.com/
"Subject: City of San Jose Animal Ordinance Recommendations
WHAT: Animal Advisory Committee Meeting - Animal
Ordinance Recommendations
WHERE: San Jose Animal Care Center, 2750 Monterey Road, San
Jose 95111
WHEN: Thursday October 5, 2006- 6pm to 8pm
The San Jose Animal Care and Services Division would like to thank
you for your participation in the public meetings about the
recommended changes to the municipal Codes related to animals. We
will be conducting one last meeting at the next Animal Advisory
Committee meeting on October 5, 2006. This meeting will be the final
discussion with the Animal Advisory Committee and public comment
will be heard. The presentation will focus on any additional changes
or clarifications as a result of the public input and questions.
These changes/clarifications are: Location of Sales of Animals: The
current proposal would exempt any registered rescue group from the
location restrictions. The modified recommendation will also include
requirements that the rescue group notify Animal Care and Services at
least a week in advance regarding the proposed location, the location
would be subject to approval, and the rescue group would be required
to display their rescue ID for the public at the event. The sale of
animals at flea markets would remain prohibited.
Mandatory spay/neuter law: No change to recommendation. For
clarification, we received many questions from people who have
competition animals. Any animal involved in sanctioned shows or
competition, members of breed clubs that have standards for breeding,
have won titles, trained service animals, and is a breed recognized
by a national registry (AKC, UKC) would be able to keep their animal
unaltered for the same unaltered fee that is currently required
($50/yr). The main difference is that they would have to provide
proof (copy of a certificate, title, membership, etc) to qualify.
Small Animals: No Change to recommendation. For clarification, the
current limits would be modified to: 20 ft minimum distance between
the area that the animals are housed and the next closest house (not
including the owners house), current law is 15 ft. Between 20-40 ft
can house up to 6 small animals. From 40-50 ft, 10 small animals,
and over 50ft can keep up to 20 small animals. Small animals include
rabbits, chickens, geese, ducks, etc. Small animals do not include
dogs and cats or larger livestock such as goats, sheep, pigs, horse,
cattle, etc. Small animals kept indoors have a limit of six per
household without a permit.
A written summary of the proposed changes can be found here:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/BSN/061906/BSN061906_c.
pdf
The Animal Advisory meeting is the last step before the
recommendations are presented to the Council. The Mayor and Council
will hear these recommendations on November 14, 2006 and there will
be opportunity for additional public comment at that meeting."
*****
*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Contact us at
URL
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(4)
Online news updates published sporadically since 1997.
Legislative tracking subject to change. CA bill and law information
Federal info at
September 23, 2006 Springs seeks power to ban specific breeds of dogs
By SALLIE JAMES
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted September 22 2006
CORAL SPRINGS • A month after an exotic guard dog killed a Coral
Springs woman, city officials are looking for a way to ban the breed.
Commissioners this week passed a resolution urging the Broward
County Legislative Delegation to support a law that would give
Broward cities the power to outlaw certain dog breeds.
A passage in the state's existing dangerous dog law currently
prevents cities from developing dangerous dog regulations specific
to a breed.
"I've read too many stories of people losing their lives, of people
being mauled," said Coral Springs Commissioner Vincent Boccard, who
lives near the home where the Presa Canario dog attack occurred on
Aug. 18. "I'm genuinely concerned."
The state has its own dangerous dog law, but it is not breed
specific. Miami-Dade County banned pit bulls in 1989, pre-dating the
state's ban on breed-specific prohibitions.
The 120-pound guard dog that killed Shawna Willey, 30, attacked her
as she bathed the animal in her backyard. The animal tore out her
jugular veins and damaged her trachea during the mauling. Police
arrived to find the big dog standing over her body, and shot it to
death when it acted aggressively toward them.
Ten days later in south Miami-Dade County, a boxer dog fatally
mauled a 56-year-old man.
State Rep. Ari Porth, D-Coral Springs, said he will back Coral
Springs' effort.
"I support giving the city that authority, especially in light of
the terrible attack a few weeks ago," Porth said.
He added, "I don't think the problem is unique to South Florida. I
think these dangerous dogs are all over our state."
"I absolutely think it's a good idea to ban vicious animals," Vice
Mayor Roy Gold said. "There will be some people that have specific
breeds that may be considered vicious, and they will be unhappy."
The American Kennel Club opposes such legislation.
"We urge lawmakers to enact generic dangerous dog laws such as the
Florida state law which targets vicious dogs. We like to say it's
the deed, not the breed," said Lisa Peterson, the group's
spokeswoman in New York.
"It tends to be unfair to the responsible dog owner and doesn't
target the real problem, the irresponsible dog owner."
State Rep. Susan Goldstein, R-Weston, said the issue of breed
specific bans is a difficult one.
"I'd have to really look at both sides of that issue before I would
decide," she said.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-
cact22sep22,0,685477.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
Congress Passes AKC-Supported Version of 'PETS' Bill
American Kennel Club News Article
--Bill Addresses Challenges Faced By Pet Owners During Disasters--
New York, NY — This week, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed by unanimous consent the “Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006,” known as “PETS.” PETS addresses the problems experienced by pet owners before, during and after the 2005 hurricane season. The enacted bill includes the stronger Senate language -- which the AKC supported and lobbied for-- rather than the weaker House version of the bill. The bill now goes to the President, who is expected to sign it.
Amidst evacuation for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many pet owners were forced to leave their pets behind because emergency relief agencies, transportation facilities and shelters were not equipped to accommodate them. This caused some persons to resist evacuation orders, slowing down the process and putting human life at risk. Equally problematic was the public reaction to the widespread publicity given to the plight of the pets that were left behind. A recent AKC survey revealed that 67 percent of pet owning households nationwide said they would refuse future evacuation orders if they were unable to take their pets with them.
The PETS bill requires that disaster relief and emergency management agencies include provisions for the needs of households and individuals with pets and service animals in disaster relief plans as a condition for federal approval of such plans. The bill also makes providing services to individuals with household pets and service animals a legitimate activity on which to spend emergency and disaster relief funding, and authorizes the federal government to provide funds to states and local authorities for animal emergency preparedness purposes, and for procurement, construction, leasing, or renovating of emergency shelter facilities that will accommodate people with pets and service animals.
AKC President Dennis Sprung commended the Congressional action, saying “I want to thank the Congress for acting promptly and decisively to address this problem. This legislation will go a long way in assuring that the disastrous situation that occurred in 2005 is not repeated. I also want to thank the many members of the purebred dog fancy who supported and helped advocate for the passage of this important legislation.”
Sprung also noted that the successful passage of the PETS bill was a collaborative effort involving many animal interest organizations and AKC was pleased to be a leader among them.
During the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the AKC sent staff to the affected areas to assist with the needs of displaced animals and affected fanciers. Many individuals as well as 545 AKC clubs and organizations made donations to the AKC/CAR Canine Support and Relief Fund, enabling AKC to organize and support multiple airlifts transporting dogs to facilities out of the affected region. In addition, AKC recently hired a full-time employee who is responsible for coordinating disaster relief efforts on behalf of the AKC and AKC/CAR.
http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm
September, 23 2006, 4:02 PM
©2005 The American Kennel Club, Inc. All rights reserved. You may print this page for your personal, noncommercial, use only. You agree not to reprint, create derivative works from, post, reformat, transfer or sell this content in any format whatsoever.
September 22, 2006 : Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act **Update and AKC Political Notes**
Dear SAOVA Friends,
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees failed to markup HR4239 and S3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), this week, increasing the possibility the bill will not become law this year. The delay doesn't involve the measure's void on hunting-related business coverage, but is due the backlog of other legislation and a concern over animal activist's free speech rights. If you haven't made the contacts requested below, please do so. Hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides deserve and need AETA's protection too.
Old news, revised: SAOVA's September 14, 2006 message titled "AKC, HSUS & $$$" contained a factual error. The American Kennel Club's (AKC) puppy sale-registration contract is with Petland, not PetsMart.
Some thoughts on the AKC's direction. The German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America's Board of Directors this month refused to let AKC Board Chairman Ronald Menaker judge its 2007 Specialty. It's widely believed this action is due to the AKC management's misguided collaboration with the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) to federally regulate hobby breeders under S1139 (PAWS). Separately, several parent breed clubs, including the gigantic Golden Retriever Club of America, have voiced strong, formal rejection of the AKC-Petland contract to Mr. Menaker.
Does AKC's interest in microchip registration revenue trump concerns over dog owners' privacy rights? What safeguards are in place to prevent CAR's database from being used against dog owners? It was clear in the PAWS debate that AKC registration data would be made available to enforce that bill's onerous provisions. While all of us are concerned about recovering lost animals, HSUS's interest in microchipping is likely more motivated by their use to enforce "gotcha" licensing and other animal control and anti-breeding ordinances. Does Ron Menaker really think than he can outwit HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, after being embarrassed so badly over PAWS? Is the AKC learning curve really that steep? Where is this all leading and to whom is AKC's Board responsible? At least a few responsible dog club leaders are speaking up, concerned with AKC's present drift.
SAOVA's Election 2006 endorsements will be announced very shortly.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
----- Original Message -----
From: vhdoa.earthlink.net
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:27 AM
Subject: ALERT: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Hunting Enterprise Coverage Void
Gentlemen:
Time's tight on getting this bill fixed to include hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides, but you might make a few calls early today. Other key sponsor and committee votes include
Senator Jon Kyl --- Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207
Senator Orrin Hatch --- Phone: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331
Senator Arlen Specter --- Phone: (202) 224-4254 Fax: (202) 228-1229
Senator Rick Santorum --- Phone: (202) 224-6324 Fax: (202) 228-0604
Senator Jeff Sessions --- Phone: (202) 224-4124 Fax: (202) 224-3149
Senator Johnny Isakson --- Phone: (202) 224-3643 Fax: (202) 228-0724
Senator Lindsay Graham --- Phone: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808
Senator Jim DeMint --- Phone: (202) 224-6121 Fax: (202) 228-5143
Senator John Cornyn --- Phone: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856
Senator Charles Grassley --- Phone: (202) 224-3744 Fax: (202) 224-6020
Senator Mike DeWine --- Phone: (202) 224-2315 Fax: (202) 224-6519
Senator Herbert Kohl --- Phone: (202) 224-5653 Fax: (202) 224-9787
Senator Russ Feingold --- Phone: (202) 224-5323 Fax: (202) 224-2725
Senator Dianne Feinstein --- Phone: (202) 224-3841 Fax: (202) 228-3954
Thank you.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
540-543-2312
----- Original Message -----
From: vhdoa.earthlink.net
To: S_Plains
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: ALERT: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act - Hunting Enterprise Coverage Void
Dear SAOVA Friends in Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota,
S3880 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is a measure which provides badly needed protections for certain U.S. business enterprises subject to animal terrorism threats. The bill's federal penalties and definitions are helpful, but insufficient. This bill is scheduled for markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 21, 2006. Despite what you might have assumed or been told, there is absolutely no coverage for hunting-related business entities. The Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA), on behalf of thousands of lawful operating hunting preserve operators and professional outfitters and guides, has requested that the definitional section for 'animal enterprise' of S3880 be amended to include these entities. That definition presently includes
`(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
`(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or
`(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;
Sportsmen are under constant attack by animal terrorists. Those who rely on the hunting sport for their livelihoods deserve the same consideration as those entities already specified. It's only a matter of time before a fatality occurs.
Action Requested:
Constituents, immediately telephone or fax the following Senators. Urge that they amend S3880 to include hunting-related business entities, as described above:
Senator James Inhofe --- Phone: (202) 224-4721 Fax: (202) 228-0380
Senator Tom Coburn --- Phone: (202) 224-5754 Fax: (202) 224-6008
Senator John Thune --- Phone: (202) 224-2321 Fax: (202) 228-5429
Senator Sam Brownback --- Phone: (202) 224-6521 Fax: (202) 228-1265
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
September 18, 2006 Defeated - Jackie Speier, author of SB861
Defeated
Jackie Speier - Candidate for Lt. Governor in California - Author of SB 861 (infamous bill allowing breed-specific measures in a state that prohibits them)
Jackie Speier and her supporters angered dog owners not just in California, but across the country and across the aisle. She especially pissed off dog-owning members of her own party, prompting letters that said:
"I have voted for you in the past and I very well might have done so again last Tuesday except for one thing - SB 861. That absolutely wrong-headed bill shows a total lack of understanding of canine ethology and a willingness to capitalize on a family's personal tragedy for political gain, trampling the rights of all California dog owners in the process. I know dozens of Democrats among my fellow dog enthusiasts who also did not vote for you for exactly the same reason".
Bye Bye, Jackie!http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/
September 15, 2006 AKC, HSUS & $$$ - a message from SAOVA
Dear AKC Delegates,
The American Kennel Club (AKC) is trying numerous marketing gimmicks to
reverse its registration decline since 1992 to a 40-year low. These include free FSS papers for UKC coonhounds, discounts, waivers on lateness for certain select breeders, special coupons, whole litter registration and now the PetsMart direct sales, to name several. It’s not clear why the registry isn’t offering dog owners more and better service to attract them, but it's not. Its Board and Officers seem solely focused on total control and dominance of the dog fancy and $$, even if that requires collaborating with animal rightists.
Many dog owners are aware of AKC's new requirement that dogs be microchipped
before receiving a CGC award and the "promise" exacted from other
"responsible" dog owners and breeders to do the same. Less well-recognized are the growing revenues earned by its Companion Animal Recovery (CAR) unit or the $2 bounty given to veterinarians for chip registrations there, rather than elsewhere.
The latest chapter in the $$ canine microchipping $$ saga is the
AKC-AVMA-HSUS effort to require all breeders covered by the AWA to microchip. This would be a huge captive market and include anyone covered by the AKC-AVMA-HSUS PAWS bill, obviously. What a remarkable coincidence!
_http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2996_
(http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2996)
American Kennel Club News Article
AKC and AKC CAR Make Recommendations to USDA on Microchip Identification of
Pets
Date of Article: September 08, 2006
The AKC and AKC Companion Animal Recovery (AKC CAR) filed comments on
September 6, 2006 with the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on the establishment of federal regulations for the microchip identification of animals covered by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The comment letter was filed in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the APHIS requesting public input. The complete text of the AKC's comments, as well as those of other organizations and
members of the public, can be accessed at _http://www.regulations.gov_
(http://www.regulations.gov/) . The AKC also participated in five of six public
hearings on the same subject hosted by the APHIS across the country during the
summer.
Under the AWA, the APHIS has authority to regulate research facilities,
exhibitors, auction houses, transporters and persons who sell pets at wholesale.
The regulations include requirements for the positive identification of all
animals. The AWA does not cover private pet owners and persons who breed and
sell dogs only at retail, so any regulations pertaining to microchip
identification will not apply to such persons.
Currently APHIS regulations require positive identification of covered
animals by an approved collar, tag, or tattoo, and, in some cases, a card affixed to the animal's primary enclosure. APHIS regulations do not now include the option of microchip identification. In 2005, Congress directed the APHIS to examine the issue of microchip identification of pet animals, with a particular emphasis on harmonizing microchip systems used in the U.S. and internationally.
In its comments, the AKC urged the APHIS not to harmonize the two microchip technologies by mandating the exclusive use of one system or the other, but to specify standards for the performance of a microchip reader (scanner) that will effectively and efficiently read all chips in common use in the U.S. and internationally, and then permit the use only of chips that can be read by such a scanner. This recommendation, if adopted by the APHIS, would assure that virtually all of the estimated 5 to 10 million microchips already implanted in pet animals in the United States could continue to be read, while also
accommodating the growing number of dogs imported from abroad or which travel abroad. It would also provide the public with the widest choice of microchips.
The AKC also noted that most persons who microchip pet animals do so for the
purpose of identification and recovery if the animal is lost or stolen.
Experience with the 2005 hurricane season, in which large numbers of pets and pet owners were dislocated, demonstrated the value of microchip identification and also the problems that result when people do not microchip their animals, fail to register the microchip with a recovery service, or fail to keep their contact information up-to-date. The AKC urged the APHIS to include in its regulations provisions setting standards for the creation and maintenance of microchip data bases, including access to the information for recovery purposes.
-30-
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
_http://saova.org_ (http://saova.org/)
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, pet owners and farmers concerned about
protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting,
anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. September 14, 2006 The AKC and Petland -- Where do we go from here?
Posted by: "Walt Hutchens" waltah@earthlink.net waltah0
Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:53 pm (PST)
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED AS YOU LIKE
Three marketing ideas that could never be approved by corporate management:
1. A brand of beer, promotes with slogans like "It's the water" and
"Brewed with pure mountain spring water" could contract with the local
sanitation authority for recycled water. "A cold refreshing brew will
cost you a penny less!"
2. A fast food chain might reach out to the community with an aggressive
program to hire ex-convicts. "Behind bars to behind the counter." Paired pictures in the stores, one taken in prison garb, one in the store's uniform.
3. The AKC could sign a contract with a chain of pet stores under which they would strongly promote AKC registration of new puppies in the store.
OOPS! Scratch #3 from your 'could never happen' list, because according to today's list emails, it HAS happened.
What's wrong with all three of these ideas is the same. In each case, the core of the corporate image and good name would be badly damaged by the marketing action: The idea of purity and clean tasting beer by using water that came from a sewer, no matter how well purified and sanitized; the safe, wholesome family image of a fast food restaurant by knowing that your burger was being served by a felon; and the AKC's image of puppies lovingly raised in a home setting, by a well-known link
to pet store sales.
In all three cases it isn't the fact that causes the problem, but the
endorsement and giving of publicity. All water is ultimately recycled,
there are surely ex-cons working in many restaurants, and pet stores
already sell AKC registered puppies. It's the organizational ENDORSEMENT of the idea that does the damage.
We need to be clear that not only is commercial breeding and pet shop
selling of puppies perfectly legal and appropriate, but the AKC has for years registered such dogs and should continue to do so. There will always be people for whom a pet shop dog is a better 'fit' for one reason or another and if the breeders meet AKC standards for care and conditions and for registry integrity then their puppies should be registerable just as any others.
But when the AKC is seen as specifically endorsing pet shop sales, then the AKC's name -- which depends primarily on home breeding and is its
second most important asset -- is damaged. Damaging the corporate name
is the worst possible business sin and this marketing decision is right up there with the worst ever made. Someone -- or maybe a couple -- of
people at the top of the AKC ought to be looking for new jobs about
tomorrow.
Beyond that, we see again an AKC board that can't locate any part of its
anatomy. AKC management has been floundering for a decade, unable to
identify its customers and TREAT them AS customers, rather than as serfs
who smell bad and don't pay enough taxes to support the fetes and
banquets at the castle. Yet the board has never (that I know of) replaced any top officer. Most policies and even major changes of direction are simply decided by leadership and handed to the board with "This is the way it's going to be, so get over it." And the board
has nodded and gone back to sleep, seemingly unaware of its duty to set
direction, make major decisions, and supervise the performance of
management.
With maybe two or three exceptions, that board ought to be replaced.
The toadies, the AR-lites ("Puppy mills are THE problem!") and the just-
in-it-for-what-they-can-get folks need to go, and they should be replaced by people who care about the future of purebred dogs and who have enough business sense to do their jobs as board members.
The tone of what has been coming from the delegates today suggests that
they may be ready to start cleaning house. A lot of the anger over this
issue comes from the arrogance with which PAWS has been handled, the
judges' conflict of interest policy, the change to the AKC mission
statement and other recent issues, in which it became clear that AKC
leadership simply didn't care about the fancy, or -- seemingly -- about
the future of purebred dogs.
A housecleaning can't begin too quickly. HOWEVER it's important for
clubs and delegates to remember that as bad as the current board of directors is, there are far WORSE people out there. Animal rightists, and AR-lite types are found in most kennel clubs and some are influential in the show world. These people would very much like to take over the AKC and the result would be disaster. We could wind up with an AKC that not only didn't support the fancy but actively promoted
more laws regulating home breeding because "WE HAVE TO FIGHT PUPPY MILLS."
Delegates will need to consider board candidates with great care, looking for a positive view of what the AKC should support and do, rather than a list of things it should be against, for business common sense (with experience a plus), and for a genuine love of purebred dogs and appreciation of the place of dogs in today's families.
I said that the AKC's name was its second-most important asset. Its
MOST important asset is the home breeder and small-scale fancier because
these are the people who can do the most hands-on and generally the best
work of producing quality purebreds, putting them into good homes, and
making sure those homes succeed. The quality image of the AKC is supported by running a clean registry but that image is built and refreshed by home breeders in our daily contacts with our puppy owners and prospective buyers, in our showing and performance activities, in our relations with our communities, and in the planning we do for litters to minimize health and other inherited problems and to conserve our gene pools.
A new board of directors ought to build bridges to the AKC's breeder customers. Those bridges must be two-way: there are things we need in order to promote the future of purebred dogs, and we're going to have to give the AKC the resources it needs to do the work. In a time when our need for the AKC is greater than ever, it's ridiculous that the organization is reduced to grubbing for money in all the wrong places.
The money they should be spending to promote the interests of the fancy
should be OUR money, not money from VISA, Cherrybrook, or Petland Discount. But we can hardly be expected to send more dollars to finance an organization that treats us with contempt and works against our interests as often as for them.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED AS YOU LIKE NAIS Prohibition Bill Analysis (S-3862)
http://freedom.org/news/200609/14/lamb.phtml?p=1
A publication
of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
ORGANIZATION
NAIS Prohibition Bill Analysis (S-3862)
By Henry Lamb
September 14, 2006
Technical Review:
On September 7, Senator James Talent (R-MO) introduced S-3862, a bill to amend the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8308), which the U.S. Department of Agriculture has used as the authority to develop its proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS). A companion bill (HR-6042) was introduced in the House by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO).
Section I of the bill says that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture... “shall not implement or carry out, and no Federal funds shall be used to implement or carry out, a National Animal Identification System, or similar requirement, that mandates the participation of livestock owners.”
Section II of the bill defines the term “Animal Identification System” to mean: “voluntary system for identifying or tracing animals that is established by the Secretary.”
This section also provides protection from disclosure, under the Freedom of Information Act, “...of information that may be collected by the USDA through a voluntary program.” By providing information to USDA in a voluntary program, the provider does not relinquish any other right, privilege, or protection afforded under federal law, including trade secret protection.
The Secretary may release information in the event that livestock may be “threatened by a disease or pest;” providing that the Secretary is so authorized by this bill, and to other government agencies, if necessary, to assist in carrying out the purposes of this bill.
The Secretary is required to release information to:
1. The person who owns or controls the animals, upon written request;
2. The Attorney General for law enforcement;
3. The Secretary of Homeland Security for security purposes;
4. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, to protect public health;
5. An entity pursuant to a court order;
6. A foreign government, if necessary to trace a disease threat.
Any information obtained from the Secretary by state or local government, is not subject to local or state laws that require public disclosure.
Analysis:
This bill is not a National Animal Identification System bill, and should not be considered as such. Three other bills have been introduced, that are NAIS bills: HR-3170, HR-1254, and HR-1256. These are bills that describe a proposed National Animal Identification System. Additionally, the USDA has proposed a NAIS that can be implemented by rule, using the authority and funding granted in the 2002 appropriation bill.
Senator Talent’s bill goes to the seat of this authority and amends the original authority to prohibit any animal identification program developed by USDA from being mandatory. The bill further prohibits the use of federal funds to any state program that is mandatory.
The purpose of this bill is not to describe, or define a NAIS. The other bills serve this purpose, and these bills call for a mandatory system. The Talent bill will now force the Agriculture Committee to reconcile the “no mandatory program” concept with the “mandatory” concept. This head-on battle would not have occurred without the Talent bill.
The Talent bill does nothing more, or less, than is stated here.
Commentary:
Opponents of the NAIS may prefer that there be no national animal identification program at all. But this preference ignores reality. More than four years, and at least $183 million have already been invested in developing a program. There are at least three bills defining a NAIS, in addition to the program developed by the USDA. If there is no legislation, the USDA program will be instituted by rule. The basis for this eventuality was established in the agriculture appropriations bill.
Therefore, opponents of the NAIS would be well served to support the Talent bill, since it is the only hope of stopping a mandatory program. Criticism of Talent’s bill is actually criticism of the NAIS program as proposed by USDA, and is completely misplaced when directed toward the Talent bill.
The Talent bill seeks only to prohibit the USDA from making mandatory any animal identification program that it may develop, and to prohibit the use of federal funds for any state program that is mandatory. It also seeks to protect from disclosure any information that may be collected by a voluntary USDA program.
Criticism about any other aspect of the NAIS should be directed elsewhere - not toward the Talent bill.
Information is circulating on the Internet that claims the bill would “...allow exempting animals from a national licensing system....” The Talent bill does not address exemptions at all.
Other criticism claims that the Talent bill “....would allow the USDA to regulate meat packers, processors, veterinary or other services farmers must use....” The Talent bill does not address these regulations at all.
Still other criticism faults the bill’s failure to define “voluntary.” The bill does, however, prohibit “mandatory” participation, and defines any USDA animal identification program to be “voluntary.” Therefore, if enacted, the USDA could never make a program mandatory without changing the law. The other NAIS bills should address the valid concern that the USDA might require “voluntary” participation in order to participate in other government programs. The Talent bill is not the place to address this issue.
Opponents of the NAIS should rally behind the Talent bill and refocus their criticism toward HR3170, HR1254, HR1256, and the USDA’s proposed program. Opponents will need maximum unity and strength to support the few Congressmen who are willing to try to prevent a mandatory NAIS from being forced upon animal owners.
Copyright © 2006 Freedom.org. All rights reserved.
September 13, 2006 AKC & Petland - Perfect Together?
from DogPolitics
AKC & Petland - Perfect Together?
In an unconfirmed report, we hear that the American Kennel Club, that old and venerable organization, has inked a deal with Petland Discount - a chain of pet stores that sells live puppies and kittens and fish, etc.
This deal between AKC and Petland is designed to "educate" their buyers on the benefits of registering with the AKC. (cough, cough).
If true - this decision (we hear the board voted 12-1 to approve) will be sure to provoke discussion all across the web.
But hey - maybe it makes fiscal sense for the AKC - you know pump up the revenue? What do you think?
Let's take a look from a sales perspective........
or-The 80/20 Rule
I'd like to point out the old 80/20 rule.
Now for you non-sales people out there - the 80/20 rule says that 80% of your business comes from 20% of your customers.
Using this rule would mean that 80% of the AKC's revenue is coming (or should be) from 20 % of breeders.
Maybe high volume breeders - like the Hunte Corporation, that in turn sell their product through sales channels like Petland?
The Sales Challenge
Let's say all those puppies being sold from "high volume" breeders represent potential revenue for the AKC.
But those puppies from HVB actually lost revenue - because those puppies were not being registered - and those (sales) were not reaching the home office up at the AKC.
So all that revenue from all those puppy stores was being lost in LaLa Land. The question for the AKC is how to convert those lost registrations into "sales"?
How do you recover lost revenue?
The Sales Solution
How to fix this loss of revenue? Why you need a sales strategy, silly.
Maybe the AKC has figured out that in order to close more sales - ooooopps- I mean increase registrations - that it should partner more closely with it's customers - the 20% of breeders from which most revenue flows.
"Cause really the remaining 80% of low volume breeders - meaning the home hobby breeder - they only represent 20% of AKC revenue. Hypothetically - of course.
And as such a small share of revenue - it's kinda easy to ignore them. After all - they make a lot of noise - and perhaps even chew of more AKC time and resources that they're worth.
So coming up with a "program" that "educates" buyers about the "benefits" of AKC registration to close the gap on all that lost revenue - well, that's pure sales genius. Way to go, AKC!
But that plan just might be a little risky, in terms of PR and all that. But perhaps the AKC has it covered.
Risk Vs. Reward
Some people have this impression that the AKC has got things totally backwards - first lining up on the PAWS Bill with arch enemy, everyone favorite animal rights group, the HSUS.
Now if this report is true about AKC partnering with Petland - - I would say that the AKC is gonna take a beating - again. This rumored partnership may lead people to the mistaken belief that the AKC is lining up with so-called "puppymillers".
Of course - that couldn't be further from the truth, as we all know.
Such decisions that fly in the face of the AKC's mission have seriously risked the AKC’s reputation and loyalty with its core constituents. But unfortunately - it's those core constituents are the 80% who only make up 20% of the revenue.
Like they say - without risk, there can be no reward. So the AKC is betting that the rank & file will take this new approach - that despite the risk of alienating their constituents - the rewards (the revenue) will be there.
So the AKC will now embark on a new plan to take in more revenue over the objections of the clubs. But I am sure the AKC has already thought of this and has a plan at the ready to be sold - I mean communicated - to the stakeholders.
Return On Investment
Now all those little Mom & Pop home breeders that the AKC is supposed to represent, who feel they have been dissed by the AKC - we'll those people are already pissed.
They think that the leadership of the AKC has lost its way a long time ago - as this venerable organization has strayed pretty far from its core mission.
Now we happen to know that the AKC is run by some pretty smart people. But we wonder how all those really smart people up at the AKC would keep making really bad decisions? It's not like they're doing it on purpose.......
Now I'm not a dog breeder, and I don't show dogs, I'm just in marketing. But I gotta say that I don't think the AKC brand is doing real well with its core customers.
But any good sales plan includes strategies to "overcome objections".
Long Range Plan
But maybe the AKC has a long range strategic plan in place.
Perhaps its a plan that will make sure there's a return on investment (and will make for all the flak the AKC has been taking of late) - one that will become clearer for all stakeholders.
Now any good long range plan should include a multi-pronged approach to overcome objections by different groups. For example - there should be a plan to cover objections from the Mom & Pop hobby breeders, and another plan to overcome objections from the animal rights groups who are fighting puppy mills.
After all - by partnering with animal rights groups on legislation, and now facilitating registrations from so called "puppy millers", the AKC kinda leaves the wrong impression with a lot of people.
But I'm sure the AKC has that covered.
For The Good Of the Dogs
For the record, there's nothing wrong with two organizations partnering to bring improved products or services to their respective customer bases.
The point here is whether or not such a partnership is in step with the core mission of the American Kennel Club, a nonprofit organization, and whether or not such a contract reflects the values of the organization, and enhances or hurts the reputation of the AKC.
Now everyone that I've ever met that's connected with the AKC - they have been warm, lovely people, with an unparalleled love of dogs. The dog world has provided them with a lifetime of friendships built through the sport of purebred dogs.
They want "their" AKC. They want to see the AKC get on the right track. They want the AKC to succeed. I do too.
I sure hope they get their wish - because sometimes it seems like the AKC couldn't do a worse job of running their reputation into the ground if they planned it, right?
They would never plan it - would they? Naaaaaaaah.
Getting back to the unconfirmed report..... I hope the AKC has a plan. Millions of dog owners are depending on the AKC to represent their interests.............
For the good of the dogs.
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/
September 12, 2006 Pacelle wants us to call dogs "Canine Americans."
For Immediate Release
For Further Information Contact: Philip Lobo, Communications Director
Phone: (703) 562-5160
Date: 9/11/2006
HSUS' Pacelle Commits to Redoubling Anti-Agriculture Efforts
Exclusive Alliance Report from Leading Animal Rights Meeting Now Online
September 11, 2006 – In a speech at the second annual ''Taking Action
for Animals'' conference in Washington D.C., Wayne Pacelle, President of
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) committed to redoubling
the animal rights group's efforts against modern animal agriculture.
Pacelle indicated his belief that there is little difference between
animals and humans. To support his position he used research that showed
similarities between humans and non-human primates then asserted that
the concept could be expanded to include any animal.
Approximately 500 people attended this conference, September 2-5, 2006,
in the Washington, DC area. Major sponsors of the event were the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), the Animal Protection Institute,
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Farm
Sanctuary, and the Doris Day Animal League (which recently announced its
merger with HSUS). Attendance increased by about 200 over last year's event.
Pacelle pledged his ongoing commitment to legislation and lobbying as
key paths for the animal rights movement to move its agenda forward. He
urged the audience to continue pursuing animal guardianship laws to
replace animal ownership laws. Pacelle suggested using the term ''Canine
Americans'' instead of dogs to emphasize the rights of these animals.
This meeting continued to reflect the major changes in the animal rights
movement shown in the last few years. The majority of the audience had a
professional demeanor and was dressed in business casual attire. It is
clear that HSUS has found - and is cultivating - a segment of activists
that are educated, organized professionals capable of making calculated
moves to further the organization's influence.
The full text of the Animal Agriculture Alliance's (Alliance) report on
this meeting is available on the password protected Members section of
the Alliance website.
263-146 Congress approves HR503 Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
Thursday, September 7, 2006, was a very dark day for America's animal owners. The House GOP leadership reserved the entire day to consider HR503, the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. No other bill made it to the floor last week, despite pressing work on our country's more serious needs, national security, health care for Americans, minimum wage and a budget deficit of terrifying proportions. The appropriations bills and the budget have not been completed this session, but the House took a precious day to address a non-problem, on which the House Agriculture Committee recommended that no action be taken and despite the Energy and Commerce Committee discharging the bill without a recommendation.
Watching the HR503 floor debate lies and distortions on CSPAN both ashamed and alarmed me. European-baiting, xenophobic statements about the equine processing plants' owners abounded and none of the bill's advocates was willing to address the future welfare of the 90,000 unwanted animals currently being slaughtered. The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this legislation is going to have on the environment. Where are 90,000 large animals per year going to go? One thoroughbred owning legislator attacked quarter horse owners for opposing the bill. Reason and logic went out the window. Raw emotion whipped up by the Humane Society of the U.S., with its prepared floor statements of nasty Europeans, winning the West, pony express riders and Kentucky Derby winners, went on for hours.
In the end, the House approved HR503 by a 263-146 vote, setting a dangerous precedent by banning a livestock product for reasons other than food safety or public health. If the government can dictate a horse owner's choices for his animal, why not a pet owner? HR503 must be passed by the Senate before it becomes U.S. law.
It's extremely important that you thank your representative, if he resisted the hype and demonstrated the good sense to vote against HR503. See the Roll Call at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll433.xml House Agriculture Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA6) led the opposition to HR503. His actions and those of others in Congress will be reflected in the November 7, 2006 Election endorsements of the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.
KENTUCKY NEEDS YOUR HELP
In a message dated 9/12/2006 8:49:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cmcgowan2@comcast.net writes:
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: HELP NEEDED ! ! ! !
PLEASE CROSS POST!!!
As many of you know, the Louisville, KY Metro Area and all of its animal
related organizations are in the "fight of their life." In response to two dog
attacks last fall, Cheri Bryant Hamilton, a Metro Council member, proposed Breed Specific Legislation ("BSL"). The legislation was proposed
notwithstanding a non- breed specific dangerous dog law currently on the
books which was rarely enforced and not even understood by the current Director of Metro Animal Services charged with enforcing it. That legislation has morphed into a behemoth 100+page document seeking to regulate and conscript all dog and cat ownership, all farming, all equine activities, all hunting and virtually all related activities. The provisions range from requiring puppies to be liscensed at birth to mandatory spay-neuter, to unrealistic fencing requirements to exhorbitant license fees. The complete Draft 8 and the newly released Draft 9 can be found at Louisville-pets.com.
This proposal if enacted and taken to its logical end would essentially
eliminate pet ownership,the Louisville Kennel Club -Kentuckiana Cluster of
dog shows feline activities as well as many other obedience, go to ground,
specialty, agility, hunting, field trial, equine and other livestock events
in Louisville Metro. The overbreath of this ordinance is by DESIGN as it
was essentially written by Dr. Gilles Meloche, the new Animal Services
Director and Pam Rogers legislative liason of the Humane Society of the
United States.("HSUS") Ms. Rogers was formerly with Fund for the Animals
which merged with the HSUS. (See Leoweekly.com August 30,2006 Article by
Stephen George). The ordinance is straight from the Animal Rights playbook
and is an extension of the agenda of the HSUS director to "create a body of
laws to protect animals from individuals."
These types of laws are popping up all over the country as the HSUS has 8
full time lawyers and an annual budget of over $100 million. If this
ordinance can pass in Louisville, KY the heart of an animal friendly state
with a focus on hunting, fishing, farming, equine and canine events, it can happen ANYWHERE. It is clear from the Leo Article and other sources that
the current Mayor, Jerry Abramson, unequivocally supports the agenda set
forth by Dr. Meloche and the HSUS representative. Kelly Downard is running
for Metro Mayor in Novermber against the current mayor and HE GETS IT.
Kelly supports and has consistantly supported fair, reasonable, non
discriminatoty dog laws which punish the irresponsible and reward
responsible pet owners. He does not believe in regulating farming or
hunting and fishing as that is the perview of the Farm Bureau, the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
WE HAVE TO WIN THIS BATTLE. Please tell everyone that you know to support
us in this endeavor. Go to akc.org or the naiaonline.org to read the
Alerts and to send letters. Please help us by sending a donation $2,$5,$10
to Kelly's campaign at Downard for Mayor, PO Box 7454, Louisville, KY 40257
or on line at Downardformayor.com. We truely appreciate the support of all
of our dog,cat, equine, farming and hunting friends and our cherished
veterinarians. Together we can win this battle for all of us.
Thank you for your support!
Donna Herzig
Louisville, Kentucky
September 9, 2006 Saudi Arabia bans sale of pet cats, dogs
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/090906dnintsaudidogsca
Associated Press
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's religious police, normally tasked with chiding
women to cover themselves and ensuring men attend mosque prayers, are turning to a
new target: cats and dogs.
The police have issued a decree banning the sale of the pets, seen as a sign of
Western influence.
The prohibition on dogs may be less of a surprise, since conservative Muslims despise
dogs as unclean. But the cat ban befuddled many, since Islamic tradition holds that
the Prophet Muhammad loved cats -- and even let a cat drink from his ablutions water
before washing himself for prayers.
The religious police, known as the Muttawa, have the role of enforcing Saudi Arabia's
strict Islamic code. Its members prowl streets and malls, ensuring unmarried men and
women do not mix, confronting women they feel are not properly covered or urging men
to go to prayers.
But the government also gives the Muttawa wide leeway to enforce any rules they deem
necessary to uphold the social order.
The decree -- which applies to the Red Sea port city of Jiddah and the holy city of
Mecca -- bans the sale of cats and dogs because "some youths have been buying them
and parading them in public," according to a memo from the Municipal Affairs Ministry
to Jiddah's city government.
The memo, obtained by The Associated Press, urges city authorities to help enforce
the ban.
Pet owning is not common in the Arab world, though dogs are kept for hunting and
guarding. In large cities around the Middle East, stray dogs often wander the streets
and are considered pests. Street cats are also plentiful, and people will often feed
them or play with them -- but it isn't a widespread custom to keep one in the home,
and many cannot afford it.
However, in the past decades, owning dogs or cats has become a fashion statement
among Saudis. Showing off a Doberman, pit bull or fancy breed of feline has became a
status symbol.
Conservatives decry the trend as a Western influence, just like the fast food,
shorts, jeans and pop music that have become more common in the kingdom, which is
ruled by the puritanical Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. They say it should be
fought because it is threatening the fabric of Gulf nations.
"One bad habit spreading among our youths is the acquisition of dogs and showing them
off in the streets and malls," wrote Aleetha al-Jihani in a letter to Al-Madina
newspaper. "There's no doubt that such a matter makes one shudder."
"Then what's the point of dragging a dog behind you?" he added. "This is blind
emulation of the infidels."
The decree has not been enforced yet, according to several pet shop owners and
veterinary clinics in Jiddah. It applies only to selling dogs and cats, and there was
no sign the Muttawa would confiscate pets.
The decree did not say whether the religious police would try to stop people from
appearing in public with a dog or cat -- or whether owners would be allowed to sell
puppies or kittens born to their pets.
The ban distressed cat and dog lovers. Some have wondered why the religious police
are focusing on this issue when the country has far more important challenges, such
as terrorism and unemployment.
"I was shocked when I heard about it," said Fahd al-Mutairi, who owns 35 cats. "What
was even more shocking was to hear that the ban came from an authority that has
nothing to do with such an issue."
"I would understand if it came from the Health Ministry or anybody charged with
ensuring pets coming from outside do not carry diseases," added the 23-year-old
flower-shop owner.
No other Arab country restricts pet ownership. But in Iran, ruled by Shiite clerics,
religious police sometimes harass people seen outside with their dogs. Last year,
Iranian police told people not to bring their dogs out in public, but the order was
never backed up by law and dog-owners widely ignored it.
The inclusion of cats in the Saudi ban puzzled many, since there's no scorn for them
as there is for dogs in Islamic tradition.
One of the prophet's closest companions was given the name Abu Huraira, Arabic for
"the father of the kitten," because he always carried a kitten and took care of it.
A number of hadiths -- traditional stories of the prophet -- show Muhammad
encouraging people to treat cats well.
Once, he let a cat drink from the water he was going to use for his ablutions before
prayers. Another time, Muhammad said a woman who kept a cat locked up without feeding
it would go to hell.
Dogs -- considered dirty and dangerous -- are less lucky. According to one hadith,
Muhammad said a Muslim loses credit for one good deed each day he keeps a dog and
even said dogs should be killed unless used for hunting or protection.
Still, in another instance, he said that a prostitute who carried water in her
slipper to a thirsty dog would go to heaven, her sins forgiven because of her
kindness.
"All these things considered, it is obviously not against our religion or our
tradition to have dogs and cats as pets," columnist Abeer Mishkhas wrote in the Arab
News.
"I sincerely hope (authorities) will leave the cats and dogs alone and concentrate on
what should be their real business," she added.
Al-Mutairi said his friends and relatives cannot understand his passion for his cats,
which cost him $1,000 a month to feed and care for.
"I tell them this is not a Western innovation," he said. "Our religion says we should
take care of animals."
September 7, 2006 "Animal Rights and White Elephants"
Guest Column
"Animal Rights and White Elephants"
By Alice Nagy 08/06
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Guests/Nagy_White_Elephant-0608.htm
Interesting concept isn't it? "Don't think of a White Elephant"
Now that you have read it are you envisioning a white elephant in your mind? How about a large gray one? If I tell you that the devil is the doughnut do you think that you might want to go out and get a doughnut? Will you be tempted? I bet Dunkin Doughnuts gets at least a few more visits this week considering that there are over 2000 people on this list. (Some of which I hope are reading today.)
Back in the 80's a Vegan commented that boycotts don't work by saying "Don't think of a White Elephant" in response to the oncoming Burger King boycott. A similar name can be found as the title of a political book called "Don't think of an Elephant". In both instances the theory that man thinks in pictorial images is utilized as a marketing tool and such images or suggestions guide thought processes. Cognitive linguists study these things and it was one such Vegan cognitive linguist who said; "Don't Think of a White Elephant" to the Vegans discussing boycotting Burger King back in the 80's. In effect he was saying boycotts don't work people will hear about the boycott and want a Burger King hamburger and in effect he was more or less correct although they did get Burger King to stop selling veal.
Now supposing I simply say "Animal Rights" An objector might respond by thinking or saying; "animals don't have rights." Which truthfully sounds rather politically incorrect to think, let alone verbalize. I agree though that animals do not necessarily have rights. However I am an animal and I supposedly do have rights. Further, if I were an ordinary non involved member of the general population I would envision an animal. Any animal that comes to mind. The last animal I saw perhaps; a dog, a squirrel, a cow or a sheep in an ad. I think of their cute little faces because being an average member of the public I don't necessarily think of squirrels as vermin that are potentially destructive. I don't think of shooting at a squirrel to rid my attic of them, rather I think of a squirrel with the same warm and fuzzy feelings that make squirrel shaped stuffed animals marketable.
So now let's put the picture of my animal (or yours) together with the word "rights." A very sellable ideal animal rights. The more we say Animal Rights the more we sell it for the Vegan ideologists which are behind it. In other words, lets take the Vegan's advice, he said "Don't think of a White Elephant" Just like saying "the devil is the doughnut" sells doughnuts saying the Devil is "animal Rights sells the AR agenda. Vegans use animal rights to sell Veganism, not the other way around. People don't take forced personal change lightly. Warm fuzzy seemingly altruistic ideals might be accepted but forced Veganism?
Now let's think about the word vegetarian. Vegetarian is rather mild, it actually has a nice soft appeal to it as in non carnivorous animals. Those animals are not threatening. I once had a salesman in my driveway who had never seen a deer. He was afraid the deer around the house would attack him. Of course when I explained that deer do not eat animals and would have no reason to be interested in him he relaxed. Subconsciously we humans attach the word vegetarian to gentler beings. Mine is only one example of how we see that word.
Vegan is not a commonly spoken word, and it seems very misunderstood. I know what Veganism is because I have first hand experience with some of the hierarchy of the planned movement, not only of the Animal Rights agenda but in support of a Vegan movement in general from promoting the diet to absolutely no use of animal products, not even in the glues used to fasted rubber soles to nylon shoes. There is no doubt that those in this movement have been using every possible mind game they can to further their goal which is to eliminate man's symbiotic relationship with animal. Although some might argue that Vegans are not completely against man having a symbiotic relationship with all animals as Vegans might think it fine for insects to pollinate crops. However I have witnessed first hand such a debate in which two Vegans argued whether man's intervention, caused by planting an area concentrated with crops, was harmful to insects. Hmmm, I think. Man is by nature capable of farming and man is a natural element in the environment. Anything man does is natural including being a farmer or an omnivore.
I think George Carlin may have been onto something in "The Planet is Fine" when he said: "…The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?"
So now I just sit and ponder, is man's use of animals so harmful, or is it all those plastic shoes and belts?
Vegans will take the pet out of your bed and the meat off your plate while they fill the world with non biodegradable plastic. (lol, thank you George) Say VEGAN, not animal rights. It makes no difference what some individuals might think Vegan means right now. Just as the trade marks aspirin, cellophane, nylon, escalator and thermos, all started out as something less generic and now have morphed meanings, the word Vegan -which has already been linked to the real ideology by the Vegans themselves, must be exposed. It isn't fair for Vegans not to use their entire vision of the future when pushing only their warm and fuzzy AR sounding goals. Their vision will affect us all, animal lovers or not.
The phrase Animal Rights furthers their goal. The word Vegan would be very scary for them to hear coming from "Omnis". The word Vegan tells the listener you will have to eat their way, if you allow them to make meat overly expensive until it disappears. You will have no pets because pets eat meat. Eventually everything and everyone will become Vegan. That is their agenda. The term is Vegan.
Someone who used to be very anti AR (but unfortunately now sees it more important to collect AKC brownie points) once said AR to me. I had no idea what she was talking about at first, (this was several years ago). I had no idea!!! The minute she said they were Vegans (a minute after she said AR) I knew exactly what she was talking about. Well I have more exposure to Vegans than most people. That exposure makes me aware that having a Vegan write animal laws is like having the KKK write human rights laws.
Last week I spoke to a woman whose husband ran for a pretty high office in a large parent dog club. I mentioned the HSUS is a Vegan run organization and she said "No. it isn't" I said Wayne Pacelle is a Vegan and she said "No he isn't"
Wayne Pacelle has been "a Vegan for two decades."
http://www.satyamag.com/jun05/pacelle.html (P3L1)
He is very dedicated to the cause, "one generation and out" comes from somewhere. It comes from his Vegan indoctrination that's where. There is a Vegan writing law regarding your food and your pet. Educate your legislators, your public and yourselves as to what a Vegan is and what they believe. Identifying the complete meaning of being a Vegan is the first step to derailing their movement. No one is going to force any Vegans to eat meat. The result would simply be that we don't allow Vegans to force their ways upon the entire world.
Take their advice when it comes to marketing and cognitive linguistics, they have been advancing for years. The Vegans repeated: "Don't think of a White Elephant," and "The Devil is the Doughnut"
"Don't Think Animal Rights." say I, or "the devil is AR" Instead Say; "Vegan Agenda" and the devil is no domestic animals, no carnivorous pets, no animal protein or animal by products. The man said "one generation and out."
Expose the true agenda and beliefs.
Not Vegetarian, Say "Vegan Agenda". Mandating Veganism, by leaving the world with no other alternative. It is very different! Fascist Vegans who write laws to force Veganism onto the world one small step at a time. Fascist Vegans if you will, but Vegans nonetheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Nagy is the granddaughter and daughter of Champion Boston Terrier breeders. Her sister is a breeder of champion Italian Greyhounds, including some of the ancestors to the top producing and winning Italian Greyhound all time. Mrs. Nagy has raised several champion American Cocker Spaniels herself, has been married for 21 years, is the mother of two, has taught sociology, and currently manages commercial real estate.
September 5, 2006 Task Force Wants Country's First Pet (Owner) Database
"If we start now, we will have the country's first database - complete with owner demographics, in 10 to 15 years".
Whoooaaa, Bessie. Did I hear that correctly?
HE wants a database, populated with data collected from a microchip program, driven by adoptions from the state's shelters. THEN he says he wants to make the microchip program mandatory for every pet (read pet owner) in the State Of New Jersey.
Then the information from the mandatory microchip program would then feed the first database of its kind in the country - tracking all pets and pet owners in the State of New Jersey.
"He" would be Gordon Stull, DVM. New Jersey Animal Welfare Task Force Member. Pet Overpopulation Subcommittee. Oh yes, and as I later discover, an animal rights activist.
Let's see - he wants a database, replete with "demographics", with 24/7 access by the state.
........... to read more, go to
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/track_all_pets_.html EDEN POLICE CHIEF WANTS DOG OWNERS PHOTOGRAPHED & KEPT IN REGISTRY LIKE SEX OFFENDER
NC POLICE CHIEF WANTS DOG OWNERS PHOTOGRAPHED & KEPT IN REGISTRY LIKE SEX OFFENDERS
Police Chief Benthin & Mayor Grogan say it's a go. In a plan that would treat dog owners like sex offenders, Police Chief Gary Benthin has proposed a city ordinance that would require photos and a record of the owner’s name, address, race, sex, date of birth and place of employment, as well as a $50 registration fee.
This plan, reported in the Greensboro News Record applies to pitbull owners, of course. If you own a Dachshund, you can breathe a sigh of relief - for now.
Chief Benthin specifically mentions Denver's breed ban ordinance as his inspiration.
Denver DA Kory Nelson was quoted last year saying that "Anyone who shoots a pitbull is justified". Mr Nelson has a simple equation that he shares with anyone who will listen in his super secret, members-only Yahoo Group just for municipal officials, according to tipsters. It's a simple equation, really.
Pitbull Owner = Criminal. Criminal = Pitbull Owner.
According to local North Carolina blog, Monday Night Live, "Once Eden's pitbull ordinance draft is written, it could be placed on the council's consent agenda or set aside for an independent discussion and vote, and City Attorney Tom Medlin says a public hearing is not required.
to read the full report go to.........
http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/minority_report.html LAWS ADDRESS DOGS' POTENTIAL FOR DANGER
Collies still aren't on most hit lists, but we still need to pay attention and fight bad legislation.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=11847
Daily Policy Digest
State and Local Issues
September 5, 2006
LAWS ADDRESS DOGS' POTENTIAL FOR DANGER
The euthanization of more than 200 pit bull dogs in Houston last month has renewed the debate over how communities deal with dogs deemed to be dangerous. Several statelaws and local ordinances that range from increasing penalties for owners of dogs that cause serious injuries to banning pit bulls have been enacted this year.
Some say the court's action could lead to further vilification of the breed, which has garnered headlines over the years for mauling or killing people:
a.. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have provisions for declaring dogs dangerous and vicious, according to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
b.. Eleven states -- California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia -- prohibit legislation that targets specific breeds, according to Janna Goodwin of the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
c.. Ohio is the only state that declares a specific breed -- pit bulls -- vicious; that law was ruled unconstitutional in March by Ohio's 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo but the ruling is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Among cities and states that have taken recent action on potentially dangerous dogs:
a.. In Kansas City, Mo., the City Council passed a law last month that will require
all pit bulls to be spayed or neutered; breeders will have to install fencing and document who buys the puppies.
b.. In Overland Park, Kan., the City Council passed a ban on pit bulls in July; only owners who registered the dogs or applied to do so by July 27 will be allowed to have the pets.
Source: Charisse Jones, "Laws address dogs' potential for danger; Some concerned that breeds, not owners, will shoulder bad rap," USA Today, September 5, 2006.
For text (subscription required):
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060905/a_pitbulls05.art.htm
For more on State and Local Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=40
Cities are collared by rulings on pit bulls
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/medina/1157445333170380.xml
Cases say breed can't be labeled vicious
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Rena A. Koontz
Plain Dealer Reporter
An unresolved court case has left dog wardens and animal-control officers in a
quandary as they battle vicious dogs.
In 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the state's vicious-dog law, which
classified pit bulls as vicious. Separately, a state appellate court ruled last March against Toledo's law targeting pit bulls. That decision is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Many cities, Parma and Garfield Heights among them, are responding to the Toledo
ruling by revising ordinances that single out pit bulls as vicious. Others are taking a wait-and-see attitude.
Ohio is the only state to label a dog vicious based solely on its breed. In addition, some local laws require pit bulls to be muzzled when in public. Some cities require that an owner have $100,000 in liability insurance, which can be hard to get.
About 90 percent of Ohio's 253 cities and 700 villages have some type of vicious-dog law on their books, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the Ohio Municipal League.
Most rely on a dog warden or animal-control officer to decide whether a dog is vicious. Mike Kellums, Brunswick's animal-control officer, said his colleagues disagree about whether pit bulls are inherently vicious.
In North Royalton, the City Council modified dog laws to conform to the Toledo decision.
"I don't agree with breed-specific legislation," said North Royalton animal-control officer George Stuart. "A dog is a dog. It's the owners who need to be held accountable."
But John Silva, president of the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association, takes the position that pit bulls are dangerous.
"Unless legal authorities advise county dog wardens otherwise, Ohio's pit bull law is constitutional and applicable as ruled in 1989," he wrote in an e-mail.
"An escalating number of irresponsible pit-bull owners are jeopardizing the safety and lives of children and seniors across the United States."
Between 1996 and 2004, county dog wardens in Ohio saw a 313 percent annual increase in pit bulls at large. Overall, wardens handled 8,834 pit bulls in 2004, four times the number in 1996, he said.
In the Toledo case, Paul Tellings owned three pit bulls as family pets, and they had no history of aggression. A health inspector checking for lead paint saw the dogs inside Tellings' residence and reported them.
The dog warden confiscated and destroyed one dog; one was given away; and Tellings was able to keep the third. Tellings took the city to court, and the 6th Ohio Court of Appeals ruled the dog laws unconstitutional.
The pending appeal did not stop Euclid from enacting an ordinance in June that
identifies pit bulls as vicious. Animal-control officer Ann Mills has been run ragged answering calls.
Residents overreacted to the ordinance and reported every pit bull they knew about, which is not what the City Council intended, Councilman Christopher Gruber said. The ordinance was intended to give the city the authority to deal with pit bulls that
exhibit vicious behavior, not every pit bull.
State Rep. Shawn Webster, a Republican from Hamilton, hopes to win enactment of a new state law that does not single out pit bulls.
"I've seen pit bulls with regularity, and most are good family pets," said Webster, a veterinarian. "There are horrible places that are associated with pit bulls, like crack houses, and that adds to the bad reputation."
Webster thinks the vicious-dog law has an unintended effect.
"You see more pit bulls now than ever. If I'm a young gang-banger used to breaking the law, I'm going to have a law-breaking dog, too," Webster said, adding, "Those are the most dangerous owners you can have."
Webster's bill, House Bill 533, is not expected to see movement until the Supreme Court rules in the Toledo case.
Penny Blake, humane officer for Medina County, said pit bulls are the most
misunderstood breed.
"People get them, they don't train them, and then they become bad dogs," she said. "In the wrong owner's hands, they can become quite dangerous. But that's true for any breed. It all comes down to the owner."
Blake's worst bite in 11 years on the job did not come from a pit bull, she said. It was from a Yorkshire terrier.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
rkoontz@plaind.com, 1-800-683-7348
September 2, 2006 HSUS & DDAL Announce Merger
The Humane Society of the United States and Doris Day Animal League Announce Merger
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_doris_day_animal_league_merger.html
SAOVA had a heads up on this some time back and it certainly influenced the PAWS deliberations. This latest HSUS merger not only makes it the 1000# gorilla in the field of U.S. animal rights lobbying, it gains some very experienced DDAL professionals.
New Sport Hunting Programs on National Wildlife Refuges Declared Unlawful
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/new_sport_hunting_programs_on.html
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/refugeschart.pdf
http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/refugemap.pdf
USFWS is certain to appeal.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org/
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
August 31, 2006 Rabies and HB339 Revisited
Dear Fellow Virginians,
The message below and its cited URLs should interest you, if you own a dog or cat. More complete background may be found at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/index.html
Sincerely,
Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: vhdoa.earthlink.net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:00 PM
Subject: Virginia Rabies, Your Constituents and HB339 Revisited
Dear Virginia Legislator,
Several Virginia newspapers and TV stations carried a story earlier this month titled "New Virginia Licensing Law to Tighten Leash in 2007." Unfortunately, the reporter who wrote that inaccurate piece glossed over many hard facts and ignored the significant rabies public health risks created by Delegate Orrock's 2006 pet owner database bill. Since HB339's effective date was postponed until July 1, 2007, you will have an opportunity in the next General Assembly session to repeal this statute's gross violation of personal privacy, advancement of an anti-pet breeding agenda and aggravation of a very serious and fatal public health threat. Please undertake this task before HB339's terrible impacts are felt next year. This will be a priority consideration for many Virginians voting on November 6, 2007.
Virginia county rabies incidence and resident treatment data costing $4 million in the last three years are illustrated at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/VA_RabiesData.html
For the original Fredericksburg Star/AP story, see http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0806/350800.html
Winchester's Treasurer voiced a common, but not widely publicized concern with HB339. http://www.winchesterstar.com/TheWinchesterStar/060812/Area_dog.asp
Below is VHDOA's response, which the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star printed on August 27, 2006. http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/082006/08272006/216283
I look forward to working with you to amend this statute next session.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane, President
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
Big Brother is going to the dogs--and it will hurt Virginians
August 27, 2006 12:50 am
A recent article ["Tightening the leash," Aug. 6] was misleading. Del. Bobby Orrock offered his dog attack identification rationale only after his bill became law. But that dog won't hunt. Implanted microchips identify owners, not dog tags. You also don't try to license cats because Dorothy Sullivan died. This is a PETA-style anti-breeding measure, not something addressing dangerous dogs.
H.B. 339's intrusive vet-supplied database constitutes a violation of personal privacy and a dangerous public health threat.
Dog licenses have a single objective. They provide public health protection by encouraging vaccination against rabies. The rabies virus causes a most excruciating death. It is fatal 100 percent of the time, if not treated before symptoms appear. The bill discourages owners from taking their animals to a veterinarian for rabies shots.
Rabies kills more than 50,000 people and millions of animals around the world each year. It has reached near-epidemic proportions in some Virginia counties. In 2003-05, nearly 2,100 Virginians received lifesaving post-exposure rabies prophylaxis at a cost of more than $4 million. Of the 1,500 Virginia rabies cases in that period, only 13 were dogs, a testament to nearly universal canine vaccination.
Obtaining a rabies vaccination and a dog tag should be simple and inexpensive. Instead, Del. Orrock's measure takes strides in the opposite direction, discouraging rabies vaccinations. In some counties, veterinarians sell dog tags. A requirement that they all sell license tags was dropped following pressure from the vets' lobby, and owner reporting was substituted. That action cost pet owners their privacy, Virginia DVMs business, and the public grave risks to its health.
Gov. Kaine delayed H.B. 339's implementation 12 months so that the General Assembly could rewrite it. Common sense requires our legislators do just that.
Bob Kane
Brightwood
Bob Kane is president of the Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association.
August 30, 2006 ALERT - Fauquier County Hobby Breeder Licensing and 2007 VVAW
Dear VHDOA Friends,
Fauquier County's Supervisors passed the first in Virginia Breeder Licensing Ordinance in November 2005 and only now as it begins enforcement are its resident pet owners discovering they've new rules to follow. Any "companion animal" owner who breeds more than one litter per year is deemed a "pet dealer," inspected and required to obtain a $50 business license, the issuance and renewal of which may be subject to a public hearing. All additional statutory requirements of "pet dealers" also apply. See attachment.
There is no number threshold for "dealers" or pet stores to distinguish them from hobby breeders in current law. A dealer-pet store licensing requirement, with a $500 noncompliance or misdemeanor criminal penalty, is a county option under Virginia's statutes. Fauquier County animal rightists and animal control officers wrote new Virginia law, taking advantage of regulatory gap. The failed federal PAWS bill set a six litter limit before special federal regulations applied. Fauquier County ordinance's limit is one litter.
In 2005, VVAW got Delegate Clifford Athey to introduce a bill *requiring* such a license statewide. VHDOA lobbied against that bill and it failed. Mr. Athey, Don Marro's delegate, carried two tax bills for him this year, which we also successfully opposed. VVAW's public 2007 General Assembly agenda is included below.
ACTION ITEM:
If Old Dominion animal owners are to stop this county hobby breeder licensing scheme from spreading further, reverse the HB339 impacts of a state public dog owner database and resist the type of intrusive agenda listed below, we need to be much better coordinated. Further, our efforts must be focused on key individual members of the General Assembly. Approximately half of VHDOA's subscribers have furnished their ZIP Codes for this legislator targetting purpose. Please do your share to protect your sport and respond with your nine-digit ZIP Code.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: Virginia Voters For Animal Welfare
To: VHDOA@earthlink.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Alert - 2007 VVAW initiatives
8/29/06
Below are the initiatives VVAW will pursue during the 2007 session of Virginia's General Assembly which convenes in January.
Note that there is no language tied to any of them, and the new initiatives will require writing from scratch. Bills which are new for 2007 are so noted.
All bills are to be considered in "draft" form for now as we will all be able to contribute language, legislators may well do the same, and legislative services will also have input.
In addition, remember please to come to one of the four regional meetings when these initiatives will be reviewed. The meetings are all on Sundays and all run from 11am to 1pm.
Sunday, 9/10/06 Roanoke
Sunday, 9/24/06 Charlottesville
Sunday, 10/8/06 Fairfax
Sunday, 10/15/06 Newport News
Now is the time to take your favorite bill to your own delegate and/or senator and seek their support and patronage. A VVAW Board member can almost always be included in such a meeting if desired.
Please share your thoughts about the bills and your support by emailing: LSClancy@crosslink.net
Thank you.
Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare Board
Lillian Clancy Kim Kincheloe
Peyton Coyner Don Marro
Debra Griggs Mollie McCurdy
Pat Weakland
_______________________________________________
1. elimination of gas chambers
2. dealer permits
could be called dealer license; to be required state-wide even though some counties currently have no requirement for business license for any kind of business
NOTE: new for 2007 in this form (requirement to be statewide)
3. vets (and likely pounds and shelters) required to report dogs suspected of being
used for dog fighting
NOTE: new for 2007
4. releasing agencies
will include back-yard-breeders and pet shops as releasing agencies (in addition to pounds and shelters); no adoption/purchase unless sterile or, conversely, adopt or purchase by buy a breeding permit; eliminate chipping?
5. reinstate humane investigator program state-wide
program of trained volunteers to serve as an adjunct to ACOs and other enforcement personnel
NOTE: new for 2007
6. humane ed
humane education curriculum to encourage responsible ownership of companion
animals
7. tax credit for vets
provide tax credit for Virginia veterinarians performing pro bono work with largest
credits given to those performing sterilization surgery
8. raise funds by raising penalties for companion animal abuse
NOTE: new for 2007
9. $3 surcharge on rabies to be used for s/n
modeled after Delaware program as a way to fund s/n programs statewide
NOTE: new for 2007
10. tethering
NOTE: new for 2007
11. license fee cap to be increased by local option up to $35; money from license sales to be
earmarked for animal welfare programs including s/n, ACOs, rabies
NOTE: new for 2007 in this form (money earmarked for animal welfare) August 29, 2006 Louisville Pursues BSL, Limit Laws and Breeder Licensing
The Louisville Metro Council is again considering breed-specific legislation, a limit law and restrictions on breeders and dog owners. This
ordinance will have a devastating effect on dog owners and breeders in
Louisville and may have a dramatic impact on the Kentuckiana Cluster, the
largest dog show cluster in the country.
The legislation proposes breed specific restrictions for "pit bulls,"
defined as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers,
American Pit Bull Terriers, Cane Corsos, Presa Canarios, Dogue de Bordeauxs, Dogo Argentinos or any dog having the appearance and characteristics of these breeds. Breed determinations and dangerous dog designations are made by Director of Metro Animal Services and appeal is to the Secretary of Public Works. There is no opportunity to go to court! The Louisville Kennel Club and concerned dog owners have suggested the formation of an Animal Control Advisory Board to hear appeals and to assist the department in drafting regulations.
A $100 unaltered pit bull license is required, even for dogs in Louisville
for less than 30 days. Therefore, show participants with these breeds would
be forced to obtain a $100 license!
All "pit bulls" are required to be microchipped and owners must obtain at
least $100,000 of liability insurance. Residents are limited to 2 dogs of
these breeds and must complete a course of instruction concerning the welfare, control and socialization of unaltered pit bulls. Further, the proposal requires these dogs to be muzzled when off the owner's property and prohibits keeping them on porches, patios or in a home where a screen on a window or door is the only barrier.
Fanciers who have attended the Kentuckiana Cluster shows are asked to
contact Metro Council officials and advise them as to how the adoption of
this ordinance would affect your decision to attend the cluster in the
future. Economic arguments are especially persuasive and fanciers are asked to detail their spending at the shows including lodging, restaurants,
gasoline and other purchases made in the area. Click here for a list of key
contacts on the Louisville Metro Council. The ordinance institutes the
following changes for all animal owners:
Limits the number of dogs residents may own as follows; 3 dogs for parcels
less than a half acre, and 7 dogs when the parcel is between half an acre
and two acres.
Requires all puppies and kittens to be licensed at birth.
Establishes a $9 license fee for spayed/neutered animals; the fee for intact animals is set at $45. There is a $63 breeding domestic pet license listed in the fee structure, but it is not defined, nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the proposal.
The proposed ordinance further requires breeders obtain a $150 Class A
Kennel License and residents who compete in conformation, performance,
agility or other events must obtain a $100 Class B Kennel License. The
document is currently unclear as to whether that license will allow an owner
to maintain 5 or 10 dogs. Persons who obtain a kennel license must allow an
inspection of their property by animal control and comply with a host of
regulations including building requirements and specified maintenance.
Additionally, there are serious concerns regarding the definition of a
nuisance in the proposed ordinance. For example, the proposal defines a
nuisance as "any act of an animal or its owner which irritates, perturbs"
and actions such as "damaging a flower or plant" or "allowing or permitting
an animal to be maintained in an unsanitary condition so as to be offensive to sight or smell." AKC believes that strong, enforceable nuisance provisions are essential to good animal control laws, but the definitions need to be specific, objective and enforceable. The statements in this proposal do not meet those criteria.
The Louisville Kennel Club has been working diligently to oppose this
ordinance, but the help of all fanciers and concerned dog owners is urgently
needed! You can contact the Louisville Kennel Club directly at
donnaherzig@hotmail.com for more information.
What You Can Do:
If you live in Louisville, contact your local Metro Councilmember and urge
him or her to oppose this measure. To find out who represents you on the
Metro Council, click here. It is critical that officials hear from their own
constituents!
Key Contacts on the Louisville Metro Council
Mailing Address:
Louisville Metro Hall
527 West Jefferson Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
502.574.2003
Councilmember James Peden
Phone: 502.574.1123
Email: james.peden@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Barbara Shanklin
Phone: 502.574.1102
Email: barbara.shanklin@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Cheri Bryant Hamilton (author)
Phone: 502.574.1105
Email: cheri.hamilton@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Rick Blackwell
Phone: 502.574.1112
Email: rick.blackwell@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Robert Henderson
Phone: 502.574.1114
Email: robert.henderson@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Glen Stuckel
Phone: 502.574.1117
Email: glen.stuckel@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Robin Engel
Phone: 502.574.1122
Email: robin.engel@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Tina Ward-Pugh
Phone: 502.574.1109
Email: tina.ward-pugh@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Tom Owen
Phone: 502.574.1108
Email: tom.owen@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember Vicki Welch
Phone: 502.574.1113
Email: vicki.welch@louisvilleky.gov
Councilmember George Melton
Phone: 502.574.1115
Email: george.melton@louisvilleky.gov
** The Louisville Kennel Club would like concerned dog owners to please
thank Councilmember Melton as he has been a consistent supporter of
responsible animal owners and is working with them to oppose this ordinance.
For more information, contact:
Louisville Kennel Club
Donnaherzig@hotmail.com
Or go to www.louisville-pets.com
August 28, 2006 NAIS and pets -- The news is NOT good
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED FREELY
I expect we all know about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) which is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grand plan to microchip and track every farm animal in the United States. Many of us probably also know that Congress has (also) directed the USDA to come up with regulations to standardize in some undefined way the system of microchipping pets in the U.S.
It's now becoming clear that there is a plan to microchip all pets and build a nationwide database of all of them over the next several years. Most likely this would be done as a part of the NAIS data base, but probably without the requirements for notification when a pet is temporarily away from its registered 'animal premises.' But you'd still have to notify a federal contractor when you bought a new dog, a cat you've been feeding died, or you moved. Trust me -- every one of these notifications will require you to pay a fee.
The planing includes Google-type access to the database, probably by all animal pounds. How'd you like your local shelter to be able to find out in seconds what pets you own? What about HSUS or your local AR's checking how many litters you bred last year?
HOW THE IDEA GOT STARTED
In order to understand this threat, we need to begin at the beginning. About 5% of U.S. dogs have microchips and the fraction is increasing steadily. These chips are registered in one of several privately owned cooperating data bases. When a chip is scanned, any of the chip registries can be contacted and owner information will be given out. However no "find me all the ..." or other information is released except to law enforcement as required by law, generally with a warrant.
All U.S. chips operate on the same radio frequency of 125 kilohertz (kHz) but in the early days there were incompatible ways of coding the chip information and not all scanners could read all chips. That has been corrected over the last few years and the vast majority of scanners now read any U.S. chip. There are something over 150,000 scanners in use.
About three years ago, Banfield (500 vet hospitals associated with PETsMART stores) tried to bring a European chip into the U.S. These chips operate at 134.2 kHz and therefore cannot even be detected by U.S. scanners. Banfield thought they were going to build their own private database and thus strengthen their ties to customers. They gave out a few of their scanners but not nearly enough and some shelters thought that the 'universal' scanners they already had, would read the Banfield chips. Of course, it didn't work, and a few dogs died. Here's one of the news stories at the time:
http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_131195733.html
Not long after, the courts told Banfield to cut it out. The U.S. marketplace had looked at the European chips and said loud and clear that it didn't want them. You'd think that would be the end of the story, wouldn't you? But not to Banfield ...
WHO IS BEHIND THIS?
In July 2004 the 'Coalition for Reuniting Pets and Families' was formed. The coalition includes:
HSUS
AHA
AAHA
AVMA
ASPCA
Society for Animal Welfare Administrators
The AKC was at first a coalition member but seems to have dropped out.
Though Banfield and Datamars (a Swiss company that makes the European chips and has a contract with Banfield to supply them) aren't actually Coalition members, they are prime movers, generally making presentations on behalf of the coalition then ducking back to use it for cover: "This isn't about growing our business, it's about giving the Coalition what it wants!"
If you Google 'Coalition Reuniting Pets Families' (no quotes) you can find out what they say are their reasons for being: basically they claim that microchipping of U.S. pets is fatally broken, it is going nowhere and that pets are dying as a result -- the typical animal rightist 'big lie.' Amusingly, the Coalition's own site at:
www.readallchips.com
has been abandoned or hacked.
WHAT IS THE COALITION PROBLEM?
Why doesn't Banfield just sell the 125 kHz U.S chips made by AVID and others? Well, U.S. chips use patented techology. That makes them more costly -- if some other company is going to make a compatible chip, they must pay to license patent rights. A chip NOT based on patented technology is cheaper and so it's more profitable for the maker and Banfield.
(The patent system -- under which if you invent something and patent it, you OWN the idea for a specified number of years -- is a key reason for people to work hard to invent, thus a key reason we have computers, ball point pens, and salad shooters. The way people beat patents is to invent and patent a BETTER way -- or they can pay to license an existing patent and make the product without the time and expense of inventing anything.)
Enter the European chips. The (European) International Standards Organization has certified a chip design which is totally public domain, meaning anyone can build a chip that works according to their rules and after a certification process, sell it as the equal of any other chip meeting that standard. Whether that design is as good as the U.S. chip systems is another matter ... we'll get into that later.
But the U.S. chip marketplace (that's US, folks) had the chance to buy the ISO chip and because we want the chip in our dog (or cat, or macaw, or ...) to be readable by the scanner at our local shelter, we said "NO."
What do you do when you see a big market that doesn't want your new product? Obviously you reach into your wallet and set about getting the government to pass a law saying "Sorry everybody, you have to buy the new product."
The Coalition (and Banfield) lobbyists went to work and in Agriculture Committee report 109-255 accompanying the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS, part of USDA) was directed to come up with a plan to standardize the U.S. pet microchip system. Here's the wording:
"The conferees support the microchipping of Pets for identification under a system of open microchip technology in which all scanners can read all chips. The conferees direct APHIS to develop the appropriate regulations that allow for universal reading ability and best serve the interests of Pet owners. The conferees also direct APHIS to take into consideration the effect such regulation may have on the current practice of microchipping Pets in this country, and to report to the Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act on progress toward that end."
The Coalition's viewpoint is presented on these web pages:
http://www.banfield.net/about/article.asp?id=21
and
http://www.banfield.net/about/article.asp?id=36
APHIS subsequently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with a public comment period that ends on September 6th. They held a series of meetings across the country to solicit inputs from affected parties; those meetings have now concluded.
WHAT'S THE COALITION PLAN?
The coalition held a closed meeting in Chicago on August 16th. (A few other groups were invited: I believe the National Animal Control Association was one, also, I think, various microchip makers.) They adopted a position paper which they intend to push APHIS to implement. In summary, that position is:
1. There must be universal scanners for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) licensees, ditto state and local government. These scanners must read all 125 kHz chips AND the 134.2 kHz (ISO) chip. They want manufacturers to give away any internal secrets of their scanners and they want them to make the new scanners available free or at low cost.
(Translation: New scanners are required and they must read Banfield's chips. If a U.S. chipmaker's patented technology gets in the way of someone else building a scanner, that technology must be released. Banfield's competitors must help pay for the new scanners to read Banfield's chips.
2. USDA is to require that all chips used by AWA licensees meet a standard and say that the only standard is the ISO standard.
(Translation: USDA licensees must use only the type of chips sold by Banfield -- though doubtless other companies would sell them too.)
3 APHIS should form a task force to develop a prototype of a national pet microchipping registration and database system. This system should include a Google-type search. The task force should have members from animal control, vets, and microchip makers/sellers.
(Translation: The people who want to use the data should be asked what should be in the data base and how to make it convenient for them. No need for anyone whose pets might be IN that data base to be represented -- No CFA, no NAIA, no ADOA, no AKC, no MOFED ...
(This would be effectively a PUBLIC data base for opponents of pet ownership and breeding. It might or might not be available to the general public.)
4. APHIS should make clear that this whole idea came from the industry and animal welfare advocates; it IS NOT a government-imposed system. "This won't be any kind of government-run database that might hurt public and corporate privacy."
(Translation: LIE about how and why this is happening and what consequences might be expected.)
Pretty cool, huh? The answer to how you get past the fact that nobody wants your incompatible product is you get the government to say that AWA licensees, state and local governments (read: animal shelters) have to buy it and your competitors have to share the costs of the massive conversion that's required. You get to say how the data can be used, and you don't take a PR hit for all this because the government is going to tell everyone that this was an industry and animal welfare idea.
HEY, I got a bunch of Virginia road dust here. I claim it's worth $1000 per handful but my idiot neighbors aren't buying. You think I could get a federal law that REQUIRES them to buy it from me? Well, hey, why not? Oh, and the law should say that this wasn't my idea, it is for their, ah, health.
THE SITUATION NOW
The public input meetings across the country were uniformly AGAINST the whole idea. The Coalition gave their arguments effectively but our side did a through and convincing job of presenting the reasons not to make any government ordered change without careful study. In summary those arguments are:
1. The U.S. already HAS a standardized system of pet microchipping with 150,000 scanners out there able to read any chip. It makes NO sense to introduce a new and incompatible kind of pet microchip in order to 'standardize' and 'eliminate incompatibility.' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
More precisely, "If ain’t broke, don't break it in order to fix it."
2. The proposed 'new universal' scanner (reading both U.S. standard 125 kHz and ISO 134.2 kHz ones) does not work reliably; whether that's just 'teething' or some more fundamental problem is unknown.
3. There would necessarily be a period of confusion when some pets were chipped one way, some the other, and not all scanners read both formats.
4. The ISO standard was designed for herd inventory. It is NOT secure against cloning or resetting of chip numbers because herd owners want these features. Some chips can even have the number changed while in the animal. This is not suitable for secure tracking of large numbers of pets or other animals for disease control, return to owner, proof of ownership, insurance, and similar purposes.
5. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: A change of standards can only be accomplished by a government mandate that will inevitably come with a centrally operated and essentially public domain database of pets. 99% of the use of that database will be to enforce laws against whatever your local animal control considers 'irresponsible' pet owners. The database (not the ISO chip or any desire to get more pets home) is the reason for HSUS, ASPCA, and animal control organization support.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
In a perfect world, APHIS would weigh all the inputs according to their quality and make a decision accordingly: The logical decision would be "No government mandate to standardize on a product that nobody wants." However, this isn't a perfect world. It appears that the head of APHIS is unhappy that all the NAIS money is going to other parts of USDA. Basically, it looks to me like APHIS is going to decide that a plan very much along the lines above is a good first step toward making pets part of NAIS.
I think that APHIS has been promised that the Coalition will support making pets part of NAIS once the first step is accomplished. That would be a good deal for everyone: for Banfield because (I believe) they have a deal for Datamars chips at a near giveaway price; for Datamars because it would give them a solid foothold in the U.S. chip marketplace; for the Coalition because it would mean microchipping and registration in a single government-sponsored data base for all pets; and for APHIS because it would need bunches of money to make the data base and maybe 200 million pet registrations happen. In any case it is appears that APHIS is completely on board, bought, sold, and done deal. The necessary laws are already in existence and they just have to go through the rulemaking formalities -- a process that will take just a few more months.
It appears to me that the AVMA has been suckered into this. I think they didn't know they were signing on to the ISO standard but thought they were just backing some sort of motherhood and apple pie 'standardization' of pet microchips. The small animal vets who form the bulk of the AVMA's board of directors tend to be do-gooders, notexactly of strong candlepower. You can see the thinking, here:
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/sep05/050901p.asp
Shades of "we have to be involved" -- the AKC's rationale for its total support of PAWS.
AAHA I have no clue about. Probably brain-dead do-gooderism again.
You'd like to think that this is so stupid and so obviously what it is -- just an idea for a law to take our money out of our pockets and put it in those of Datamars, Banfield, and others, with no benefit to pets and horrific damage to pet ownership and the pet supply system -- that it has no chance. However the reverse appears to be true. I think this is on greased rails and if we do nothing, it WILL happen. If it stays on those tracks I'd guess that five years from now there will be a law requiring all pets to be chipped and registered. In a later post I'll go into what we can do to stop it.
REMEMBER -- On May 26th, 2005, PAWS was a 'done deal' -- no chance it could be stopped. Today, although still alive, it sits in some dusty congressional closet, covered with green flies.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED FREELY
August 24, 2006 Riverside County Cancels Final Public Meeting on Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping Ordinances
UPDATE! Riverside County Cancels Final Public Meeting on Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping Ordinances
Due to construction at the Riverside City Hall where the final public meeting was to be held, the Department of Animal Services has cancelled the meeting that had been scheduled for this Saturday, August 26th.
AKC will post an update as soon as a new meeting site and time are established. We appreciate all the fanciers and concerned dog owners who have been working so hard to educate their lawmakers about responsible breeding practices.
August 21, 2006 Action Needed in San Antonio - Mtg Aug 31
The San Antonio City Council will meet August 31st at 9am to consider the 5-Year Strategic Plan, which currently includes a proposed spay/neuter ordinance, breeder permits and a bill of rights for animals. It is imperative that concerned dog owners and fanciers attend this meeting and email council members and staff to educate them about the benefits of responsible local breeders. At the bottom of this report is a list of council members and their addresses.
The Canine Legislation Department has written a letter to the San Antonio City Council on this issue. AKC asks all concerned dog owners to be polite and respectful when contacting elected officials. Below is the letter AKC sent to the San Antonio mayor.
June 19, 2006
The Honorable Phil Hardberger
Mayor, City of San Antonio
PO Box 839966 San Antonio, Texas 78283
Dear Mr. Mayor:
The American Kennel Club (AKC), a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the study, breeding, exhibiting, and welfare of purebred dogs, has learned that San Antonio Animal Care Services Advisory Board is in the process of developing a strategic plan and will present a draft of that plan to the council on June 29th. AKC now represents over 4,600 dog clubs nationally, including 318 clubs in the state of Texas. We are contacting you on behalf of these club members and other concerned dog owners in San Antonio.
AKC wishes to applaud the advisory board for many of the initiatives contained in the most recent draft. AKC is particularly pleased to see the outreach and educational plans and the proposals to increase owner retention. The Animal Care Service Advisory Board pursuit of alternative sources of funding is also innovative and will be beneficial in supplementing the animal service budget.
However, AKC must oppose two elements of the strategic map; the adoption of a spay/neuter ordinance and breeder’s permit and the establishment of a bill of rights for animals. The American Kennel Club opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership.
These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.
National research organizations have reported that the majority of unwanted dogs in the United States come from owners who are unable or unwilling to train, socialize and care for their dog. In response, the AKC has launched our Canine Good Citizenship (CGC) certificate, a two-part program that stresses responsible pet ownership for owners and basic good manners for dogs. All dogs who pass the 10-step CGC test may receive a certificate from the American Kennel Club. We also use events like Responsible Dog Ownership Day, held in September each year, to promote the importance of responsible pet ownership, training and socialization.
Through our public education department, AKC supports programs dedicated to teaching the pet-buying public how to find a responsible breeder and how to make well-informed decisions when buying a dog rather than buying on impulse. Such programs help to ensure that pet purchasers find a puppy or dog that is a good match for their lifestyle, at an appropriate time in their lives, thereby increasing the likelihood that the animal will stay with the
5580 Centerview Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 Tel 919 816-3720 Fax 919 816-4275 www.akc.org
June 19, 2006
Page 2
owner for its entire life. Public education and outreach programs teaching responsible dog ownership are an effective way to address canine population issues.
AKC has model materials on these subjects, including lesson plans for teachers on responsible dog ownership and a new puppy handbook that lays out everything from veterinary care and housebreaking to proper socialization and appropriate toys. AKC is also concerned about dangerous dogs and we have prepared a video and worksheet set on Safety Around Dogs that teaches kids and adults how to act when a strange or stray dog approaches. If you would like copies of our materials, we would be happy to provide them to you.
Breeder licensing fees place undue burden on responsible breeders and owners and fail to address the irresponsible individuals who do not comply with existing law and will not comply with new regulations. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy, well-adjusted companions and neighbors. Local breeders also provide a support system to new owners; assisting them with housebreaking, training questions, behavior issues and basic new puppy care inquiries.
The AKC believes the answer to population issues is strict enforcement of leash and nuisance laws, rather than passage of new burdensome regulation. The key to resolving this issue is to implement and expand the wide range of programs available to educate the public about responsible breeding and animal ownership practices. AKC would like to assist the San Antonio Animal Service Department in undertaking and developing these programs.
AKC also has serious concerns about establishing a bill of rights for animals. AKC supports the best premises of animal welfare but does not believe that animals have legal rights. Pets may be special members of our families, but they are unable to take responsibility for their actions. Bestowing legal rights on them is the first step in a larger campaign to end pet ownership and breeding altogether.
As you and the members of the San Antonio City Council consider this matter, the American Kennel Club and your constituent dog owners would be pleased to assist you in developing reasonable animal control regulations designed to ensure that dogs and their owners remain respected members of their communities. We invite you to review our public education programs, and we respectfully urge you not to proceed with this proposal.
Sincerely,
Sarah Sprouse
Manager, Canine Legislation
Cc: Members of the San Antonio City Council
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
San Antonio Express News
San Antonio Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Breeder Permits
[June 19, 2006]
The San Antonio City Council is considering a 5-Year Strategic Plan that includes mandatory spay/neuter and breeder permits, as well as creation of a bill of rights for animals. The plan was generated by the San Antonio Animal Care Services Advisory Board and will be presented to the city council at the June 29th meeting. Fanciers and concerned dog owners are needed to attend the meeting and oppose these proposals.
Breeder licensing fees place undue burden on responsible breeders and owners and fail to address the irresponsible individuals who do not comply with existing law and will not comply with new regulations. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy, well-adjusted companions and neighbors. Responsible local breeders also provide a support system to new owners; assisting them with housebreaking, training questions, behavior issues and basic new puppy care inquiries.
The AKC believes the answer to population issues is strict enforcement of leash and nuisance laws, rather than passage of new burdensome regulation. The key to resolving this issue is to implement and expand the wide range of programs available to educate the public about responsible breeding and animal ownership practices.
AKC also has serious concerns about establishing a bill of rights for animals. AKC supports the best premises of animal welfare but does not believe that animals have legal rights. Pets may be special members of our families, but they are unable to take responsibility for their actions. Bestowing legal rights on them is the first step in a larger campaign to end pet ownership and breeding altogether.
However, aside from the mandatory spay/neuter proposal and the bill of rights for animals, AKC wishes to applaud the advisory board for many of the initiatives contained in the most recent draft. AKC is particularly pleased to see the outreach and educational plans and the proposals to increase owner retention. The Animal Care Service Advisory Board pursuit of alternative sources of funding is also innovative and will be beneficial in supplementing the animal service budget. AKC looks forward to working with local dog owners to help San Antonio find effective and reasonable solutions to its animal control challenges.
For AKC’s talking points on opposing mandatory spay/neuter, please click here.
What You Can Do:
Attend the City Council meeting August 31st at 9am.
Municipal Plaza Building
103 Main Plaza
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Please contact the Mayor and City Council members and ask them to oppose these portions of the strategic plan.
Mailing address for all City Council Members:
City of San Antonio
PO Box 839966
San Antonio, TX 78283
Mayor Phil Hardberger
Phone: (210) 207-7060
Fax: (210) 207-4168
mayorphilhardberger@sanantonio.gov
District 1, Roger Flores, Jr
Phone: (210) 207-7279
Fax: (210) 207-7027
rfloresjr@sanantonio.gov
District 2, Sheila McNeil
Phone: (210) 207-7278
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district2@sanantonio.gov
District 3, Roland Gutierrez
Phone: (210) 207-7064
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district3@sanantonio.gov
District 4, Richard Perez
Phone: (210) 207-7281
Fax: (210) 207-7027
rperez@sanantonio.gov
District 5, Patti Radle
Phone: (210) 207-7043
Fax: (210) 207-7027
pradle@sanantonio.gov
District 6, Delicia Herrera
Phone: (210) 207-7065
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district6@sanantonio.gov
District 7, Elena Guajardo
Phone: (210) 207-7044
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district7@sanantonio.gov
District 8, Art Hall
Phone: (210) 207-7086
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district8@sanantonio.gov
District 9, Kevin Wolff
Phone: (210) 207-7325
Fax: (210) 207-7027
kwolff@sanantonio.gov
District 10, Chip Haass
Phone: (210) 207-7276
Fax: (210) 207-7027
chaass@sanantonio.gov
The following city officials also have considerable influence over the development of the Strategic Plan and fanciers are asked to send them a copy of the correspondence that is sent to city council members.
City Manager Sheryl Sculley
Phone: (210) 207-7080
Fax: (210) 207-4217
cm@sanantonio.gov
Deputy City Mgr Pat DiGiovanni
Phone: (210) 207-6912
Fax: (210) 207-4122
PDiGiovanni@sanantonio.gov
Asst. City Manager Frances Gonzales
Phone: (210) 207-2200
Fax: (210) 207-4122
francesg@sanantonio.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm
August, 21 2006, 2:07 PM
©2005 The American Kennel Club, Inc. All rights reserved. You may print this page for your personal, noncommercial, use only. You agree not to reprint, create derivative works from, post, reformat, transfer or sell this content in any format whatsoever.
August 14, 2006 NC Legislative Updates
Permission to cross post
DURHAM/ORANGE COUNTIES
A newly formed Durham/Orange County coalition to ban the tethering of dogs in the counties will present a proposal to ban chaining/tethering at the Animal Service Board of Orange County meeting on Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 during the public discussion period. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
It doesn’t appear this will move forward with any speed; however interested parties may want to attend the meeting.
From the News Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/469443.html
Durham County Animal Control Director Cindy Bailey agreed just because a dog is chained does not mean there's a problem. "I see a lot of animals that are just as abused in a 10-by-10 dog pen as on a chain," she said.
Orange County Animal Services Director Bob Marotto says education would have to be the first part of any change in the ordinance.
Tracy Carroll, chairwoman of the Orange County Animal Services Board, said her board is very interested in the topic, which it first discussed in March. But any change will not come as quickly as some would like, she said, because people would need time to find other options. "We don't want [formerly chained dogs] to be in a crate in their front yard, and we don't want them in a 4-by-4 kennel. We don't want them to run out in the street and get hit, and we don't want them all to be brought to the animal shelter and end up having all these adoptable animals euthanized," she added.
WATAUGA COUNTY
Watauga County is slowly working on plans to revise their animal control ordinance. Animal control officer, Dave Simpkins, requested a copy of the Buncombe County animal control ordinance from Shelley Moore (Asheville Humane Society). Buncombe County requires a permit to be purchased for intact dogs/cats but at this time permits are being enforced only on a complaint driven basis. Assistant County Manager Geouque presented a report on spay/neuter policies and licensing of surrounding counties to the Watauga County Board of Commissioners. Discussion was tabled until fall due to other pressing issues. If you live in Watauga County, we need your help monitoring upcoming board meetings.
LEE COUNTY
From Duke Law Magazine, Spring 2006: Funded through the $1 million Bob Barker Endowment for the Study of Animal Law, the Animal Law Clinic functions on an outplacement model, matching students with lawyers and organizations handling animal matters. Students are currently involved in drafting a new animal control ordinance for Lee County, North Carolina.
Last month when asked to verify this information, David Smitherman, Lee County Manager, said, “The County is consulting with outside sources regarding revisions to various animal control ordinances. No changes have been proposed thus far to my knowledge.”
Lee County residents would be well advised to monitor upcoming council meetings. Meetings and agendas can be found here http://www.leecountync.gov/county-commissioners/agendaminutes.html
NCRAOA INFORMATION FOR LEGISLATORS
We have completed our information packet containing animal shelter strategies and several commentaries against reactive legislation (such as limit laws, breed bans, and breeder licensing). NCRAOA plans to distribute these to county managers and administrators both on an as-needed basis and as proactively as possible.
Donations toward printing and mailing of this packet would be greatly appreciated. A single membership is $20/yr and club membership $25/yr. Your membership in NCRAOA enables us to develop and distribute this type of material now and in the future.
Susan Wolf
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)
www.ncraoa.com
August 12, 2006 Louisville 8th Draft of the Pet Ordinance
Louisville 8th Draft of the Pet Ordinance
Please check out the following website, which addresses Louisville's 8th Draft of the animal control ordinance. It has bullet points with citations, and the Draft in 3 different formats.
www.louisville-pets.com
Thank you Michigan voters! There's more to do in November!!
Thank you Michigan voters! There's more to do in November!!
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:07 pm (PST)
BlankDear Michigan Friends,
Thank you for helping defeat animal rightist Rep. Joe Schwarz in the seventh district GOP primary on August 8th. It was a wonderful upset victory and a very special one for sportsmen and animal owners! Very rarely are same-party challengers of incumbents successful.
There's more to do in November. Below is animal rightist, anti-hunting HSUS Humane USA PAC's entire slate of Lansing and Washington endorsed candidates. Only a few of these politicians were defeated in this week's primary; most of them will be on the fall ballot and need to be reeducated or retired on November 7, 2006.
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
http://www.humaneusa.org/humaneusami.htm
Humane USA Endorsements for Michigan
GOVERNOR:
No endorsements at this time.
U.S. SENATE:
Debbie Stabenow (D)
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
4th District: Vern Ehlers (R)
5th District: Dale Kildee (D)
6th District: Fred Upton (R)
7th District: Joe Schwarz (R) DEFEATED!
8th District: Mike Rogers (R)
9th District: Nancy Skinner (D)
Patricia Godchaux (R) LOST
11th District: Thaddeus McCotter (R)
12th District: Sander Levin (D)
13th District: Carolyn Kilpatrick (D)
14th District: John Conyers (D)
STATE SENATE:
1st District: Hansen Clarke (D)
Cynthia Cassel (R)
2nd District: Martha G. Scott (D)
3rd District: Irma Clark-Coleman (D)
5th District: Derrick F. Hale (D)
Tupac A. Hunter (D)
Triette E. Reeves (D)
David Lawrence Malhalab (R)
6th District: Glenn Anderson (D)
8th District: Guy Addison Rupert (R)
9th District: Dennis Olshove (D)
10th District: Michael N. Switalski (D)
13th District: John G. Pappageorge (R)
14th District: Gilda Z. Jacobs (D)
18th District: Liz.Brater (D)
19th District: Mark Schauer (D)
20th District: Alexander C. Lipsey (D)
21st District: Ron Jelinek (R)
23rd District: Gretchen E. Whitmer (D)
28th District: Scott Harvey (R)
29th District: Bill Hardiman (R)
30th District: Scott W. VanderStoep (D)
32nd District: Carl M. Williams (D)
33rd District: Dennis Stewart (D)
34th District: Gerald VanWoerkom (R)
STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
1st District: Edward J. Gaffney (R)
Je Donna Dinges (D)
2nd District: Adam T. Crawford (D)
5th District: Korey A. Hall (D)
Bert Johnson (D)
Steven Snead (D)
6th District: Marsha G. Cheeks (D)
7th District: Virgil Smith (D)
10th District: Gabe Leland (D)
11th District: Morris W. Hood (D)
12th District: Steven H. Tobocman (D)
18th District: Sam Durante (R)
19th District: Patrick O'Neil (D)
20th District: Beth A. Stewart (R)
22nd District: Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D)
23rd District: Kathleen Law (D)
25th District: Steven Bieda (D)
Cecil D. St. Pierre (R)
26th District: Marie Donigan (D)
27th District: Andy Meisner (D)
28th District: Lisa Wojno (D)
35th District: Paul Condino (D)
37th District: Aldo Vagnozzi (D)
38th District: Tim Jarrell (D)
39th District: David Law (R)
42nd District: Frank Accavitti (D)
45th District: Thomas L. Werth (D)
53rd District: Leigh Greden (D)
54th District: Alma Wheeler Smith (D)
57th District: Dudley Spade (D)
67th District: Donald R. Vickers (R)
68th District: Jerry L. Hollister (D)
Patrick W. Baker (D)
Melissa Sue Robinson (D)
Diana Rouse (D)
69th District: Jeffrey Abood (D)
Mary M. Lindemann (D)
Mark S. Meadows (D)
70th District: Christopher Mahar (D)
71st District: Victor Braatz (D)
74th District: Rich Vander Klok (R)
76th District: Michael G. Sak (D)
81st District: Phillip J. Pavlov (R)
89th District: Marcia J. DeWild (R)
93rd District: Rodney A. Hampton (D)
Virginia Dog Owner Database News Story
Virginia Dog Owner Database News Story
Posted by: "Bob Kane"
Dear Virginia Dog Owners,
In the clearest indication yet that the supporters of HB339's Mandatory Dog Owner Database aren't finished, the Associated Press story at http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--
licenselaw0807aug07,0,4775142.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
appeared in many state newspapers today. The story was written by
Edie Gross of the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star, Delegate Bobby Orrock's hometown print media outlet. Make no mistake, the Humane Society of the U.S., Virginia Animal Control Association, Virginia Federation of Humane Societies and Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare want several things very badly next year in Richmond. The
anti's goals are to raise the cost of intact (not sterilized) dog tags to very high levels, and to be able to identify the owner of every dog in the state for license enforcement and other purposes.
If dog license fees were set to cover local animal control and shelter-pound costs, they'd be ~$90 each in most areas of Virginia. "Make'm pay, make'm pay" was heard again and again last
January and February. Such a huge fee increase is politically impossible, except incrementally, probably fixed in Richmond, or otherwise forced on the localities. Any fee jump invariably reduces current tag sales, which are estimated 30% of all dogs today. About
85-90% of our dogs are believed to be vaccinated against rabies.
Arguing that breedable dogs cause all manner of society's problems, starting with pet "overpopulation," the organized anti's have implemented intact fees of $25-$150 across the country. Norfolk is at $25, Durham's at $75, Los Angeles County's at $65, Orange County's at $75 and Albuquerque's at $150. Sacramento County has proposed a jump from $30 to $150, holding its sterilized fee at $15.
Riverside County, California has an unknown intact fee increase and
mandatory microchipping of all pets pending. Invariably, these penalty fees for intact animals are ignored and very hard to enforce. To counter this, Sacramento County has added a Virginia-
type rabies information reporting system in its proposal, in an effort to tax all intact dogs that are vaccinated against the disease.
This AP story badly lacks balance. It's patently obvious that Delegate Orrock constructed this dog attack identification rationale for his bill out of whole cloth and Gross just printed it w/o thought. Never before, in the 2006 General Assembly or since, has he ever used this logic for HB339. You don't license cats, as he
proposed to do, because of Mrs. Sullivan's death and at no time was
there any doubt to whom those pit bulls belonged. Further, the other two dog attack fatalities last year in Virginia involved family dogs. This is total post-hoc rationalization and the argument he'll likely employ to justifying expensive mandatory microchipping of all rabies vaccinated dogs next session. This story is soft soap nonsense with dramatically overstated noncompliance figures.
As if your personal property and real estate tax bills come with
a "polite reminder."
<"We think the majority of the lack of compliance is because of the
inconvenience of going down to get a license," Escobar said. "The vast majority of my pet owners are thrilled to death that this is going to be so easy."
As introduced, HB339 required veterinarians to sell rabies tags,
making it "so easy" for owners to buy them. Escobar and VVMA yelled,
screamed and fought against it. What hypocrisy!
Hanover County's Scott Miller, the treasurers' group president, was
against HB339. That's not mentioned in the story, nor did Gross interview the treasurers who have spoken out publicly complaining about the bill's implementation cost and the fact they'll lose money, if the fees aren't increased. There's no mention of HB339's initial higher fees for all but Norfolk residents, the fierce
objections to the bill by thousands of dog owners, or the fact that
California proposes to use a HB339 type database to require the
microchipping of all dogs and their sterilization, or the purchase
of a $150 intact fee.
Old Dominion dog owners resent this veterinarian-supplied "gotcha"
database and its gross violation of personal privacy. Your personal
information MUST be made publicly available to insurance companies,
other commercial interests, all activists and any nosey busybody.
Failure to obtain rabies shots runs the risk of creating increased incidence of rabies. Rabies is endemic in our state as illustrated by the 1000 girl scouts in northern Virginia that may need $2000 rabies treatments and the serious rabies outbreak in Surry County.
HB339 is simply a bad bill on many levels. Governor Kaine delayed
its implementation 12 months so that the General Assembly could
rewrite it, if it choose to do so.
I can't help but wonder if this Star story isn't an effort forestall any HB339 rewrite and prepare people for round #2, microchipping, cat licensure and higher intact pet fees. The Star has come a long way from its "Snoopy, go home" anti-HB339 op-ed
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/032006/03152006/175516
We know what the anti's are probably up to. The major question that remains is have the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders' member delegates made enough difference in its management direction to prevent a repeat of the debacle for which it was responsible in the 2006 General Assembly session?
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/3_21a.html
You may be interested in my Dog Press interview, posted today
http://www.thedogpress.com/
Freely forward and cross post.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
August 9, 2006 Gratifying Primary Election Results
Gratifying Primary Election Results
Posted by: "vhdoa.earthlink.net" VHDOA@earthlink.net robertkane22715
Tue Aug 8, 2006 7:50 pm (PST)
BlankDear SAOVA Friends,
If early voting returns hold up, three federal incumbent politicians have lost their party's reelection nominations on the same primary day. This has never happened before.
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) lost to Ned Lamont by 51.8% to 48.2%
Joe Schwarz (R-MI7) lost to Tim Walberg by 12-15%
Cynthia McKinney (D-GA4) lost to Hank Johnson by 8-10%
These are three good results, focusing only on sportsmen and animal owners issues and these candidates' animal rightist voting records. SAOVA made a special primary endorsement of Tim Walberg. Joe Schwarz was an anti's Humane USA PAC endorsed and financially supported individual that returned their investment on the House floor.
You may be interested my recent Dog Press interview http://www.thedogpress.com/
Freely forward and cross post and be sure to vote. The world is governed by those who show up!
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
August 8, 2006 NJ Breeder Bill Still Lives
In a message dated 8/8/2006 12:48:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cmcgowan2@comcast.net writes:
The following message was posted this morning. If you live in NJ, time to
send some more mail to Mr. Cohen who filed that truly horrific bill. The writer
below suggests we should offer suggestions. I suggest you tell him there is
nothing worth saving in his bill! He has been duped by HSUS and he needs to
stop listening to out of state folks like HSUS PAID lobbyist who is working to
end all pet ownership and start listening NJ dog and cat owners. Time to
just say No. No bill. Don't tinker with it, withdraw it. Be polite, b firm, and
send your message now!
Charlotte McGowan
Posted by: "Barbara Reichman" _barbreichman@comcast.net _
(mailto:barbreichman@comcast.net?Subject=Re: A3401) _barb1reichman _
(http://profiles.yahoo.com/barb1reichman)
Mon Aug 7, 2006 2:59 pm (PST)
HEADS UP NJ. COHEN HAS NOT, I REPEAT NOT WITHDRAWN A3401. HE IS IN THE
PROCESS OF FILTERING THROUGH SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
AMEND IT. YES, I AM YELLING. HE IS ASKING FOR INPUT VIA
_asmcohen@njleg.asm_ (mailto:asmcohen@njleg.org) . Be polite, be informative,
be specific, be here now.
This is your chance, people. \ Barb Reichman
August 6, 2006 Hunters are not cuddling up to new stamps
Humane Society: They say the proceeds go to anti-sportsmen causes
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
One of the stamps that has the hunting crowd upset.
WASHINGTON - Hunters and fishers in Utah and around the country have been asked to take aim at a series of postage stamps whose proceeds benefit the Humane Society of the United States, a group the sportsmen say has backed anti-hunting measures.
Utahn Don Peay, founder of the group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said his group has asked its 15,000 members to contact their representatives in Congress and register their displeasure with the arrangement.
A series of four Humane Society stamps are available from Zazzle.com, a Web site where anyone can create a customized stamp. They are not endorsed by the postal service. Twenty percent of the net proceeds - about $2 from
every book of 20 - goes to the Humane Society.
"We're opposed to the Humane Society getting any kind of dividend from any kind of public resource like that," Peay said. "Sportsmen across the country don't want them getting any part of any public revenue stream."
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said the organization has raised about $30,000 from the stamp sales, nearly all of it going to the society's disaster rescue programs for animals.
Pacelle said the stamps are offered by a private company, without any support from the U.S. Postal Service. "If these hunters don't want to buy the stamps, they don't have to."
"Frankly, I find it appalling that this small band of extremist hunters would want to deny support for our disaster-relief services," Pacelle said. "We help people and their pets when hurricanes or forest fires or any other natural disaster strikes and almost every American, including hunters I presume, would support that."
During Hurricane Katrina, for example, the Humane Society helped rescue more than 10,000 animals, Pacelle said.
But it is more controversial political issues that the Humane Society is involved in that puts the group at odds with the sportsmen. They have opposed an effort to open dove hunting in Michigan, for example, and are party to a lawsuit that would protect bears in Florida from hunts.
In Utah, the Humane Society was a party to a lawsuit challenging a sportsmen-backed constitutional amendment that erects obstacles to ballot measures restricting hunting.
A federal appeals court upheld the Utah constitutional provision last year.
"If they'd stick to their mission of taking care of dogs and cats they wouldn't have the opposition," Peay said.
The Humane Society stamps bear pictures of caged puppies and advocate preventing puppy mills; show a baby seal and call for a stop to seal hunts; show a chicken and encourage protection for farm animals, and depict a dog being carried out of floodwaters and urge support for animal disaster rescues.
The U.S. Postal Service began in 2004 to allow companies like Zazzle.com and Stamps.com to offer personalized, non-commercial postage stamps.
This year, Congress changed a prohibition against advertising on stamps that had stood since 1872, allowing things like corporate logos to be printed on stamps.
An alert earlier this summer warned hunters and fishermen that "Every penny earned through such fundraisers is another penny that will be used to bring an end to hunting, fishing and trapping in the United States."
It encouraged sportsmen to contact their members of Congress and urge them to "put an end to this exploitation of the U.S. Mail to benefit an inflammatory organization such as the HSUS."
"We object that they've found a way to exploit the Postal Service and to use their non-hunting, non-animal-use rhetoric on postal stamps," said Dale Miles, spokesman for the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
August 3, 2006 San Antonio to Vote in August on Bill of Rights for Animals
TEXAS – The San Antonio City Council is considering a 5-Year Strategic Plan that includes mandatory spay/neuter and breeder permits, as well as creation of a bill of rights for animals. The plan was generated by the San Antonio Animal Care Services Advisory Board and will be voted on by the city council in August. Fanciers and concerned dog owners are needed to attend the meeting and oppose these proposals. To find out more about how you can assist in fighting this proposal, please contact the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance at rpoa@texas.net.
August 1, 2006 FROM ACF - CALIFORNIA UPDATE & MORE
----- Original Message -----
From: Cherie Graves
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: [doglegislation] FROM ACF - CALIFORNIA UPDATE
FROM ACF
AUGUST 1, 2006
Greetings to the Dog Fancy !
It has been reported back to ACF that Riverside County held a meeting last
night and data from the Humane Society of the United States was used ? LA
County has been going door to door and citing and seizing dogs from people
who either can't comply or were not aware of the mandatory spay and neuter
laws.
QUOTE FROM HSUS
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out.
We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." - Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
FROM ACF
The HSUS and PETA are actually convincing politicians to pass laws to end domestic pet ownership, Mandatory spay/neuter and breeding laws combined with breed specific legislation.
The American Caniine Foundation has decided to file a state court lawsuit
with a Plaintiff that has been damaged by LA County Animal Care. ACF is suing LA County in a second lawsuit in the superior court of Los Angeles County asking for a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of LA County's breeding law.
We caution the Dog Fancy, animal rights legislation is out of control at this point, PETA and HSUS along with other animal rights organizations are lobbying every city in the country. PETA is pushing in Montgomery Alabama
right now to ban all large breed dogs.
ACF needs your support, send donations to protect your rights to own canines. ACF is litigating a federal lawsuit against LA County, San Francisco and California State Agencies challenging the mandatory spay and neuter laws with breeding retrictions to stop the animal rights movement from passing laws that serve no purpose, do nothing to protect the public and target responsible dog owners criminalizing them for breeding dogs or owning specific breeds. ACF will move to seek a restraining order against LA County and we need your support !!!!
Numerous California AKC Kennel Clubs have sent generous donations, the AKC
American Rottweiler Club sent $3000.00 and the EBA/ADBA have sent over $10.000.00 to help fight BSL. The Shoreline Kennel Club sent $1.000.00 and has pledged another $1.500.00 to fight LA County. Hundreds of Dog Fanciers have sent donations to help protect the rights of responsible dog owners.
When sending your donation on the check indicate how you want your money used !
ACF
23969 NE State Rte 3
Suite G101
Belfair Wa. 98528
or PayPal July 31, 2006 Contact info for NJ A3401
Subject: [NJDogLaw] Contact info for NJ A3401 -- MAY BE FORWARDED
New Jersey bill A3401, filed July 4th, gets the pet-law revolving
trophy for the worst pet animal bill in the United States. We need
to kill this one fast and we need your help!
Some key points for NJ A3401:
If you sell over five cats or dogs in a year you are a breeder:
Breeders must be licensed.
Breeders must comply with the federal AWA (Animal Welfare Act)
standards -- non-porous surfaces, separate food preparation room,
bitches in whelp in another building, and so on. Plus a few extra
tweeks that will make things tougher.
Enclosures must be tall enough for dogs to stand on hind legs with
6" of clearance and must have access to an outdoor run. Air must
be changed 8-12 times/hour.
Bitches/queens may not be bred over once per year and not more
than five litters are allowed per year.
Any violation is cause for revocation or denial of a license with a
five year or longer ban. Fines run $500-10,000. Snitches (who
'out' a violator) can get 10% of any civil penalty imposed.
Basically it will be impossible to continue home breeding of dogs or
cats in New Jersey if this bill should pass. There's MUCH more in
the bill: You can read it in the original at the address near the end
of this.
To oppose New Jersey A3401:
Write to the two primary sponsors:
Neil M. Cohen
You can contact Mr. Cohen through his home page at:
_http://www.njleg.http://wwhttp://www.http://ww_
(http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/cohen.asp)
And
Joan M. Voss
Her page is:
_http://www.njleg.http://wwhttp://www.http://w_
(http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/voss.asp)
These sponsors should be asked to "Please WITHDRAW A3401."
Use that for a subject line and end your message with it.
Keep emails/faxes short. It may be a challenge, but BE POLITE.
The other people to contact are the NJ Assembly Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee. You can find their names at the
top of the page at:
_http://www.njleg.http://wwhttp://www.njlhttp://wwhtt_
(http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/assembly.asp)
You can contact each of them from there -- just click the names.
Committee members should be asked to "Please OPPOSE
A3401." Use that for a subject line and end your message with it.
You can read NJ A3401 in the original at:
_http://www.njleg.http://wwhttp://www.njlhttp://www.http:/_
(http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A3500/3401_I1.HTM)
Yes, OUT OF STATE CAN HELP. While lawmakers do pay more
attention to the people who can vote for them, they listen if their in
box fills up, the fax runs out of paper over the weekend, and the
phone rings off the hook on Monday.
Do you have friends, family, puppy or kitten buyers in New Jersey?
Please ask them to make the contacts above.
It's good to get a quick start on these things -- if you have the time,
PLEASE SEND EMAILS AND FAXES OVER THE WEEKEND.
THIS MAY BE FORWARDED FREELY
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets July 30, 2006 PIT BULL AMENSTY PROGRAM in KC
Full article at:
http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5206383
PIT BULL AMENSTY PROGRAM
Kansas City, Kansas - The Kansas City, Kansas Police Department Animal Control participated in a press conference at the Police Headquarters at 700 Minnesota announcing the Pit Bull Amnesty Program. The program consists of extended hours for the relinquishing of ownership of illegal Pit Bulls.
The Animal Control Center is located at 3301 Park Drive, Kansas City, Kansas and will continue to operate the normal business hours of:
8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. - Monday through Friday
The Pit Bull Amnesty Program hours are:
8:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. -- Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. - Saturday and Sunday
This program starts immediately and will last for two weeks. The phone number for Animal Control is 913-321-1445. A hotline established for this program the number is 913-573-8911.
Procedure for relinquishing custody of illegal animal under City Ordinance 7-130:
*upon arrival to the Animal Control Center please keep the illegal animal in your vehicle
*contact Animal Control Staff and follow their direction as to what needs to be done with the animal
*the State of Kansas requires a very brief form signed by the owner to relinquish custody of the animal
*the extended hours of operation are ONLY for the relinquishment of illegal animals under KCK City Ordinance 7-130
*all normal Animal Control operations will continue during this amnesty program.
July 28, 2006 7th Congressional District Primary 8-8-06
Dear Michigan Friends,
There's a primary on August 8, 2006 in the 7th congressional district of Michigan that affects every sportsman, pet owner, horseman and livestock owner in the Midwest. Please consider voting for Tim Walberg http://www.walbergforcongress.com/issues/ in the GOP primary and urge your friends to do likewise. MI7 is a heavily GOP district. Its primary winner is certain to represent the area in Washington next year. "Lucky" Joe Schwarz must be retired!
Animal rightists (ARs) want to ban all sport hunting, eliminate animal ownership and end legitimate medical research. Because of these activities the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance was formed in 2000 to evaluate individuals running for federal office. Our nonpartisan, nationwide volunteer effort operates in every state and has concluded that Tim Walberg understands the AR threat to sportsmen and animal owners. Moreover, he's prepared to defend our interests in the US Congress.
Rep. Schwarz won election in 2004 with just 28 percent support. Five conservatives split the balance of the vote. The anti's Humane USA PAC not only endorsed Schwarz, it contributed to his campaign and directly spent more money getting him elected. Since taking office he's repaid the anti's investment by cosponsoring and voting for their bills, including HR2669 (PAWS), the anti's effort to federalize hobby pet breeding and license every hunting dog owner.
Tim Walberg is a true conservative, unlike Joe Schwarz. Tim strongly supports private property rights, sportsmen and animal owners. He doesn't bear the anti's seal of approval, far from it. If you live in or near Lansing, Battle Creek or Jackson, Michigan, you don't have to wait until November to cast your vote against the anti's on their dove hunting referendum. Do it on August 8, 2006. Please vote for Tim Walberg and get others to do the same!!
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
NAIS - NIAA: A Meeting Not To Be Missed
[BSL56-UAOA] NAIS - NIAA: A Meeting Not To Be Missed
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=55986
Today 7/28/2006 1:36:00 PM
NIAA: A Meeting Not To Be Missed
BOWLING GREEN, KY - With more than 50 speakers ranging from the Secretary of Agriculture's perspective regarding current animal ID solutions to discussion on the pro's and con's of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), ID/INFO EXPO 2006 is a meeting "Not to be missed," says program chair Robert Fourdraine.
The event is scheduled for August 22-24 at the Westin Crown Center Hotel in Kansas City. Early conference registration and special hotel room rate offers end August 1.
As announced earlier, Secretary Mike Johanns, U.S. Department of Agriculture, will address the meeting, Wednesday, August 23. Other key USDA officials responsible for implementing NAIS will make presentations throughout the three-day meeting. The meeting will also offer comprehensive focus on providing practical solutions available to producers and industry today.
In addition, representatives of the NAIS Species Working Groups will start the 3-day program by updating attendees on their recommendations and state officials will report on their implementation status, including premises registration efforts.
"We'll also have an opportunity to hear not only the attributes of NAIS but all viewpoints regarding the implementation of a National Animal Identification System," explains Fourdraine.
"In a special session, several industry representatives and producers will be on the program to express their concerns. Amongst the participants in this session will be Mary Zanoni (PhD, JD), an outspoken critic of NAIS who considers herself an advocate for sustainable agriculture" says Fourdraine.
ID/INFO EXPO is a national event of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, a national trade association representing all sectors of animal agriculture. For more information and to register for the event and to make a hotel reservation online go to www.animalagriculture.org/id/IDINFOEXPO2006/ or call 270-782-9798.
July 27, 2006 Update! Sacramento Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance Vote Tuesday
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will take a vote on the proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their next meeting, Tuesday, August 1st. Concerned dog owners and fanciers are urgently needed to attend this meeting!
When: August 1st
Time: 3pm
Location: Sacramento County Administration Center, 700 H Street, Room 1450
If you are unable to attend the meeting, please click here to contact your supervisor in writing and inform them of your opposition.
District 1 - Roger Dickinson
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
dickinsonr@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5485 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 2 - Illa Collin
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
Collini@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5481 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 3 - Susan Peters
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
susanpeters@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5471 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 4 - Chair, Roberta MacGlashan
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
macglashanr@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5491 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 5 - Vice Chair, Don Nottoli
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
nottolid@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5465 (916) 874-7593 FAX
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
For more information, contact:
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
jgrcorgis@aol.com wayne.sheldon@comcast.net
or the AKC Canine Legislation Department (doglaw@akc.org).
July 26, 2006 Clinton, MS passes overnight breed ban
Clinton 07/24/06
Breed-Specific Dog Ban Passed
By David Kenney
david@wlbt.net
Some dog owners in Clinton are on notice that their pets would no longer belegal within the city limits.
Clinton city leaders have passed an ordinance banning certain breeds of vicious dogs, after complaints and concerns about pit-bull attacks.
Clinton is targeting two specific breeds: any dog commonly referred to as
a 'pit bull' or a 'rottweiler' is now banned from being kept in the city limits.
The Community Animal Rescue and Adoption center has been swamped with calls from pit-bull and rottweiler owners looking for new homes for their pets.
"We've got a lot of phone calls from a lot of the public," says CARA manager Janet Madden. "They're irate. They don't know what to do (with) their family pet they had for years. They woke up one morning, opened up the paper, and there it is -- they need to move or get rid of their beloved pet."
Any vicious dog found at large would also count as a violation of the ordinance.
For many Clinton residents, the word vicious doesn't necessarily describe a certain breed, which is why some have problems with this new law.
"These cases we have where we do have dog bites and animal attacks," says Ben Duncan of Clinton. "it's people who own them who aren't responsible enough owners with these dogs."
Pit-bull and rottweiler owners in Clinton have four weeks to find new homes for their pets. Many animal shelters say they're full, and can't offer temporary assistance.
"You can't buy a house in thirty days in most places," says Madden. "It is very disruptive, and to lump a breed and say they're all that way, that's not true."
Many owners of the now-banned dogs say they don't know what to do. They don't want to give up their pets, and they don't want to move.
The cities of Brandon and Richland have also recently passed ordinances banning pit bulls.
The city of Jackson has an ordinance banning vicious dogs, but it is not breed-specific.
Dog Owners Fight Insurers Over Insurance Practice
Canine Mutiny: Dog Owners Fight Insurers Over Insurance Practice
http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/taxesandinsurance/20060605-mcqueen.html
"At least nine states, including Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin,
now have bills pending that would prevent insurance companies from
dropping or refusing customers because of their dog's breed. In Massachusetts, a proposed bill has been set aside for further study.
(Insurance rules and rates are state-regulated.) In 2003, the Michigan insurance commissioner issued an administrative ruling banning the practice in that state. The legislation is supported by animal-welfare
organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, the
American Kennel Club, and local pet and breeders' advocacy groups."
Dog owners are biting back at the insurance industry.
ADOA Files Suit Against The City of Englewood, NJ To Overturn Breed Specific Law
American Dog Owner's Association Files Suit Against The City of Englewood, New Jersey To Overturn Breed Specific Law
ADOA challenges City of Englewood's illegal breed ban, a direct violation of New Jersey State law, for failure to provide equal protection and services under the law.
Englewood, NJ (PRWEB) July 25, 2006 -- The American Dog Owners Association (ADOA) and two of its members, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, who reside in Englewood, New Jersey, filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court (Docket# BER-L-5285-06) last week to challenge the city's aggressive dog ordinance banning specific breeds as a direct violation of state law, which explicitly prohibits breed discrimination. The American Dog Owners Association, the country's largest independent dog owner's organization, asserts that the City of Englewood, New Jersey has failed to provide its residents equal protection under the law by denying the residents' applications to license their dogs and has subjected them to harassment.
"New Jersey has one of the strongest dangerous dog laws in the country, and we'd like to see the City of Englewood comply with state law. The City of Englewood has a duty to protect the public health and safety of all of its citizens, as well as protect the rights of responsible dog owners, regardless of breed", said Maureen Hill-Hauch, ADOA's Executive Director.
Ms. Hill-Hauch noted that breed bans and other breed-specific measures are strongly opposed by all major animal welfare and veterinary medical organizations, as well as the Center For Disease Control, as being ineffective in the prevention of dog bites or attacks. "Strong dangerous dog laws are based on facts, not media hype. To keep the public safe, we need real solutions, like the enforcement of the New Jersey Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act, not empty laws".
The New Jersey Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act, N.J. S. § 4:19-36, explicitly prohibits breed discrimination, stating, "any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county or county board of health".
The City of Englewood's Ordinance N.99-66 violates N.J.S.§ 4:19-26 by defining the following breeds as aggressive: Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, or "any dogs of mixed breed which has the appearance or characteristics of being predominately of the breeds", and bans them from being kept within the City of Englewood.
Flora Edwards, counsel for the Plaintiffs, told the court that under the city's illegal breed-specific ordinance, even Rufus, this year's winner of Best In Show at the prestigious Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show at Madison Square Garden, would be unwelcome in the City of Englewood, and his owners would run the risk of having the world's top dog seized and impounded. Rufus, a Colored Bull Terrier, hailed as an ambassador for his breed, has been given the keys to a number of cities in New Jersey and throughout the country. He resides with his owners in Holmdel, New Jersey.
On Thursday, July 20, 2006, the Plaintiffs, the American Dog Owner's Association, Natalie Wells and Mia Rodriguez, were granted a temporary restraining order by the Honorable Jonathan Harris in Bergen Country Superior Court against the City of Englewood, preventing the city from seizing or impounding the Plaintiff's dogs until the case can be heard. A trial date has been set for early August.
The Plaintiffs, Ms. Wells, a stock analyst, and the owner of Sentry, a twelve-year old American Pit Bull Terrier, and Ms. Rodriguez, a respected artist and owner of Cyrus, also a rescued American Pit Bull Terrier, say they both live in fear that their dogs will be seized by the City of Englewood, and have been subjected to a pattern of harassment by the city's Department of Health since trying to obtain licenses for their dogs.
"We're responsible dog owners - we just want the same rights as other responsible dog owners", said Ms. Rodriguez. Neither of the Plaintiff's dogs is allowed to run loose, nor do they have any bite history. Both dogs are well cared for and well socialized, and pose no threat to the public.
"Cyrus is such a good boy, he's so happy, so loving. He keeps me company and follows me everywhere", said his owner, Mia Rodriguez. Ms Rodriguez rescued Cyrus as a puppy and helped nurse him back to health from a near-fatal bout with parvovirus with the help of donated services from a local veterinarian. "Cyrus also plays guardian angel to my Pug, who recently had a stroke. They curl up and sleep together in my studio".
"We've had Sentry since she was a tiny puppy, just six weeks old", said Ms. Wells, who suffers from lupus. "She was given to us by our vet in Philadelphia. Sentry is our baby, part of our family". Sentry is recovering from cancer surgery and has cataracts. "We've nursed her through her cancer and other illnesses, including the loss of our other dog just after Mother's Day. I don't know what I'd do without her".
Barbara Haywood, ADOA's volunteer communications coordinator, said that the American Dog Owner's Association lawsuit has the support of numerous dog clubs in New Jersey and throughout the country. In addition, the ADOA is actively seeking other residents of Englewood who own the breeds or mixes of breeds of dogs banned by the city to join the lawsuit free of charge. Those residents who feel they may have been discriminated against by the city's illegal dog ordinance, or dog organizations wishing to provide letters of support, may contact the American Dog Owner's Association directly via email at: adoa @ global2000.net
The American Dog Owners Association, ADOA, founded in 1970, is the country's largest independent dog owner organization representing individual dog owners, breeders, handlers, and dog clubs of all breeds, mixes and backgrounds. The American Dog Owners Association recognizes the special relationship between dogs and humans, and advocates for the protection and preservation of responsible dog ownership and public education about responsible dog ownership, and works with communities to support and enact strong dangerous dog legislation. On the web at www.adoa.org
Judy Schreiber
BTCA Legislative Liaison Chair, VP BSLWorkshop, SC ARC Liaison
BSLWorkshop Group
BSLWorkshop Website
Rott-N-Chatter
C-A-R-E
Note: Any forwarded message is intended for the purpose of information only and is not necessarily the opinion of the sender.
July 20, 2006 Riverside County, CA Announces 4 Public Meetings
American Kennel Club News Article
Riverside County, CA Announces Public Meetings Regarding Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping
Date of Article: July 18, 2006
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services has announced the dates and times of four public meetings to discuss a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and an ordinance to require microchipping of all dogs and cats. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners attend these meetings and educate the community about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
The proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will require that any dog or cat over the age of four months be spayed or neutered unless the owner can qualify for one of the limited exemptions. Exemptions are provided for law enforcements dogs, qualified service assistance dogs, dogs which are medically unsuitable for sterilization and “competition dogs.”
To qualify as a competition dog, the animal must be registered with AKC, UKC, ADBA or other valid registry as determined by the Department. Further, one of the following requirements must be met:
The dog has competed in one dog show or sporting competition sanctioned by a national registry approved by the Department within the last 365 days;
The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry listed above;
The owner is a member of a purebred breed club approved by the Department that maintains and enforces a code of ethics for animal breeding that includes restrictions from breeding individuals with genetic defaults and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed;
Dogs which are trained and used as herding dogs, livestock guardians, hunting dogs or dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the Department;
Dogs boarded in a licensed kennel, which boards and professionally trains such animals for use and resale.
The proposed ordinance will not raise license fees. Current license fees for altered dogs are as follows: $8 for one year, $15 for two years and $19 for a three year license. A one year license for an unaltered dog is $50, a two year license is $100 and a three year license is $150.
The mandatory microchipping ordinance will require each dog and cat over the age of four months to be implanted with a microchip. Owners must report that number to the Riverside County Department of Animal Services, and register the microchip with the “national registry applicable to the chip.” Exemptions are only provided if there is a written note from a veterinarian stating that the animal will suffer serious bodily injury if it is microchipped. The note must also state the date by which it will be safe for the animal to be implanted with a microchip.
As part of AKC’s ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification—whether by collar, tattoo or microchip—should be made by the owner, not the government.
It is crucial that all fanciers and concerned dog owners work together to protect our rights as dog owners. The narrow exemptions provided in the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance are not sufficient to justify relinquishing the rights of responsible owners to breed dogs.
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, not to make a profit, but instead with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
What You Can Do
Attend one or more public meetings.
Monday, July 31, 2006, 7pm
Murrieta City Hall/Council Chambers
26442 Beckman Court
Murrieta, CA 92562
Saturday, August 12, 2006, 10am
Coachella Valley Assoc. of Governments
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. #115
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Wednesday, August 16, 2006, 7pm
Noble Creek Community Center
38900 Oak Valley Parkway
Beaumont, CA 92223
Saturday, August 26, 2006, 10am
Riverside City Hall/Council Chambers
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
Write a letter to your representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
To find out who represents you on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors please click here http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us
/gis/gisbasicquery2.html.
Supervisor Bob Buster - DISTRICT 1 (Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1010
district1@rcbos.org
Lake Elsinore Office
2499 East Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 245-3330
Supervisor John F. Tavaglione – DISTRICT 2 (Vice-Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1020
district2@rcbos.org
Supervisor Jeff Stone – DISTRICT 3
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1030
district3@rcbos.org
Supervisor Roy Wilson – DISTRICT 4
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1040
District Office
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 863-8211
district4@rcbos.org
Supervisor Marion Ashley – DISTRICT 5
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1050
district5@rcbos.org
District Office:
14375 Nason St. Suite 207
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
Desert/Pass Office:
50290 Main St.
Cabazon, CA 92230
For further information please contact the AKC’s Canine Legislation Department at 919-816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm
July, 20 2006, 1:59 AM
©2005 The American Kennel Club, Inc. All rights reserved. You may print this page for your personal, noncommercial, use only. You agree not to reprint, create derivative works from, post, reformat, transfer or sell this content in any format whatsoever.
July 18, 2006 Dog Attacks Spur OP, Independence To Take Action
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. -- Two cities are taking steps in response to recent dog attacks.
The Overland Park, Kan., City Council voted Monday to ban pit bulls. Residents who already own pit bulls will be allowed to keep them.
In Independence, the City Council passed an ordinance that cracks down on the owners of dogs that bite people.
KMBC reported that fines were doubled to $500 for each attack. Owners could get mandatory jail time for a second offense.
Independence City Council members may consider a ban on new pit bulls into the city as early as next month.
On May 4, three pit bulls attacked three men in Independence, severely injuring them. One man was mauled while he was walking. The other two were attacked as they mowed their lawns. After finding the dogs running loose, police shot and killed the
animals.
July 13, 2006 AKC gives up on PAWS (S1139/HR2669)
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
Dear SAOVA Friends,
The American Kennel Club's (AKC's) homepage has dropped its "Feature" PAWS highlight graphic and hotlink, after headlining it for more than a year. The homepage deletion at this time is the equivalent of hiding an embarrassing relation or concealing a major blunder. They'll be no registry mea culpas or public acknowledgements of failure or mistake, just ongoing efforts to distort the facts about S1139. When I posted a preview of this message July 11th on a pet owner blog, AKC immediately responded with a simplistic, knee-jerk "stay the course" update on July 12th. How pathetically predictable. You decide who has been more truthful and right about PAWS, from June 4, 2005 to today. Sen. Santorum may make one last futile PAWS gesture for AKC and HSUS, but Congress isn't buying it. He's in a lose-lose politically dead situation, whatever he does. Rep. Gerlach, the HR2669 introducer, is also in the same position.
This misadventure and attack on other pet registries led by Chairman Ron Menaker cost the AKC untold $$ and loss of trust and goodwill of animal owners throughout the nation. AKC's registrations are at a 40 year low. Its financially motivated PAWS collaboration with the animal rightist Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and parochial and inbred views have made it politically untrustworthy. No federal legislator will accept AKC's word for a very long time. Too many were whipsawed by AKC and HSUS and don't appreciate being lied to, blindsided and having their outraged constituents emailing and calling them for months. Many fellow animal owner groups and registries feel much the same. Few will consider our flagship canine registry anything but an animal rightist Quisling and disreputable competitor in the future. AKC's recent, selective responses to HSUS's anti-breeder, anti-hunter initiatives and its continuing efforts to steal coonhound registrations from the UKC and PKC reinforce these conclusions.
Dog News, the unofficial registry show newspaper, apologist and spin organ, is lobbying for director term limit by-law changes to permit Menaker and his cronies to avoid the term limits adopted in 2001 and keep control indefinitely. Nothing could be more disastrous for American purebred dog owners. All of the current AKC directors may run for at least another four years, including Walter Goodman, who first won a seat in the 1980's, where James Holt joined him as a director. Only a complete management change, true dedication to pure bred dog ownership and sportsmanship and a reversion to its abandoned mission statement will save the AKC.
You never say "never" in politics. The NO PAWS team of Kelly Wichman (Dog Federation of Wisconsin), Susan Wolf (North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners' Alliance) and myself will continue to monitor DC events through adjournment. The two of them have been wonderful partners in this fight and we want to thank each and everyone of you who contacted legislators opposing PAWS or facilitated your club joining the NO PAWS Honor Roll. http://saova.org/1139opponents.html Our Hill friends and agricultural community supporters broadened our opposition effort and assured its success. We couldn't have beaten HSUS, DDAL, PETA and AKC without you all. We're especially indebted to those whose donations made our Roll Call advertisement possible. http://www.nopaws.org/SAOVA_Ad_RollCall_Logo.pdf To those smaller parent breed clubs that didn't oppose PAWS and the many specialty club leaders that believe anything issued by AKC's PR department, pronounced from the delegate meeting podium or on the delegate's elist: You're hurting yourselves, your dogs and the fancy. Take the time to review your priorities and commitments. Get involved. Think analytically, critically and independently. Be demanding and insist on accountability. Make the needed difference.
The animal rightists are currently on a pet anti-breeder tear in California, New Mexico, Texas and the Midwest. Virgorously respond to these local threats as most did to PAWS. A very timely, important self-protection message from Missouri Federation of Animal Owners' President Karen Strange is attached. Please take the time to read it. Not only is control of the U.S. House at stake this November, state, county and city elections will decide the future of pet ownership more and more.
Two brief personal notes:
Dog Press editor Barbara Andrews recently said some very kind things about SAOVA and me. See http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/06_Albeq.AA.Kane07.asp SAOVA is a small, five year old group of dedicated animal owner volunteers, not Bob Kane acting alone. I'll be assuming emeritus, senior adviser status shortly. I've also changed my email address to vhdoa@earthlink.net
Thank you again for your continuing support of this sportsmen and animal owner advocacy effort.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
** NO PAWS **
http://saova.org/
http://www.nopaws.org
SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.
AKC Assists LA County and SB861
Side Effects 06
Dog Law and Breed Legislation
----------------------------------------
American Canine Foundation
From Glen Bui, ACF
The letter from the president of AKC at the bottom of this email confirms AKC did assist legislators in SB861 and LA County.
The president of AKC states Judy Daniels requested a consolidated list of AKC Clubs? Then the president turns around and states the list is available on the AKC website. AKC claims they want to ensure their club members are exempt from the mandatory spay and neuter laws? They go on to state they are not providing any other data but officers names, etc.
My question is why on earth would AKC do anything to assist LA County? The excuses contradict each other; LA County can find the breed clubs online.
Here is fact; Judy Daniels at a club meeting (Antelope Valley) discouraged everyone from supporting ACF saying she did not like what she heard in a phone conversation. She stated she wanted to talk to ACF lawyers, etc. When I spoke to Judy Daniels she proved to me within seconds she had her own agenda and was not happy with the mention of suing LA County. Then the Antelope Valley Kennel Club threatens Cal Fed and prohibits them from holding a meeting on the show grounds and they knew ACF was involved. The meeting was to gain support to sue LA County.
It's my opinion that the Dog Fancy is being used for the money and nothing more and that AKC within its higher officials, may have animal rights activists in power. AKC breed club members will have to pay to breed dogs, they will have to give up their pedigrees and allow animal control at anytime to inspect their property. Dog Fanciers face criminal charges. LA County Animal Control has two faces, when we spoke to their assistant director he was very hateful of dog breeding. The punch line? The claim coming from LA County is they want to reduce the number of strays and are not targeting the Dog Fancy? When one with common sense looks at LA County's ordinance we see nothing but a direct target of pure bred dog fanciers. Otherwise the law would exempt all breeders of purebred dogs with no possibility of facing criminal charges and only make reference to mixed breeds being bred???????? LA County's law is also easy to figure out by simply looking at the support list #%^&**
In all the years AKC has existed, as the PAWS Bill unfolds and a few other stunts the registry has pulled are noted, Dog Fanciers’ spend their good money with AKC, what do they get in return?
My heart goes out to all the Dog Fanciers in LA County and the entire basin. We contacted Riverside County and they are going to pass the same law as LA County. Once the mandatory castration laws are enforced it’s not going to turn out like some might think. It will be no different than the BSL in Ohio. LA County will hunt down breeders; they will get court orders to force the breed clubs to give up their members lists. They will come to your homes, they will make up allegations and fabricate stories to seize dogs and they will do everything in their power to stop purebred dog breeding from taking place.
Just by looking at how LA County AC has operated in the past it will be no different than the BSL genocide that’s overtaking our country. Part of the Dog Fancy and perhaps a Major Dog registry will take out a large part of purebred dog breeding. When California goes, kiss the rest of the country good bye. AKC should be the ones suing LA County and not ACF. AKC's future of purebred dog owners rest on what happens in California. AKC refuses to assist ACF in anyway shape or form in our federal challenge. Part of the Dog Fancy is attempting to stop funding to ACF.
The American Canine Foundation was founded to protect the Dog Fancy and your rights to own and enjoy your dogs and do what ever you want with freedom and no government control as long as your a responsible dog owner.
Donations are coming in to fund legal action against LA County and ACF will do everything possible to prevail in court to stop the animal rights fueled laws taking over California.
What I've stated in this email is to inform the Dog Fancy of the events taking place and my personal opinions of the issues and concerns about the future of purebred dogs. I believe my experiences with canine legislation make my concerns very credible. I've lobbied many laws at state and local level, I've drafted federal, state and local legislation, and I’m directing the Tellings constitutional challenge and have testified in federal, state and local courts on fatal dog attacks, dangerous dog laws, canine behavior and genetics.
I've been on the extreme front of fighting BSL sitting in the heated court room where very few have been, fighting for the American Pit Bull Terrier and other breeds, I've witnessed the other sides hate for the Dog Fancy. I have traveled the country and know the laws and what they mean. I can assure the Dog Fancy that LA County's law and SB861 are in many ways more serious than breed bans on canines. All rights to breed purebred dogs in LA County were taken from the Dog Fancy and complete power and control is now in the hands of animal rights supporting animal control officers.
What can be done? The Dog Fancy needs to stop infighting and stop now. Support the fight in court to prove SB861 and LA County's laws are unconstitutional. I say this from being there and seeing the agendas behind breeding laws and breed bans. The people who are leading those agendas hate us, they hate our country and most of all they have no love for canines and they will not be stopped until the courts order them to! Many people fall victim to AR agendas because they look good on the surface. The surface is very thin when it comes to agendas surrounding breeding laws and BSL.
Below is a statement from AKC's President and I was asked to forward it, I suggest the Dog Fancy circulate this email to all lists!!!
Sincerely,
Glen Bui
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and From AKC:
Dear Peter,
Per our discussion and in response to your e-mail of earlier this morning, the facts are as follows:
Judi Daniels requested a consolidated list of AKC clubs in the Los Angeles area. The Canine Legislation department is currently compiling this list with the direct mail contact information for Corresponding Secretaries. As we all know this exact information about AKC clubs is available on our website and published annually in the April Events Calendar. Please note that we have not supplied telephone contact information or email information.
Recent legislation passed in Los Angeles requires all dogs to be spayed or neutered unless their owner purchases an intact animal license. To be eligible for that license, a dog must be a law enforcement dog, a qualified assistance dog or a competition dog. A competition dog must be registered with a valid registry - and AKC is among the list of valid registries - and must also meet one of the following requirements:
* The dog has competed in a least one dog show or event in the past year.
* The dog has earned a title from a recognized purebred registry.
* The owner is a member of a purebred dog club which maintains and enforces a code of ethics.
To ensure that our club members are exempt from the mandatory spay/neuter provision of this bill we are complying with Judi's request. Other than the name of the club and the corresponding secretary's contact information, we are not providing anyone with additional information - i.e. - no names of exhibitors, registrants or club membership lists.
I appreciate your contacting me and I hope that these facts clarify any misconception.
Best regards,
Dennis Sprung
President
Why Breed Bans Don't Work
Why Breed Bans Don’t Work
by Katharine Dokken
Hot in today’s news are story after story about various communities considering different types of breed specific legislation (BSL), better known as breed banning. In a nutshell, BSL bans ownership of certain breeds of dog.
The purpose behind this kind of legislation is to stop dog bites, dog fighting rings, and prevent ownership of vicious dogs. However, banning dogs based on nothing more than their breed, does not accomplish this. In many communities there are already laws on the books to deal with these issues.
Lets look at dog fighting first of all. It is illegal across the United States, a felony in 44 states. The criminals that run these rings know they are committing a crime so to expect them to care that ownership of the dogs is illegal is a huge stretch of the imagination.
When breeds are declared to be aggressive and are banned by a community, those who wish to own an aggressive dog will get a dog of another breed or a vicious mutt. Or as many of them already do, they will simply breed their own.
What about dog bites? Breed specific legislation has been shown to be ineffective and does not alter the overall incidence of dog bites. A study done in England found that making three breeds of dogs illegal (Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and Dobermans) did NOT decrease the number or severity of dog bites that occurred (Injury 1996 Vol. 27:89-91).
Besides the fact that BSL doesn't work, the laws are almost completely unenforceable. In Cincinnati, Ohio, during a ten-year period, the police department spent over $160,000 per year trying to enforce their Pit Bull ban. Among the many seized dogs were Boxers and Golden Retrievers. Many Animal Control officials cannot accurately identify the 800+ dog breeds in the world, let alone the 157 breeds recognized by the American Kennel Club.
With the Pit Bull ban in Prince George’s County, Maryland in place since 1997, dog bites by Pit Bulls or Pit Bull mixes have not gone down. German Shepherds and mixed breed dogs were both responsible for more dog bites than Pit Bulls.
Besides the enforcement side of this equation there is also the public health problem. Banning ownership of certain breeds would cause consequences to human safety. A breed ban would not eliminate these breeds. It would not stop individuals from desiring or acquiring the banned breeds. Rather, the owners of such breeds and the public would be placed at greater harm because the dogs would no longer be produced by reputable breeders who breed for good temperament and health but would instead be produced by underground breeders who deliberately breed aggressive dogs. Banned breeds would have no access to vaccinations and proper vet care - rabies vaccinations will not occur, making dog bites much more serious.
The biggest problem that BSL fails to address is that of personal responsibility. Any dog treated harshly, trained to attack, or not properly bred or socialized may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner is most often responsible -- not the breed.
Lest you think breed bans do not affect you since they aren't currently in place in your community, think about this. What if you go on vacation? Do you know if there is a breed ban in the area where you are going on vacation? Take for example the situation in Charleston, West Virginia. In early 2002, the Mayor announced a directive to police officers to shoot any dog running at large that displays any sign of aggression, and he released a plan to ban Pit Bulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers. Numerous incidents have since happened with Police Officers shooting dogs on sight. What if you are on vacation in the area and your dog gets away from you? And just because you may not have a BSL law on the books now, does not mean that you won't have one tomorrow. All it takes is one well-publicized or hyped dog bite case in your area and your family pet could be banned.
While Pit Bulls are at the forefront of breed banning discussions, it is not limited to Pit Bulls alone. Once you get a law on the books to ban a certain breed, it’s very easy to simply keep adding more breeds to the "outlawed" list. For example, In Cincinnati, Ohio, they banned American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers or their mixes as "pit bulls". In the discussion that followed during the hearings, city council members toyed with including other breeds on the list including: German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and Rhodesian Ridgebacks. Recently the Cincinnati law was overturned due to the huge expense of enforcement and several losses in court, one of which was when an owner of eight purebred American Bulldogs seized and declared to be "pitbull mixes" sued the city over his dogs seizure and won.
In order to cut down on vicious dogs in the community, authorities need to hold the owners responsible for their actions. Animal cruelty, vicious dog, running at large, and many other laws, already exist in most areas. Punish the deed, not the breed!
July 10, 2006 CALL NOW to VETO H2098
Have you called Governor Easley and asked him to veto H2098?
Please do NOT let PETA outnumber us! You can call if you live outside North Carolina. Five people in the Governor’s office are there to answer and log in calls. Veto or Pass H2098 is all they want to know. The numbers for the Governor are:
In North Carolina: 1-800-662-7952.
Outside of North Carolina: 919-733-4240 or 919-733-5811.
Webform to contact the Governor: http://www.governor.state.nc.us/email.asp?to=1
Synopsis of the bill, and link to the bill can be found at: http://www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html
PETA sent out a nationwide action alert urging people to support H 2098 – again calling it the hog/dog bill. NOWHERE in the bill is the word hog written!! The bill amends the current dog fighting law to include the baiting and fighting of dogs with ANY OTHER animal. This vague wording was intentional to make contact between animals in sports or work a Class H Felony. The only exemption is for activities for the lawful taking of animals under NC Wildlife Resource Commission regulations. If the bill was intended to outlaw hog/dog rodeos it should state that clearly.
H2098 will allow disinterested third parties, animal rights activists for example, to file a legal injunction, take possession of a citizen’s pets or other animals, place them in custodial care, and require the owner to pay for any an all expenses incurred - all of this PRIOR to any Judicial proceeding. If the defendant is found innocent there is no time limit within which his property must be returned. Further, the defendant is not given the choice of having a trial by jury.
Read the PETA spin about H2098 below.
PETA ALERT
Urge Governor to Sign Bill Criminalizing Hog-Dog Fighting!
North Carolina and its animals need your voice today. As you may know,
in so-called "hog-dog rodeos," pit bulls are turned loose to attack
confined pigs for the “entertainment” of onlookers. The hogs—who are
often rendered defenseless by having their tusks snapped off—sustain
serious injuries, including ripped ears and haunches, mangled noses, and
other gaping wounds. Legislation that would criminalize this sadism—
House Bill 2098—was passed by the North Carolina General Assembly
and sent to Governor Michael Easley on July 5.
Today, please urge Governor Easley to do the right thing and sign this
bill into law.
Below is the sample letter:
Subject: Please Sign HB 2098!
Dear Governor Easley:
I am writing to ask that you please sign into law House Bill 2098. If it
becomes law, HB 2098 would broaden the current prohibition against
dogfighting to include fights between dogs and other animals, such as
hogs. Those found guilty of offenses associated with such spectacles
would face up to three years in prison for the Class H felony crimes.
The bill would also require that defendants in cruelty-to-animals and
animal-fighting cases pay for the care of seized animals. Please sign
into law HB 2098 today. Thank you.
Sincerely,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)
www.ncraoa.com
We must hang together or we shall surely hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin
July 3, 2006 Putnam County, Tennessee-NEED HELP ASAP re BSL
Subject: [BSL56-UAOA] FW: [BSLWorkshop] Re: Putnam County, Tennessee-NEED HELP ASAP!!!
We need Tennessee people to step up to the plate on this.
There was an incident involving a HIGHLY UNSOCIALIZED, UNSOUND "pit bull" named Killer...who hurt an 8 year old boy badly. The owner then attempted to keep his dog by hiding it from police. This has put us ALL in a bad light, people!
Putnam County is now talking a ban.
We have a extraordinary "pit bull" advocate in Tennesse who has gone to bat for our breeds (ALL of them) every time a proposal is on the table. This girl writes, makes calls and keeps up a tremendous website for education about the breed and runs a fantasic rescue organization for our breeds.
When the last TN town brought up a ban...she was the ONLY person in TN who went to those meetings and did her best to stop it. Her heart was broken that there was such a lack of support to keep our breed safe at home.
I am asking that anyone-NO MATTER WHERE-in Tennessee step up to the plate and get involved. That means breed clubs, (any breed...look at the list of effected breeds in the US-no one is safe at this point!) trainers, behaviorists, animal control personel, breeders and responsible owners contact Jodi and get details and get a plan of action going to fight this. I am telling you I have watched 15 towns go down like dominoes in a neighboring state in this past month, and Tennessee will be NO DIFFERENT if this starts.
PLEASE, people of Tennessee...email Jodi and offer your help. There is strength in numbers and this is so very important. This is your opportunity to do something in your state. If you get this email...you have at some point expressed a desire to help fight BSL. Now is your chance to make a difference and fight for your breeds of choice. There are 34 places in the US right now that have some form of BSL on the table...we need every single person to help. I do not normally BEG, but I am doing so now. Jodi is a personal friend and a wonderful breed advocate and needs our help. Please dont let her down!!! Tennessee...stand up and be counted and contact her.
Jodi Preis jodi_preis@yahoo.com
Bless the Bullys
www.blessthebullys.com
Do justice to the orphans and the needy,
So man of the earth may oppress no more.
Psalm 10:18
http://www.cafepress.com/blessthebullys
Leisa Boysen
Director Iowa Alliance of Responsible Dog Ownership
BSLWorkshop
BSLWorkshop Website
Rott-N-Chatter Legislative Updates
ARC Liaison-Iowa
July 2, 2006 H2098 Passed - Call for VETO NOW
The bill passed the House June 30 (concurrence between House/Senate versions) and will be on its way to the Governor.
The amendment from Senator Snow exempted hunters from the fighting/baiting provision. The Wildlife Commission says the amendment also covers hunters for training situations as this falls under WRC regulations. However, if you work dogs *not* covered by WRC regulations for taking game, you are now at risk. By exempting a single class of owners in a single activity a distinction is made that owners of dogs working in venues outside WRC auspices are subject to Class H Felony charges. Stock dog work, herding, open field coursing and earth dog work could easily be construed as baiting and subject you to felony charges. With the strengthening animal rights movement today, laws have to be written absolutely clear so court interpretation is not needed.
The addition to the civil remedy provision in Statute 19A was a victory for animal rights activists and ALDF operating in NC. Now they can charge someone with cruelty, seize and relocate the animals, vet them (no limits are set) before the accused appears in court. While the third party provision is not new, it is unbelievable to allow private parties the right to violate your right to due process.
The remaining option is to voice your opposition to the Governor and ask for a Veto. Contact info for the governor’s office can be found on our alert page. http://www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html
Phone is preferable over fax or web form as it would likely be the faster method to be heard. Phone numbers: (919) 733-4240 or (919) 733-5811 (1-800-662-7952 valid in North Carolina only).
Make a call this week and ask Governor Easley to veto H 2098 Protection of Animals. We need to be vocal and we need the animal rights activists to know we are willing to fight. If not they will keep pushing one step at a time.
I hope that everyone has taken time to read Professor Reppy’s article, Citizen Standing: the North Carolina Experience. It is required reading if you want to understand the future agenda and stop animal rights infiltration into our laws. http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001151/ The article is also now linked on http://www.ncraoa.com/HSUS.html under heading for ALDF.
Educate your friends on the remaining problems with the bill. Whether the bill affects you personally is beside the point. Make that call to the Governor!
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)
www.ncraoa.com
July 1, 2006 VA Animal Rights Zealots, Your Dogs and the Next General Assembly
Dear Virginia Animal Owners,
Old Dominion dog owners suffered a horrific loss of privacy at the
hands of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and its allies during
the 2006 General Assembly session, when the nation's first publicly
accessible statewide dog owner database became law. This was an
important, precedent-setting bill for the animal rightists in their
campaign to control every aspect of animal ownership.
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/VETO_HB339.html
Our HB339's pet owner sterilization "encouragement" enforcement
mechanism using veterinarian supplied information has already been
incorporated in a revised Sacramento, CA ordinance requiring $150
intact licensing fees, a $100 spay-neuter differential and
microchipping for all dogs and cats. (See attachment). Similar high
fee intact pet sterilization incentive programs are in effect or
proposed elsewhere in California, Albuquerque, San Antonio and
across the country. A required dog owner database puts a dramatic
sting in these otherwise hard to enforce measures.
While HB339's database became law, when it was fully explained to
legislators, VHDOA was successful in knocking out several other well-
established AR goals from the bill. The dropped provisions included
higher statewide intact licensing costs, mandated spay-neuter
differential tag fees, required cat licensing, sterilization
penalties for untagged, unleashed dogs and public funding for
private AR sterilizations. Contrary to their awkward attempts to
rewrite history, the AKC's Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and
Breeders' (VFDCB) leadership and its lobbyist weren't "neutral" on
this legislation. They actively supported HSUS's bill until it
passed both General Assembly chambers in March and reached Governor
Kaine's desk.
The purpose of this message is to urge all Virginia pet owners to
work cooperatively and prepare to vigorously protect their interests
in the next General Assembly session. The ARs whipped our tails in
2005. It happened because we weren't united. Legislators were
confused. We simply must do better. In 2007, with a statewide dog
owner database in place, HSUS's Virginia clones are certain to
introduce bills to gain the higher licensing fees, differential and
cat licensing provisions that they were forced to give up in 2006.
They'll also attempt to regain the inappropriate, over-reaching
features removed from the new dangerous dog registry law. Mandatory
pet microchipping is the third probable AR initiative next session.
The message excerpt appended below is from the leaders of newbie
PETA wannabe Virginia Voters of Animal Welfare's (VVAW). VVAW
introduced more than a dozen anti-breeding bills in 2004-2006. Not
one of them survived. While animal owners may take some credit for
this result, VVAW's inability to work cooperatively with HSUS's
established clones is the principal cause of its failures. There's
good reason to believe that the Virginia anti's efforts will be
better coordinated from now on. I perceive little increased
willingness by pet owners to cooperate or coordinate their defense
to these obvious pending threats.
VFDCB member clubs at http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/vfdcb.html need
to reform their group's structure and management to ensure a more
professional, informed, studied and broadly coordinated response to
the continued assault on animal owners. The business as usual
approach has failed very badly and the losses tomorrow will far
exceed those of yesterday. If you wish to receive VHDOA alerts and
legislative updates designed to influence your General Assembly
member's key committee vote, please send your nine digit ZIP Code to
VHDOA.
Thank you. Forwarding and cross posting encouraged.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
http://vhdoa.uplandbirddog.com/
----------------------------------------------------------
6/8/06
VVAW-ers:
The 2006 session of Virginia’s General Assembly is over – except for
the budget.
This session was very interesting and, in some ways, productive.
We were fortunate to have many legislators in both the Senate and
the House of Delegates, both Republicans and Democrats – patron VVAW
bills. Some of our legislators hear us and are sensitive to the
issues regarding companion animals.
However, our bills were not passed, and so we will work toward the
2007 session.
While we had no bills passed, we believe our continued pressure on
raising license fees for companion animals, and pushing on the
dismal compliance with the state licensing requirement prompted
other legislation that was successful. We congratulate Del. Bobby
Orrock for the success of HB339 and look forward to seeing license
purchases climb dramatically, both before and after the bill goes
into effect in 7/2007. Finessing the veterinarians to join hands in
this surge to compliance was well done, and to get county treasurers
to bill and collect for licenses is no mean feat. Now we hope the
next step is a raise in the cap for licenses so that jurisdictions
can collect enough to be meaningful, earmarking funds from license
sales for the animals.
[clip]
As some of you may already know, Teresa Dockery is no longer
associated with Virginia Federation of Humane Societies or Spay
Virginia. We hope that this change will allow us another
opportunity to collaborate with our sister organizations.
[clip]
It has been a wonderful several years meeting and working with so
many dedicated people. Let’s keep at it.
Thanks.
Lillian Clancy and Don Marro
Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare
LSClancy@crosslink.net
540-592-3385
June 29, 2006 Riverside County Releases Details of Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchip Ordinances
Riverside County Releases Details of Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchip Ordinances
[Wednesday, June 28, 2006]
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has released the specifics of their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and mandatory microchip proposal. The measure will require all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered unless the owner qualifies for and purchases an intact animal license. A first violation of the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance can result in a fine of up to $250, and a second violation will result in a fine of up to $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail of up to six months.
Even though a narrow exemption is provided for show dogs, it is imperative that fanciers unite to oppose this measure. Once these ordinances are adopted, it is easy to revise them to severely restrict or even eliminate these narrow exemptions. Most every fancier can recall a year when they were unable to show every intact animal they owned. These ordinances are burdensome to all who love purebred dogs, and are detrimental to responsible owners and breeders.
To be eligible for an unaltered dog license, a dog must meet the criteria for a competition dog.” A “competition dog” must be registered with the AKC, UKC, ADBA or other valid registry approved by the Riverside County Department of Animal Services. Competition dogs must also meet one of the following requirements:
The dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting competition in the past year.
The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry as recognized by Riverside County Department of Animal Services.
The owner is a member of a purebred dog breed club, approved by the county, which maintains and enforces a code of ethics that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.
The dog is trained and used for herding of other livestock, or as livestock guardians, hunting dogs or such dogs “designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the Department after consultation with knowledgeable professionals.”
Dogs that are boarded in a licensed kennel, which boards and professionally trains such animals for use and resale.
Narrow exemptions are provided for dogs that are used by law enforcement agencies, service animals and dogs that have been certified by a veterinarian as being unable to be safely spayed or neutered.
A license can be revoked or denied by the department for any of the following; upon receipt of two sworn complaints, if the owner has been cited for any violation of a state or local animal control law, or if the dog is deemed dangerous. Owners whose applications are denied or whose license is revoked are entitled to a hearing, which would be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the animal control department.
Breeders are required to notify the animal control department within thirty days of a litter being whelped and must provide the name, address and telephone number of the new owner. All puppies must be microchipped prior to sale.
Riverside County is also considering a separate mandatory microchipping ordinance. All dogs and cats over the age of four months are required to be microchipped and the owner is required to provide that number to the Riverside County Department of Animal Services. Owners are required to notify the Department, as well as the national registry applicable to the chip, of any change in ownership.
The American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs if they do not want to participate in AKC conformation, field trial events or engage in responsible breeding programs. Through our public education department we support programs dedicated to educating the pet buying public on how to find a responsible breeder and how to make well-informed decisions when obtaining a dog. Such programs help to ensure that pet purchasers find a puppy or dog that is a good fit for their lifestyle, at an appropriate time in their lives, thereby increasing the likelihood that the animal will stay with the owners its entire life.
These methods, coupled with strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws) and increased public education efforts are the most effective ways to address irresponsible dog owners while at the same time reducing shelter numbers and improving public safety. To the contrary, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are extremely difficult to enforce, can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners, and punish responsible breeders who raise purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. They also negatively impact owners who keep intact animals not to breed, but to participate in conformation and performance events.
What You Can Do
Write a letter to your representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
To find out who represents you on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors please click here http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/
gis/gisbasicquery2.html.
Supervisor Bob Buster - DISTRICT 1 (Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1010
district1@rcbos.org
Lake Elsinore Office
2499 East Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 245-3330
Supervisor John F. Tavaglione – DISTRICT 2 (Vice-Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1020
district2@rcbos.org
Supervisor Jeff Stone – DISTRICT 3
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1030
district3@rcbos.org
Supervisor Roy Wilson – DISTRICT 4
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1040
District Office
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 863-8211
district4@rcbos.org
Supervisor Marion Ashley – DISTRICT 5
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1050
district5@rcbos.org
District Office:
14375 Nason St. Suite 207
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
Desert/Pass Office:
50290 Main St.
Cabazon, CA 92230
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, not to make a profit, but instead with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
June 28, 2006 What you should know about Louisville's 7th Draft of the Animal Control Ordinance
Pay attention further on down the language regarding sd's. also, a website is at the bottom.
What you should know about Louisville's 7th Draft of the Animal Control Ordinance
*No one will be able to sell any dog, cat, puppy or kitten, or any other animal without an expensive ANIMAL DEALER's license!
*Hunting and field trials, police dog demonstrations, tracking, herding, obedience and agility competitions will fall under both CIRCUS and THEATRICAL EXHIBITION provisions, requiring a permit, notice to MAS, and subject to strict rules.
*DANGEROUS ANIMAL, includes the following: mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils, hedgehogs, chinchillas, goats, rabbits, llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs, swine, racoons, squirrels ,opossums, deer and coyotes.
*The DIRECTOR of METRO ANIMAL SERVICES (MAS) is empowered to declare a dog dangerous or potentially dangerous. Appeals are made to the SECRETARY of PUBLIC WORKS, whose decisions are FINAL, and who has a FINANCIAL STAKE, in finding you GUILTY! And you CAN'T GO TO COURT!!!!
*7 BREEDS are specifically named DANGEROUS and specially regulated, requiring special enclosures, muzzling and short leashes, and liability insurance of $100,000 as well as an annual license fee of $100. Owners are required to complete an education course annually, as approved by the DIRECTOR.
*The DIRECTOR of METRO ANIMAL SERVICES (MAS) is empowered to determine whether YOUR DOG is a targeted breed. Appeals are made to the SECRETARY of PUBLIC WORKS, whose decisions are FINAL! And you CAN'T GO TO COURT!!!!
*TARGETED BREEDS must be spayed or neutered!
*NON-RESIDENTS OF Metro Lousville must REGISTER their TARGETED BREEDS when they enter the city.
*NUISANCE provisions in violation of KRS 82.710, and 411.
500-570 have been added which allow MAS to issue fines IF SOMEONE IS OFFENDED BY THE WAY YOUR DOG LOOKS!!!!
*If your dog damages a FLOWER or BUSH, IRRITATES or PERTURBS ANYONE, he can be declared a PUBLIC NUISANCE, requiring a SPECIAL ENCLOSURE and POSTING OF A SIGN!!!
*PUPPIES and KITTENS must be licensed AT BIRTH!
*ADS for puppies/kittens, cats or dogs MUST CONTAIN THE OWNERS LICENSE NUMBER.
*You can be FINED for REMOVING YOUR DOG'S COLLAR AT ANY TIME!
*YOUR DOG can be DECLARED DANGEROUS for biting a trespasser, despite protections in KRS 258.095
*The DIRECTOR of MAS is allowed to set regulations that have the FORCE and EFFECT of LAW, WITHOUT ANY REVIEW OR RESTRAINT!
*********ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS can SEIZE YOUR DOG even if the dog is ON LEASH, if they decide that you are not PHYSICALLY ABLE to control it. SERVICE DOGS WORKING FOR DISABLED HANDLERS CAN BE SEIZED UNDER THIS PROVISION!!!
*DOGS CANNOT BE THETHERED DURING THE DAY AT ALL!!!
What can YOU DO about this????
Contact your Council Member
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/metrocouncil?default/htm
(click on your CM'S name)
Don't know your Council Member? Find out at:
http://lousvilleky.gov/mylouisvillelink.htm
and to see the working copy of Louisville's Animal Ordinance changes: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/52EEE38B-BE6D-4848-B261-7A35643191A7/0/PROPOSEDDOGORDAMENDMENTS.pdf H8101 places breeders of 4+litters or 20 puppies into commercial category
In a message dated 6/28/2006 4:46:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, cmcgowan2@comcast.net writes:
This bill would essentially place breeders of more than 3 litters or 20
puppies in a category with commercial entities. Rhode Island people need to
get on these bills and get them defeated! There is an enormous need to form a federation and get some regular communication going in this state. One bad bill after the next goes through and people are unaware it is even
happening. Please cross post to anyone you know in RI.
Charlotte
RHODE ISLAND – Rep. Voccola’s H8101 will establish a consumer protection law for dogs. The bill exempts breeders that sell less than 3 litters or 20 puppies each year, whichever is greater. Requires the seller to make certain disclosures and provides remedies for illness up to twenty days after the sale and coverage for congenital defects within two years. H8101 has passed the House and will be heard by the Senate Constitutional and Gaming Issues Committee. NY Crop/Dock Bill Dead for 2006
American Kennel Club News Article
NY Crop/Dock Bill Dead for 2006
Date of Article: June 28, 2006
The New York State Legislature is now in recess, although they can be called back into special session at the behest of the Speaker of the Assembly or Governor Pataki. The recess signals the effective end to the proposed ear cropping/tail docking ban bill, A. 11242. Dog owners in New York and across the country are to be congratulated on their efforts to convince the legislature of the massive opposition to this bill. Following introduction of A. 11242, the bill was referred to the Agriculture Committee but was never scheduled for a hearing. The lack of action on this bill by the Agriculture Committee is an acknowledgement the impact of the concerted efforts of the dog community in opposing this legislation.
The 2007-2008 session of the New York Legislature will convene in January 2007 and the likelihood exists that some form of crop and dock ban bill could be introduced. It is imperative that New York dog fanciers utilize the recess period to contact their Assembly members to establish relationships with the legislators and encourage opposition to any crop/dock ban bill. Education of legislators is crucial to defeating repressive canine legislation.
The 2006 legislative recess does not signal the end of the fight over initiatives to ban cropping and docking. The purebred dog community must be vigilant and prepared for the next onslaught of negative canine legislation impacting the right to own and breed purebred dogs. The AKC Canine Legislation Department will continue to monitor legislative actions in New York and around the country and will alert the fancy upon the introduction of threatening legislation.
June 26, 2006 Albuqueque Ordinance Takes Effect August 22 - Passes 6-3 Vote
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST
Unless unchallenged through provisions of the Albuquerque City Charter, the
recently passed and signed HEART animal control ordinance for the City of
Albuquerque goes into effect on August 22 (HEART stands for Humane and
Ethical Animal Rules and Treatment). So many provisions in HEART are so
absurd, it is inconceivable that any city councilor who has ever owned a dog
or cat could vote in favor of such a law. But, it happened - it passed on a
6 - 3 vote and was signed by the mayor. It has been reported that it took 3
years to prepare the HEART ordinance. The ordinance has such obvious flaws
that one has to question what went wrong. Below is an overview of the
results of those 3 years of intense effort to prepare HEART.
HEART has trivialized animal cruelty to the extent that the concept of
cruelty is meaningless. Under HEART everyone who owns a cat or dog in
Albuquerque will at some time, violate the animal cruelty provisions of
HEART. For example, withholding water for any reason is ANIMAL CRUELTY
(including a tipped over water bowl, veterinarian instructions, or crating
overnight). HEART says that walking a dog on a lead that exceeds 8 feet is
ANIMAL CRUELTY. Animal crates for temporary use in homes will have to
exceed commercial standards for kennels. A crate, for a 66 pound dog to
sleep in at night, will require 24 square feet of floor space and must be at
least 3 feet high, anything smaller is ANIMAL CRUELTY. ANIMAL CRUELTY
includes PSYCHOLOGICAL pain (which is undefined). HEART specifies bird
perch diameters. Not meeting the diameter requirement is ANIMAL CRUELTY.
Failure to report running over a snake is ANIMAL CRUELTY. Furthermore, an
individual guilty of ANIMAL CRUELTY (for example walking a dog on a leash
longer than 8 feet) can no longer own an intact dog or cat.
HEART will require mandatory spay/neuter of all existing intact dogs and
cats over six months old unless a $150 permit is obtained for EACH intact
dog or cat (maximum of four permits). All puppies and kittens, unless
permitted, must be spayed/neutered by 6 months of age. However, the mayor
can declare a moratorium at any time for intact animal permits, in which
case intact animals could be seized and spay/neutered by the city. Pet
stores will no longer be able to sell dogs or cats. The city council, after
hours of debate, was successful in changing the term "dog toy" to "safe
product." Failure to provide such a product is a misdemeanor.
HEART repeals numerous sections of Albuquerque's current animal control
ordinance and adds new sections. Inexplicably, HEART repeals provisions for
Off Leash Dog Areas (Dog Parks) and the Animal Welfare Board -- no
provisions for either have been incorporated in HEART. Under HEART, letting
a dog run loose at a Dog Park will be ANIMAL CRUELTY.
The mayor has publicly announced that during his administration animal
activists are "in" and others with more moderate views are "out." By
passing HEART, the city council has supported the extreme ideologies
expressed by those animal rights activists who are "in." After three years
of development, those of us who had concerns about HEART were given just 90
seconds to address our issues to the city council. It's clear that the
mainstream has been cut out of the process.
HEART is based on false assumptions associated with extreme concepts of the
Animal Rights movement. The extreme Animal Rights ideas to be found in HEART
include numerous INVALID propositions (THESE IDEAS ARE JUST WRONG). Here
are examples:
- Albuquerque is NOT HUMANE AND COMPASSIONATE toward animals
- Albuquerque treats animals as LIFELESS chattel property
- Albuquerque residents COMMIT UNFETTERED, CALLOUS ACTS that cause pain and
suffering to animals
- Laws AGAINST CHAINING will help to ELIMINATE DOGS ROAMING at large
- Animal control has NO CHOICE BUT TO EUTHANIZE DOGS at the shelter
- CHAINED ANIMALS are more likely to RUN AWAY
- Albuquerque has an OVERWHELMING SUPPLY of animals that exceeds demand
- Crowding at the animal shelter (referred to as overpopulation) ENDANGERS
HUMANS
- STRICT LAWS WILL INCREASE COMPASSION toward animals
- GOVERNMENT must exercise complete control over dog and cat populations
- GOVERNMENT must identify and track every dog and cat, as well as its owner
- Except as permitted by the GOVERNMENT, every dog and cat must have its
reproductive capacity eliminated
- GOVERNMENT must establish arbitrary, generalized standards of animal care
that IGNORE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
- ANIMAL CRUELTY MUST BE REDEFINED TO INCLUDE TRIVIAL ACTS such as walking a
dog on a leash longer than 8 feet
- ANIMAL CRUELTY, even when trivialized to leash length and bird perches, is
ASSOCIATED WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE, CHILD ABUSE, AND ELDER ABUSE
- Dog and cat permit fees that could exceed $600 PER YEAR FOR A HOUSEHOLD
are in the public interest and DO NOT OVERLY BURDEN responsible owners
Every one of the ideas from HEART, as listed above, is blatantly false. It
is inconceivable that elected officials of Albuquerque could actually accept
and act on such an extreme, irrational set of assumptions. City government
has simply failed to act responsibly. A public referendum is the only
remaining alternative offered by the Albuquerque City Charter to overturn
HEART.
The Albuquerque City Charter has a provision that would allow HEART to be
put to a vote by the people of Albuquerque. Albuquerque voters could
overturn HEART and nullify action by the City Council and the Mayor. By
July 20 a petitions with 17,458 signatures of Albuquerque registered voters
(20% of the number who voted in the last election) must be submitted to the
City Clerk to force a public referendum on HEART. The City Charter only
allows a narrow 35-day window to submit the required signatures. The short
time is an overwhelming constraint. If the required signatures are
submitted, the City Charter requires a referendum within 90 days.
A "Rescind HEART" petition drive is under way to gather the required
signatures to force a referendum. The "Rescind HEART" petition drive is an
unfunded, grassroots effort that is attempting something that, as someone
recently noted, has never been tried before anywhere in the country for a
animal law that has been passed and signed.
Many residents of Albuquerque are unaware of either HEART or its provisions.
Once it is explained, people are ready to join the petition drive. However,
given the deadline of July 20 gaining support by word of mouth may be too
slow to meet the petition deadline. Furthermore, media spin has supported
HEART and it will take time for the public to realize what is actually in
the ordinance. Others in Albuquerque don't understand that action is even
possible under the City Charter to overturn HEART.
The challenges are immense and the situation demands unusual measures.
There are only 25 days (including three weekends) left to get the required
number of signatures.
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NEW MEXICO AND NATIONWIDE SUPPORT ARE NEEDED TO ASSURE
THAT THE PETITION DRIVE IS SUCCESSFUL. YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP AND FINANCIAL
SUPPORT ARE NECESSARY AND ARE APPRECIATED. ANY LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS WILL PAY
FOR DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSING OF NEIGHBORHOODS TO GATHER SIGNATURES.
Contributions of $25 or more must meet the reporting requirements called for
in the Albuquerque City Charter for a political campaign, so please contact
me directly. Contributions of LESS THAN $25 can be mailed directly to the
address shown below.
All contributions should be made out to "Rescind HEART."
The use of PayPal or other electronic means to accept contributions is being
investigated. Please visit the website (see Resources and then Support) for
updates.
For more information on the "Rescind HEART" petition drive please visit:
http://www.icare-usa.org
The following are available on the website:
- Official petition for signature of Albuquerque registered voters
- Return instructions for petitions
- HEART ordinance (67 pages)
- Current Albuquerque ordnance that HEARTchanges
- Flyers
- Other information about HEART
Thank you for your help.
Ronald A. Gustafson
Chairman
Rescind HEART
Measure Finance Committee
ron.gustafson@worldnet.att.net
505-864-3513
ADDRESS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
:
Rescind HEART
c/o Ronald Gustafson
PO Box 576
Tome, NM 87060
June 22, 2006 Sacramento County, CA Considers $150 Intact Animal Fee
Sacramento County, CA Considers $150 Intact Animal Fee
[Thursday, June 22, 2006]
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will meet July 18th to discuss a proposal to adopt a $150 intact animal fee. The proposed ordinance also sets up a reduced $50 intact animal permit for those who meet certain conditions, establishes a $10 fee to transfer an animal over the age of four months, and requires all dogs and cats to wear a suitable collar or harness with the license tag attached. Fanciers and concerned dog owners should contact their representative on the Board of Supervisors immediately to oppose this burdensome measure!
The following fees and requirements would be instituted:
A $15 license fee for sterilized dogs and cats
A $150 license fee for each intact animal
A $50 reduced intact animal fee for qualifying show animals
A $10 fee to transfer an animal four months or older
To qualify for the reduced $50 intact animal license, you must meet ALL of the criteria:
The dog or cat must be registered with the American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, International Cat Association, the Cat Fanciers or other valid registry as approved by the Department.
Participates in at least one event sanctioned by a national registry and approved by the Department within the previous 12 months or prove that the dog or cat has achieved a title from a purebred dog or cat registry. In the event that an owner can not show proof that the animal has been shown in the previous 12 months, the Department shall have the discretion to determine whether this subsection has been met.
The owner does not breed the animal. In order to breed the dog or cat, a $150 intact animal permit would need to be obtained.
Fanciers should not be fooled by these narrow exemptions – this is a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and will negatively impact all animal owners. Once restrictions like this are in place, it is easy to narrow them even further, possibly excluding the low priced license altogether. These high fees also make it cost prohibitive for many people to participate in the sport of purebred dogs and in the end punish responsible owners simply for choosing to keep their animal intact.
Exemptions are provided for dogs being used by law enforcement and for animals that are certified in writing by a veterinarian as not being suitable subjects for sterilization.
The new ordinance would also define a commercial establishment as “a place where commodities are exchanged, bought, or sold. This shall include but not be limited to pet stores or other commercial businesses selling animals.” It is unclear what ramifications this could have for responsible hobby breeders who sell puppies from their homes. Many communities have regulations prohibiting commercial activities in areas that are zoned residential. Therefore, if a hobby breeder selling a litter out of their home was considered to be a “commercial establishment,” this could be devastating to responsible breeders in Sacramento County.
When offering animals for sale the license number of the bitch or the license number of the animal (if over four months) must be posted in any advertisement. Commercial establishments are required to post the license number of the animal being bred, the source of origin (if outside the county) and the license number of the animal if it is over four months of age. Auctions and sales of animals in public places are prohibited. For the sale of an animal that was bred outside the county the seller must provide the county with a California health certificate. The sale of a puppy or kitten will not be considered complete unless the seller physically transfers custody to the new owner.
Another new provision will require veterinarians to provide to the county the name, address and phone of number of any owner whose dog or cat receives a rabies vaccination. They are further required to report the name, age, sex, reproductive status and breed/color or the animal as well as information about the vaccine itself. Veterinarians who fail to comply with these provisions will be fined between $50 and $250.
Residents who fail to license their pets will be assessed a fine of $300 per animal for a first offense and $500 per animal for subsequent offenses. Fines of $500 per animal for the first offense and $1000 per animal for subsequent offenses will be charged for an unlicensed animal that is bred. Violators, including those who fail to list a license number on an advertisement, will be fined $100 per animal for a first offense and $500 per animal for subsequent violations.
Enactment of this ordinance would be devastating to responsible hobby breeders in the county. If these proposed breeding regulations are enacted, small breeders may be forced out of existence, denying puppy purchasers a conscientious, knowledgeable source of purebred dogs. Additionally, hundreds of fanciers who show but do not breed their unaltered animals will be penalized and may be forced to discontinue their participation in the sport. Your immediate assistance is needed to fight this legislation!
What You Can Do:
Attend the July 18th Board of Supervisors meeting.
3pm
Sacramento County Administration Center
700 H Street, Room 1450
Forward this alert to other dog owners and ask them to send letters. We need everyone’s help to defeat this restrictive legislation!
AKC urges dog owners to contact their county supervisor and express their opposition.
District 1 - Roger Dickinson
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
dickinsonr@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5485 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 2 - Illa Collin
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
Collini@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5481 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 3 - Susan Peters
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
susanpeters@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5471 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 4 - Chair, Roberta MacGlashan
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
macglashanr@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5491 (916) 874-7593 FAX
District 5 - Vice Chair, Don Nottoli
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento CA 95814
nottolid@saccounty.net
(916) 874-5465 (916) 874-7593 FAX
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
For more information, contact:
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
Joan Gibson Reid
Jgcorgis@aol.com
June 21, 2006 San Antonio Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Breeder Permits
San Antonio Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Breeder Permits
[Tuesday, June 20, 2006]
The San Antonio City Council is considering a 5-Year Strategic Plan that includes mandatory spay/neuter and breeder permits, as well as creation of a bill of rights for animals. The plan was generated by the San Antonio Animal Care Services Advisory Board and will be presented to the city council at the June 29th meeting. Fanciers and concerned dog owners are needed to attend the meeting and oppose these proposals.
Breeder licensing fees place undue burden on responsible breeders and owners and fail to address the irresponsible individuals who do not comply with existing law and will not comply with new regulations. Such fees therefore punish responsible breeders who give the care and attention that puppies need in order to grow into healthy, well-adjusted companions and neighbors. Responsible local breeders also provide a support system to new owners; assisting them with housebreaking, training questions, behavior issues and basic new puppy care inquiries.
The AKC believes the answer to population issues is strict enforcement of leash and nuisance laws, rather than passage of new burdensome regulation. The key to resolving this issue is to implement and expand the wide range of programs available to educate the public about responsible breeding and animal ownership practices.
AKC also has serious concerns about establishing a bill of rights for animals. AKC supports the best premises of animal welfare but does not believe that animals have legal rights. Pets may be special members of our families, but they are unable to take responsibility for their actions. Bestowing legal rights on them is the first step in a larger campaign to end pet ownership and breeding altogether.
However, aside from the mandatory spay/neuter proposal and the bill of rights for animals, AKC wishes to applaud the advisory board for many of the initiatives contained in the most recent draft. AKC is particularly pleased to see the outreach and educational plans and the proposals to increase owner retention. The Animal Care Service Advisory Board pursuit of alternative sources of funding is also innovative and will be beneficial in supplementing the animal service budget. AKC looks forward to working with local dog owners to help San Antonio find effective and reasonable solutions to its animal control challenges.
For AKC’s talking points on opposing mandatory spay/neuter, please click here.
What You Can Do:
Attend the City Council meeting June 29th at 9am.
Municipal Plaza Building
103 Main Plaza
San Antonio, Texas 78205
Please contact the Mayor and your City Council member and ask them to oppose these portions of the strategic plan.
Mailing address for all City Council Members:
City of San Antonio
PO Box 839966
San Antonio, TX 78283
Mayor Phil Hardberger
Phone: (210) 207-7060
Fax: (210) 207-4168
mayorphilhardberger@sanantonio.gov
District 1, Roger Flores, Jr
Phone: (210) 207-7279
Fax: (210) 207-7027
rfloresjr@sanantonio.gov
District 2, Sheila McNeil
Phone: (210) 207-7278
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district2@sanantonio.gov
District 3, Roland Gutierrez
Phone: (210) 207-7064
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district3@sanantonio.gov
District 4, Richard Perez
Phone: (210) 207-7281
Fax: (210) 207-7027
rperez@sanantonio.gov
District 5, Patti Radle
Phone: (210) 207-7043
Fax: (210) 207-7027
pradle@sanantonio.gov
District 6, Delicia Herrera
Phone: (210) 207-7065
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district6@sanantonio.gov
District 7, Elena Guajardo
Phone: (210) 207-7044
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district7@sanantonio.gov
District 8, Art Hall
Phone: (210) 207-7086
Fax: (210) 207-7027
district8@sanantonio.gov
District 9, Kevin Wolff
Phone: (210) 207-7325
Fax: (210) 207-7027
kwolff@sanantonio.gov
District 10, Chip Haass
Phone: (210) 207-7276
Fax: (210) 207-7027
chaass@sanantonio.gov
The following city officials also have considerable influence over the development of the Strategic Plan and fanciers are asked to send them a copy of the correspondence that is sent to city council members.
City Manager Sheryl Sculley
Phone: (210) 207-7080
Fax: (210) 207-4217
cm@sanantonio.gov
Deputy City Mgr Pat DiGiovanni
Phone: (210) 207-6912
Fax: (210) 207-4122
PDiGiovanni@sanantonio.gov
Asst. City Manager Frances Gonzales
Phone: (210) 207-2200
Fax: (210) 207-4122
francesg@sanantonio.gov
June 8, 2006 UPDATE Riverside Cty Public Hearings
Riverside County, CA Holds Public Meetings Regarding Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposal
[Tuesday, June 06, 2006]
Update!
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services has announced they are cancelling the remaining three meetings on the proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance until a draft can be finalized by county counsel. AKC thanks the many fanciers and concerned dog owners who attended the meeting on Saturday and we will post further information as soon as it is available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Monday, June 05, 2006]
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services has announced that it will hold four public meetings to discuss a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. The ordinance is expected to go before the Board of Supervisors in July. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners attend these meetings and educate the community about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
Although a draft is not yet available, the Animal Services Department has provided limited details. According to the county web site, exemptions will be granted for the following animals:
Service animals i.e. guide dogs, police dogs
Working dogs, for example herding dogs
Registered breed stock, AKC, Cat Fanciers Association etc.
Sporting or show dogs and cats
Animals boarding and training at licensed facilities.
The ordinance will define the terms "owner", "custodian", "competition dog", and "animals which are incapable of breeding." AKC has concerns about the use of the term "custodian," as it appears to be similar to the term "guardian." The AKC believes that the term guardian may in fact reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for dogs. The American Kennel Club supports the use of the term "owner" rather than "guardian" when referring to the keeping of dogs.
The proposed ordinance will not raise license fees. Current license fees for altered dogs are as follows: $8 for one year, $15 for two years and $19 for a three year license. A one year license for an unaltered dog is $50, a two year license is $100 and a three year license is $150.
What You Can Do
Attend one or more public meetings.
Saturday, June 3, 2006 – 10am
Riverside County Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
Wednesday, June 7, 2006 – 6pm
Noble Creek Community Center (revised location)
38-900 Oak Valley Pkwy, Beaumont
Thursday, June 8, 2006 – 7pm
Murrietta City Council Chambers
26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta
Saturday, June 10, 2006 – 10am
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert
Write a letter to your representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
To find out who represents you on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors please click here http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us
/gis/gisbasicquery2.html.
Supervisor Bob Buster - DISTRICT 1 (Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1010
district1@rcbos.org
Lake Elsinore Office
2499 East Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 245-3330
Supervisor John F. Tavaglione – DISTRICT 2 (Vice-Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1020
district2@rcbos.org
Supervisor Jeff Stone – DISTRICT 3
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1030
district3@rcbos.org
Supervisor Roy Wilson – DISTRICT 4
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1040
District Office
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 863-8211
district4@rcbos.org
Supervisor Marion Ashley – DISTRICT 5
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1050
district5@rcbos.org
District Office:
14375 Nason St. Suite 207
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
Desert/Pass Office:
50290 Main St.
Cabazon, CA 92230
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, not to make a profit, but instead with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
June 5, 2006 ALBUQUERQUE EMERGENCY: ONLY 35 DAYS TO FORCE TO A PUBLIC VOTE ON ANIMAL RIGHTIST ORDINANCE
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.
Dear SAOVA Friends,
The animal rightist's most virulent virus has overtaken Alburquerque, New Mexico and threatens to spread statewide. The City of Alburquerque has passed sixty pages of revised animal ordinances that include a requirement that you sterilize your pet or pay $150 annually, breeder fees and other outlandish restrictions. Please support the referendum effort to put this radical set of ordinances to a citizen vote. Kindly forward this message to everyone that you know in the State of New Mexico. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald A. Gustafson"
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: ALBUQUERQUE EMERGENCY: ONLY 35 DAYS TO FORCE TO A PUBLIC VOTE ON ANIMAL RIGHTIST ORDINANCE
A referendum petition aimed at Albuquerque registered voters has only 35 days to garner enough valid signatures (17,458) to refer the so-called HEART (Albuquerque's Humane and Ethical Animal Rules and Treatment) ordinance to an "up" or "down" vote in Albuquerque. Drafted over three years by City Councilor Sally Mayer with the help of AR groups and passed by six of nine city councilors after months of delays followed by heated public hearings, the bloated and burdensome HEART ordinance becomes Albuquerque City law upon the signature of a seventh individual, the Mayor, who has publicly declared his intention to sign. The city charter then allows only 35 days and requires 17,458 valid signatures to petition for the right to force HEART to a vote by the Albuquerque electorate. A "down" vote would override the city council and the mayor. It will be necessary to collect 25,000 to 30,000 signatures to be assured of having the required number of valid signatures. If HEART is not stopped, it will affect the entire State of New Mexico.
WE NEED HELP - LOTS OF IT - TO GET SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN
ALBUQUERQUE.
The Albuquerque ordinance contains the usual (and usually absurd) AR provisions (no leash longer than eight feet permitted, "premises shall be kept in such a way that no animal has the opportunity to get splinters from wooden boards" or that "a motor vehicle operator who strikes a [skunk or a lizard] shall immediately call 911"), but absurdities become serious business, when you realize that under HEART, the charge for being caught
using a flexi-lead or for failing to report hitting a skunk is ANIMAL CRUELTY and you're left to explain an animal cruelty conviction to the AKC or UKC or on your next employment application or security clearance. No
doubt the AR will then point to the rising "animal cruelty" convictions to justify further onerous and intrusive provisions in subsequent ordinances.
The HEART Ordinance would also require an ANNUAL fee hike from $25 to $150
for each intact animal.
Of greater concern, however, is that the fee would no longer be defined as a "license" fee, but rather a "permit" and would allow the city to inspect the residence of the permit holder "upon reasonable notice." A Litter Permit (valid for six months) with a $150 fee is also required for each pregnant animal.
That the fees are far out of context with the New Mexico economy (compare them to the $60 intact animal fee recently passed in Los Angeles) is of concern, but by far the gravest concern is that the ordinance empowers the Mayor to issue at will a "moratorium" on permits. With pet stores under
HEART prohibited from selling dogs and cats and with a moratorium declared on Litter Permits, the AR will have obtained their goal of making shelter animals the only legally obtainable pets within the city of Albuquerque. A moratorium on Intact Animal Permits conjures up an even more nightmarish scenario. With Intact Animal Permits good for only one year what happens to the law-abiding, conscientious exhibitors, whose dogs and addresses are known to the City, when due to a moratorium their Intact Animal Permits cannot be renewed??
Ron Gustafson, ron.gustafson@worldnet.att.net, phone 505-864-3513, is spear-heading the petition drive. Contact him directly for information or for copies of the petition. The petition and ordinance are also posted on the New Mexico Animal Control Forum discussion group, in the FILES section - under the HEART Referendum Petition folder (both as JPEG and PDF). To access the FILES section, please request to join the list.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VCNM_Animal_Control_Forum/
ALL HELP IS NEEDED AND APPRECIATED!!
June 1, 2006 Riverside County Holds Public Meetings Regarding Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposal
Riverside County Holds Public Meetings Regarding Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposal
[Thursday, June 01, 2006]
The Riverside County Department of Animal Services has announced that it will hold four public meetings to discuss a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. The ordinance is expected to go before the Board of Supervisors in July. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners attend these meetings and educate the community about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
Although a draft is not yet available, the Animal Services Department has provided limited details. According to the county web site, exemptions will be granted for the following animals:
Service animals i.e. guide dogs, police dogs
Working dogs, for example herding dogs
Registered breed stock, AKC, Cat Fanciers Association etc.
Sporting or show dogs and cats
Animals boarding and training at licensed facilities.
The ordinance will define the terms "owner", "custodian", "competition dog", and "animals which are incapable of breeding." AKC has concerns about the use of the term "custodian," as it appears to be similar to the term "guardian." The AKC believes that the term guardian may in fact reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for dogs. The American Kennel Club supports the use of the term "owner" rather than "guardian" when referring to the keeping of dogs.
The proposed ordinance will not raise license fees. Current license fees for unaltered dogs are as follows: $8 for one year, $15 for two years and $19 for a three year license. A one year license for an unaltered dog is $50, a two year license is $100 and a three year license is $150.
What You Can Do
Attend one or more public meetings.
Saturday, June 3, 2006 – 10am
Riverside County Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
Wednesday, June 7, 2006 – 6pm
Beaumont Civic Center
550 East 6th Street, Beaumont
Thursday, June 8, 2006 – 7pm
Murrietta City Council Chambers
26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta
Saturday, June 10, 2006 – 10am
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert
Write a letter to your representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
To find out who represents you on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors please click here http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us
/gis/gisbasicquery2.html.
Supervisor Bob Buster - DISTRICT 1 (Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1010
district1@rcbos.org
Lake Elsinore Office
2499 East Lakeshore Drive
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
(951) 245-3330
Supervisor John F. Tavaglione – DISTRICT 2 (Vice-Chairman)
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1020
district2@rcbos.org
Supervisor Jeff Stone – DISTRICT 3
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1030
district3@rcbos.org
Supervisor Roy Wilson – DISTRICT 4
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1040
District Office
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 863-8211
district4@rcbos.org
Supervisor Marion Ashley – DISTRICT 5
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
(951) 955-1050
district5@rcbos.org
District Office:
14375 Nason St. Suite 207
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
Desert/Pass Office:
50290 Main St.
Cabazon, CA 92230
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, not to make a profit, but instead with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
May 18, 2006 NY Crop/Dock Action Center
Assemblywoman Sandy Galef has introduced A. 11242, a bill to prohibit ear cropping and tail docking. It is imperative that New York fanciers and concerned dog owners contact their representatives immediately to oppose this legislation.
A person found guilty of tail docking would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be sentenced up to one year in jail and/or fined up to $500. Ear cropping would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1000.
In order to show or compete in any event, including conformation, field trials, performance events and companion events, an owner will have to prove that the dog's tail was docked prior to September 1, 2006 or the surgery was performed in another state.
Finally, the bill sets up a private right of action that would allow any dog owner or animal rights organization to sue a person who violates this section. Therefore an animal rights group could sue a breeder, owner or veterinarian under this proposal.
A. 11242 has been assigned to the Assembly Agriculture Committee, but a hearing date has not been announced. AKC will be posting new information as it becomes available. Please watch our web site for additional updates. To read the bill in its entirety please click here. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A11242&sh=t
Points to Consider:
When appropriate veterinary care is provided, ear cropping and tail docking are safe, acceptable practices.
Owners, in close consultation with their veterinarians, should make informed decisions about their pets' health care - not the government.
Once legislators determine they can ban certain elective procedures, they may be just a short step away from removing veterinarians' and owners' rights to make informed decisions about animal care and treatment.
What You Can Do:
Fanciers should immediately contact their own Assemblymember and ask him or her to oppose A. 11242. To find out who represents you in the New York State Assembly, click here:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/. It is critical that legislators hear from their own constituents!
Purebred dog owners should also contact their veterinarians and urge them not to support A. 11242. Point out that veterinarians should be concerned about allowing the government and public opinion too much control over their practices.
Share this information with other fanciers and dog clubs. We need everyone's help!
Print and Distribute Call to Action Flyer on A. 11242 (color flyer) (black and white flyer).
Your voice is especially important if your representative sits on the Assembly Agriculture Committee May 17, 2006 Pit Bull Ban Opponents Petition City
http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4914883&nav=2CSf
Richland 05/16/06
Pit Bull Ban Opponents Petition City
By Roslyn Anderson
roslyn@wlbt.net
Owners of pit bulls in Richland are petitioning aldermen to reconsider its pit bull ban.
Meanwhile, Jackson city leaders are learning more about one councilman's plans for a breed specific ordinance.
Opponents of Richland's pit bull ban asked the board of aldermen to reconsider the breed specific law that goes into effect June 1st.
Chris Pena, President of the Magnolia Canine Club, asked the board to allow them to present an alternative to the ban.
He says the media is the number one problem pit bulls have.
Pena said, "If you hear about a dog bite on the news it's gonna be a pit bull bite. You don't hear about your labrador retrievers. You don't hear about your huskies. You don't hear about the other breeds of dogs that attack people."
Mayor Mark Scarborough said the board is open to an alternative proposal.
Scarborough said, "The total deal with us is the safety issue and we're not gonna sit back and wait and have to react to something happening and if education and working with these owners improve things, yes we're willing to look at things."
The board adjourned following the pit bull discussion, a few miles away in Jackson , Ward three Councilman Kenneth Stokes was introducing an ordinance to regulate pit bull ownership.
Stokes said, "It's going to make sure that people who own pit bulls are recognizing there is a safety issue that must be observed and they must realize that these animals in so many cases are vicious."
Ward One Councilman Ben Allen said, "Pit bull owners that are responsible know that there's a problem. They know it and I've gotten many many e mails Mr. Stokes from responsible pit bull owners, but we have a problem. So this will get contentious. It's gonna get emotional, but I support you. I think it's what we need to do."
The ordinance will be discussed by council members in the upcoming planning committee.
That planning meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m
Electronic Tagging Of Cattle To Prevent Disease Outbreaks Tested
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060517081931.htm
Source: Tennessee Technological University
Posted: May 17, 2006
Yahoo: Save to My Web
del.icio.us: Save This Page
Electronic Tagging Of Cattle To Prevent Disease Outbreaks Tested
While some large farms may already be using personal computers for herd management purposes, a federal plan to implement a mandatory tracking system by 2009 to help limit outbreaks of contagious livestock diseases could make it necessary for farms of all sizes to become more technologically advanced.
Tennessee Tech University’s School of Agriculture plans to be ready to help small local farmers make that transition when the time comes.
Already, the ears of TTU’s cattle are being tagged with individually numbered electronic identifications that can be scanned in the field with a wand that uses wireless Bluetooth technology to transmit specific information about each animal to a personal computer, where that information can be read and updated.
“Right now, many farmers don’t individually identify their livestock at all,” said Bruce Greene, associate professor of agriculture at TTU.
Tennessee alone, however, has a cattle population of about 2 million, and those cattle move in and out of the state rapidly, to and from various locations across the country.
“Because a calf can move through as many as six or seven different locations before it goes to slaughter, it makes sense — for a number of reasons — to have a federal tracking system in place,” Greene said.
“Anywhere along the way, an animal can be exposed to a contagious disease like foot and mouth, which is little harm to people but which can decimate an industry,” he continued. “Being able to trace an individual animal’s movements would help to significantly limit the effects of such a contagion.”
An even greater advantage than health implications of such a system could be simply an increase in consumer confidence, both nationally and internationally, Greene said.
For instance, out of approximately 700,000 head of high risk cattle tested in the United States since the implementation of the present testing program in 2003, only three animals have tested positive for mad cow disease, which affects the central nervous system and can be deadly to both animals and people who eat infected meat.
“That’s a very low percentage, and they’ve all been older animals who likely wouldn’t have made their way into our food chain, anyway,” Greene explained. “About 80 percent of our beef comes from cattle younger than 3 years old.”
The fear of mad cow disease, though, is disproportionate to the threat. Since 2002, for example, the percentage of U.S. beef exported to Japan, which was then our main international beef consumer, has decreased drastically from 34 percent to only 3 percent in 2005.
The percentage exported to South Korea, our third main international beef consumer in 2002, fell from 27 percent that year to only .2 percent in 2005.
“Within that same timeframe, our total beef exports have decreased from 2,238 million pounds to only 580 million pounds — about a quarter of what it was only a few years ago,” Greene said.
Other advantages of a federal livestock tracking system include possible early detection of bio-terrorism and an immediate outlet for farmers to enter and retrieve individual animal records.
A number of tracking options are being considered, including an internal tracking chip or tracking tags such as the ones used on TTU’s cattle.
“For livestock like poultry and hogs that are more likely to be bought and sold in groups, a group identification number is likely to be the best option,” Greene said.
Farmers who are already accustomed to tagging their cattle’s ears for sales, though, might better respond to the kind of system already being used at TTU. “Why not combine a national tracking system with a management program to help the producer?” Greene suggested.
Regardless of how the tracking system is implemented, however, it will assign a 15-digit number to each animal. That number will be made up of 3-digit sections that identify the animal in descending order from least specific information, such as country and state of origin, to most specific information, such as the exact farm from which it originated.
Officials clash over dog warden plan
http://www.chroniclet.com/Daily%20Pages/051606local2.html
Officials clash over dog warden plan
Joseph Medici
The Chronicle-Telegram
LORAIN — You’re safe from vicious dogs on the streets of the city, according to the Lorain safety service director.
“Right now we have better protection in every ward then we ever had when we did the work on our own,” Miller said, discussing a plan to have the county handle dog warden duties full-time. “This deal would make our service even better.”
That’s news to Councilman David Wargo, D-1st Ward.
“Obviously, you’ve never been in my ward,” Wargo told Miller on Monday during a Lorain City Council meeting. “I’ve never seen a county vehicle picking up a single animal, and we have dogs all over the place.”
A month after the Council voted to allocate funds for a dog warden, the issue is still in doubt as Miller and Mayor Craig Foltin battle with the Council over the use of contracted county wardens.
Since laying off its warden in 2005, the city has been served by the county warden and a new ordinance proposed by Miller would use the funds Council allocated to beef up that service, providing for a full-time warden specifically monitoring the city.
During Monday’s meeting, Miller asked Council to allow him to enter into negotiations with the county, a move Council members and a union representing city employees oppose.
“This is just another attempt to outsource work,” said Councilman Eddie Edwards, D-5thWard. “Why can’t we keep the work in-house?”
Mary Ivan-Garza, president-elect for the United Steelworkers Local 6621 representing city workers, said in a May 12 letter to Council that the position is not customarily contracted out and therefore is subject to the labor contract.
Ivan-Garza, who was out of the state and could not be at the meeting, said in the letter the union would fight any action taken and would file a suit against the city it moves forward with the outsourcing plan without a union OK.
Lorain Law Director Mark Provenza assured Council members the city would enter into a bargaining agreement with the union if the city were to carry on with the county, but the council continued to inquire about the nature of the ordinance.
“Why is this even on our agenda,” Councilman Anthony Krasienko, D-at large, asked. “You don’t need this Council’s approval to negotiate a contract. We approve the contract once it’s negotiated.”
The ordinance was put on the agenda in order to gauge Council’s feeling toward it, Provenza said.
If the council does not like the ordinance, Provenza said, the city would be better off not wasting time negotiating and bargaining.
Miller and Provenza received no such response, however, as Council voted to put the ordinance back into the law director’s hands for further review. Snappy discussion ... Dog owners, city officials talk about banning vicious breeds
http://www.starherald.net/articles/2006/05/17/news/news1.txt
By Daniel Townsend
news@starherald.net
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:21 AM CDT
[See the attached file] [See the attached file]
A number of Kosciusko residents came to City Hall Tuesday night to voice their opinion on the possibility of banning vicious dog breeds.
Frankie Aughtman has owned pit bulls for five years and said he has never had one snap or bite at anyone. "If you raise a dog wrong, they'll snap," he said.
Jason Tubby, who owns three pit bulls, agreed with Aughtman, saying, "I believe it's up to the owners, how they treat them. My dogs are not aggressive."
Pit bull theft is also becoming a problem in Kosciusko, said Jacob Dylan, who had four pit bulls, but is now down to two due to theft. "I love my dogs," he said. "I think a pit bull is a great animal if you raise them right."
Animal control officer David Busbea said four pit bulls have been stolen from the pound recently. Busbea said that since he's been animal control officer, there have been three dog bites reported, none of which were from pit bulls.
A number of citizens complained about barking dogs keeping them awake at night and dogs running around loose.
Doc Wynne demanded that the board do a better job of making sure people are keeping their dogs confined. “If a pit bull kills or maims one of my grandchildren, the board will have blood on their hands,” he said.
Alderman Henry Daniel reminded the public that everyone who owns a pit bull is to have $50,000 of liability insurance on the dog.
"Whatever is decided, it needs to be enforced fairly," Busbea said. "There's no way we can satisfy everybody."
May 14, 2006 UPDATE ON PREMISES AND LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION
How many of you have horses and other livestock? This is a national movement by the USDA...here is just a snipet from an Arkansas producer....I have heard mention that they might be including dogs as livestock, so could be included in this in the future...FYI.....Mary
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14574.html
UPDATE ON PREMISES AND LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION
May 14, 2006 10:21 AM EST
By Jane Williams
On January 23, 2006, I called the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission (ALPC) offices in Little Rock and requested that they send me a copy of the regulations for premises identification and animal identification. Within minutes of hanging up my phone, Executive Director of the ALPC Phil Wyrick called to discuss the regulations with me. I explained that I did not want to hear an explanation, but that I wanted a copy of the regulations to read and interpret for myself. He then informed me that the Arkansas regulations have not been written. He could not provide me with an approximate date when the writing of the regulations will be completed.
Right now the ALPC is attempting to get all livestock owners to register their premises in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines. Once the premises identification is completed, 15 digit livestock identification devices can be issued to the premises owner. Beginning January 1, 2008, all livestock entering the commercial market or being co-mingled with livestock from other farms must bear the designated identification device. The premises identification number will be a 7 digit number that is based upon Global Position System (GPS) information. Those premises that do not have a 911 address can request the ALPC to send some one to their farm to take a GPS reading which will become their address for premises identification. Tracking of livestock will begin on January 1, 2009.
I personally have problems with being asked to participate in this premises and livestock identification program when the regulations which I will be required to follow have not been written. Mr. Wyrick kept using the term “voluntary participation”. I told him that the use of the term “voluntary” was mere propaganda, because if I did not participate in the premises identification program that I would not be allowed to sell my livestock. Some choice—get premises ID or sell out.
Because the Arkansas regulations have not been written, there are many rumors floating around about the premises and livestock identification program. States are establishing their regulations based upon USDA guidelines. Texas regulations may be quite different from what the Arkansas regulations end up being. The USDA has no legal jurisdiction over my farm or any other farm. It has issued guidelines that the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission has foolishly bought into and accepted federal funding to finance the ID program. We can work through the Arkansas House and Senate Agriculture Committees to insure that the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission regulations are not too burdensome for those who choose to participate in the program to save their livelihood.
Mr. Wyrick was an extremely articulate man who seemed to be interested in the financial welfare of the small livestock producer. He told me that the average cattle producer in Arkansas has 27 head of animals and an average age of 57-58. There are approximately 60,000 livestock producers in the state and about 5,000 of them have applied for premises identification at this time. He emphasized that he believes that the identification program is necessary to combat animal diseases that might be spread by terrorists, other diseases, and to keep export markets open to U.S. beef. How ever well intentioned Mr. Wyrick may be, it is my opinion that he has bought into the globalist propaganda on terrorism, livestock disease, and international free markets. He has no idea what globalism or the New World Order is all about. He considers them of a political nature and his job, according to him, does not involve politics. I was able to provide him with Mark Purdey’s name and web site in the hope that he, as a large livestock producer, would review the evidence that mad cow disease most probably occurs as a result of the use of organophosphates which cause excess manganese and inadequate copper supplies in the body which allows prion damage in the brain.
Please realize I am merely reporting what Mr. Wyrick told me. The written regulations could end up being quite different, unless we insure that the regulation development is monitored by members of the General Assembly. Since ALPC has no intention of presenting any legislation to the General Assembly, General Assembly members must take the initiative and use their over site or approve legislation so that an appointed committee does not force additional onerous regulations upon livestock producers.
As told to me by Mr. Wyrick, livestock that do not leave a farm will not be required to be identified. If livestock is transported to a veterinarian, then an ID might be required. Plans are being made so that those who do not have the physical facilities or abilities could utilize services of the ALPC, a sale barn, or a veterinarian to attach the animal IDs. Regulations will be different for different animal species. Co-mingling of livestock, such as at sale barns, fairs, and trail rides of a specific number of horses would require animal ID, but a fence downing causing co-mingling would not be considered as co-mingling for purposes of required animal ID or reporting. Mr. Wyrick impressed me as taking a common sense view of the ID issues. He does not plan on the regulations requiring reporting livestock births or deaths. He explained that there are plans for imported livestock to be identified, and that the USDA ID program will track animals to the packer. The FDA will then assume responsibility for tracking the carcass. He anticipates that the cost of the ear tags designated for cattle will cost about $3.00 each. RFID implants will be used on horses. Individuals maintaining livestock for home enjoyment or food will not be required to have a premises identification number or tag their animals if those animals do not leave the premises. If those animals are taken to a slaughterhouse for processing, then in all probability animal identification will be required.
All livestock producers need to become informed and involved in the premises and livestock ID program. I personally believe that it is a waste of time and money to attempt to accomplish its stated purposes, and I am very concerned about the program’s unstated purposes as reported by John Seymour. Many believe this program will bring an end to livestock production as we know it and open the door for more corporate agriculture. Hello Fascism. The ID program has been implemented in Australia, and the reports that are filtering back into the U.S. indicate that it is a complete flop. Tracking every animal butchered has proven beyond the capabilities of their program. Ranchers in western portions of the U.S. are reported to be running GPS recorders off of their properties. Groups around the nation are organizing to refuse to honor the USDA guidelines. In the meantime, most Arkansas livestock associations and many producers are falling all over themselves to support the ID program. Most informed livestock producers do not object to their livestock being identified at the time of sale. What we object to is being issued a federal premises identification that basically becomes a permit to sell livestock. You must offer your opinions to your General Assembly members and especially to the members of the Agriculture Committees. Folks this is super serious. If you do not raise livestock, you probably eat meat. If independent U.S. livestock producers are forced to stop production, you can expect to see higher priced meat, lower quality meat, and less meat available for your consumption.
All commercial livestock producers will be forced to make a decision whether to participate in the ID program or not. The article by John Seymour, WAKE UP FARMERS, published in the February, 2006, AFV will provide information that may assist you in making your decision. I have determined for myself that I will not have a federally issued premises identification, because I do not want the federal government to have any rights regarding my farm. That is also why I do not have a 911 address or participate in any federally funded agriculture programs. That means that by January 1, 2008, under present USDA guidelines that Arkansas plans to follow, that I will be forced to liquidate my cattle herd since after that date, I would be in violation of the “regulations” if I sold them. Home of the brave—land of the free—where are you? How long will it be before humans are required to have identification devices to purchase food, or gasoline, or to attend a public school? Will people stand up for their rights then, or will they continue to accept the abolition of freedom?
Contact Information: Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission, Phil Wyrick, Executive Director, P.O. Box 8505, Little Rock, Arkansas 72215, Phone: (501) 907-2400, FAX: (501) 907-2425.
Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky Dog Ordinance
CROSSPOSTED
The latest proposed Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky Dog Ordinance revision will outlaw field trial events &/or training or, basically, any event or training not affiliated with the AKC. The appointed 'task force' has been meeting for the past two months. The membership of the task force to study this issue is not balanced. There is no UKC representation, only one AKC representative and the rest are Humane Society personnel, the Director of Animal Control who drafted this frightenting ordinance and the two Council persons he convinced to push it through.
The entire ordinance is forwarded below. The Ordinance is incredibly long, convoluted and written in a way that demands the reader to read the entire ordinance to be able to pick out the cross-references and possible sanctions. Please read this and consider its effects. Please contact all Council persons and tell them the exisitng task force was not a legitimate representation of canine enthusiasts or canine working groups. The specific concerns for hunting, herding, coursing or any field trial event or training are:
91.0001 Definitions of a "Theatrical Exhibition" which id defined as any show, trial or event not affiliated with the AKC (that means no UKC events allowed).
91.084 (E), (F), (G) and (H) Theatrical Exhibitions, which include any event not sanctioned by the AKC (only the AKC has a representative on the committee). The proposed ordinance reads:
<<"(E) No animal shall be made to perform by means of any prod, stick, electrical shock, chemical or physical force, or by causing pain or discomfort."
(F) No animal shall be caused to fight, wrestle, or be physically matched against any other animal or person. (Thus, no hunting, herding, etc.)
(G) No animal shall perform or be displayed in any dangerous situation, such situation presenting the danger of physical injury to the animal or person.
(H) The Division must be notified of all displays or performances, including date, time, and exact location at least 48 hours in advance of a display or performance.
91.054 The definition here of "fighting" or "combat between animals" which could be construed to include bite work, hunting, herding, coursing, field trial dogs
91.076 Class C Kennel and fencing requirements (8 foot with anti-climbers) for any guard, sentry or obedience work." (Obedience must be performed behind an 8 foot fence)
It still contains breed specific sections with severe negative impact for Bull Terrier type dogs:
91.0001 Definitions, Pit Bull
91.0201 through 91.0206, they insist this is not Breed Specific Legislation? These regulations can easily be expanded, breed by breed, in the future.
Please help preserve the health and well being of the dogs in Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky. At the very least, email &/or call the Metro Council representatives. Contact information is at:
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/MetroCouncil/default.htm
Please pass this on to all UKC members and canine enthusiasts,
Heidi Sanner
Draft #5 - 4 April 2006
Ordinance No. __________, Series 2006
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 91 OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT CODE OF ORDINANCES [LMCO] PERTAINING TO ANIMAL CONTROL AND WELFARE [COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE].
Sponsored By: _____________________________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT [THE COUNCIL] AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. LMCO Chapter 91 is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
§ 91.001 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
ANIMAL. Any living creature, domestic or wild, including livestock, poultry, pet rodents, pet birds and vermin.
ANIMAL CONTROL or (ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION) or (DIVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION) or (DIVISION). Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Department of Animal Services.
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. Persons designated by the Metro Government as the primary enforcement officers of ordinances regulating animals and owners of animals, and for the enforcement of sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes pertaining to the cruelty to animals.
ANIMAL DEALER. Any person engaging in the business of buying and/or selling any animal or animals for the purpose of resale to pet shops, research facilities, another animal dealer, including the sale of any animal from any roadside stand, booth, flea market or other temporary site. (Persons buying or selling animals fit and destined for human consumption and any person involved in the sale of an occasional sale litter or animal on a random basis are is not included in this definition). Animal dealers are also subject to the provisions of §§ 91.050 through 91.062 and 91.078 of this chapter
ANIMAL_DRAWN VEHICLE. Vehicles with four or more wheels.
ANIMAL SHELTER. Any premises designated and/or operated by the Metro Government for the purpose of impounding and caring for animals held under authority of this chapter.
APPROVED RABIES VACCINE. Any vaccine approved as effective by the Kentucky Department for Human Resources for protecting an animal from contracting rabies.
ATTACK. An unprovoked attack in an aggressive manner on a human that causes a scratch, abrasion, or bruising, or on a domestic animal that causes death or injury that requires veterinary treatment.
BOARDING KENNEL or CATTERY. Any establishment where dogs, cats, puppies, or kittens are kept for the purpose of boarding for any part of a 24_hour period. This includes veterinary hospitals and clinics or grooming shops that advertise boarding services other than for treatment, diagnostic, or recuperative purposes, or for grooming.
BOARDING STABLE. Any facility for boarding, livery, training or riding school or any facility which maintains horses or ponies, mules, don_keys or burros for the purpose of housing, feeding, riding, training, driving or riding lessons, whether gratuitously or for a fee and/or which advertises these services by the use of a sign, billboard or by placing an advertisement in newspapers, on bulletin boards or in any other publication excluding licensed pari_mutuel facilities.
BONA FIDE FARMING OPERATION. The operation and maintenance of a farm, situated on ten contiguous acres or more of land used for the production of livestock, poultry, poultry products, dairy, dairy products, or horticulture products or for the growing of crops such as, but not limited to, tobacco, corn, soybeans and wheat.
CAT. Any domestic feline four months of age or older.
CIRCUS. A resident or non_resident variety show which features animal acts. A circus shall not include resident or non_resident dog and cat shows sponsored and/or sanctioned by the American Kennel Club, the United States Kennel Club, the American Cat Fanciers Association, the Cat Fanciers Association or any affiliate thereof, nor shall it include any primary horse show.
CLASS A KENNEL or CATTERY. Any establishment where dogs and/or puppies or cats and/or kittens are kept for the primary purpose of breeding, buying, or selling such animals and which establishment is so constructed that the dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens cannot stray therefrom. The Class A Kennel or Cattery license shall apply to up to ten dogs or cats and shall require an additional Class A Kennel or Cattery license for each increment of up to ten dogs or cats.
CLASS B KENNEL or CATTERY. Any establishment where dogs, puppies, cats, or kittens are kept for the primary purpose of showing (including but not limited to field trial competition, hunting trial competition, herding, conformation, and obedience competition) and which establishment is so constructed that the dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens cannot stray therefrom. The primary purpose shall be determined by verifying the participation of one or more of the housed animals in a sanctioned competition in the preceding 12 months. The license shall apply to up to ten animals. Animals in excess of ten shall be licensed individually.
CLASS C KENNEL or CATTERY. Any establishment where dogs or puppies are kept for the primary purpose of training for guard, sentry, field, obedience, whether gratuitously or for a fee. A Class C Kennel may also offer boarding services if the boarding occurs at the same location with no additional boarding kennel license required.
CRUELTY. Failing to provide adequate food and water; failing to detect the need for or withholding veterinary care; creating or allowing unhealthful living conditions; infliction of pain, injury, or death to an animal by striking, beating, dropping, kicking, dragging, choking, or by the use of an object or weapon; causing pain, injury, or death by means of caustic, flammable, boiling, or heated substances; causing suffering, injury, or death by suffocation or drowning; failure to provide health related grooming.
DANGEROUS ANIMAL. Any warm_blooded mammal which is known to carry or be susceptible to the rabies virus and which cannot be effectively vaccinated against that virus with any vaccine approved by the Kentucky Department of Human Resources. A dangerous animal includes any hybrid animal or any pet wildlife which has attacked a human or which is apprehended or observed un_restrained.
DANGEROUS DOG. Any dog, which when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner commits a severe attack on any person.
DIRECTOR . The Director of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Department of Animal Services
DOG. Any domestic canine four months of age or older.
DOMESTIC. Any animal whose physiology has been determined or manipulated through selective breeding and does not occur naturally in the wild, and any animal which may be vaccinated against rabies with an approved rabies vaccine, and any animal which has an established rabies quarantine observation period.
DWELLING UNIT. Either a single room or two or more connected rooms sold or leased as a unit and intended for occupancy by one or more persons, and which at a minimum contains sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities which are accessed independently from any similar such facilities in the same building. This term includes hotel or motel rooms, extended stay lodging facilities, nursing home rooms and assisted living units.
ENCLOSURES.
(1) ENCLOSURES FOR DOGS AND PUPPIES.
(a) Enclosures for dogs and puppies shall be a fence or structure of sufficient height and construction to prevent the animal from leaving the owner's property. The fence or structure must be in good repair and fit to ground level or a fabricated structure that prevents the animal from digging out. Gates and doors must fit properly and must be locked or secured by a latch that prevents the animal from opening the gate or door.
(b) Property enclosed by a buried wire which produces a signal received by a device attached to a collar worn by the dog or puppy which prevents the animal from leaving the property of the owner will be considered a proper enclosure, provided the device and signal are working and the animal does not leave the property unrestrained. Such property must be clearly marked with a sign prescribed by the Division, posted next to the driveway or entry to the property. The enclosure must contain proper shelter from the weather. This type of enclosure is not acceptable for a female in heat or for pit bull dogs. An unrestrained dog(s) that attacks a dog restrained by this method may not be charged with being a POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG as defined in this chapter.
(2) ENCLOSURES FOR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS AND DANGEROUS DOGS. Enclosures for potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs shall be an uncovered fence or structure at least seven feet in height, installed beneath ground level or in concrete or pavement, or a fabricated structure, to prevent digging under it, and with a gravel or concrete floor, sufficient in size to allow the dog to stand, sit, and turn around in a natural position, and which allows for an adequate exercise area for the size/breed being kept. Either enclosure shall be designed to prevent the entry of children or unauthorized persons and to prevent those persons from extending appendages inside the enclosure. The enclosure must contain proper shelter from the weather. A "DANGEROUS DOG" sign prescribed the Division must be posted at the entry to the property.
EXOTIC SPECIES. Any animal born or whose natural habitat is outside the continental United States excluding non_venomous reptiles and fish.
HUMANE SOCIETY. Any organization existing for the purpose of the prevention of cruelty to animals and incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
KITTEN. Any domestic feline younger than four months of age.
LICENSE FACILITY. Any facility and/or business operation or person designated by the Metro Government pursuant to § 91.020 of this chapter to issue licenses required by this chapter and/or provide applications thereto.
LIVESTOCK. Horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, fillies, ponies, sheep, rams, lambs, bulls, bullocks, steers, heifers, cows, calves, mules, jacks, jennets, burros, goats, kids, swine and confined and domesticated hares and rabbits.
METRO COUNCIL. Legislative Council of the Metro Government.
METRO GOVERNMENT. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.
MICROCHIP. A passive transponder which can be implanted in an animal and which is a component of a radio frequency identification (RFID) system. Such system must be compatible with a scanner used by the Division.
OCCASIONAL SALE. Any sale of a single animal or a single litter of not exceeding two puppies, kittens or otherwise which sale is on a random, unsystematic basis and does not exceed the sale of one animal or one litter over a 12_month period, except that any sale of a pit bull dog shall not be deemed and occasional sale.
OWNER. Any person owning, keeping or harboring animals in Jefferson County.
PERSON. An individual, partnership, association, company, firm, business or corporation.
PET BIRDS. Any tamed or domesticated bird kept caged or within doors.
PET RODENTS. Hamsters, gerbils, wood_ chucks, mice or similar rodents which are kept as domesticated or tamed animals and which are kept caged or within doors at all times.
PET SHOP. Any person engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling at retail or as a broker of animals of any species for profit_making purposes.
PIT BULL DOG. Means and includes any of the following dogs of any age:
(1) The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dogs; and
(2) The American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dogs; and
(3) The American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dogs; and
(4) Dogs that have the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier and that conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, or American Pit Bull Terriers.
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG.
(1) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner bites, scratches, or bruises any person.
(2) Any unrestrained dog which, when unprovoked, bites, injures, or kills another domestic animal while that animal is restrained in compliance with this chapter.
(3) Except as exempted in § 91.110(B).
POULTRY. All domesticated fowl and all game birds which are legally kept in captivity.
PUPPY. Any domestic canine younger than four months of age.
QUALIFIED PERSON. Any person granted a permit by the Division to vaccinate their own dogs or cats against rabies.
QUARANTINE. Humane confinement of an animal in a secure enclosure which enclosure prevents the animal coming into unplanned contact with any other animal or human being.
REASONABLE HOURS. The normal business hours of any establishment or business regulated by this chapter.
RESTRAINT. (1) For all animals except puppies and dogs, RESTRAINT shall mean on the premises of the owner or, if off the premises of the owner, under restraint by means of a lead or leash and under the control of a responsible person.
(2) For puppies and dogs, RESTRAINT shall mean on the premises of the owner and confined in a secure enclosure as previously defined, or accompanied by the owner on the owner's property and under his/her direct control. If off the premises of the owner, the animal must be restrained by a lead or leash and under the control of a responsible person or, except for pit bull dogs, accompanied by a responsible person into an enclosed "off_leash" area designated by the Kentucky Department of Parks and in conformance with all regulations and/or requirements imposed as a condition of utilizing such "off_leash" area by such Department of Parks, or its designee.
(a) It is prohibited to exclusively restrain a dog or puppy by a fixed_point chain or tether. A fixed_point restraint may be used temporarily but not to exceed one (1) hour in a twenty_four (24) hour period.
(b) A dog may be exclusively restrained by a chain or tether provided that it is at least ten (10) feet in length and attached to a pulley or trolley mounted on a cable which is also at least ten (10) feet in length and mounted no more than seven (7) feet above ground level.
(c) Any tethering system employed shall not allow the dog or puppy to leave the owner's property.
(d) No chain or tether shall weigh more than 1/8 of the dog or puppy's body weight.
(e) Any chain or tether shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and have swivels on both ends.
(f) Any chain or tether must be attached to a properly fitting collar or harness worn by the animal.
(3) Standards and requirements for restraining dogs shall be as set forth in § 91.051.
(4) In addition to the requirements of Section 2, above, under this definition, RESTRAINT for pit bull dogs shall mean:
(i) that such dogs are at all times securely muzzled when off the premisis of the owner. The muzzle shall be made in such a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration, but shall prevent it from biting any human or other animal; and
(ii) that owners of such dogs shall not allow the dog to be outside and enclosure as defined in this chapter unless the dog is confined to a secure cage, or is chained, leashed, and is muzzled, and is under the control of a person physically able to restrain the dog.
(iii) that a lead or leash for a pit bull dog shall not exceed five feet in length.
(3) (5 All livestock weighing more than 40 pounds, except horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, fillies, ponies, miniature horses, mules, jacks, jennies, goats, kids and sheep, must be kept on tracts or lots of at least .5 acres or more.
(4) (6 Horses, stallions, colts, geldings, mares, fillies, mules, jacks and jennies must be kept on an individual tract, lot, or parcel (as defined in the Land Development Code) of at least one acre or more; except that the Louisville Zoo, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Police Department and the Kentucky Derby Museum shall be exempt from this requirement.
(5) (7) All livestock shall be confined by a fence in good repair sufficient to prevent the animal(s) from leaving the owner's property. Livestock found not restrained by a fence in good repair and which present a threat to public safety may be removed and the owner charged with a violation of this section.
(6) (8) All crowing and non_crowing poultry must be kept on tracts or lots of at least .5 acres or more, unless a tract or lot is on less than .5 acres and only houses five or less non_crowing poultry, and no more than one crowing poultry in accordance with the remainder of this subsection. All crowing and non_crowing poultry shall be kept in a fence or structure of sufficient height and construction to prevent the animal(s) from leaving the owner's property. The fence or structure must be in good repair. All gates or doors to the fence or structure shall fit properly and shall be locked or secured by a latch.
SECRETARY. The Secretary of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Cabinet for Public Works and Services.
SEVERE ATTACK. An unprovoked attack in an aggressive manner upon a human in which the victim suffered a bite(s) or was shaken violently, and which caused serious physical trauma or death.
THEATRICAL EXHIBITION. Any exhibition or act featuring performing animals. Such exhibitions shall not include resident or non_resident dog and cat shows which are sponsored and/or sanctioned by the American Kennel Club, the United States Kennel Club, the Cat Fanciers Association, American Cat Fanciers Association or any affiliate thereof nor shall it include any primary horse show.
UNALTERED ELEPHANT. Any elephant that has not been spayed or neutered
UNFIT FOR PURCHASE. Any disease, deformity, injury, physical condition, illness or any defect which is congenital or hereditary and which would adversely affect the health of the animal, or which was manifest, capable of diagnosis or likely to have been contracted on or before the sale and delivery of the animal. For purposes of this chapter, veterinary findings of internal and external parasites shall not be grounds for declaring the animal unfit for purchase unless the animal is clinically ill due to such condition. An animal shall not be found unfit for purchase on account of injury sustained or illness contracted subsequent to the consumer's taking possession thereof.
VACCINATIONS. The injection by a veterinarian or other qualified person of rabies vaccine approved by and administered in accordance with the regulations of the Kentucky State Board of Health.
VETERINARIAN. A licensed practitioner of veterinary medicine, accredited by the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners.
VETERINARY HOSPITAL. Any establishment maintained and operated by a licensed veterinarian on the premises for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and injury to animals and/or for the hospitalization of animals for diagnostic or recuperative purposes.
WILDLIFE. Any animal which occurs naturally in a wild state. This includes any animal which is part wildlife.
ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN. Any park or zoo operated by a person or private corporation, but excluding any governmental agency or foundation..
§ 91.002 RESTRAINT REQUIRED.
All animals shall be kept under restraint at all times, as defined in this chapter, except as otherwise provided herein, and any deviation or violation thereof is strictly prohibited.
§ 91.003 CONFINEMENT OF ANIMAL IN HEAT.
Every female dog or cat in heat shall be confined in a building or secure enclosure in such manner that such female dog or cat cannot come into contact with another animal except for a planned breeding.
§ 91.004 OWNER TO CONTROL ANIMALS; NUISANCES PROHIBITED.
No owner shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her animals so as to prevent the following actions: excessive or continuous barking, crowing, or howling, molesting of passersby, chasing of vehicles, attacking domestic animals, trespassing upon school grounds or private property, or damaging property of any nature.
§ 91.005 EXHIBITION OF WILD OR VICIOUS ANIMALS.
No person or private corporation shall keep, or permit to be kept, on his premises any wild or vicious animal for display or for exhibition purposes, whether gratuitously or for a fee. This chapter shall not be construed so as to apply to a zoological garden, theatrical exhibition, or circus, as defined in § 91.001 of this chapter.
§ 91.006 NON_APPLICABILITY TO NON_RESIDENTS.
Sections 91.001 through 91.097 requiring a license shall not apply to non_residents of Jefferson County who are keeping or harboring only domestic pets, provided that animals of such owners shall not be kept in Jefferson County longer than 30 days and that the animals shall be kept under restraint. No non_resident shall, however, keep any pet in Jefferson County over the age of four months that has not been vaccinated against rabies with an approved rabies vaccine.
§ 91.007 INTERFERENCE WITH ENFORCEMENT PROHIBITED.
No person shall in any manner interfere with, hinder, molest, or abuse any officer or individual authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
§ 91.008 KEEPING OF WILDLIFE.
(A) No person may possess:
(1) Any nonhuman primate.
(2) Any venomous or poisonous reptile, amphibian, or insect. Venomous reptiles which were in private possession prior to March 10, 1988 may be retained by the owner but may not be transferred. The owner shall be responsible to provide proof that the specimens were in the owner's possession at the time of passage. Each venomous reptile must be registered with the Division. Each owner must apply for, and receive, a permit from the Division allowing retention of the specimens. Each animal must be provided adequate space and diet, and a clean and healthful environment. Each permit shall include all specimens kept and must be renewed each July 1.
(B) Any person possessing wildlife of the orders listed in subsection (C), in addition to all other requirements of this chapter must comply with the following regulations:
(1) Obtain a permit from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources where required by state statute.
(2) Apply to and receive from the Division a permit for each animal. Each permit must be renewed every July 1 and is not transferable.
(3) Each permit application must be accompanied by a health certificate from a veterinarian stating that the animal is free of symptoms of infectious disease or is under treatment. A new health certificate must be provided each time the permit is renewed. If there is an approved rabies vaccine available for the species being kept, proof of a valid vaccination must be presented annually with the health certificate.
(4) Before the permit can be issued, the facility where the animal is to be kept must be inspected by the Division. Each enclosure must provide adequate exercise area and sleeping quarters. Proper temperature control and ventilation for the particular species must be provided in both areas. Each enclosure must be kept locked and designed so that no one can enter or place appendages in the enclosure. Each enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent the animal from escaping. Each enclosure must be kept in good repair to prevent both escape and injury to the animal. Each enclosure must have a water container which is secured so as to prevent its being overturned. Each enclosure must be disinfected daily. Surfaces must be of an impervious material to allow for disinfecting. Owners keeping wildlife as pets inside their residence are not required to provide for the requirements of subsection (B)(4), except that there must be separate sleeping quarters. The animals must
remain in the owner's home or in the prescribed enclosure, if outdoors. If transported to the veterinarian, it must be kept in an escape_proof cage.
(5) Each animal must be provided with continuous clean water and must be fed a minimum of twice per day a diet approved by a veterinarian.
(6) Any animal which has bitten or scratched someone must be immediately surrendered to the Division for euthanasia and testing by the Department of Health. A live test approved by the Department of Health may be substituted for euthanasia.
(7) Any person who sells or trades these animals must, in addition to the above regulations, obtain an animal dealers license.
(C) Orders regulated by this section (examples provided in parentheses). For the purposes of this chapter, animals included in these regulations promulgated by the Division shall include the European Polecat (ferret) or any hybrid animal which is part wildlife:
(1) Marsupials (Opossums, kangaroos, etc.);
(2) Chiroptera (bats);
(3) Endentata (anteaters, armadillos);
(4) Rodentia (porcupines, squirrels); and
(5) Carnivora (wolves, lions, bears, skunks, raccoons, ferrets).
(D) This chapter does not apply to domestic dogs, puppies, cats, kittens or gerbils, hamsters, or guinea pigs or domestic rats or mice.
(E) No owner or person shall show or display in public, whether gratuitously or for a fee, any reptile, amphibian, or any order of wildlife regulated by this chapter unless the owner or person has obtained the appropriate license.
(F) The standards set forth in this chapter also do not apply to:
(1) Any zoological garden accredited by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums;
(2) Appropriately licensed theatrical exhibitions or circuses;
(3) Federally licensed research institutions;
(4) Any government agency or its employees who use the animals for an agency related education, propagation or behavior program; or
(5) Anyone holding a valid rehabilitation permit from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, but only for animals that are in rehabilitation and scheduled to be released to the wild.
(G) Any owner of any type of swine which is kept as a pet and is not part of an agriculture livestock production operation shall have the animal(s) implanted with a microchip identification. The owner shall also register that identification information with the Division and obtain a Swine Permit.
§ 91.009 KEEPING OF DANGEROUS ANIMALS PROHIBITED.
No dangerous animal as defined in this chapter shall be kept within Jefferson County.
§ 91.010 FEE SCHEDULE.
(A) Effective dates. The fee schedule set forth in this section is the amended initial schedule of fees which shall be effective on the first day of the month following the month in which §§ 91.001 through 91.097 are adopted effective date of the ordinance amending and re-enacting this Chapter 91. Proposed amendments to this schedule may be submitted at any time by the Director of the Department of Public Protection, or the Director of any Cabinet, Department, Division or other unit of Metro Government to which the Division of Animal Control and Protection has been assigned. The fee schedule, in whole or in part, may be amended by the Director with the approval of the Secretary. Any new or revised fees will become effective on the first day of the month following the month in which the an amended fee schedule is adopted approved by the Secretary.
(B) Exemption. No license or permit shall be required for any veterinary hospital which does not advertise boarding services, municipal animal control facility, university_operated medical research facility, or governmental_operated zoological garden. No license or fee is required of any certified physical assistance dog; documentation of the certificate shall be supplied upon request.
(C) Animal Control Building Fund. Pursuant to KRS 68.125, there is hereby established a separate building fund to be known as the "Animal Control Building Fund" for the future building needs of Metro Government Animal Control and Protection. The Department of Finance shall create a separate account for said fund into which shall be deposited $1 collected by Animal Control or other license facility for the issuance of each license and $5 from each violation and control notice fee collected by the Division. Any donations or bequests received from the public for the future building needs of Animal Control shall also be deposited in this account. This fund shall become effective the first day of the month following the adoption of this chapter. The amount of said fees contributed to the fund shall remain in effect until amended by the Metro Council.
(D) Animal control and protection fee schedule [NOTE: The fee schedule is under revision and to be submitted by the Administration].
§ 91.011 SANITARY DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL FECES REQUIRED.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any owner or person in charge of a dog, cat, or other four_footed mammal, poultry or other fowl to permit such animal to be on school grounds, metro parks or other public property, or on any private property other than that of the owner or person in charge or control of such animal without the permission of the owner of said property, or on any streets, sidewalks, highways, or rights_of_way of the Metro Government other than duly designated bridle paths, without the owner or person in charge of such animals to have in his or her possession, a suitable device for the picking up, collection and proper sanitary disposal of the animal feces or manure. Equine animals being used for recreational purposes are exempt.
(B) It shall be unlawful for the owner or person in charge of a dog or cat, or other four_footed mammal, poultry or other fowl to permit or allow such animal to excrete manure or feces on school grounds, metro parks or other public property, or on any private property other than that of the owner or person in charge or control of such animal without the permission of the owner of said property, or on any streets, sidewalk, highways, or rights_of_way of the Metro Government other than duly designated bridle paths, unless the owner or person in control of such animal immediately removes all feces deposited by such animal and disposes of same in a sanitary manner. Equine animals being used for recreational purposes are exempt.
(C) This section shall not apply to blind or visually impaired persons accompanied by a "seeing eye" dog used for their assistance.
LICENSES, PERMITS AND VACCINATIONS
§ 91.020 DOG AND CAT LICENSES.
(A) Effective upon passage of this chapter and from that day forward, every owner of an animal who resides or whose animal resides in Jefferson County and who is regulated by this chapter shall apply to the Division or license facility designated by the Mayor, for the appropriate license. Individual dog and cat licenses shall be issued in conjunction with a valid rabies vaccination certificate. and shall be valid for one year from the date of that vaccination and must be renewed annually during that same month. Licenses and rabies vaccinations shall be required for each dog or cat four months of age or older. License tags and rabies vaccination tags shall be firmly attached to a harness or collar worn by the animal at all times when the animal is off the premises of the owner.
(B) Except for pit bull dogs, animals kept temporarily (not in excess of 30 days unless granted an extension by the Division) for the purpose of breeding or showing shall not require an individual dog or cat license provided the owner has proof of a current rabies vaccination.
(C) Licenses issued for dogs and cats which have not been spayed or neutered shall be valid for one year from the date of the rabies vaccination and shall be renewed annually during the same month of issue. Licenses issued for dogs and cats which have been spayed or neutered shall be valid for the lifetime of the animal.
(B) (D) The cost of an individual Unaltered Dog or Cat License shall be $35 unless amended by the Metro Council as provided in § 91.010. In addition to the individual Unaltered Dog or Cat License, the owner shall also be issued a Spay/Neuter Rebate Certificate worth a prescribed amount towards the cost of a spay or neuter surgery at participating veterinarians. That prescribed amount shall be $25 unless amended by the Metro Council as provided in § 91.010.
(C) (E) Pursuant to KRS 258.095, the Metro Government hereby designates as license facilities those offices or clinics of veterinary medicine located within Jefferson County which agree to abide by the procedures established for the issuance of licenses by the Division. For each individual dog or cat license issued, the license facility shall be paid $1.00. This provision shall become effective the first day of the month following the adoption of this chapter and the amount of the fee paid the licenses facility shall remain in effect until amended by the Metro Council.
§ 91.0201. REGISTRATION AND SPECIAL LICENSING OF PIT BULL DOGS
(A) No person shall own or possess, or buy, sell, or trade, or otherwise transfer ownership or possession of a pit bull dog which has not been registered or licensed pursuant to this section.
(B) The owner, or any person in possession of every pit bull dog born or brought into Jefferson County shall register that dog with the Division on a form provided by the Division. No pit bull dog shall be licensed pursuant to LMCO 91.0201(A) until that dog has been properly registered with the Division. As a condition of initial registration, as well as each annual renewal, the Division shall require the owner of the pit bull dog to furnish the following:
(1) The name and address of the owner; or person in possession; and
(2) The location[s] where the pit bull dog will be kenneled or housed; and
(3) As a condition of initial registration, a certificate or other appropriate document from a veterinarian certifying that the pit bull dog has been spayed or neutered. At the request of the owner[s], and with the consent of the Director, a pit bull dog may be spayed or neutered by the Division upon payment of the fee set forth under § 91.010. (C) Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a license under this section, the owner[s] of a pit bull shall file with the Director a certificate, or other written evidence satisfactory to the Director, that the owner[s] has/have satisfactorily completed a course of instruction, approved by the Director, concerning the welfare, control, and socialization of pit bull dogs.
(D) Registration required under this section shall be renewed annually, either electronically or by mail, as the Division shall provide by regulation.
(E) The registered location[s] of any pit bull dog shall not be changed for any period in excess of three (3) days without notification to the Division by means which Division shall provide by regulation. The owner or person in possession of any pit bull which is stolen, or which escapes from or strays from its enclosure, shall immediately upon such occurrence notify the Division.
(F) The owner or person in possession of any pit bull dog shall not be changed without immediate notification to the Division by means which the Division shall provide by regulation.
(G) The Division may charge fees in connection with the registration of pit bull dogs as provided under § 91.010.
(H) Law enforcement agencies and officers shall be exempt from the registration and licensing requirements of this § 91.0201.
(I) Owners of pit bull dogs shall have ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance to comply with this § 91.0201.
§ 91.0202. PIT BULL DOGS TO BE ENCLOSED OR UNDER RESTRAINT.
(A) Pit bull dogs shall at all times be kept and maintained:
(1) In a proper enclosure as defined in this chapter; or
(2) Under restraint as defined in this chapter.
(B) Law enforcement agencies and officers shall be exempt from the requirements of this § 91.0202.
§ 91.0203. PIT BULL DOGS AS DEFINED DANGEROUS DOGS OR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS
Pit bull dogs are, in addition to the requirements of §§ 91.0201 and 91.0202, subject to all the provisions of § 91.110 of this chapter relating to dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs.
§ 91.0204. TRAINING OF PIT BULL DOGS FOR FIGHTING PROHIBITED
No person, including an owner, shall possess, harbor, or maintain in his/her/its care, custody, or control, a pit bull dog for the purpose of fighting, nor train, torment, badger, bait, or use any pit bull dog to attack human beings or other animals.
§ 91.0205. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO PIT BULL DOGS
A. In addition to the requirements of § 91.01 which defines ENCLOSURE and RESTRAINT, pit bull dogs may not be kept on any porch or patio or in any part of a house or structure which would allow any such dog to exit an enclosure on its own volition. In addition, pit bull dogs shall not be kept in a house or structure where window screens or door screens are the only barrier to any such dog exiting an enclosure on its own volition.
B. In addition to the requirements of Section 91.01 which defines ENCLOSURE, fences and structures designed to confine pit bull dogs shall be securely closed and locked, and shall be designed to prevent the entry of children.
C. No more than two of any of the following may be kept within any one premises:
1. A pit bull dog; or
2: An dog which has been declared to be a dangerous dog under this Chapter.
D. No pit bull dog shall be kept or maintained within any premises where a minor child under the age of 18 resides.
§ 91.0206 DETERMINATION OF BREED BY THE DIVISION OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION.
A. In the event that any owner or person in possession of a dog which another person or an Animal Control Officer has identified as a pit bull dog contests such identification, the determination of the dog’s breed for purposes of this ordinance shall be made by the Director upon application by the aggrieved owner. Such a determination shall constitute a rebuttable presumption that the dog is a pit bull dog.
B. An appeal of the Director’s determination may be made to the Secretary within three days after the Director’s determination in accordance with procedures promulgated by the Secretary. The Secretary’s decision on appeal shall be final for all purposes under this ordinance.
C. At the time the Director makes a determination under this section, he/she shall advise the applicant, in writing, of the applicant’s rights to appeal and the procedures for taking an appeal.
§ 91.021 OTHER REQUIRED LICENSES AND PERMITS.
(A) Licenses or permits shall be required in the following categories. Each separate location must be licensed separately, inspected and meet the requirements of this chapter prior to the license or permit being issued.
(B) License or permits in these categories shall be effective each July 1 and be valid for one year:
(1) Class A kennel or cattery.
(2) Class B kennel or cattery.
(3) Class C kennel.
(4) Pet shop.
(5) Livery, riding, or boarding stable.
(6) Humane Society, Shelter.
(7) Animal_drawn vehicles (one license per company).
(8) Theatrical exhibition.
(9) Wildlife permit.
(10) Animal Dealer.
(11) Circus.
(12) Boarding kennel or cattery.
(13) Swine permit.
§ 91.022 LICENSE RENEWAL; REVOCATION; APPEALS.
(A) Renewal. All licenses required under § 91.021 shall be renewed on or before July 1 of each year.
(B) Revocation.
(1) The Director of the Division of Animal Control and Protection may revoke or deny any license issued hereunder.
(2) Grounds for such revocation or denial include, but are not limited to, conviction pursuant to any violation of this chapter Chapter or conviction pursuant to any related state or federal law.
(3) License revocation or denial notices shall be in writing and shall state the grounds therefor.
(C) Appeals.
(1) Any person who receives such license revocation or denial notice issued pursuant to this chapter may appeal such notice to the Director of the Cabinet of Public Works and Services or its counterpart Secretary within ten days following the receipt of such notice unless such period is extended by the Director of the Cabinet of Public Works and Services Secretary.
(2) Any appeal from such notice shall be in writing, shall state the grounds therefor and shall be signed by the person bringing the appeal or their authorized representative.
(3) Failure to file a timely appeal to a license revocation or denial notice shall result in license revocation or denial.
(4) If requested by the appellant, a hearing shall be held on the issues raised by the appeal.
(5) The hearing shall be held within a reasonable period of time before the Director of the Cabinet of Public Works and Services or its counterpart who shall be the sole arbiter of the appeal Secretary or his/her designee. The decision of the Secretary shall be final.
(6) The decision of the Director shall be appealable to the court solely on the issue raised and the record presented at the hearing.
§ 91.023 VACCINATIONS; FIXATION OF TAGS.
(A) Every owner of a dog or cat four months of age or older shall have it vaccinated against rabies. Any owner of a dog or cat reaching four months of age shall have such animal vaccinated by the tenth day after the date the dog or cat attained this age. Such vaccination shall be in accordance with the vaccination requirements prescribed by the Kentucky State Board of Health. Vaccinations shall be performed by a veterinarian or qualified person.
(B) The veterinarian or qualified person administering the vaccination shall issue to the dog or cat owner a vaccination certificate on a form prescribed by the Kentucky State Board of Health. The vaccination certificate shall be prepared and issued in triplicate. One copy shall be forwarded by the veterinarian or qualified person to the Louisville/Jefferson County Board of Health no later than seven days after the end of the preceding month, one copy shall be given to the owner of the dog or cat, and one copy shall be retained by the veterinarian or qualified person. Each vaccination certificate shall bear the name and address of the issuing party and a serial number and a brief description of the animal vaccinated. The veterinarian or qualified person shall also furnish each owner with a metal tag bearing the name of the person issuing it.
(C) "Qualified person" permits are granted only to Class A or Class B kennel or cattery operators, and rabies vaccinations may only be given to those animals which are owned by the kennel or cattery. Any animal which is sold, traded or otherwise removed from the kennel or cattery must be re_vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian and must be re_licensed by the Division.
(D) When a rabies voucher is purchased from the Division at the time of license application, the person purchasing such voucher shall, within seven days, take the dog or cat to a veterinarian who will vaccinate the dog or cat, issue a regular vaccination certificate in the manner prescribed herein, and return the voucher to the Animal Shelter. The Animal Shelter will present the voucher to the Metro Government from which payment will be made to the veterinarian performing the vaccination. A veterinarian or other qualified person who purchases a dog or cat does not have to purchase a rabies voucher from the Division but must show his or her permit number.
(E) The rabies tag described herein and furnished by the veterinarian or other qualified person for dogs or cats shall be affixed by the owner to a collar or harness or affixed to an enclosure or cage furnished by him and shall be worn by the dog or cat for which the certificate was issued. No one except the owner or his duly authorized agent shall remove the collar with the attached tag from any dog or cat except during a recognized breed show such as the American Kennel Club or as provided in KRS 258.165.
(F) During a recognized breed show the owner of the dog or cat shall retain the rabies tag and shall produce the same whenever called upon to verify that any cat or dog in his possession or owned by him had the required vaccination. The certificate of vaccination may be produced if the tag has been lost.
§ 91.024 SALE OF RABIES VACCINE.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, give away, permit to be sold or given away any rabies vaccine live or killed to anyone but a veterinarian or other qualified person.
§ 91.025 CERTAIN SALES OF ANIMALS PROHIBITED
A. It shall be unlawful for any person required to be licensed under § 91.021, but who has not obtained such a license, to sell, offer to sell, or to advertise the sale of an animal. Any electronic or print offer to sell, including a paid advertisement, shall include the license number of the licensed person making the offer.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, or to advertise the sale of an animal which is required to be licensed and vaccinated under §§ 91.021 and 91.023, but which has not been licensed and vaccinated. Any electronic or print offer to sell, including a paid advertisement, shall include the license number of the animal offered for sale.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase an animal which has been offered for sale, or sold, in violation of this §91.025.
D. In addition to a citation issued to the owner, any animal sold or offered for sale in violation of this § 91.025 shall be impounded by the Division. The animal shall be released to the owner[s] only upon the obtaining of all required licenses or vaccinations, and the payment of all other redemption fees and costs provided under under § 91.036.
LIMITATION ON DOGS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
§ 91.030 NUMBER OF DOGS ON RESIDENTIALLY USED PROPERTY
(A) No more than three (3) dogs, excluding puppies, may be quartered outdoors on an individual tract, lot or parcel (as defined in the Land Development Code), which is .5 acres or less and has on such property any building or structure containing a residential use.
(B) No more than seven (7)) dogs, excluding puppies, may be quartered outdoors on an individual tract, lot or parcel (as defined in the Land Development Code), which is more than .5 acres but less than 2 acres and has on such property any building or structure containing a residential use.
(C) This subsection (g) shall not apply to an individual tract, lot or parcel (as defined in the Land Development Code), which has on such property a building or structure containing a residential use, if such location has a current Class A, Class B, or Class C kennel license and continues to maintain such license, as provided by § 91.021.
AMNESTY
§ 91.031 DIRECTOR MAY DECLARE AMNESTY
(A) The Director, with the approval of the Secretary, may suspend the civil and criminal penalties under §§ 91.020 and 91.021 of this Chapter for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days in any one calendar year upon condition that owners comply with the requirements of those sections during the amnesty period. At the expiration of a declared amnesty period, all civil and criminal penalties under this Chapter shall be fully in effect.
(B) A declared amnesty shall not apply to any provision of this Chapter other than §§ 91.020 and 91.021.
EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND SOCIALIZATION PROGRAMS
§ 91.032 PUBLIC FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND SOCIALIZATION PROGRAMS
(A) The Council finds it to be in the public interest, and the Director is hereby authorized to enter into joint agreements with Animal Control and Animal Welfare Organizations for the purpose of planning, promoting, and conducting education and training programs for the purpose of:
(1) educating the public as to responsible and lawful animal ownership and management; and
(2) raising the level of compliance with the provisions of this Chapter.
(B) The Director is authorized to expend public funds for this purpose, provided that all such expenditures shall be made in accordance with all Metro ordinances, policies, and procedures relating to contracts and expenditures.
(C) The Director may, with or without the approval of the District Court, reduce or abate any fine or penalty which could otherwise be imposed under § 91.999 upon condition that the violator[s] attend and satisfactorily complete an education or training course established under this Section.
IMPOUNDMENT
§ 91.035 IMPOUNDMENT AUTHORIZED; EUTHANASIA OF UNCLAIMED ANIMALS.
(A) Unrestrained animals shall be taken by the Animal Control Officer, police or humane officer or may be turned in by any citizen, impounded in the Animal Shelter and there confined in a humane manner. However, if after a reasonable effort the seizure of any such unrestrained animal cannot be made or should the animal present a hazard to public safety or property or have an injury or physical condition which causes the animal to suffer, the Animal Control Officer or police officer may immediately destroy the animal by the most reasonable and humane means then available.
(B) Impounded dogs shall be kept for not less than five days (or any state_mandated holding period), unless reclaimed by their owners. Impounded cats shall be kept for not less than five days, unless reclaimed by their owners. All other domestic animals or owned wildlife shall be held for not less than three days unless reclaimed by their owner. If the owner can be identified by means of a license tag or otherwise, the impounding agency shall immediately notify the owner by the most expedient means available of the impoundment of the animal. Animals not reclaimed by their owners within the established time periods and those not placed in suitable new homes after such time, may be humanely euthanized by the Division. However, if an impounded animal has an injury or physical condition which causes the animal to suffer, the Division may immediately humanely euthanize the animal.
§ 91.036 RECLAIMING IMPOUNDED ANIMAL.
(A) Every owner reclaiming an impounded animal which is subject to the terms of this chapter shall pay all redemption fees. Said fees shall be paid to the Division.
(B) Any dog or cat which is impounded under this chapter shall not be reclaimed unless the animal has a microchip inserted either by the Division or by a veterinarian in accordance with standards and specifications promulgated by the Director. If a microchip is inserted by the Division, the owner shall pay a fee as specified under § 91.10 of this chapter.
(B) (C) Proof of vaccination against rabies and distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parainfluenza, parvovirus (DHLPP) for dogs or against rabies and rhinotracheitis, calici, panleukopenia, chlamydia psittaci (FVR C_P_C) for cats, and an annual parasitic examination for internal parasites in the past 12 months, and a current license shall be required before any dog or cat is released. If no proof of vaccinations, parasite exam, or current license isshown, a rabies vaccination and/or parasite exam voucher(s) and/or license must be purchased before the animal is released. All vaccination/parasite exams must be administered to the animal within the prescribed time printed on the voucher(s). The administration of vaccinations may be deferred by the veterinarian at his or her discretion based upon his or her assessment of need or the health of the animal.
(C) (D) Any dog or cat which is impounded a second time for violation of restraint requirements within a 12_month period, the owner shall have the animal spayed or neutered within seven days of the redemption. Verification from the veterinarian performing the surgery shall be provided to the Division in writing within seven days of the surgery.
(D) (E) Dogs and cats impounded for violation of the restraint requirements which are wearing a valid Kentucky Dog License or Metro Government Cat License and which have been spayed or neutered may be redeemed for one_half the redemption and daily board fees. This does not include animals impounded for humane treatment, a potentially dangerous dog, or a dangerous dog.
(E) (F) Any owner or person responsible for any animal(s) impounded under this chapter and charged with a violation thereof, upon conviction, shall pay, in addition to the regular redemption and board fees, all veterinary fees and any associated charges incidental to maintaining the animal(s) up to the date of conviction. These fees shall be payable even if the animal(s) is not redeemed or if custody is awarded to the Metro Government.
(G) Any owner or person responsible for any animal(s) impounded under this chapter and charged with a violation thereof shall, upon a second conviction within a five-year period, be prohibited from owning, maintaining, or keeping any animal for a period of two (2) years from the date of the second conviction.
§ 91.037 QUARANTINE OF ANIMALS.
(A) Any animal (excluding wildlife) which has bitten or scratched someone shall be quarantined for ten days from the time the bite or scratch occurs. Any owner who fails to properly quarantine his/her animal is subject to citation for violation of this section, and the animal shall be moved to the animal shelter for the remainder of its quarantine period. The owner will be responsible for all quarantine fees.
(B) An animal whose owner is unavailable or incapable of quarantining the animal, may be taken by the Division of Animal Control and Protection and quarantined at the Animal Shelter for the prescribed period.
§ 91.038 ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS; VIOLATION NOTICES.
(A) In addition to, or in lieu of impounding an unrestrained animal or for any violation of this chapter, any Animal Control Officer, police officer or authorized agent may issue a citation to the owner of such animal specifying the section or sections of this chapter so violated and identifying the specific nature of the violation. Such citation shall impose upon the owner the obligation of appearance to answer the charges specified in the citation in the Jefferson County District Court at the time and place indicated on the citation.
(B) Where violations of the licensing and/or vaccination requirements of this chapter are observed, any Animal Control Officer may issue a violation notice in lieu of a uniform citation. The violation notice will stipulate a compliance date and associated fee and late fee, as well as a waiver provision providing that the person to whom the violation notice is issued waives all rights to protest such violation and waives all rights to a hearing on the issues relating to that violation. All associated fees and late fees shall be paid to the Division. Failure to pay associated fees and/or late fees and failure to waive rights by the compliance date may result in the issuance of a uniform citation.
(C) Where first offense violations of restraint requirements are observed, any Animal Control Officer may issue a control notice in lieu of a uniform citation. The control notice will stipulate the violation observed, associated fees, and a compliance date, as well as a waiver provision providing that the person to whom the control notice is issued waives all rights to protest such notice and waives all rights to a hearing on the issue relating to that notice. All associated fees shall be paid to the Division. Failure to pay the associated fees by the compliance date or failure to waive rights by the compliance date may result in the issuance of a uniform citation.
(D) Where an Animal Control Officer observes a violation of the humane treatment provisions of this chapter which pertain to veterinary care or grooming or license or vaccination requirements on newly acquired animals, the officer may issue a warning citation in lieu of a uniform citation, stipulating a time by which veterinary treatment, grooming, vaccination, or licensing must be administered. If the owner does not comply with the terms of the warning citation by the specified time, a uniform citation may be issued.
(E) Where an Animal Control Officer observes a dog being kept on a chain or tether, in potential violation of the restraint definition in this chapter, the officer may notify the owner of the violation in person or by means of a notice placed at the entry to the property. If the owner does not correct the situation or notify the Division within one hour of the placement of such notice that the dog has been removed from the chain or tether, the dog may be removed and the owner issued a control notice or uniform citation for violation of the restraint requirement.
(F) Any owner of a dog or cat who is cited and convicted or pleads guilty to a restraint violation of this chapter on two occasions within a 12_month period or whose animal is impounded twice within a 12_month period for a restraint violation of this chapter, or a combination of two separate incidents of citation and impoundment within a 12_month period, shall have the animal spayed or neutered within seven days of the conviction or plea. Verification from the veterinarian performing the surgery shall be provided to the Division in writing within seven days of the surgery.
(G) Where an Animal Control Officer has not witnessed a violation of this Chapter, and upon the request of a complainant who has witnessed a violation, the Officer shall take a sworn written statement from the complainant as to the circumstances of the violation, and shall file the complaint with the District Court in accordance with the rules and procedures of that Court.
(H) The Director shall work with the County Attorney and the Commonwealth’s Attorney to facilitate joint prosecutions in the Circuit Court pursuant to KRS 24A.110 in cases involving death or serious injury arising from concurrent violations of both this Chapter and the Kentucky Penal Code.
HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
§ 91.050 PROVISION OF NECESSITIES.
A. No owner shall fail to provide his his/her animal with good wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and humane care and treatment. Any owner of animals shall maintain a clean and healthful shelter and living area for any animal being kept, which area shall be free of accumulated waste and debris so that the animal shall be free to walk or lie down without coming in contact with any such waste or debris. All such shelters or living areas must be cleaned and maintained regularly so as to promote proper health for the animals being kept. All living areas shall be constructed and maintained to promote drainage of rain water to prevent the accumulation of mud and/or water. Shelters shall be constructed to protect the animal from precipitation and of a material which provides insulation from temperature extremes. In addition to the shelter a shaded area shall also be provided by means of
other structures, trees, or awning(s). The shelter shall have a floor which is dry and constructed of a material which provides insulation or the floor augmented with resting boards. Insulating bedding materials shall be provided during inclement weather extremes.
B. The Director, with the approval of the Secretary, may promulgate regulations implementing this § 91.050 which are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Chapter 91.
§ 91.051 RESTRAINT BY LEASH OR CHAIN; SPECIFICATIONS.
A. If any animal is restrained by a chain, leash, or similar restraint, it shall be designed and placed as defined under RESTRAINT in this chapter Minimum standards for restraint of animals shall be as follows:
(1) It is prohibited to exclusively restrain a dog or puppy by a fixed_point chain or tether. A fixed_point restraint may be used temporarily but not to exceed one (1) hour in a twenty_four (24) hour period.
(2) A dog may be exclusively restrained by a chain or tether provided that it is at least ten (10) feet in length and attached to a pulley or trolley mounted on a cable which is also at least ten (10) feet in length and mounted no more than seven (7) feet above ground level.
(3) Any tethering system employed shall not allow the dog or puppy to leave the owner's property.
(4) No chain or tether shall weigh more than 1/8 of the dog or puppy's body weight.
(5) Any chain or tether shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and have swivels on both ends.
(6 Any chain or tether must be attached to a properly fitting collar or harness worn by the animal.
B. The Director, with the approval of the Secretary, may promulgate regulations implementing this § 91.051 which are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Chapter 91.
§ 91.052 ABANDONMENT.
No person shall abandon any animal, abandonment consisting of leaving such animal for a period in excess of 24 hours, without providing for someone to feed, water, and check on the animal's condition. No owner shall leave an animal by a roadside or other area, or leave such animal on either public or private property, without the property owner's consent. In the event that an animal is found so abandoned, such animal may be taken by an Animal Control Officer, police or humane officer and impounded in the Animal Shelter, and there confined in a humane manner. Such animal, if taken from private property, shall be kept for not less than the prescribed period in accordance with the procedures set forth in the impounding section. In the event that an animal is so abandoned, the owner or the person, if any, whom he has charged with the animal's care, shall be subject to a citation for violation of this section.
§ 91.053 CROPPING OF EARS OR TAIL.
No person shall crop a dog's ears or tail, except a veterinarian.
§ 91.054 CRUELTY; EXHIBITION FIGHTING PROHIBITED.
(A) No person shall neglect, beat, cruelly ill_treat or torment any animal or cause or permit any dogfi May 12, 2006 Animal ordinance opinions vary
http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/articles/2006/05/12/news/news65.txt
By John Gunn
The Natchez Democrat
NATCHEZ — Local suggestions on a county animal ordinance are as scattered as the roaming stray dogs at the heart of the matter.
The county, unlike the city, does not have an animal ordinance, allowing enforcement of animal laws. It does however have a state law concerning loose livestock, local veterinarian Byron Garrity said.
“Anywhere state funds are used the state law applies,” Garrity said. “The concerns are being able to enforce an ordinance, making a new ordinance weak if not impossible.”
An ordinance aiming to slow the problem of dog attacks in the county may be a while away, but is being constructed by local attorney Patricia Dunmore.
Garrity said he thought a good way of handling the problem is to permanently identify the animals so that there is no confusion about the animal when it is picked up.
“The problem lies in the fact that more dogs will become strays if the people violating the rules become responsible,” Garrity said. “Then people will say it’s just a stray, it just eats with my dog and not claim it.”
Sheriff Ronny Brown still holds strong to the fact that the position should be taken care of outside the department.
“People I have talked to in other towns have even said they didn’t think catching animals was a job for law enforcement,” Brown said. “I think there does need to be one person we can depend on to do that sort of thing,”
Brown said he didn’t think the creation of the job and funding the new employee was a problem.
“We already have county employees on payroll that participate in rodeos on the side,” Brown said. “If we are already paying them why not let them go get them.”
Brown also mentioned the possibility of using local wranglers.
“We used to have a wrangler and he would pick the animals up and wait for the people to come pay him,” Brown said. “Wranglers do have state laws that will back them.”
The growing population including the flow of people from hurricane ravaged areas, really makes an ordinance important, county resident Bob McNeely said.
“If we can do something with these people just raising dogs for the heck of it, then the situation will get better,” McNeely said. “I don’t think you ought to have to put up with someone else’s stuff.”
Fydeaux’s Pet Company owner Jacqueline Stephens said the problem is definitely noticeable.
“I know I have seen too many dogs attacked and killed by other dogs,” Jacqueline Stephens said. “They might be good dogs and just territorial, but come on -— this is 2006.”
Stephens even felt like the non-existence of an ordinance was creating other problems.
“Male dogs roaming can smell a female a mile away,” Stephens said. “All of these puppies and kittens, I mean who wants them. Thirty five percent of the eight million pets put to sleep each year are pure bred.”
The ordinance, when proposed, will affect people in different ways and a fair workable plan is what Brown said he wants to see.
“I don’t know what the perfect answer is here, that’s why we asked for the board’s help,” Brown said. “The bottom line is the problem is not in the city it’s in the county.”
Pennsylvania governor fires dog-law advisory board
I don't know the current makeup of this advisory board, but (given history)the replacements are likely to be heavily AR. It would behoove the dog owners of Pennsylvania to contact the governor's office with their opinions on this matter.
HARRISBURG, Pa. Governor Ed Rendell says Pennsylvania hasn't put puppy mills out of business, so he's fired all 14 members of a panel that advises the state on dog laws.
A spokeswoman says Rendell didn't think the board was effective or "serving the purpose that it should."
Animal activists say the state is home to some virtually unregulated operations that breed puppies, sometimes in miserable conditions.
Some members of the dog-law panel say Rendell is going after the wrong people. They say the state agriculture secretary has only called three board meetings since 2003.
Members of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals blame Pennsylvania's Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement. The society says the bureau hasn't hired enough dog wardens, properly trained them or fully enforced the law.
http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=4897490&nav=3HvE
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Animal registry is wrong - We MUST Reject NAIS NOW
http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2006/05/12/news/letters/letter01.txt
Animal registry is wrong
What impact will the National Animal Identification System (www.NoNAIS.rog) have on every American?
Fact: December 2006 local TV announced a volunteer system would begin Jan. 1, 2006, and be mandatory by Jan. 1, 2008 with a hoped 25 percent compliance by July 1, 2006. Unfortunately, the people were not informed that they only had until July 1, 2006, to reject this $43 million federal program. The silent push leaves 60 plus days to be heard.
Fact: Every animal (except dogs and cats) poultry and fish and small farms would be registered, except any rented or leased pastures. Why? To fight terrorists, mad cow, and bird flu. Really? Horses, mules, jackasses and hogs are just some of the animals that don't have any of these diseases.
Fact: Only one known cost: Farm registration was free (but a stack of paperwork), 25 head of sheep was $500, thinking they were all set. Wrong. The bumper lamb crop produced 25-50 more sheep needing another $500-$1000 for more microchips. Another $1,000-$2,000 financial burden on the working family. But the airplane or helicopter can instantly determine by flying over the registered residence if the money is lying within. Not to mention both man and beasts whereabouts can be determined 24/7.
Please note large feedlots only have to register as business, list number of head of livestock and they don't buy one chip.
Did you notice that the Oregon voters pamphlet stressed no ceiling on taxes for education, public safety, but not a word on NAIS?
Question: Is it true there will be three phases of this system? Garden produce seed can be purchased until 2008-09. Then each seed becomes a copyrighted specify specimen. At the time of purchase a written agreement must be signed to buy the commercial fertilizer and insecticide or they won't sell the seed?
Question: Will it be a fact that phase three takes control of all waters: wells, ponds, lakes, streams and rivers?
Selling all animals can avoid this hassle and that is exactly what is hoping will be done. However with wooded or rough terrain, pastures have to be grazed as wildfire. $100,000 liability laws will be enforced this year creating another problem.
Being one of ten generations of small farmers, my progenitors would turn over in their graves should I sit silently by and let this happen. But what will it take to wake up the American people -- a four-lane freeway march? Letting the world know enough is enough.
My American freedom is like my health insurance -- it was really great as long as I could financially afford it.
James A. Baker
Rogue River, Ore.
HELP STOP AB 2110, the Open Field Coursing Bill
Please help us put a stop to the inappropriate legislation
proposed against an ancient form of hunting.
This bill could cost CA a lot of money to enforce, loss of revenue from hunting licenses and more.
The website set up below is excellent - it has a fill in the blanks format that you can adapt to fit your thoughts. And easy too!!!
Please forward this message to people you know who care about unnecessary laws and/or love dogs!
Best Regards,
Teresa Johnson
Citizens for Responsible Animal Ownership
-------- Original Message --------
Further action needed re California AB 2110, the Open Field Coursing
Bill. This bill will remain in the Assembly Appropriations Committee for
the next two weeks. Please go to http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/ and
scroll down to State Officials and select CA from the menu box and click
on GO. This will take you to the page where you can select AB 2110 which
takes you to the page where you can write and automatically send e-mails
directly to each of the members of the California Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
May 5, 2006 LA Passes Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Other Areas Expected to Follow
LA Passes Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Other Areas Expected to Follow
[Thursday, May 04, 2006]
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 to approve an ordinance yesterday that requires all dogs, except those that are law enforcement dogs, service dogs or that qualify as "competition" dogs to be spayed or neutered. The ordinance will go into effect June 3rd. For more details please read our previous alert on this issue or contact Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control at (562) 728-4882.
The Board of Supervisors has also sent a letter to the mayors in each of the 88 cities located within Los Angeles County encouraging them to adopt similar ordinances. Residents of these cities are encouraged to monitor their city council agenda's for these types of proposals.
All Californians should be aware that other counties and cities are likely to try and implement similar ordinances. Please contact AKC if a similar proposal is being considered in your area. We can be reached at doglaw@akc.org or (919) 816-3720.
Below we have listed communities that we know are pursuing mandatory spay/neuter and other ordinances which restrict the rights of breeders and dog owners.
Riverside County
Riverside County Department of Animal Service Director has announced that he is asking the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to consider a similar ordinance. County counsel is still in the process of drafting the ordinance. Please watch AKC's website for further updates.
Sacramento County
In February, supervisors directed staff to draft an ordinance that will implement a $200 intact animal fee and a $50 intact animal fee for "show dogs." To qualify for the $50 fee owners would have to be members of a breed or kennel cub, demonstrate that each animal is registered with a recognized registry, and compete in two show events per year. To find out more about this proposal, please see our Legislative Alert.
City of Berkeley
The Berkeley Citizens Humane Commission will review a draft of an ordinance to require "pit bull" owners in the city to spay or neuter their dogs unless they obtain a $100 breeding permit and comply with a host of regulations. The ordinance defines "pit bulls" as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and any dog displaying the physical traits of these breeds. For more on the situation in Berkeley and what you can do to help, please read our Legislative Alert.
For more information please contact
AKC Canine Legislation Department
(919) 816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
California Federation of Dog Clubs
Susan Gioia, President
800-949-3746, ext. 106
760-471-5277 (fax)
shojudge@yahoo.com
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
Joan Gibson-Reed, Legislative Coordinator
Jgrcorgis@aol.com
May 3, 2006 Read This and Be Frightened
They are making this mandatory! There goes every home breeder who does not show!!! They are trying this all over the country...!!! They are taking our rights away and invading our homes and mandating what we can do with our pets!!! ....Lets not just site back and take it! Write your law makers...if it happens in Ca...you bet it will be happening every where!...
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2732151.html
Spaying-neutering rules OK'd
New, 2:10 p.m. L.A. County also will raise dog license fees and require identifying microchips implanted in pets.
From wire service reports
Most dogs in unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County will have to be spayed or neutered and implanted with an identifying microchip under an ordinance approved today by the Board of Supervisors.
The ordinance applies to all breeds, excluding animals that compete in dog shows, work with law enforcement or assist the disabled.
Under the measure, canines must be spayed or neutered at 4 months of age.
The ordinance will go into effect in 30 days, although dog owners will have a 90-day grace period to spay or neuter their animals
Annual dog license fees will also increase under the ordinance. A license for a spayed or neutered dog will increase from $15 to $20. Licenses for unaltered dogs will double to $60.
April 28, 2006 Help Needed in Los Angeles
CALL TO ACTION: Help Needed in Los Angeles
[Friday, April 28, 2006]
The Los Angeles County Supervisors will take a final vote on the proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance at their meeting this Tuesday, May 2nd. Dog owners wishing to breed or simply maintain an intact dog will have to pay a $60 per dog fee and meet a host of restrictive criteria. It is urgent that fanciers and concerned dog owners contact their supervisor before May 2nd to express their opposition.
The mandatory spay/neuter ordinance is agenda item #109. Supervisor Antonovich is also asking the Board of Supervisors to send letters to the Mayors of ALL cities within Los Angeles County asking them to adopt a similar ordinance. There are 88 cities in Los Angeles County.
April 27, 2006 Albuqueque - HEART ordinance hearing 5-1-06
City Councilor Sally Mayer is again proposing sweeping changes that
would drastically limit fanciers' ability to breed and own dogs, while
doing little to address the city's problems with irresponsible
ownership. The proposal is currently set for a vote at the May 1st city
council meeting. Fanciers are encouraged to attend the meeting, which
will be held in the Council Chambers on the basement level of the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Government Center building at One Civic
Plaza NW, Albuquerque. The meeting beings at 5pm.
The proposal, known as the HEART ordinance (Humane and Ethical Animal
Regulations and Treatment), contains draconian regulations, oppressive
fees, and allows the government unfettered access to animal owner's
homes and personal information. Worse, the measure was put forth based
on "findings" that were established without any studies being conducted
and without any input from responsible dog owners and breeders.
The measure's restrictive provisions include:
* An annual $150 permit for each unaltered dog or cat over six
months old.
* A $150 litter permit, which expires six months after the date of
issue. Breeders would be limited to four litters per year.
* A limit of four dogs and two cats per household (or six cats)
unless residents purchase a $50 multiple companion animal site permit.
* Allows one adjoining property owner to petition for the
revocation of a multiple companion animal site permit.
* Prohibits anyone with an intact animal permit from having a
multiple companion animal site permit.
* Requirements that owners microchip or tattoo their dogs and
cats.
* Prohibiting crating of dogs outdoors and tethering for more than
1 hour per day.
* Mandates owners provide "environmental enrichment" defined as
"toys and other safe products...that will stimulate mental, physical and
grooming activities."
* Requires any animal that is picked up by animal control to be
spayed/neutered, even if the owner has an intact animal permit and
immediately reclaims the animal.
In applying for any permit, dog owners would be forced to comply with a
long list of provisions, including submitting to property and
record-keeping inspections.
The proposal would also put severe restrictions on animal service
businesses such as dog groomers and doggie daycares. Of interest to all
dog owners, these businesses would be required to provide a list of all
their clients and their contact information to the city. Generally the
government must get a subpoena from a judge for client lists and company
records.
Ken Sanchez - kensanchez@cabq.gov
Debbie O'Malley - DOMalley@cabq.gov
Isaac Benton - ibenton@cabq.gov
Brad Winter - bwinter@cabq.gov
Michael Cadigan - mcadigan@cabq.gov
Martin Heinrich - mheinrich@cabq.gov
Sally Mayer - smayer@cabq.gov
Craig Loy - cloy@cabq.com
Don Harris - dharris@cabq.com
April 26, 2006 Amity kennel is sued by state
http://www.readingeagle.com/re/news/1514896.asp
Amity kennel is sued by state
The attorney general initiates proceedings against the owner on behalf of disgruntled customers who bought pets they say were diseased.
By Steven Henshaw
Reading Eagle
An Amity Township kennel owner sold sick or diseased dogs and deceived the buyers about their rights, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Berks County Court by state Attorney General Tom Corbett.
The suit seeks to close Bullie Pups R Us, 313 W. Morlatton Road, until its owner, Traci Murai, pays restitution, fines and other costs. Those amounts have not been determined yet.
Bureau of Consumer Protection agents said Murai, who imports and sells English bulldogs, has sold more than 250 dogs nationally since 2004. Customers paid $1,350 to $2,400 for each puppy.
At least seven of the dogs had health problems and three of those seven died, said Barbara Petito, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office. The buyers contacted state officials.
The alleged victims live in New Hampshire, Maryland, Florida, California, Georgia, New York and Massachusetts.
Murai required customers to sign a contract forfeiting their rights under the state's “puppy lemon law,” Petito said.
“That's what makes this case more egregious,” said Petito. “Not only did she charge a lot of money for these puppies, (but) people who bought them were made to feel they had no recourse if they unfortunately got a sick or diseased animal.”
In an e-mail, Murai said a lawyer approved her contracts and that she has cooperated with investigators.
“They have totally taken this out of context and turned me into a dishonest monster and I am the total opposite from that,” she wrote.
Her lawyer, Steven Nierenberg, said Murai had determined the puppies were healthy when she sold them.
According to investigators:
Murai sold puppies that were sick, had infectious diseases, congenital or genetic defects or were falsely represented as healthy dogs.
Murai ignored those buyers' attempts to contact her about the health problems.
She also failed to honor buyers' requests for reimbursement up to the purchase price of the puppy for veterinary bills or other medical treatments as required under the law.
(The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
Contact reporter Steven Henshaw at 610-371-5028 or shenshaw@readingeagle.com.
Contact information
People who believe they bought a sick or diseased puppy from Bullie Pups R Us, 313 W. Morlatton Road, Amity Township, should contact the Bureau of Consumer Protection at 1-800-441-2555 or www.attorneygeneral.gov. Virginia Farm Bureau Federation Premise registration for animal ID program picking up
IS THIS PROPAGANDA TO MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO CAPITULATE ???
http://www.vafb.com/news/2006/april/042706_2.htm
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation Premise registration for animal ID program picking up
RICHMOND—At the end of March, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services had registered 2,747 farms and other facilities in the premise registration phase of the National Animal Identification System.
Voluntary enrollment began in December 2004. March marked the second-busiest month for registrations, with 263 premises registered.
Producers who want to register premises can do so online at www.vdacs.virginia.gov/animals/animalid.html or by phone at 540-434-3917. Anyone with questions about the program can call 804-692-0601 for information.
Dr. Richard Wilkes, Virginia’s state veterinarian, said he is encouraged by the increasing number of farmers who are registering. “The animal health benefits of this program are obvious for both large and small producers,” he said, “and many farmers are already seeing marketing advantages of state or federal authorities being able to identify the source of a foreign animal disease or disease of regulatory concern.”
Wilkes cites as the main NAIS benefit the ability, when the program is fully implemented, to allow animal health officials to trace animals back to their farms of origin within 48 hours of the diagnosis of an animal disease emergency.
There has been some misunderstanding among producers, he noted, about the NAIS in general and premise registration specifically. A prevailing myth is that the program is expensive and could drive small producers out of business. “There is no direct cost to register premises under the National Animal ID System.”
ID tags will represent some cost to producers, and electronic tags are likely to be more expensive than traditional plastic or metal tags, but electronic tags are just one option and will not be required any time soon. “It’s interesting to note,” Wilkes said, “that some livestock owners are already developing ways to use electronic identification to help them market their animals for a higher return. It’s all part of the growing trend where consumers want to know who produces their food.”
Currently the program is voluntary, although the U.S. Department of Agriculture says it could become mandatory.
Contact Elaine Lidholm, VDACS communications director, at 804-786-7686.
Will Herding Trials Be Next ???
California Bill Would Outlaw Field Trials
[Wednesday, April 26, 2006]
Assembly Bill 2110 was recently amended and the new language will affect certain AKC sanctioned events. The bill will prohibit "live field coursing," which is now defined as "a competition in which dogs are, by the use of rabbits, hares, or foxes, assessed as to skill in hunting live rabbits, hares, or foxes." AB 2110 will effectively outlaw Beagle Field Trials, Basset Hound Field Trials and Dachshund Field Trials within the state of California.
The original intent of AB 2110 was to outlaw "live field coursing," defined as "any activity in which a dog is left untethered and allowed to track and pursue any rabbit, hare, or fox and that results in the injury or death of the rabbit, hare, or fox." In AKC sanctioned events dogs trail the scent of an animal, but they do not kill the animal.
As amended, AB 2110 threatens the rights of Beagle, Bassett Hound, and Dachshund breeders and owners to prove the merits of their dogs as true working hounds, capable of performing tasks for which these breeds were originally developed. Individuals dedicated to continuing and refining the innate abilities of these scenthound breeds deserve the right to continue their pursuits, which in no way threaten the native rabbits tracked only by scent.
AB 2110 now eliminates that right and should be vigorously opposed by everyone committed to purebred dogs and working field trails, regardless of their personal breed.
California fanciers, field trial participants and concerned dog owners are encouraged to immediately contact their Assemblymember to express opposition to this new definition of "live lure coursing." Ask your representative to ensure that the bill is amended so that it will not negatively impact field trials which are enjoyed by so many, and which do not bring harm to the rabbits that are tracked.
What You Can Do:
Contact the bill sponsor and voice your opposition to AB 2110. Ask her to withdraw the bill from consideration.
The Honorable Loni Hancock
State Capitol
Room 4126
Sacramento, CA 94249-0014
(916) 319-2014
Contact your own Assemblymember to express your concerns. To find out who represents you in California, visit: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html.
Watch AKC's Web site for further updates. AB 2110 is now headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and we will post an update when a hearing date is announced.
For more information on this or other legislative issues, please contact the Canine Legislation department (doglaw@akc.org).
April 25, 2006 City revisiting ways to regulate vicious dogs
http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16542647&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6
City revisiting ways to regulate vicious dogs
BY DENISE ALLABAUGH STAFF WRITER 04/27/2006
WILKES-BARRE — After a failed attempt to ban pit bulls from Wilkes-Barre, city leaders are trying to find new ways to control vicious dogs without outlawing a specific breed.
Councilman Jim McCarthy said he wants stricter punishments for dog owners whose pets attack people. At Tuesday night’s work session, he gave City Attorney Tim Henry a copy of proposed state legislation that addresses the problem. The proposed amendment to Senate Bill 626 would make pet owners civilly liable for all damage caused when a dog inflicts severe injury or death.
According to the bill, a state dog warden or local police officer may file a complaint before a magisterial district judge charging the dog owner with harboring a dangerous dog if the animal has attacked a person without provocation on public or private property.
“To have a dog that is an attack dog, to me, is irrational and unconscionable,” McCarthy said. “Dog owners are bad if they mistreat the dog or train it to attack. They have to come under restrictions.”
Council’s renewed attempts to control vicious dogs came days after a city police officer shot a pit bull that attacked him. Wilkes-Barre Police Officer Tino Ninotti shot the dog while responding to a domestic dispute on Gilligan Street. According to police, the officer was on his way to an upstairs apartment when he encountered two pit bulls, one of them unrestrained. The loose dog jumped at Ninotti, who shot the dog once. The dog ran and collapsed on the porch at 178 Brown St.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Luzerne County removed the dog, which was conscious. The owner will be cited for letting the pet run loose, police said.
Residents of Gilligan and Brown streets said Wednesday they worry about dangerous dogs running loose in their neighborhood.
Last year, Mayor Tom Leighton tried to ban pit bulls entirely from the city but later learned that the regulation would have been a violation of a Pennsylvania dangerous dog law, which prohibits breed-specific legislation.
“We can’t pass any ordinance that strictly goes after pit bulls or Rottweilers,” Henry said.
City Administrator J.J. Murphy said he believes Pennsylvania’s dangerous dog law is outdated. He encouraged McCarthy to urge senators to pass the amendment.
Murphy said he worries about taking his own children to Kirby Park when there are dangerous dogs there.
“A resident shouldn’t have to carry a gun to protect their children in a public park,” he said.
dallabaugh@citizensvoice.com
April 5, 2006 LA County Releases Details of Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposal
LA County Releases Details of Mandatory Spay/Neuter Proposal
[Wednesday, April 05, 2006]
The Los Angeles County Animal Board of Supervisors will meet April 18th to discuss their proposal to require all dogs to be spayed or neutered unless their owner purchases a $60 intact animal license (currently $30) and meets the stringent criteria established by the county. The measure further requires all dogs, whether sterilized or intact, to be microchipped and increases the fee to license a sterilized animal from $15 to $20. A first violation will result in a fine not to exceed $250 and a second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000.
To be eligible for an unaltered dog license, a dog must be a law enforcement dog, a qualified service/assistance animal or a "competition dog." A "competition dog" must be registered with the AKC, UKC, ADBA or other valid registry approved by the Animal Care and Control department. Competition dogs must also meet one of the following requirements:
The dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting competition in the past year.
The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry as recognized by Los Angeles County Animal Care and Control.
The owner is a member of a purebred dog breed club, approved by the county which maintains and enforces a code of ethics that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.
Breeders are required to notify the animal control department within thirty days of a litter being whelped and must provide the name, address and telephone number of the new owner.
A license can be revoked or denied by the department for any of the following; upon receipt of one sworn complaint, if the owner has been cited for any violation of a state or local animal control law, or if the dog is deemed dangerous. Owners whose applications are denied or whose license is revoked are entitled to a hearing, which would be conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the animal control department.
The American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs if they do not want to participate in AKC conformation events or engage in responsible breeding programs. Through our public education department we support programs dedicated to educating the pet buying public on how to find a responsible breeder and how to make well-informed decisions when obtaining a dog. Such programs help to ensure that pet purchasers find a puppy or dog that is a good fit for their lifestyle, at an appropriate time in their lives, thereby increasing the likelihood that the animal will stay with the owners its entire life.
These methods, coupled with strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws) and increased public education efforts are the most effective ways to address irresponsible dog owners while at the same time reducing shelter numbers and improving public safety. To the contrary, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are extremely difficult to enforce, can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners, and punish responsible breeders who raise purebred dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. They also negatively impact owners who keep intact animals not to breed, but to participate in conformation and performance events.
Concerned dog owners are encouraged to contact their supervisor as soon as possible to voice their concerns. For talking points on opposing mandatory spay/neuter please click here.
What You Can Do:
Attend the Board of Supervisors meeting April 18th at 9:30am
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 W. Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Contact the County Board of Supervisors to express your opposition. To find out who represent you on the Board of Supervisors click here: http://regrec.co.la.ca.us/district/.
Supervisor Gloria Molina (District 1)
856 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-4111
Fax: (213) 613-1739
Email: Molina@bos.co.la.ca.us
Supervisor Yvonne Burke (District 2)
866 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-2222
Fax: (213) 680-3283
Email: seconddistrict@lacbos.org
Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (District 3)
821 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 W. Temple St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-3333
Fax: (213) 625-7360
E-mail zev@lacbos.org
Supervisor Don Knabe (District 4)
822 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration,
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-4444
Fax: (213) 626-6941
Email: jdoe@lacbos.org
Mayor Michael D. Antonovich (District 5)
869 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-5555
Fax: (213) 974-1010 fax
Email: fifthdistrict@bos.co.la.ca.us
For more information please contact
California Federation of Dog Clubs
Susan Gioia, President
800-949-3746, ext. 106
760-471-5277 (fax)
shojudge@yahoo.com
Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs
Joan Gibson-Reed, Legislative Coordinator
Jgrcorgis@aol.com
AKC Canine Legislation Department
(919) 816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
April 1, 2006 El Paso Mandatory Microchipping by 4-1-07
Cost of pet microchips falls as ordinance kicks in
Erica Molina Johnson
El Paso Times
Saturday, April 1, 2006
As the city ordinance requiring microchips in family pets goes into effect today, the cost to implant the chip is dropping.
"The microchip is now available and they are being delivered to all the veterinary clinics," said Mark Everett, public-health administrator for the El Paso City-County Health and Environmental District.
In the past few months, pet owners have paid up to about $45 to have the chip implanted in their dog, cat or ferret to help the owner find an animal if it becomes lost.
The city recently ordered 25,000 microchips and began delivering them to veterinarians on Tuesday, Everett said. The chips now cost $5 each plus the veterinarian's fee for insertion, he said, estimating that most veterinarians would now be implanting the chips for about $20 or $25.
Everett said that beginning today, pet owners should try to get microchips implanted in their pets during their next regular visit to the veterinarian.
"We're trying to make it convenient for individuals so they don't have to rush to the veterinarian to get microchipped," Everett said. "If you're not due until November for your rabies vaccination, we don't want to force you today to get your microchip."
Under the new Title 7 animal ordinance, all animals should be microchipped by April 1, 2007.
"If you love your dog, you take care of your dog," said Stephanie Rand, who had her rat terrier, Joy Joy, microchipped in November and who picked up her new pit bull, Suki, spayed and microchipped from the Humane Society on Thursday. "If you've ever lost a dog, you know microchipping is the answer."
Tom McCabe, a veterinarian at Northeast Veterinary Clinic, has been encouraging pet owners to wait to get the microchips.
"I've advised them to wait until their animal is due for their rabies vaccination," he said.
Flo Buchmueller, interim director of the Humane Society of El Paso, said she hopes El Pasoans pay attention to the 2007 microchipping deadline.
"People should be aware they have until April 1, 2007, so they shouldn't panic and surrender their dogs over the fear of penalties," she said.
Buchmueller said pet owners can drop by the Humane Society at any time to get the chip implanted in their pet for $25.
"It's amazing how many people are coming in," she said.
McCabe said inserting the microchip is simple. The chip, about the size of a grain of rice, is injected with a large needle between the animal's shoulder blades.
"We've had a few that will wince, but it's over in a split second," he said.
Buchmueller and Everett said pet owners should check with their veterinarians to get the chips at a good rate.
"Starting (today) it will run $20. That's where all the vets in town will try to keep it," said Misty Callaham, a veterinarian at Crossroads Animal Hospital.
This is half of what the clinic charged as recently as this week.
"We estimate there's an excess of 275,000 owned and cared-for pets in El Paso and probably an additional 100,000 stray and roaming animals," Everett said.
He said only about 30 percent of the owned pets are registered and vaccinated.
"They can lose their collar and tags, but they don't lose microchips," McCabe said.
Everett said pet owners should not be afraid of visits by Animal Control officers canvassing neighborhoods.
"We don't intend on issuing citations on the first or second pass," he said. "We will work with the individual so they know where to go and they are aware of some of the programs that exist."
He said all Animal Control officers are now equipped with scanners to check dogs and cats for microchips of any kind. However, some veterinarians are not able to read certain types of chips with their scanners.
"You will most definitely see an increase in those pets being microchipped surfacing now," Everett said. "We've done more microchips than ever before."
Callaham and McCabe said they have already seen the benefits of microchipping pets.
"We're seeing a lot more strays with a microchip," Callaham said.
The chips are scanned, and then the owners are notified.
"We've been able to reunite successfully lost animals with their rightful owners," McCabe said. "It's a lifetime insurance policy to get your pet returned to you."
Erica Molina Johnson may be reached at emolina@elpasotimes.com; 546-6132.
January 26, 2006 Indianapolis Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchipping
The Indianapolis City-County Council Rules and Public Policy Committee is considering a proposal that would require all animals to be spayed or neutered and would require all dogs and cats to be microchipped. The committee will accept written public comment until this Friday, September 29th and will hold a public hearing October 10th. It is vital that fanciers, breeders and concerned dog owners write letters and attend this meeting to educate city-county councillors about the benefits and importance of responsible breeders.
The proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will require all animals to be spayed or neutered unless the animal is a "show, breeder, law enforcement, service or competition animal or crime prevention dog." There are no definitions in the ordinance for show, breeder or competition animals. Indianapolis does not currently require licensing or registration of animals and under this proposal would require registration of only intact animals.
AKC opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.
The mandatory microchipping ordinance will require each dog and cat over the age of three months to be implanted with a microchip. Previously the city-county allowed a collar tag to serve as a means of permanent identification. Veterinarians or others who implant microchips are required to report the names, addresses and phone numbers of dog and cat owners and corresponding microchip number monthly to city-county officials.
As part of AKC's ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, we encourage dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification-whether by collar, tattoo or microchip-should be made by the owner, not the government.
It is crucial that all fanciers and concerned dog owners work together to protect our rights as dog owners. The narrow exemptions provided in the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance are not sufficient to justify relinquishing the rights of responsible owners to breed dogs.
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue-irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and would restrict the many breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs responsibly. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals, working hard to raise healthy, well cared for dogs and to ensure that the puppies are placed with responsible dog owners.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.
What You Can Do:
Attend the public hearing on October 10th at 5:30pm.
Room 260
City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Contact Councillor Rozelle Bird, Rules and Public Policy Committee Chair
The Honorable Rozelle Bird
200 E. Washington, Room 241T
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317-327-4240
Contact your representative on the Indianapolis City Council.
Written comments must be received by September 29th.
To find out who represents you on the Indianapolis City Council, click here.
The Honorable or Councillor (Name)
241 City-County Building
200 E. Washington St.
Phone: 317-327-4241
For more information, contact:
Indiana Animal Owners Alliance
Patsy Dunn-Jena
padunnje2@yahoo.com
AKC's Canine Legislation department
919-816-3720
doglaw@akc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page http://www.akc.org/news/blocks/print_article.cfm
September, 26 2006, 6:47 PM
©2005 The American Kennel Club, Inc. All rights reserved. You may print this page for your personal, noncommercial, use only. You agree not to reprint, create derivative works from, post, reformat, transfer or sell this content in any format whatsoever.
January 22, 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act **Update and AKC Political Notes**
Dear SAOVA Friends,
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees failed to markup HR4239 and S3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), this week, increasing the possibility the bill will not become law this year. The delay doesn't involve the measure's void on hunting-related business coverage, but is due the backlog of other legislation and a concern over animal activist's free speech rights. If you haven't made the contacts requested below, please do so. Hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides deserve and need AETA's protection too.
Old news, revised: SAOVA's September 14, 2006 message titled "AKC, HSUS & $$$" contained a factual error. The American Kennel Club's (AKC) puppy sale-registration contract is with Petland, not PetsMart.
Some thoughts on the AKC's direction. The German Shorthaired Pointer Club of America's Board of Directors this month refused to let AKC Board Chairman Ronald Menaker judge its 2007 Specialty. It's widely believed this action is due to the AKC management's misguided collaboration with the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) to federally regulate hobby breeders under S1139 (PAWS). Separately, several parent breed clubs, including the gigantic Golden Retriever Club of America, have voiced strong, formal rejection of the AKC-Petland contract to Mr. Menaker.
Does AKC's interest in microchip registration revenue trump concerns over dog owners' privacy rights? What safeguards are in place to prevent CAR's database from being used against dog owners? It was clear in the PAWS debate that AKC registration data would be made available to enforce that bill's onerous provisions. While all of us are concerned about recovering lost animals, HSUS's interest in microchipping is likely more motivated by their use to enforce "gotcha" licensing and other animal control and anti-breeding ordinances. Does Ron Menaker really think than he can outwit HSUS's Wayne Pacelle, after being embarrassed so badly over PAWS? Is the AKC learning curve really that steep? Where is this all leading and to whom is AKC's Board responsible? At least a few responsible dog club leaders are speaking up, concerned with AKC's present drift.
SAOVA's Election 2006 endorsements will be announced very shortly.
Time's tight on getting this bill fixed to include hunting preserve operators, outfitters and guides, but you might make a few calls early today. Other key sponsor and committee votes include
Senator Jon Kyl --- Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207
Senator Orrin Hatch --- Phone: (202) 224-5251 Fax: (202) 224-6331
Senator Arlen Specter --- Phone: (202) 224-4254 Fax: (202) 228-1229
Senator Rick Santorum --- Phone: (202) 224-6324 Fax: (202) 228-0604
Senator Jeff Sessions --- Phone: (202) 224-4124 Fax: (202) 224-3149
Senator Johnny Isakson --- Phone: (202) 224-3643 Fax: (202) 228-0724
Senator Lindsay Graham --- Phone: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-3808
Senator Jim DeMint --- Phone: (202) 224-6121 Fax: (202) 228-5143
Senator John Cornyn --- Phone: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856
Senator Charles Grassley --- Phone: (202) 224-3744 Fax: (202) 224-6020
Senator Mike DeWine --- Phone: (202) 224-2315 Fax: (202) 224-6519
Senator Herbert Kohl --- Phone: (202) 224-5653 Fax: (202) 224-9787
Senator Russ Feingold --- Phone: (202) 224-5323 Fax: (202) 224-2725
Senator Dianne Feinstein --- Phone: (202) 224-3841 Fax: (202) 228-3954
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance -
Working to identify and elect supportive legislators
http://saova.org
Frustrate the Anti's - Take your children to the
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus and a Rodeo
A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. 00 00, 0000
|
