Tampilkan postingan dengan label laws. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 24 Februari 2014

Don't Be Fooled! – Action Alert!

Here's an Action Alert for Maryland residents that I want to pass on...please get involved in the fight to protect animals! –Kim

Proposed Maryland Devocalization Law Would ALLOW the Cruelty to Continue

On the surface, a proposed Maryland state law – now before the Legislature as House Bill 667 and the companion Senate Bill 660 – would seem to prohibit devocalization.

But look a little deeper: This legislation actually allows veterinarians to continue cutting dogs' and cats' vocal cords, just to stifle their voices. Learn...then take 2 minutes to help protect animals from this cruel convenience surgery.

NOW'S THE TIME TO GET THE LEGISLATION RIGHT

On March 8, the Maryland Senate amended and improved SB 660, its version of the proposed law, by adding a definition of devocalization.

But the Senate left a fatal loophole, omission of the word "physical."

A devocalization law that doesn't define medical necessity as treatment of a "physical" illness would allow vets to cut vocal cords for barking or meowing--what the law is supposed to prohibit!

As of March 13, the companion House Bill 667 does include this crucial word, thanks to Delegate Benjamin Kramer. The two bills now must be reconciled in a joint House/Senate committee so their wording is the same.

It is vital that the final legislation retain the definition of devocalization...AND that it specifiy devocalization may be performed ONLY to treat PHYSICAL ailments...AND that NO other changes are made.

We hope Delegate Kramer stands firm. If he doesn't, this will be an empty law that does NOT protect animals at all.

Animals feel real pain. They need a real devocalization law.

BROAD OR NO DEFINITIONS = NO PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

Legislators know statutes must precisely define the actions being made illegal. The proposed Maryland devocalization law doesn't, rendering it completely unenforceable.

Any vet wishing to skirt the law can claim things like:

"I didn't de-bark (devocalize) my patient. I merely softened his bark; that's different.
"I didn't 'silence' my patient. This dog (cat) still makes vocal sounds."
"My patient had a 'behavioral' illness."

REALITY: No matter what it's called or how vocal cords are cut – through the open mouth or an incision in the neck – helpless dogs and cats face lifelong misery or a terrible death without any benefit, not even the claimed assurance of a home. These animals are surrendered, abandoned and euthanized like any other.

WHAT THE LAW MUST INCLUDE:

THESE THREE DEFINITIONS... EXACTLY AS WRITTEN

As used in this statute, "vocal cord surgery" shall mean a procedure involving the vocal apparatus of a dog or cat that includes cutting, notching, punching, abrading, laser, suturing or otherwise physically altering the tissue regardless of the surgical route.
"Devocalization" shall mean vocal cord surgery on a dog or cat, as defined above, performed with the intent of altering, reducing or eliminating vocal sounds produced by that animal. This includes procedures also referred to as debarking, devoicing, silencing, vocal cordectomy, ventriculocordectomy, bark reduction or bark softening.
"Medically necessary" shall mean necessary to treat a PHYSICAL illness, disease or injury or correct a birth defect that causes the animal medical harm or pain that cannot be relieved or remedied by other veterinary care.

If all three definitions are not added to the bill exactly as written above, Maryland's dogs and cats will continue to have their vocal cords cut for communicating.

THE LAW MUST NOT INCLUDE ANY OTHER CHANGES

Loopholes that would hurt animals are not always obvious. For example, substituting "pets" for "dogs and cats" leaves animals used for breeding and animal testing without any protection. "Allowable as a last resort" is unenforceable, and worse, it legitimizes this act of animal cruelty.

Sneaky loopholes like these and others can be added any time before a bill becomes law. Don't let that happen to this one.

MARYLAND RESIDENTS

TAKE 2 MINUTES TO PROTECT ANIMALS NOW...

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

Animals can't advocate for themselves; they need your voice to protect theirs. Politely tell your Senator:

The word "physical" MUST be included in the final version of the legislation to describe conditions deemed "medically necessary" – its omission is a glaring loophole that enables vets to continue cutting vocal cords for any reason.
The definition of devocalization adopted on March 8 MUST be retained.
NO other changes should be made or the law could be rendered unenforceable.

Calls are best – and fast! But if you email, put this in the subject line: "Close the Loopholes in the Devocalization Bill SB660"

If you're a constituent, say so! Don't know? Click here to find out.

Sen. Lisa Gladden
Phone: 410-841-3697 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3697 | Fax: 410-841-3142
lisa.gladden@senate.state.md.us

Sen. Brian Frosh
Phone: 301-858-3124 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3124 | Fax: 410-841-3142
brian.frosh@senate.state.md.us

Learn about the subtle wording that would cause animals lifelong misery or a terrible death:

http://stopdevocalizing.weebly.com/legislative-loopholes.html

Got a few more minutes?

Call any or all of these committee members in addition to – NOT instead of – Senators Gladden and Frosh.

If you're a constituent, say so! Don't know? Click here to find out.

Sen. James Bronchin
410-841-3648 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3648,
jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Jennie Forehand
301-858-3134 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3134
jennie.forehand@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Stephen Hershey, Jr.
410-841-3639 | 301-858-3639 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3639
steve.hershey@senate.state.md.us
Sen. C. Anthony Muse
301-858-3092 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3092
anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Jamie Raskin
301-858-3634 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3634
jamie.raskin@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Christopher Shank
301-858-3903 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3903
christopher.shank@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Norman Stone, Jr.
410-841-3587 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3587
norman.stone@senate.state.md.us
Sen. Bobby Zirkin
410-841-3131 | Toll-free in MD: 1-800-492-7122 ext. 3131
bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us

Source: Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Also, see:

Please "Like" this Campaign Against Devocalization on FACEBOOK
Here's Piper on FACEBOOK (9 secs.) – Please "Like"!
More True Stories of Devocalized Dogs
United Against Devocalization
Myths & Facts about Devocalization
Tell Your Veterinarian: Devocalization is Mutilation!
ATTN: Vets and Vet Techs
Support State Laws Banning Devocalization

Videos:

Rabu, 13 November 2013

Bark Softening: Fiction & Fact

Here's more info about the cruelty of devocalization...please become informed and spread the word! –Kim

Bark Softening: Fiction and Fact

Some special interest groups have advanced misleading claims about devocalization for their own profit or convenience. Here's one – and the facts.

FICTION: "Bark softening" isn't devocalization. It's a different, non-invasive procedure.

FACT: "Bark softening" IS devocalization. The only way to alter the voice is by cutting the tissue of the vocal apparatus. Whether that's done through the oral cavity – spun as "bark softening" – or an incision in the neck, it indeed is invasive, painful and dangerous, with long-term consequences.

The term "bark softening" is also misleading in another way. No vet can predict the quality of the post-surgical voice: It may be hoarse. Or it could be shrill, wheezy or strange and disturbing. Most people say devocalized voices are far more irritating than those with which the animals were born. But once the vocal cord tissue is cut, there's no turning back.

Take a look at this brief video and meet Porter...

Newfoundlands like Porter rarely bark. But Porter's first owner had her vet, who'd performed many devocalizations, cut his vocal cord tissue just to stifle his voice anyway. Then, she no longer wanted Porter. He was given to a rescue group.

Though the devocalization was done through the oral cavity, the less invasive approach, scar tissue formed over 50% of Porter's airway. His new adopters paid for a $2,000 procedure to remove the blockage, but were told Porter still will never again breathe normally or bark like other dogs. Instead, his hoarse voice makes him sound like a chain smoker. His adopters say it's painful to hear.

Porter can barely walk a block without struggling to breathe. He is at great risk for heatstroke, even when it's not hot, or choking – a terrifying way to die. And because his larynx was permanently damaged by the devocalization, he risks inhaling food, liquid, even vomit into his lungs, which in turn can cause fatal pneumonia.

But at least Porter is still alive. Other devocalized Newfies given to the rescue group weren't as lucky.

Get the whole story about devocalization and sign the petition below. For more claims and facts, visit: http://stopdevocalizing.weebly.com/claims-and-facts.html.

And, please visit this page on FACEBOOK and "Like" it! Thanks for your help!

Source: http://cprpets.weebly.com/devocalized-porters-story.html
Copyright 2012, Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Also, see:

Please "Like" this Campaign Against Devocalization on FACEBOOK
Here's Piper on FACEBOOK (9 secs.) – Please "Like"!
More True Stories of Devocalized Dogs
United Against Devocalization
Myths & Facts about Devocalization
Tell Your Veterinarian: Devocalization is Mutilation!
ATTN: Vets and Vet Techs
Support State Laws Banning Devocalization

Videos:

Senin, 07 Oktober 2013

Jaxon's Story: Devocalized

Here's the story about one of our fosters who had almost died, due to devocalization! –Kim

Abandoned in an Empty House, Unable to Bark for Help

Jaxon

Jaxon, a young, neutered Chinese Crested, and Foxie, a Pom, were found in an empty house, where they'd been abandoned without food, surviving by eating their waste.

If Jaxon were alone, he wouldn't have been discovered in time to save his life: That's because he was devocalized.

But with her vocal cords intact, Foxie could bark loudly enough to be heard, and the dogs were discovered. The rest is what happy endings are made of.

A dog rescue group called Bald is Beautiful pulled Jaxon and Foxie from the county pound, and a kind couple – veteran rescuers and dog bloggers (TopDogBlog!) – fostered them. Another couple drove from Maryland to Chicago to adopt Jaxon, Foxie and a third dog, Maddie.

Foxie

Now 4 years old, Jaxon is living the good life with his foster siblings in a loving home. And Jaxon is extra lucky: His adoptive mom, a nurse, knows how to manage the consequences of devocalization. Adopters who don't – or who don't even know their animals were devocalized – may unwittingly cause their deaths.

Becky waters Jaxon's food to ease swallowing so he won't die the terrifying way other devocalized animals have, choking on food.

And she monitors his play, because though he loves to do "zoomies" in the yard with Maddie, Jaxon becomes winded after a few minutes as a result of devocalization.

He coughs after drinking water and intermittently throughout the day and night, sometimes so badly, his family worries he won't be able to catch his breath.

Becky says, "No animal should ever be devocalized. It's especially odd to us that Jaxon was, because he barks only when one of our cats is near him. He doesn't even try in doggy park."

But that didn't keep someone from having his vocal cords cut.

Source: United Against Devocalization / Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets
© 2013 Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION
against Devocalization

Also, see:

Videos:

Rabu, 25 September 2013

367 Dogs Rescued from Fighting Rings

News

Busted Dogfighters Earn Spot in 'Lowest Places in Hell'

By Devon Sayers and Joe Sterling
August 26, 2013

(CNN) – The "lowest places in hell" are reserved for people who force animals to fight, an Alabama district attorney said Monday after announcing that more than 350 pitbulls have been rescued from a massive illegal dogfighting ring.

They rescued 367 pit bull terriers in Alabama and Georgia. Authorities arrested 11 people on Friday for violations of the federal dogfighting and gambling statutes.

Warrants were executed and arrests were made in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas. The dogs were taken to temporary shelters in undisclosed locations.

"It's really a sad day to me and a sad day of affairs in the state of Alabama to have to even indulge in this type of criminal activity and prosecution," said U.S. Attorney George L. Beck Jr.

"I believe if Dante were alive today and were rewriting 'The Inferno,' that the lowest places in hell would be reserved for those who commit cruelty to our animals and to our children." He was referring to "The Divine Comedy," the epic poem by Dante Alighieri.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery, Alabama; the Auburn, Alabama, police; and the FBI teamed up with the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to investigate the dogfighting and free the canines from captivity. The result, the ASPCA said, was believed to be the second-largest dogfighting raid in U.S. history.

"Today, we ended the torture of hundreds of abused and neglected dogs," said Matt Bershadker, president and chief executive officer of the ASPCA.

Many of the dogs appeared emaciated, the ASPCA said.

"In one yard, 114 dogs, the majority tethered to heavy chains, sat in 90 degree heat, scratching at fleas, with no fresh water or food visible anywhere on the property. Some appeared to have no access to water at all, and many exhibited wounds, scars and other conditions consistent with dogfighting," the ASPCA said in a statement.

"Makeshift, filthy doghouses – many improvised from plastic and metal barrels and others made of chipboard with rotting wood floors and rusted metal roofing – provided the only shelter in the sweltering heat and humidity.

Some dogs pulled at chains and cables that were tethered to cinder blocks and car tires. A female dog did her best to tend to six puppies, just weeks old, with no food or water, in a pen littered with trash and feces."

A 30-count federal indictment charges that from 2009 to 2013, the 11 suspects conspired to promote and sponsor dogfighting and to possess, buy, sell, transport and deliver dogs for fighting.

Agents seized $500,000 from dogfighters.

"These defendants were betting between $5,000 and $200,000 on one dogfight," Beck said. "These dogfighters abuse, starve and kill their dogs for the supposed 'fun' of watching and gambling on a dogfight. Their behavior is deplorable, will not be tolerated, and will be punished to the full extent of the law."

Beck said the suspects, if convicted, could face "lengthy" prison terms.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/alabama-dog-fight-ring/index.html

Also, see:

Sabtu, 20 April 2013

Dog Bites BPA & BPS

Having lost a dear companion to cancer from BPA toys, this topic is very important to me. –Kim

Chemicals Leak from Plastic Training Toys

Dogs that chew on plastic training devices and toys may be exposed to hormone-altering chemicals. Bisphenol A (BPA) and Phthalates – ingredients of hard plastics and vinyl – readily leach from bumper toys, which are used to train retrieving dogs. But Bisphenol S (BPS), the chemical now being used in place of BPA in many "BPA-free" products, may be just as harmful – if not more harmful – than BPA.

By Lindsey Konkel
Environmental Health News
Nov. 29, 2012

Dogs that chew on plastic training devices and toys may be exposed to hormone-altering chemicals, according to research at Texas Tech University.

The researchers found that Bisphenol A (BPA), Bisphenol S (BPS) and Phthalates – ingredients of hard plastics and vinyl – readily leach from bumper toys, which are used to train retrieving dogs.

The new study is one of the first to examine dog products as a potential source of exposure for pets. No one knows, though, whether the traces of the chemicals pose any health risk to dogs. Previous research has focused on the risks to infants and toddlers from baby bottles, toys and other items that contained the chemicals.

"A lot of plastic products are used for dogs, so to understand the potential for some of the chemicals to leach out from toys is a new and important area of research," said veterinarian Safdar Khan, senior director of toxicology research at the ASPCA's Poison Control Center in Illinois. Dr. Khan was not involved in the current study.

Philip Smith, a toxicologist at The Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech, became interested in chemical exposures from bumpers after using them to train his own Labrador retrievers.

Retrieving dogs often are trained with plastic bumpers,
which when chewed can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals.

"Some of the dogs are exposed to plastic bumpers from the time they are born until the day they die. We all want our pets to be healthy," said Smith, co-author of the as-yet unpublished study, which was presented this month at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference in California.

"A lot of plastic products are used for dogs, so to understand the potential for some of the chemicals to leach out from toys is a new and important area of research," stated Dr. Safdar Khan.

In humans and rodents, BPA, BPS and phthalates have been linked to a number of health issues, including impaired development of reproductive organs, decreased fertility and cancers. The United States and the European Union have banned some phthalates in children's toys, and in July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.

The researchers, led by Kimberly Wooten, a graduate student in environmental toxicology at Texas Tech, studied factors that affected how much BPA, BPS and phthalates leached from plastic bumpers into dishes filled with artificial dog saliva.

They tested orange and white bumpers from two unidentified makers. The bumpers subjected to simulated chewing leached more BPA, BPS and phthalates than brand new bumpers and those left outside to weather for a month.

Researchers said they suspect that the levels of chemicals observed from the bumpers would be considered very high when compared with children's toys.

Since simulated saliva was used, it is difficult to say how much actual leaching would occur in a dog's mouth, the researchers said. "We don't have enough information at this time to begin to estimate actual exposure," Smith said.

Smith said they suspect that the levels of chemicals observed from the bumpers would be considered very high when compared with children's toys.

Using artificial saliva, researchers
simulated a dog chewing a bumper.

The researchers also looked at phthalates, BPA and BPS from pet toys sold through major retailers. They found higher concentrations leaching from bumpers than from other toys but preliminary results suggest some store-bought toys might have leached other hormonally-active chemicals.
A previous study by the Environmental Working Group found that dogs' blood and urine contained the breakdown products of several phthalates at levels ranging from 1.1 to 4.5 times higher than the average found in people.

"Dogs are closer to the ground than humans, so house dust is another potential source of exposure to environmental chemicals," Dr. Khan said.

But little is known about any potential health risks for dogs exposed to hormone-mimicking chemicals.

Since little toxicity data exist for dogs, it is difficult to evaluate risks, Smith said. Nonetheless, "consumer education about potential risk seems to be warranted based on our data," he said.

Source: Environmental Health News
Copyright © 2011-2012 Environmental Health Sciences

Also, see:

Kamis, 15 November 2012

Tell Veterinarians: Devocalization is Mutilation!

Here's a great article that I thought I would pass on...be a part of the solution to this abuse! –Kim

Sign the Petition against this Abuse

It's hard to believe, but some veterinarians actually cut the vocal cords of dogs AND cats just to suppress their voices. We know because it happened to our dogs before we adopted them. They're two very different breeds – a Newfoundland and a Chihuahua – and we live in two different states.

We joined with Coalition to Protect and Rescue Pets, which led the successful campaign to ban devocalization in Massachusetts, to make sure no other dog or cat anywhere suffers as ours have.

But until the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) changes its position on devocalization, countless other dogs AND cats will be subjected to this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.

Though devocalization is so cruel it is illegal in many countries, the AVMA continues to condone it as a "final alternative" to manage barking.

That leaves animals vulnerable to and legitimizes devocalization. Here's why:

No vet can possibly know if devocalization is a "final alternative," and some won't ask. Even receipts from a trainer or behaviorist don't mean the advice was followed consistently or at all; devocalization is easier for lazy or impatient owners.

And just as devocalization didn't keep our dogs from becoming homeless, it hasn't prevented the abandonment and euthanasia of countless other dogs and cats.

HOW AVMA'S POSITION HURTS ANIMALS

Massachusetts currently has the only enforceable state devocalization ban in the US. Other state laws protect owners and vets but not animals, who are subjected to a dangerous surgery they don't need but are helpless to refuse.

We wish veterinary associations had supported legislation that truly protects animals by prohibiting vocal cord surgery except to treat a physical illness, injury or birth defect.

Instead, these associations have opposed enforceable humane laws, using the AVMA's "final alternative" position to justify cutting an animal's vocal cords just to deal with barking or meowing.

Why would any vet condone such cruelty? It's obvious that some devocalize dogs and cats because it's profitable. Others won't devocalize, but oppose banning it anyway. It could be they fear these laws would lead to prohibition of other unnecessary, mutilating [profitable] surgeries like declawing, cropping ears and docking tails.

HOW DEVOCALIZATION HURTS OUR DOGS

Please meet our dogs in the video on this page.

Though an experienced vet devocalized our gentle giant, Porter, in the least invasive way, scar tissue formed in his throat, making it hard for him to breathe and swallow. He rasps, coughs and gags throughout the day like a chain smoker. Because devocalization permanently damaged his larynx too, he's at great risk for inhaling food, liquids, even vomit into his lungs.

Tiny Lola struggles to force out a bark and doesn't always succeed. Like other devocalized animals, she coughs and gags a lot. One day, she may have to face the same $2,000 surgery Porter needed to save his life after he was devocalized.

That's brutal punishment for the "crime" of communicating!

Please don't let this brutality continue. Tell the AVMA: There is no ethical reason to cut vocal cords just to stifle an animal’s voice – ever. Devocalization is an act of cruelty that no animal deserves, no vet should perform, no veterinary association should sanction, and no civilized society should allow.

Meet the HUMANE vets in this video. They're what every vet should be...

CLICK HERE to SIGN THIS PETITION

Source: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-veterinarians-devocalization-is-mutilation
© 2012, Change.org Inc.

Get involved!
Wonder where your vet stands on devocalization? It's not enough to say 'I don't devocalize.' Not all vets willingly disclose that. Ask your vet to join those who have called for a ban on devocalization of dogs and cats without exception. Have him or her fill out this easy online form. And if the vet won't, consider finding one who will.

Also, see:

Minggu, 11 November 2012

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Now that Hurricane Sandy is behind us, here's a great article on how to be prepared... –Kim

Protect Your Pets in an Emergency

Make plans to ensure your pet's safety before, during and after an emergency. The following are organizations and resources that you can contact or access to help you plan how to protect your pets.

If you don't have a plan and need information quickly in an emergency, contact:

Local Animal Shelters.
Because most emergency shelters do not admit pets, local animal shelters may be able to offer advice, such as what to do with your pets if you are asked to evacuate your home. Search for local shelters and rescue groups on Petfinder's Shelter Center.

Local government animal control or service agencies. These can provide guidance on how to protect your pets in an emergency.

Find out what your community's plans and resources are for protecting pets in an emergency. The following are considered key resources for planning how to ensure your pets' safety before an emergency:

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
AMVA offers a variety of resources to assist veterinarians, animal owners, and others interested in the well-being of animals to prepare for animal safety in the event of a disaster.

Disaster Preparedness Site

RedRover
Through its volunteer-driven RedRover Responders (formerly the Emergency Animal Rescue Service or EARS), RedRover shelters and cares for animals displaced by natural disasters and other crises, such as criminal seizures and hoarding cases, in the United States and Canada. If you need sheltering assistance, call RedRover at (800) 440-3277. Visit RedRover at www.redrover.org.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
FEMA is the federal agency that leads the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident.

Animals and Emergencies: Preparedness Information...
http://www.fema.gov/individual/animals.shtm

Pet Travel and Lodging Resources
Most emergency shelters do not take pets. Before an emergency, plan where you will take your family and pets if you are ever asked to evacuate your home. There are a number of organizations that offer advice and resources for traveling with pets, including searchable lists of lodging establishments that accept pets.

San Bernardino County
If you are a pet owner, you need to make sure that you have included your pets in your emergency preparations. Of course, different disasters will require different responses, but you may have to evacuate your home. See Disaster Preparedness for Your Pets (PDF) to learn more about how to protect your pets.

Disclaimer: Links to other federal and nonfederal organizations found at this site are provided solely as a service to our users. These links do not constitute an endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC, and none should be inferred. CDC is not responsible for the content of the individual organization Web pages found at these links.

Source: http://emergency.cdc.gov/disasters/petprotect.asp

See also:

Animals in Public Evacuation Centers
Hurricane Sandy Rescues
If Your Dog is Lost
Tips on How to Find a Lost Pet
Kids and Pets ALWAYS Stay Free at Motel 6
Tickets To Go Now Travel Agency – Pet-friendly listings!

Kamis, 11 Oktober 2012

Ineffective Dog Laws

Here's a great video that I thought I would pass on...hope you find it interesting! –Kim

Interview on Ineffective Dog Laws

NCRC Interview with Officer Bill Bruce on Ineffective Dog Laws from Kara Gilmore.

Bill Bruce, Calgary's Director of Animal and By-Law Services, discusses ineffective dog laws such as breed-specific legislation, pet limit laws, and mandatory spay-neuter, and why these broad-based forms of legislation are ineffective. (Presented by the National Canine Research Council.)

Source: http://vimeo.com/26979893

Also, see:

Minggu, 26 Februari 2012

She Doesn't Answer the Phone

Here's a really humorous letter that I think you'll enjoy... –Kim

Harboring an Unlicensed Dog

In 1951, E.B. White — the novelist responsible for, most notably, Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little — was accused by the ASPCA of not paying his dog tax and, as a result, "harboring" an unlicensed dog. He responded by way of the following delightful letter.

Source: Letters of a Nation; Image: E.B. White with his dachshund, Minnie, via Mister Crew.

12 April 1951
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
York Avenue and East 92nd Street
New York, 28, NY
Dear Sirs:
I have your letter, undated, saying that I am harboring an unlicensed dog in violation of the law. If by "harboring" you mean getting up two or three times every night to pull Minnie's blanket up over her, I am harboring a dog all right. The blanket keeps slipping off. I suppose you are wondering by now why I don't get her a sweater instead. That's a joke on you. She has a knitted sweater, but she doesn't like to wear it for sleeping; her legs are so short they work out of a sweater and her toenails get caught in the mesh, and this disturbs her rest. If Minnie doesn't get her rest, she feels it right away. I do myself, and of course with this night duty of mine, the way the blanket slips and all, I haven't had any real rest in years. Minnie is twelve.
In spite of what your inspector reported, she has a license. She is licensed in the State of Maine as an unspayed bitch, or what is more commonly called an "unspaded" bitch. She wears her metal license tag but I must say I don't particularly care for it, as it is in the shape of a hydrant, which seems to me a feeble gag, besides being pointless in the case of a female. It is hard to believe that any state in the Union would circulate a gag like that and make people pay money for it, but Maine is always thinking of something. Maine puts up roadside crosses along the highways to mark the spots where people have lost their lives in motor accidents, so the highways are beginning to take on the appearance of a cemetery, and motoring in Maine has become a solemn experience, when one thinks mostly about death. I was driving along a road near Kittery the other day thinking about death and all of a sudden I heard the spring peepers. That changed me right away and I suddenly thought about life. It was the nicest feeling.
You asked about Minnie's name, sex, breed, and phone number. She doesn't answer the phone. She is a dachshund and can't reach it, but she wouldn't answer it even if she could, as she has no interest in outside calls. I did have a dachshund once, a male, who was interested in the telephone, and who got a great many calls, but Fred was an exceptional dog (his name was Fred) and I can't think of anything offhand that he wasn't interested in. The telephone was only one of a thousand things. He loved life — that is, he loved life if by "life" you mean "trouble," and of course the phone is almost synonymous with trouble. Minnie loves life, too, but her idea of life is a warm bed, preferably with an electric pad, and a friend in bed with her, and plenty of shut-eye, night and days. She's almost twelve. I guess I've already mentioned that. I got her from Dr. Clarence Little in 1939. He was using dachshunds in his cancer-research experiments (that was before Winchell was running the thing) and he had a couple of extra puppies, so I wheedled Minnie out of him. She later had puppies by her own father, at Dr. Little's request. What do you think about that for a scandal? I know what Fred thought about it. He was some put out.
Sincerely yours,
E.B. White

Source: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/she-doesnt-answer-phone.html

Also, see:
Recommended Books/DVDs

Sabtu, 28 Januari 2012

Florida Animal Rescue Act

This makes sense for every state and every nation! –Kim

Florida Survey Shows Animals Needlessly Killed

ATTENTION All Florida Residents: Rescue Access Law Introduced!

"Florida Animal Rescue Act, SB 818/HB 597, would make it illegal for a shelter to kill an animal when a qualified non-profit rescue organization is willing to save that animal."

A statewide survey of rescue groups across Florida State found that 63% of non-profit animal rescue groups have had at least one Florida state shelter refuse to work collaboratively with them and then turn around and kill the very animals they were willing to save. The most common reason given was shelters either having a policy of not working with rescue groups or being openly hostile to doing so.

It makes no sense to kill animals in the face of cost-effective alternatives, nor does it make sense that taxpayers are spending money to kill animals when non-profit organizations are willing and able to save them at private expense. California's "rescue access" law saves tens of thousands of animals every year at no cost to the public.

The same survey also found that 45% of respondents are afraid to complain about inhumane conditions or practices at Florida shelters, because if they did complain, they would not be allowed to rescue animals, thus allowing those inhumane conditions to continue.

In addition, 81% of rescue groups that have tried to work with more than one shelter said that different shelters have different rescue access policies, with more than half of those respondents saying that criteria for saving animals changes depending on what staff is on duty or whether staff changes. This creates inefficiency and limits the number of animals who can and should be saved.

The Florida Animal Rescue Act (FARA) would set statewide standards for rescue group access and make it illegal for a shelter to kill an animal when a qualified non-profit rescue organization is willing to save that animal. Not only will it save lives, save taxpayer money and mandate public-private partnerships, the FARA is consistent with public health and safety, and improves the public satisfaction with the job government is doing.

For more information, visit www.floridarescueact.com.

Also, see:

Kamis, 29 Desember 2011

A Home for the Holidays

Here's a great article that I thought I would pass on... Happy New Year! –Kim

Airline Workers Give Grounded Pooch a Home for the Holidays

By Renee Nadeau Algarin
December 24, 2011

Continental Airlines customer service reps have opened their homes in the spirit of this season of giving to a little dog that flew cross-county with his owner only to be barred from a flight to Spain.

Jane Bossi of Wakefield, a 28-year employee, said she was boarding customers on a Madrid-bound flight Sunday as a colleague tended to a Lake Tahoe woman and her 4-month-old puppy, Whopper.

The woman paid to have the pup fly under her seat from San Francisco to Boston, but she hadn't secured a health certificate from a vet to fly the pup out of the country. Hopes of placing the pup in a pet hotel went bust since he is too young to have had all his shots.

That's when Bossi opened her home to the pooch, offering to care for Whopper until his tearful owner returned from her trip to visit family in Spain.

"You just have to reach out and follow your heart and do something nice. She was out of answers. She did not know what else to do," Bossi said.

Bossi has emailed photos of the brindle Shar Pei-Boxer mix to his owner daily.

"I'm in love with him now because he's so beautiful," Bossi said.

Whopper will not be able to tag along on a surprise trip to New Hampshire to visit Bossi's mother, but luckily Bossi's co-workers have hearts as big as hers.

"The mother in all of us just took over," said LaDonna Evans-Ampadu, a fellow customer service rep and longtime foster parent who will pick up Whopper at the airport today to bring him to her Worcester home for the holiday. She plans to use the experience to teach her two daughters about caring for a dog before they get one next year.

Bossi said she has gotten more out of the experience than she imagined.

"This puppy was almost given to me as a gift," she said. "You do things sometimes and you get more back than you ever felt you deserved."

Source: http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1224airline_workers_give_grounded_pooch_a_home_for_the_holidays
© Copyright the Boston Herald and Herald Media

Selasa, 25 Januari 2011

7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS

Here's a revealing article that I thought I would pass on...hope you find it informative! –Kim

Still the Same Old Hidden Agenda
April 20, 2010

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a "humane society" in name only. It isn't affiliated with any hands-on "humane society" organizations, and it doesn't operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere. During 2008, HSUS contributed barely $450,000 – less than one-half of one percent of its budget – in grants to dog and cat shelters. In 2009, HSUS took in $100 million but made only six grants to Missouri pet shelters, totaling less than $43,000, according to its filings with the IRS. By comparison, that same year it gave $2.25 million to a political campaign committee behind an anti-meat ballot initiative in California, and put $2.5 million into HSUS's executive pension plan. HSUS is the wealthiest animal-rights lobbying organization on earth. It agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups, but uses fewer naked interns.
Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick's 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would "care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case." The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn't caring for Vick's dogs at all. And HSUS President Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group urged government officials to "put down" (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch. Vick now gives HSUS "sponsored" speeches. And most of his dogs have been rehabilitated – without any help from HSUS.
HSUS's senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as "terrorists" by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John "J.P." Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as "spokesperson for the ALF" while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer's feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, "We're ecstatic." That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage.
A 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation found that HSUS receives less than 12% of the money raised on its behalf by California telemarketers. Professional fundraisers keep the rest. If you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the "Builda-Bear Workshop" retail chain – which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really "fundraising") – HSUS's yield shrinks to just three percent. This is typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised a return of "zero percent" of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work. Similar filings exist in Massachusetts, New York, and other states. In 2008 HSUS collected more than $86 million in contributions, but spent more than $24 million on fundraising.
HSUS's heavily promoted U.S. "boycott" of Canadian seafood – announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada's annual seal hunt – is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78% of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as "boycotters" weren't participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada's federal government is on record about this deception, saying: "Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it's no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott." A documentary director also caught an HSUS film crew abusing a dying seal while they shot a 2007 fundraising video on the ice floes of Atlantic Canada.
HSUS raised $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana's Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. In 2009, Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB-TV reported that public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations added up to less than $7 million.
After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS's Dr. Michael Greger may have perjured himself before Congress, testifying that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney's office asked the group "to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation." The District Attorney's office quickly denied that account, declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.

Source: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/a/184-7-things-you-didnt-know-about-hsus

Also, see:

Kamis, 18 November 2010

The Problem with HSUS

Here's a great article that I thought I would pass on...hope you find it interesting! –Kim

The Myth of the Humane Society of the United States

Feb. 4, 2010

By: John Dillard University of Richmond Law School

I recently viewed a commercial for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). It contained footage of pets suffering from abuse. The footage of dirty cats with split ears to dogs visibly suffering from neglect and malnourishment was intended to tug at the heartstrings of anyone with half a heart. In addition to the animal footage, the commercial featured the lady from Just Shoot Me asking the viewers to commit to a $19 monthly pledge to help save these animals from abuse and neglect. The funds raised by the ad campaign would ostensibly be used to fund animal rescue efforts and animal adoption services.

For less than a dollar a day, it seems like a common sense move for a pet lover with disposable income to contribute to the HSUS. Who doesn't like the idea of an organization dedicated to rescuing animals from neglect?

There is one minor detail left out of these commercials. The Humane Society of the United States is not a large network of animal shelters, as it would have you to believe. In fact, the HSUS does not own, operate, or lease a single animal shelter in our country. Instead, it is primarily a special interest lobby that is clever and shrewd enough to capitalize on the good name of local "humane societies" which actually do the good work of taking in strays and finding suitable adoptive homes for unwanted pets.

While most local animal shelters scrimp and scrape to collect enough funds to cover overhead, the HSUS has a healthy budget of well over $100 million. According to their most recent annual report (2008), $6.7 million, or 5.4% of their $125 million budget was spent on animal shelters. The bulk of the balance was spent on fundraising, campaigns, lawsuits, propaganda, and those people that stand outside the D.C. Metro who stop you and ask "Do you have a minute to talk about saving animals?"

2008 HSUS Expenditures Deception notwithstanding, the HSUS has cornered the market on the animal rights movement. It has wrestled the lead in the animal rights world from PETA and does not appear likely to give it back. PETA is highly visible, yet it is destined for the fringe due to its radical approach. Throwing red paint on fur coats or having B-list bombshells pose nude save a few leaves of lettuce is sure to garner attention, but it is not enough to open the hearts and wallets of middle America. To be sure, HSUS shares the same goals as PETA, namely the eradication of animal agriculture in the United States. However, HSUS learned valuable lessons from PETA's radical approach, thus we have the lady from Just Shoot Me pleading for donations.

The HSUS' calculated approach is largely successful. Unable to gain traction in state legislatures and Congress, it has taken to ballot measures and referendums. This method of legislation suits their mass-appeal approach much better than lobbying legislators who must analyze facts and balance the interests of their constituents. HSUS can frame the issue and develop a campaign that gives the casual voter an impression that voting "Yes" on a ballot initiative is the right thing to do. This was the case with California 2008's Proposition 2.

Proposition 2, widely overshadowed by Proposition 8, was a ballot initiative that would impact animal husbandry practices for swine, poultry and dairy farms, with most of the burden resting on egg layers and pork producers. HSUS poured millions into PR for the ballot initiative and attracted the support of all manners of celebrity, including a special on Ellen. The measure passed with 63% of the vote and will take effect in 2015. HSUS declared it a resounding victory and vows to move on to the next battle.

Herein lies the problem with the HSUS. As a national lobbying organization with a large war chest, they are able to successfully lobby for mandated changes in animal rearing practices from afar. After their victory, they can pop the champagne and move on to the next adventure. Meanwhile, their targets are left to deal with the consequences. The majority of California egg and pork producers will not change how they raise their animals as a result of Prop 2. Instead, they will cease to raise animals as a result of Prop. 2. California farmers will have to scramble to pay down the millions in debt they owe on expensive, sophisticated and safe housing for animals they will not be able to raise after 2015. California consumers will pay more to have pork and eggs hauled in, increasing the food miles of their breakfast and moving their food dollars further away from their community.

Perhaps, if the Humane Society of the United States used its resources towards the animal shelters it would like you to believe it operates in the communities it seeks to regulate by fiat, there would be a more collaborative and productive dialogue on issues of animal welfare.

Also, see:

Selasa, 16 November 2010

Landlords and Pets

Here's a helpful article that I thought I would pass on. –Kim

What to Know Before You Sign a Lease

Pet owners searching for an apartment know it can sometimes be difficult finding a landlord willing to rent to you and your dog or cat. But once you find the perfect place, there are certain precautions you should take before signing your name to a lease and moving in.

Landlords are not necessarily skeptical of people with dogs or cats. Responsible pet owners are usually responsible tenants, and landlords who permit pets know they have a larger pool of prospective tenants from which to draw – especially ones who are likely to stay longer if they feel their pets are welcomed.

But renters have their own burden. If a landlord is reluctant to rent for any reason, you may have to prove that you and your pet can live within set guidelines and be good tenants.

You should also read and understand the fine print regarding pets – size and weight restrictions, policies about barking, the number of dogs or cats you're permitted to own – plus security and cleaning deposits you'll have to pay. In recent years, some landlords have even begun charging pet rent; it's possible you may be charged $30 a month for your pet, in addition to deposits.

Your ability to prove that you care for your dog may be what gets you through the front door – and it could be what keeps you there.

First, read the lease thoroughly, especially the parts that relate to your pet. Make sure your dog or cat (or parakeet or snake, for that matter) fits within the limits established in the lease. If the apartment only allows small dogs and you own a Golden Retriever or a larger mixed breed, ask for an allowance – and then make sure it's written into the lease and initialed by you and the landlord.

But negotiating might not always work. For instance, if a landlord does not allow a specific breed of dog because it can be known to be dangerous, don't expect him to stretch the rules.

"If you set a policy, as a rental owner you have to apply that policy to everybody," says Eric Wiegers, deputy director of the California Apartment Association, a trade group that represents owners. "If you treat one applicant one way, you have to treat every applicant the same way."

Be sure that you understand any required deposits (Wiegers said it's unlawful to charge more than twice the monthly rent for an unfurnished apartment; check your state's regulations). Before moving in, do a walk-through with the landlord to identify existing marks on carpeting or walls. Take photos and attach those to the lease. When you leave, they may help you get back your deposit if you have kept your apartment clean.

The best way to convince your prospective landlord that you and your dog will make good tenants is to bring your dog for a visit when you find the right apartment. Bring along vet records showing that your pet has been spayed or neutered, is in good health, and is up to date on all vaccinations. Show proof that you apply flea medication on a monthly basis. Be willing to put in writing that you'll keep your dog on a leash when he's on property and that you'll pick up and dispose of his droppings; also, that you'll prevent him from relieving himself in flower beds.

Some of these suggestions come from a group that has had an open door program in place for several years promoting policies and agreements between landlords and tenants. Prospective renters are shown how to write a pet resume and show their dog in the best light. Apartment owners are provided sample pet policies and checklists for screening and recognizing responsible pet people.

"It benefits people who have pets because it means they don't have to give them up, which benefits shelters (and the pets, themselves), too," says a spokeswoman for the group.

Check with your local shelter to see if they have a similar program, including a list of pet-friendly apartments.