The Truth About Dogs

Much to the dismay of the American Kennel Club and unethical breeders across the country, the American Veterinary Medical Association has changed their policy on tail docking and ear cropping as of November 2008:

Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
(Oversight: AWC; HOD 07/1999, EB revised 11/2008)

The AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards.

source: AVMA 

No Comments »

Thanks to the BBC airing of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, wonderful new legislation is on the rise!

The Kennel Club is launching a complete review of every pedigree dog breed in the UK in a move that will have far-reaching benefits for the health of many breeds. It has also called on the government to give it the statutory powers to clamp down on breeders who fail to make a dog’s health their top priority.

A breed health plan will be coordinated for each of the UK’s 209 pedigree breeds and will benefit from the extensive research that has been funded by the Kennel Club in conjunction with renowned veterinary research centres over the past 40 years. This will include updated breed standards to ensure that no dog is bred for features that might prevent it from seeing, walking and breathing freely. Judges will be fully briefed on the new breed standards so that only the healthiest dogs are rewarded in the show ring.

The Kennel Club is releasing the first of these new breed standards today, for the Pekingese, and has taken a tough line with the breed following extensive and abortive consultations. This is set to radically improve the health of the Pekingese which for nearly a hundred years was bred to have a flat face; a feature which can lead to breathing problems; under the new health plan the breed will be required to have a defined muzzle.

The breed health plans, which are scheduled to be completed by early next year, will also incorporate the results of a thorough, ongoing analysis of the health status and genetic diversity of each breed, drawing on results from the world’s largest dog health survey, conducted by the Animal Health Trust and funded by the Kennel Club Charitable Trust in 2004. This will ensure that breeders and buyers are aware of the health tests that should be carried out for each breed. The final part of the plans will look at ways breeders can expand the gene pool of the breed.

In order to ensure that the plans are effective and reach all dogs, the Kennel Club has called on the government to give it statutory powers to make its established Accredited Breeder Scheme compulsory throughout the country. If successful, this would mean that all breeders who are not part of the scheme and who have not officially confirmed their willingness to follow the health standards set by the Kennel Club would be unable to produce or sell puppies within the law.

Additionally, breed clubs are now required to adopt the Kennel Club’s Code of Ethics, to ensure that their practices fall in line with Kennel Club policy for putting the health and welfare of puppies first. This includes a clause that explicitly forbids the compulsory culling of healthy puppies.

To complement these steps the Kennel Club is developing plans for a new Canine Genetics Centre. This will be run in conjunction with the Animal Health Trust, confirming the Kennel Club’s commitment to research into inherited diseases and the provision of DNA testing programmes which identify the genes underlying inherited health problems.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “The groundswell of public attention on the very important matters surrounding dog breeding is a welcomed momentum that will enable us to drive through, with added urgency, new and extended initiatives that will help to safeguard the health of our pedigree dogs. We have been listening and agree with the general public’s view that more needs to be done.

“Steps such as our breed health plans will enable us to ensure that the health of every dog is the number one priority and we are taking a tougher line with breed clubs by adjusting those breed standards that fail to promote good health. By asking the government for statutory powers we will be able to take a tougher line with all breeders and breed clubs that fail to abide by our high standards. This in turn will enable us to extend the reach of our Accredited Breeder Scheme, which is the quality control mechanism within our registration process, so that all dogs will be bred by people who abide by our stringent rules and regulations for the breeding of healthy, happy dogs.

“We have been working hard in recent years to identify and address health problems that exist in dogs, and we are taking advantage of the opportunities that advances in science have given us to improve dog health. We look forward to continuing our work with various institutions and organizations that share the same objective: to protect the health and welfare of all dogs.”

source: The Kennel Club

No Comments »

One of the guiding principles of the Humane Society Legislative Fund
is that we evaluate candidates based on a single criterion: where they
stand on animal protection policies. We don’t make decisions based on
party affiliation, or any other social issue, or even how many pets
they have . We care about their views and actions on the major policy
debates relating to animal welfare.

It stirs controversy to get involved in candidate elections. But we
believe that candidates for office and current lawmakers must be held
accountable, or they will see the animal protection movement as a
largely irrelevant political constituency. In order to have good laws,
we need good lawmakers, and involvement in elections is an essential
strategy for any serious social movement, including our cause.

While we’ve endorsed hundreds of congressional candidates for
election, both Democrats and Republicans, we’ve never before endorsed
a presidential candidate. We have members on the left, in the center,
and on the right, and we knew it could be controversial to choose
either party’s candidate for the top office in the nation. But in an
era of sweeping presidential power, we must weigh in on this most
important political race in the country. Standing on the sidelines is
no longer an option for us.

I’m proud to announce today that the HSLF board of directors—which is
comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to
endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the
better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care
about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party
affiliation, to vote for them.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal
protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state
senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including
those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal
shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter
of horses for human consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has
consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and
horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for
adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal fighting and puppy
mills.

In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for
nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and
said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their
policies more humane. He wrote of the important role animals play in
our lives, as companions in our homes, as wildlife in their own
environments, and as service animals working with law enforcement and
assisting persons with disabilities. He also commented on the broader
links between animal cruelty and violence in society.

Obama has even on occasion highlighted animal protection issues on the
campaign trail, and has spoken publicly about his support for animal
protection. In reaction to the investigation showing the abuse of sick
and crippled cows which earlier this year led to the largest meat
recall in U.S. history, he issued a statement saying “that the
mistreatment of downed cows is unacceptable and poses a serious threat
to public health.” He is featured in Jana Kohl’s book about=2 0puppy
mills, A Rare Breed of Love, with a photo of Obama holding Baby (shown
above), the three-legged poodle rescued from an abusive puppy mill
operation, and his political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), is the
author of the latest federal bill to crack down on puppy mills.

Importantly, Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) has been a
stalwart friend of animal welfare advocates in the Senate, and has
received high marks year after year on the Humane Scorecard. Biden has
not only supp orted animal protection legislation during his career,
but has also led the fight on important issues. He was the co-author
with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in the 108th Congress on
legislation to ban the netting of dolphins by commercial tuna
fishermen. He was the lead author of a bill in the 107th Congress to
prohibit trophy hunting of captive exotic mammals in fenced
enclosures, and he successfully passed the bill through the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

On the Republican ticket, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has also
supported some animal protection bills in Congress, but has been
inattentive or opposed to others. He has voted for and co-sponsored
legislation to stop horse slaughter, and voted to eliminate a $2
million subsidy for the luxury fur coat industry. But he has largely
been absent on other issues, and has failed to co-sponsor a large
number of priority bills or sign onto animal protection letters that
have had broad support in the Senate.

The McCain campaign20did not fill out the HSLF presidential
questionnaire, and has also not issued any public statements on animal
welfare issues. He was silent during the downed animal scandal and
beef recall, which play ed out during a high-point in the primary
fight. Yet he did speak at the NRA convention earlier this year, and
is the keynote speaker this weekend in Columbus, Ohio, at the U.S.
Sportsmen’s Alliance rally—an extremist organization that defends the
trophy hunting of threatened polar bears and captive shooting of tame
animals inside fenced pens.

While McCain’s positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his
choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket.
Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare
and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska’s wolves and
other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done
more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United
States.

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting pr edators from airplanes and
helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose
and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left
foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and
aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters
had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up
again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it—in
fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the
initiative.

What’s more, when the Bush Administration announced its decision to
list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act,
Palin filed a lawsuit to reverse that decision. She said it’s the
“wrong move” to protect polar bears, even though their habitat is
shrinking and ice floes are vanishing due to global warming.

The choice for animals is especially clear now that Palin is in the
mix. If Palin is put in a position to succeed McCain, it could mean
rolling back decades of progress on animal issues.

Voters who care about protecting wildlife from inhumane and u
nsporting abuses, enforcing the laws that combat large-scale cruelties
like dogfighting and puppy mills, providing humane treatment of
animals in agriculture, and addressing other challenges that face
animals in our nation, must become active over the next six weeks to
elect a president and vice president who share our values. Please
spread the word, and tell friends and family members that an honest
assessment of the records of the two presidential tickets leads to the
inescapable conclusion that Obama-Biden is the choice for
humane-minded voters.

Paid for by Humane Society Legislative Fund and not authorized by any
candidate or candidate’s committee.

No Comments »

If there’s one truth to tragedies, it’s that they bring people together, as Jon Little, of Kasilof, was reminded of this past Sunday as he experienced every musher’s worst nightmare when his dog team was struck by a vehicle.”It was comforting that people stopped, and it was people I knew, acting together. Someone went and got my dog truck, someone got my dogs home, someone got me home — it was a huge help in that moment,” he said.

Little, despite maintaining a kennel of only 24 racers, is a five-time Iditarod finisher whose best finish is fourth, accomplished in 2002. He also competed in the Yukon Quest in 2005 and finished fifth as a rookie. He’s faced numerous challenges and hardships while running these 1,000 mile ultra-marathons, but this accident is tougher than any he has seen on a race trail.

As to how it happened, Little pointed no finger in blame. Rather, he said the incident was a string of small things that accumulated into a perfect storm.

He had just returned from an eight-day family reunion in the Lower 48, and the dogs had only run once while he was gone, so they were eager to stretch their legs.

“The temperatures had also cooled off while we were gone, which always energizes the dogs,” he said.

Little took out a four-wheeler pulled by 13 dogs, and was followed by another four-wheeler pulled by 12 dogs, being driven by Mike Barnett, a friend and past handler of Little’s from the winter of 2006-07. It was getting dark as they neared the tail-end of an 8-mile run, and to finish up they needed to cross the Sterling Highway near it’s intersection with Kalifornsky Beach Road — a busy location, but one Little had safely driven dog teams over for more than 10 years.

“I got across and then signalled to Mike to hold up because there was a lot of traffic,” Little said.

Barnett said he got the dogs stopped, briefly jumped off to deal with a tangle, then hopped back on the wheeler and began to wait for several minutes as a stream of continuous vehicles came through. However, as the dogs got their wind while on the break, they got their legs under them too, and started pulling against the four-wheeler’s brakes, which after several training seasons were not as new as they once were.

“They started pulling me, further and further. Jon was waving to stop and I was riding the brakes, but they got into the road,” Barnett said.

“I saw the car and saw the dog and knew something bad was going to happen,” Little said.

Six dogs — all lead dogs or leaders in training — were struck by a southbound 2007 Subaru Outback driven by Richard Abboud of Homer.

“I was probably doing 60 miles an hour and looked up and there was a dog team crossing the road. I didn’t have time to think about anything before I was already over them,” Abboud said.

Of the six that were hit, one dog miraculously sustained no injuries, but three others were killed instantly. These dogs were Belfast, a 5-year-old female and an Iditarod veteran, Breaburn, a 4-year-old female that, while leased out, finished the Iditarod on Jeff King’s second-place team in 2008 and on Zack Steer’s third-place team in 2007, and Nike, a 4-year-old male and another Iditarod veteran.

Two other dogs were hit and sustained injuries, but did not die at the scene. One was Handel, a 9-year-old female in semi-retirement that had eight 1,000 mile races to her name, including leading portions of the Iditarod last season while leased to Joe Runyan. Unfortunately, Handel had to be euthanized on Tuesday due to the extent of her internal injuries.

Wolf, a 3-year-old male, was also hit, but his tug-line snapped during the accident and he ran away frightened. After an exhaustive search, Little got him back on Wednesday morning.

“He came back overnight. He was curled up on some straw and had tipped a food bucket over and ate some,” Little said.

However, Wolf was only using three legs, so Little rushed him to the Kenai Veterinary Hospital where X-rays revealed he had no broken bones, but had “a major ankle dislocation.” Wolf was then taken to an orthopedic specialist in Anchorage for further diagnosis to determine the extent of surgery needed, and determine if he will ever run again.

Little said he is thankful to have Wolf back, but his injuries and the personal impact of loosing his other canine companions has taken an heavy toll on his psyche and his soul.

“It’s a really emotional time, but I need to get back in the saddle for my sake and their sake,” he said.

Prior to this incident, Little had signed up for the Yukon Quest again this season, but he said this accident will undeniably have an effect on his future.

“I’m going to keep going forward because I believe in not quitting, but obviously my season has changed so we’ll see what happens. It not easy to replace dogs that can finish 1,000 mile races, especially 4- to 5-year-olds, dogs in their prime,” he said.

Barnett said he was also depressed as a result of the accident.

“It was rough, really rough. Loosing a dog is a huge thing, especially knowing what they mean to Jon, but I’ve known all these dogs for years, so it’s really sad for me too. Handel was one of my favorites,” he said.

Abboud said he was also struggling with the situation.

“It’s troubling, but I’m glad there were no people injured or killed,” he said.

While it would be difficult for most mushers to find something positive about the death of five dogs, Little said he also hopes some good will come out of this incident.

“It’s a tragedy, but the dogs’ deaths won’t be in vain if this increases awareness about that intersection,” he said, adding maybe it needs a flashing light, like the one in Ninilchik, warning people to slow down — for pedestrians, motorists and mushers crossing the highway.

As a result of still mounting veterinary expenses related to this accident, Little is welcoming an financial support people would like to make toward Wolf’s recovery. Checks can be mailed to Kasilof Kennel, P.O. Box 691, Kasilof, AK 99610. Donations can also be made through the sponsor page of Little’s Web site at http://kasilofkennel.bravehost.com/.

source: Kenai Peninsula Community Page

No Comments »

Photo Source: The Committee To Give Krabloonik Dogs a Voice

These dogs live in substandard conditions, in plain sight of the public. They are resort tourism dogs. This case is one of many which proves the need for an international, humane mushing organization to legislate better care for sled dogs worldwide.

Krabloonik Kennels is a dog-sledding operation and restaurant located in Snowmass Village, Colorado. Krabloonik has been under scrutiny for many years due to the lack of care and poor living conditions that the 260 plus sled dogs are forced to endure. Krabloonik has been cited by the Colorado Department of Agriculture on several occasions over the past several years for noncompliance with state regulations. Many of these violations still occur and the dogs continue to suffer.

Please sign the petition to help these dogs, and boycott Aspen/Snowmass until things change! Visit the Sled Dog Cruelty at Krabloonik Snowmass blog for in depth coverage of this atrocity, and important updates!

No Comments »

Still no result in an April 2008 cruelty case.

According to Lake County Sheriff Ed Holte, Ron Wyatt of Leadville, Colo. was charged with 16 counts of animal cruelty after his dogs were discovered without adequate food, water or shelter in a gulch north of St. Kevin’s Gulch by Leadville resident Jeff Pallo.

According to a report by Deputy Amy Arnett, on Sunday, April 6, Pallo was riding a snowmobile near St. Kevin’s Gulch when a dog approached him. Pallo stated that he thought it was strange to find a dog so far out because nobody was around the area. He then explained that he followed a county road to the left and went onto what he thought may have been private property.

Sixteen dogs were being held on the property, said Pallo in the report: six dogs were in a pen and 10 were tethered to lines. According to Deputy Arnett, who later visited the property, the six dogs did not have any shelter from the elements or any food. There was a stream running through the pen that the dogs could access for water.

Pallo stated that the 10 dogs had no shelter, food or water and three looked to be badly malnourished. Deputy Arnett later noted that the dogs’ ribs, hips and backbones were visible through their fur. She also noted that there were blue barrels the dogs could have used for shelter, but that snow had prevented entrance to the barrels. Some of the dogs had been on the chains for so long that their collars had rubbed the hair off their necks, she explained.

Pallo also told Deputy Arnett that he had found three dead dogs next to the other dogs. The dead dogs were curled up in the fetal position, said Pallo. He thought they appeared to have frozen to death.

Because there were no tracks leading up to or away from the dogs, Pallo said he did not think anyone had been up to care for the dogs.

Arnett wrote that upon hearing Pallo’s description of the dogs, she contacted Lake County Search and Rescue in order to use their snowmobiles to ride in and check on the dogs.

Once there, Deputy Arnett tried to feed the dogs in order to make them friendly, she wrote. She explained that she gave each of them a handful of food, which they promptly vomited. She also noted that many of the dogs appeared thirsty, and that some were eating snow.

Deputy Arnett wrote that she walked up to a cabin on the property to see if anyone was there; she found no one. Given the fact that there was no evidence that anyone had been around to care for the dogs and that some appeared to be in bad condition, she decided to take them to a shelter and have them evaluated by a veterinarian, said the report. The dogs were removed by Search and Rescue in kennels on snowmobiles.

On April 8, Ron Wyatt came to see Deputy Arnett after he learned that the dogs were gone, said the report. The report further stated that he explained that the situation was supposed to be temporary but unfortunately turned permanent. He had been unable to find anyone to stay at the nearby cabin this year, he said, and the snow was so bad that he couldn’t keep up with the clearing of the dog houses.

Wyatt further stated that the dogs were fed and watered every day, usually by his stepson. He explained that the dogs were given their food and water in the same bowl so the food would soak up the water and the water wouldn’t freeze. He noted that the dogs in the lower pen had access to water all the time because of the creek running through the pen.

As for the dead dogs, Wyatt told Deputy Arnett that the dogs didn’t die on the property. They were 10-14 years old, he said, and he had taken them to the property in order to bury them in the spring instead of throwing them in the dump. He stated that the dogs were in bags.

When Deputy Arnett told him that there were no bags in or around the dead dogs, Wyatt stated that he had a puppy about nine months old that he turns loose on the property. He told Deputy Arnett that the puppy, who had chewed on the bags before, had probably taken the bags off the dead dogs.

According to the report, Wyatt admitted that three of the dogs were in poor condition, and called them “hard keepers.” He explained that hard keepers are hyperactive dogs and no matter how much an owner feeds them, they do not put on weight until they are over two to three years old. The dogs in question are under two years, he said.

Wyatt told Deputy Arnett that he was going to keep the dogs on the property until spring, when he could start working them. He told the deputy that he had not been exercising the dogs.

Deputy Arnett noted that Wyatt appeared to be very remorseful about the condition of the dogs. He told her he would do whatever was needed to make the situation right, said the report. He offered, for example, to have Dr. Linemeyer evaluate the dogs on a monthly basis, to ensure that the same situation wouldn’t happen again.

According to Deputy District Attorney Shasta Smith, there is a possibility of jail time for the charges; however, she thought that a first offense would likely result in probation. She explained that Wyatt can only receive misdemeanor charges. Because the dead dogs were frozen, a necropsy cannot be performed on their tissues to determine the cause of death; thus, felony charges cannot be considered in the matter.

Smith further stated a veterinarian found most of the dogs to be okay, though three were somewhat malnourished and dehydrated. She said she had asked the animal shelter not to release the three dogs that were in bad shape. She did not know what the shelter planned to do with the other dogs.

A woman who answered the phone at Nova Guides confirmed that Nova contracts with Ron Wyatt and Winterhawk Dogsled Adventures for dogsledding trips. However, when this reporter reached one of Nova Guides’ owners, he refused to comment on the matter.

source:  Pet-Abuse.com

No Comments »

Though this punishment is far from just, it is better than nothing! I was beginning to think that this case had fallen off the face of the earth since my last posting. I’m glad to see that at least something has happened.

Musher Doug Bartko was found guilty of 39 counts of animal cruelty, failure to provide care for his dogs and interfering with an investigation in a Palmer court Tuesday.

A judge found Bartko guilty of starving and neglecting his 25 sled dogs, discovered by Animal Control officials in May.

Bartko is now facing some hefty fines from the Mat-Su Borough. Still, some say his punishment is too light.

Bartko’s 25 dos are now in the borough’s custody after Animal Control officials uncovered what they called one of the worst cases of cruelty they had ever seen.

Dr. Katrina Zwolinski says the dogs taken from Bartko’s kennel on Lazy Mountain were malnourished, dehydrated and sick.

One of the dogs had already died but the borough took the other 25 into custody.

Zwolinski and a couple of volunteers have nursed them back to good health but some are still very anti-social.

Mat-Su Borough Attorney Lisa Thomas says the only consequence in this case is financial.

“These are all violations,” she said. “These are not criminal offenses in the sense of a misdemeanor or a felony; they’re violations under borough code.”

Bartko will have to pay fines for each offense, which for the 39 counts will total $5,400.

“The monetary amount that comes out of the 39 counts is pretty minimal compared to the expense that it took to get these animals back to normal health,” Dr. Zwolinski said.

Zwolinski says she would like to see stricter punishment for cases like Bartko’s.

“Obviously raising a fine to a higher amount for one charge would be a place to start,” she said. “That’s a place to start, at least.”

Bartko was convicted of animal cruelty back in 2006 and in 1983 he was disqualified from the Iditarod for not taking proper care of his dogs.

He declined to comment on this story.

source: KTUU

A local man finds himself in a legal doghouse after being found guilty on all 39 charges leveled against him after Mat-Su Borough animal control officers seized his 25 sled dogs in May.

Doug Bartko, a Lazy Mountain-area musher, must give up his dogs and kennel license and pay a fine of $5,600, following Tuesday’s ruling by Palmer District Court Magistrate David Zwink.

“There was a mountain of evidence, there really was,” said Assistant Borough attorney Lisa Thomas, who prosecuted the case. “We obviously believe that it was correct and he [Zwink] made the right decision.” In an e-mail sent hours after the ruling, Bartko responded that, “I must take responsibility for my mistakes. A big part of my life is gone. I’m sure I’ll adjust. All part of life, I guess.”

Reached by phone, Bartko was more circumspect. If the conviction is the last word, then, yes, his mushing days are over. But, he said he thinks he might appeal.

As to Zwink’s ruling, “He just goes by the law,” Bartko said. “When you’re in the legal system there might be a little wiggle room for him, but it’s pretty straight-forward. I understood.”

When officers arrived at Bartko’s house near Lazy Mountain on May 5, they found 12 emaciated dogs, which they noted were underweight and which they took into custody, officers testified at trial. Bartko had 13 more dogs someplace else but wouldn’t tell officers where.

The next day, officers returned and Bartko had the rest of the dogs at the house. Those dogs, officers testified, were worse than the first group. During the investigation, officers also came across a dead dog down a small ravine from the main dog yard.

Borough veterinarian Katrina Zwolinski testified at trial the dog died from eating too quickly after a period of malnourishment.

The charges eventually leveled against Bartko included 13 of interfering with an animal control officer, one for each dog he hid; 25 of failing to provide humane animal care to each of the malnourished and dehydrated dogs; and one of animal cruelty relating to the dead dog.

At trial, Zwolinski testified that some dogs required intravenous fluids and even some that didn’t showed marked signs of dehydration.

Bartko said he had a system set up to feed his dogs fish brought from Anchorage. That system ran into trouble when his truck broke down. He said he took the 13 dogs officers couldn’t find on May 5 to another property as part of a different dog care regimen.

The musher was a target for animal cruelty prosecution in 2005 when one of his dogs was found to be sick and dying of cancer in his front yard. Officials said the humane thing to do would have been to put the dog down. Bartko disagreed, and still does.

Bartko once before failed a kennel inspection for having skinny dogs, a fact that came up at trial. Officers then allowed him to get his dogs back to their proper weight and inspected him again 10 days later, at which point he passed.

At trial, he asked Borough Animal Control Officer Mark Whisenhunt why he didn’t offer a similar arrangement this time around.

“I tried,” Whisenhunt testified. “You refused to try to come to a similar resolution.”

Bartko represented himself during the trial, which lasted three days. The type of charges he faced did not allow for a public defender, a jury or for jail time.

source: Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

No Comments »

I felt this was worth noting…

By dictionary definition, a musher is “a person who competes in cross-country races with dog team and sled,” or “a traveler who drives (or travels with) a dog team.” In summary, someone who owns sled dogs and uses them for personal reasons (be it racing, touring, recreation, etc).

I currently live with eight sled dogs and one non-sled dog, yet I no longer call myself a musher. I am a sled dog guardian, and you should strive to be, too. By dictionary definition, a guardian is “a person who guards, protects, or preserves.” Animal guardians recognize animals as individuals, not objects.

To learn more, visit The Guardian Campaign.

No Comments »

I just came across this article and wanted to get the word out - it’s a great piece! There are many reasons to stay clear of Iams products (such as poor ingredients and formulation), but their involvement and support of animal abuse, through their sponsorship and their laboratory testing, are the most important reasons of all.

To silence outrage from the humane community, Iams decided in 1994 to end its sponsorship support for the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race—a cruel event that forces dogs to mush a grueling trek of more than 1,000 miles over unforgiving Alaskan terrain, usually in under 14 days (the fastest time being just under 9 days)! For nearly a decade, we’ve been under the impression that Iams was no longer involved with the Iditarod. However, we’ve recently uncovered the fact that Eukanuba—the so-called veterinary nutrition arm of Iams—has continued to be an official sponsor for “Team Norway” in Iditarod races, with deadly consequences for the dogs involved!

During the 2004 Iditarod race, Eukanuba sponsored Kjetil Backen of “Team Norway.” Focused on winning the race, Backen pushed his dogs beyond the point of exhaustion, so much so that Takk, Backen’s lead dog, “just sat down and died” a mile out of the checkpoint, according to race marshal Mark Nordman. Al Townshend, head veterinarian at the Unalakleet checkpoint, said, “Sudden death can occur in dogs for a number of reasons … including accidental trauma, ulcer or a dog inhaling [his or her] own vomit.”

Backen also dropped one of his dogs, named Blue, at the so-called “Cripple checkpoint” since she had developed tendonitis of the wrist resulting from the strenuous schedule of mushing day after day.

Even knowing for a fact that dogs are needlessly injured and killed in Iditarod races, Iams (Eukanuba) has refused to terminate its sponsorship!

In fact, Iams proudly sponsors other cruel events along with sled dog races. For instance, as a “major sponsor” of the fur-themed “Le Festival du Voyageur” (“The Festival of the Traveler”)—billed as Western Canada’s largest winter festival—Iams helps celebrate the “joie de vivre [joy of living] of the fur traders”! At this “celebration,” Iams hosts its own inhumane mushing event—the “Iams Voyageur International Sled Dog Classic.”

Worse yet, Eukanuba sponsored individual mushers from “Team Norway” (Robert Sorlie and Bjornar Andersen) again at the 2005 Iditarod race, yielding more disastrous results. Sorlie surrendered two dogs at Eagle Island checkpoint, “one with a sore leg and another [who] ‘psyched out,’ or didn’t want to run any more.” At the end of the race, Sorlie crossed the finish line with only eight dogs, “having dropped eight sick, sore, or tired dogs at checkpoints along the route.”

Make no mistake about it—Eukanuba’s sponsorship of “Team Norway” directly connects Iams to the deaths and injuries of these dogs and puts the company at fundamental odds with the humane majority who feel that the Iditarod is a cruel and outdated relic that needs to end.

Despite the barrage of consumer complaints regarding Iams’ involvement in the Iditarod, Iams stubbornly refuses to withdraw support from “Team Norway”—with the bizarre rationalization that it suddenly has a new-found respect for “regional and cultural differences” regarding how dogs are treated. This, of course, is absurd. Cruelty to animals knows no boundaries, and neither should humane objections to it. The bottom line is that cruelty is cruelty, no matter where or by whom it is practiced.

Iams and Eukanuba are misleading the public by claiming that they no longer support the Iditarod despite their sponsorship of “Team Norway” in the 2004 and 2005 Iditarod races! In reality, they only care about marketing their names to the cruel dog-racing community, which only survives because of money donated from large companies like Iams.

Please don’t let more dogs suffer needlessly. You can help countless numbers of animals by making the choice to boycott Iams. Your dollars are your voice in the world of business, and how you choose to spend them matters a great deal, especially with regard to the welfare of innocent animals. Knowing that you won’t buy while animals die, Iams will be forced to take humane stances—ending its sponsorship of Iditarod race participants and stopping all cruel laboratory tests on animals, which are not required by law.

Read our letter to Procter & Gamble (Iams’ parent company) regarding this important issue. Please e-mail Iams or write to the president of the company at the address shown below and let him know that the humane treatment of animals is not for sale and that the company must act humanely or risk losing a great deal of business

Jeffrey P. Ansell, President
Iams Company
7250 Poe Ave.
Dayton, OH 45414-5801

source: IamsCruelty.com

No Comments »

I was reading through an online mushing forum this morning and was very disheartened (but not that surprised) to see another discussion about the debarking of sled dog teams.

Debarking, or devocalization, is an invasive surgical procedure that involves removing a large amount of laryngeal tissue. It involves a great deal of pain post-operatively. Because this procedure is superfluous and inherently cruel, many veterinarians condemn and refuse to perform it (mine included).

In the United Kingdom, cosmetic mutilation such as debarking, ear cropping and declawing (of cats) are actually illegal. (source)

Taken from In Defense of Animals:

However, a problem barker is not the one at fault - we must look to the dog’s guardians for the source of the behavior. Chronic or excessive barking arises because the dog is improperly socialized or trained, or because she is stressed, hypersensitive, lonely, fearful, or frustrated. Debarking a dog does not make her any less stressed, hypersensitive, lonely, fearful, or frustrated! It is important to deal with the problem at its source, rather than turn down the volume surgically. These dogs still bark, they just don’t make much noise.

Debarking surgery is not difficult (although it does entail general anesthesia and surgical risks such as bleeding and infection), but the rate of postoperative complications is very high. Some practitioners estimate that 50% of dogs will develop problems arising from the debarking surgery. These range from merely annoying (the dog regains his ability to bark within two or three years) to life-threatening (scar tissue obstructs the dog’s airway). Correcting these complications requires more surgery, more risks, and more money. Again, this puts the dog at risk for landing in the shelter. This burdens taxpayers with the expense of dealing with yet another dog made essentially unadoptable by her guardians.

There are other serious issues concerning debarking despite the obvious pain to the dog, and in the case of sled dog mushers it’s the ability to disguise a large number of dogs on one’s property. Law enforcement, concerned neighbors, and joe public are a lot less likely to stumble upon a yard of neglected, chained huskies if the dogs have no way to make their presence known. Rather than enrich the dogs’ environment or keep fewer to provide them with more attention - some mushers simply opt for debarking as the easy way out, regardless of the long term harm inflicted upon their dogs. Most notably, a debarked sled dog is more likely to suffer from aspiration pneumonia (an already prevalent and lethal problem).

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights states:

Debarking involves placing a dog under anesthesia and cutting the dog’s vocal cords. It is solely performed for human convenience for the purpose of noise control and provides no benefit for the dog. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that debarking increases the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Since the dog’s environment and lifestyle usually are the cause for excessive barking, changing and enriching the environment and daily routine (acquiring a second dog, providing more stimulating toys and more play time with humans) should be the only resolutions for excessive barking, rather than attempting to ‘correct’ the dog with surgery.

Debarking should be outlawed for many reasons; it’s the only way to stop mushers from mutilating their dogs in order to quiet their cries for freedom.

No Comments »

Two days in jail, community service and two years probation is a far cry from justice! Also, the meager restitution will not be used to create better lives for these poor dogs.

Not to mention, these innocent creatures now belong to the abuser’s father (Stephen Hessert). How do we know that these dogs aren’t going to spend the rest of their lives on short chains with nothing but a dog house and rusty food bowl for company? The father is also a musher, and nearly the entire mushing community chains their dogs with nothing but huts and bowls. It is the preferred and recommended (by Mush With PRIDE) method of containing sled dogs, though it is quite inhumane.

Stephen is even hoping to return the dogs to his son if he is acquitted! Many people have been asking - where was he when these dogs first entered rescue and were in need of foster homes and supportive care months ago? Only after the dogs had been physically rehabilitated to a healthy state, and claimed to be worth thousands of dollars, did we see this family member (also a musher) step up to take them. This is part of the reason why the volunteers who cared for these dogs in the initial stages are so outraged.

Also, since John accepted a plea agreement, his felony charge was dropped! He is pleading guilty to only two (out of thirty-three) misdemeanor counts of cruelty! Could this case get any worse? Only time will tell. Per the court, he will not be able to own dogs for at least two years. However, judging from the comments which the mushing community has been making about their collective experiences with John since this case began, he should honestly never be able to own a dog again.

A West Yellowstone man accused of abandoning 33 sled dogs without food, water or shelter pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty as part of a plea agreement.

John T. Hessert, 24, wore a vest embroidered with an Iditarod logo as he made his plea before District Judge Holly Brown. His lawyer, Chuck Watson, told the judge that Hessert was remorseful and that his client’s aspirations of becoming a professional musher have already been compromised.

“The long shot of this is Mr. Hessert got overextended and the dogs suffered as a consequence,” Watson said. “He has to live with that. He has a conscience.”

Hessert initially pleaded not guilty to one felony count of aggravated animal cruelty and 33 misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty. The felony charge was dropped as part of the plea agreement.

According to court records, a man called animal control Jan. 30 to report that the dogs were being kept in an unsafe environment outside West Yellowstone near Targhee Pass.

A veterinarian examined the dogs and determined that they were all “well below normal health and had not been being fed enough food,” according to court records. One of the dogs had a collar embedded in its neck and other dogs had frostbite.

Most of the dogs were transported to Hessert’s father’s 96-acre property in Maine while the criminal case was pending.

Hessert’s plea agreement also requires him to pay $27,855 in restitution to volunteers who cared for the dogs while the case was being investigated. He must serve 100 hours of community service, two days in the Gallatin County Detention Center and two years of probation.

Hessert will not be allowed to own or be in control of a dog for two years.

Hessert’s father, Stephen Hessert, is an attorney and an accomplished dogsledder who made the news in 2003 when he was struck from behind by a snowmobiler in northern New Hampshire while training for a 250-mile dogsled race. The snowmobiler didn’t stop and another snowmobiler found Hessert unconscious and got him out of the woods on the dogsled.

Hessert was hospitalized and underwent multiple surgeries, and had titanium rods inserted in both legs.

Source: The Boston Globe

Many of the volunteer foster caretakers were on hand Monday, for the examinations and to say goodbye to the dogs they had cared for since March. But all said they were upset by Brown’s decision.

“I honestly think it’s a joke,” said Roger “Rodeo” Vincent of West Yellowstone. Vincent is a neighbor of Hessert’s who initially called authorities to check on the dogs.

“What happens to the dogs after they leave the state?” Vincent asked. “What happens when that kid is found guilty? What happens when those dogs are **** near dead again?”

Jeanne Knox, another volunteer caretaker agreed.

“We do not understand at all Judge Brown’s decision to let the dogs out of the state,” Knox said.

Stephen Hessert, an attorney, said he was confident his son would be acquitted, and that he would give the dogs the best care possible. He agreed to return the dogs for the trial if asked to do so by the court, and to keep his son away from the dogs until after the trial.

“I do think there have been a lot of misstatements and misunderstandings in this case,” he said. “I would like to thank all the people who’ve been taking care of these dogs, and they can rest assured they will continue to be well taken care of.”

As the dogs were being loaded into the elder Hessert’s truck - fitted with 26 straw-floored pens for the 2,500 mile trip to Maine, volunteer Terry Cunningham said he wasn’t satisfied.

“I wonder if the judge and the county attorney’s office really have the best interests of these animals at heart,” Cunningham said.

Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Hessert’s trial is scheduled to begin on August 13. He is represented by attorney Chuck Watson. His father Stephen Hessert, a managing partner in a Maine law firm, requested custody of the dogs until the case is decided, a move that was opposed by the County Attorney’s office. On May 12, Judge Holly Brown granted the request; Stephen Hessert will transport the dogs to Maine. The senior Hessert testified at the hearing that he has been monetarily assisting his son’s mushing efforts, and that he intends to return the dogs to his son if he is acquitted.

John Worsfold, the Deputy County Attorney who was trying the Hessert case, is relocating to California to continue his law career. Worsfold said he was disappointed in the ruling. “The Judge’s decision contradicts the clear and well defined intent of the Legislature who wrote the law regarding the return of seized property.”

Candace Hamlin, a volunteer who provided care for Hessert’s dogs at the county barn, fears the case is heading in the wrong direction. “After everything these dogs have endured at the hands of JT Hessert, the possibility that they might one day be given back to him is unthinkable. That would be the height of injustice.”

Source: Bozeman Talks

All photographs from Pet-Abuse.com or the above linked news articles.

No Comments »

Another huge political step was made earlier this week for the welfare of dogs in our nation! Dallas, the ninth-largest city in the United States (source), passed an amazing piece of legislation on June 25th:

Dallas will significantly tighten its rules on animal ownership under new regulations overwhelmingly approved Wednesday by the City Council.

The ordinance will require that most animals be spayed or neutered, limit how many pets residents can have, and restrict how long dogs can be tied up, among other provisions.

The majority of council members hailed the changes to the animal ordinance as an important step toward reducing the tens of thousands of stray animals roaming city streets, and improving quality of life for pets. But others at the meeting, particularly breeders, saw the rules as too strict, prompting hours of passionate debate involving about 200 people. The ordinance was approved on a 10-3 vote, and most provisions take effect Tuesday.

“It’s the first step in trying to solve a complex problem that has been going on for a long time,” Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia said. “We all agree it’s time to do something.”

Some council members, along with dozens of breeders and owners’ rights advocates, argued that the new ordinance punishes responsible animal owners.

Many also argued that Dallas’ new ordinance would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, noting that the city can barely handle the animal laws already on the books.

“We should have deferred this; we should have put this off until we could have gotten both sides together,” District 9 council member Sheffie Kadane said.

“This is going to be another pooper scooper law that is not enforced,” Dallas resident Sherry Talton told the council. “We need to take the time and slow this process down.”

Some of the speakers launched into impassioned, even tearful soliloquies. For every ordinance opponent who decried its potential effect on animal breeding or owners’ rights, there was a supporter noting the thousands of dogs and cats Dallas euthanizes annually.

Dallas Animal Shelter Commission Chairman Skip Trimble insisted that the city must move now to reduce the stray and feral animal population.

“It can only be done through sterilization,” he said. “If we can’t control the flow of water, we’ll never stop mopping the floor.”

Such comments foreshadowed a fiery debate among council members.

“I blame this entire circle if this doesn’t work,” Mr. Kadane told his colleagues. Turning to city staff, he added, “You guys don’t have the force to get out and do what this ordinance is trying to do.”

Even a few council members supporting the expanded animal ordinance acknowledged Mr. Kadane’s assertion. Only about one in 10 animals is currently registered, and residents’ loose-animal calls often go hours or days without response.

But several council members noted that Dallas’ latest 2008-09 budget outlook includes funding for 20 new animal services workers.

Top city staff expressed confidence that they’ll make headway in a battle to clear Dallas streets of strays, many of which are potentially dangerous.

“You can hold me to that: We will get the dog numbers down,” City Manager Mary Suhm said. “We don’t mind being held accountable for that.”

District 12 council member Ron Natinsky offered a substitute ordinance, which altered or deleted several provisions in the original animal ordinance proposal. It was rejected, 9-4.

Limits on the number of animals one can own and new rules on impounding dangerous dogs take effect next week. Provisions addressing outdoor dog confinements go into effect Sept. 25, while the spay/neuter provisions and breeder permit regulations take effect Oct. 25.

Provisions

•Establish a charge of $70 per animal for breeders to obtain permits. Previously, the city planned to charge $500 per animal.

•Limit a single house to six cats and/or dogs. People owning more than a half-acre of land would be allowed eight – something not contained in earlier versions of the proposal. People who currently own a greater number of animals could apply to the city to be allowed to keep their animals without penalty.

•Require that dogs and cats be spayed or neutered. But the ordinance would provide numerous exceptions. Animals younger than 6 months old, service animals, or those belonging to a licensed breeder would be exempt from spaying or neutering regulations. A veterinarian could also certify that an animal shouldn’t be spayed or neutered for health reasons.

•Prohibit using animals as prizes.

•Allow the city to seize and impound a dog suspected of causing bodily injury to a person until after a hearing on the dog’s fate. Now, such dogs are quarantined for 10 days and then returned to their owners in many cases.

•Prohibit tethering of unsupervised dogs to trees or poles except “for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task.”

•Force owners to provide at least 150 square feet of space and a “building or properly designed doghouse” for a dog confined outdoors.

source: The Dallas Morning News.

No Comments »

On Saturday June 7th, I traveled to Albany to represent the Sled Dog Action Coalition (SDAC) at the Ryley’s Run rescue benefit. The goal of Ryley’s Run is to make the public aware of just how many dogs are out there, alone, and how many have been abused, abandoned & neglected. The organization holds the event in the hopes of raising a substantial amount of money, and then donates that money to different rescue organizations each year.

I was proud to represent the abused, abandoned and neglected sled dogs of the Iditarod at this event. Their stories need to be heard. I was able to reach a number of people through my photography and conversation. I also handed out leaflets with summarized Iditarod cruelty information, along with a link to the SDAC website.

Overall, I met some great folks and had a wonderful day. For more information on Riley’s Run, please check out their website.

No Comments »

June 3, 2008 - Crowd cheers as Santa Clara votes to support statewide spay and neuter bill.

The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 today to pass a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act.

Although the bill has attracted support from a wide array of California cities and humane societies, Santa Clara is the first county to take a position on the legislation. Board of Supervisors Chair Pete McHugh, author of the county resolution, asked his colleagues to “consider that nearly one million unwanted dogs and cats enter the State’s animal shelters each year and more than half of them are euthanized. AB 1634 offers a humane, sensible and costeffective
solution to controlling pet overpopulation.

“AB 1634 will also reduce costs to taxpayers, who pay a staggering $250 million a year to house and euthanize the State’s unwanted population of dogs and cats,” McHugh said. The bill, which aims to significantly reduce the number of animals that are euthanized in the state’s animal shelters, requires pet owners to have their dogs and cats spayed or neutered by the age of six months. It has already passed out of the State Assembly and awaits a hearing later this month in the Senate Local Government Committee.

“This measure will prevent the needless killing of hundreds of thousands of animals a year while simultaneously saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (Dvan Nuys), the bill’s author.

“Since last year, our coalition has been working with stakeholders and other members to strengthen Assembly Bill 1634,” said Levine, who serves as Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Animal Welfare. “At the same time, we’ve continued to keep the door open to listen to the legitimate concerns of the bill’s detractors. I am confident that with the work we’ve put in, 2008 is going to be a successful year for our bill, which in turn means good things for our state’s budget and animal shelters.”

AB 1634 asks that most dogs and cats in the state of California be spayed or neutered. “More than 20 common-sense exemptions are provided in the bill for purebreds and mutts, including provisions for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals,” said Judie Mancuso, the Campaign Director of the California Healthy Pets Coalition, and one of the bill’s
co-sponsors.

“The facts of this issue are really very simple. We have overcrowded shelters that are costing taxpayers millions of dollars annually, and spaying and neutering is a tried and true approach,” Mancuso said. “This is the right legislation at the right time – a humane, common-sense and taxpayer-friendly solution to a real and costly problem. The needless killing of over 500,000 healthy animals and the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year must end. With both the state and local governments facing critical budget decisions, we need to look for savings wherever we can.”

Dan Soszynski, the Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, believes a similar ordinance in the City of Santa Cruz, “has been successful in reducing the euthanasia rate; the ordinance allowed us to ‘get tough’ with backyard breeders and reduce the numbers entering our shelter. These laws are an effective and significant tool.”

Jody Cramer, a former Santa Cruz SPCA Director, argued that “From both the humane aspect and the cost aspect, (AB 1634) is absolutely the right thing to do. There are a number of years worth of statistics for those who are skeptics to look at about how these (spay and neuter laws) have helped. They have saved the lives of many animals and have saved people who do this work from having to kill them.”

The California Healthy Pets Act is supported by elected officials, law enforcement and fire department agencies, cities, city and county agencies and employee unions, humane societies and SPCAs, veterinarians and veterinary hospitals, national and international animal welfare organizations, celebrities and other public figures, rescue organizations, animal specialist and professionals, business and chambers of commerce, and tens of thousands of individual supporters, Mancuso stated. For more information on the legislation, visit the organization’s web site at www.cahealthypets.com.

source: CAHealthyPets.com

No Comments »

Santa Clara Board of Supervisors to Vote on AB 1634 Resolution Coming Up Tuesday, June 3rd at 9:30am.

As you may know, cities and organizations across California have voted “YES!” on resolutions to support AB 1634, the bill that will save hundreds of thousands of pets and millions of taxpayer dollars. Mayors, Supervisors and City Council members are smart, compassionate people, and the common-sense approach of AB 1634 appeals to them.

The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors is poised to join these hundreds of other elected officials by adopting a resolution of support for AB 1634 on Tuesday, June 3rd. But this vote is different than the others in one important way… the breeder groups opposing progress for our pets have decided that this is a big chance to try to make a public statement against spay & neuter before AB 1634 is heard in the Senate. They are sending out mass emails across California, trying to affect the vote in Santa Clara.

If you would like to join the responsible and caring animal lovers in Santa Clara to get their resolution passed, here’s what you can do:

1) Join supporters in Santa Clara on Tuesday, June 3rd and speak out in favor of universal spay and neuter. The Board of Supervisors meets at:

70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Board Chambers, 1st floor

The meeting starts at 9:30, in order to make your voice heard please arrive at 9am and fill out a speaker’s card for Item 28a. There will be a large group of proponents for AB 1634 and I sincerely hope you will join us!

2) Contact the Supervisors. It’s incredibly moving for the Supervisors to see so many pet lovers standing up to protect animals in person, so again, please join us if you can. But if you can’t come in person (or, even if you can!) please contact the Supervisors and politely let them know that AB 1634 represents the best hope in a generation to save hundreds of thousands of pets from euthanasia each year.

Supervisor Donald F. Gage - District 1
Tel: (408) 299-5010
Fax: (408) 295-6993
don.gage@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us

Supervisor Blanca Alvarado - District 2
Tel: (408) 299-5020
Fax: (408) 295-8642
blanca.alvarado@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us

Supervisor Pete McHugh - District 3
Tel: (408) 299-5030
Fax: (408) 298-6637
primo.mchugh@bos.co.scl.ca.us

Supervisor Ken Yeager - District 4
Tel: (408) 299-5040
Fax: (408) 299-2038
ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org

Supervisor Liz Kniss - District 5
Tel: (408)-299-5050
Fax: (408) 280-0418
liz.kniss@bos.co.santa-clara.ca.us

And please forward this important information to others.

No Comments »

National Dog Day serves to help galvanize the public to recognize the number of dogs that need to be rescued each year, and acknowledges family dogs and dogs that work selflessly each day to save lives, keep us safe and bring comfort. Dogs put their lives on the line every day - for their law enforcement partner, for their blind companion, for a child who is disabled, for our freedom and safety by detecting bombs and drugs and pulling victims of tragedy from wreckage, saving their lives and often grieving the dead and dying they cannot save.

National Dog Day’s founder, animal behaviorist, author and founder of the Animal Miracle Foundation, Colleen Paige, felt it was time to honor dogs more than we currently do, to give them “a day”, to show deep appreciation for our long connection to each other - for their endearing patience, unquestioning loyalty, for their work, their capacity for love and their ability to impact our lives everyday in the most miraculous ways. National Dog Day wishes to encourage dog ownership of all breeds, mixed and pure - and embraces the opportunity for all dogs to live a happy, safe and ”abuse-free life”.

National Dog Day will be many a dog’s birthday and for all of them it will be a “K9- 4th of July!” Even citizens who are not dog owners will be encouraged to donate $5 to their local shelter on National Dog Day.

You can be directly responsible for saving a life… not just one life - over 15,000 of them in 2008 by being a sponsor or volunteer.

Facts About National Dog Day

• National Dog Day is nationally recognized on August 26th
• National Dog Day was created by animal behaviorist and author, Colleen Paige, founder of the Animal Miracle Foundation.
• The Animal Miracle Foundation is a Private Charitable Foundation whose mission is to effect public awareness regarding the plight of homeless animals and animal cruelty, to take part in ending the overpopulation of unwanted pets through adoption efforts, behavior education and support of spay/neuter programs, to ensure wildlife conservation and help keep the planet healthy for its animals, to teach children compassion toward animals and for one another through the love of animals, to help create joy for the elderly through hands-on interaction with pets and community involvement with their own pets and to assist domestic pet and wildlife related “no kill” rescue organizations and sanctuaries with their life saving programs though financial aid and public awareness.
• In 2007, Italy, Australia, Canada and the U.K. participated in National Dog Day!
• National Dog Day is an annual event with one main national event only. Businesses, shelters and rescue organizations nationwide hosted over 300 “affiliate events” nationwide to celebrate dogs and help save homeless dogs in their community. All National Dog Day events must be registered and sanctioned by AMF. To host your own event, please visit http://www.amfAmerica.org
• National Dog Day will host its 2008 main event in Solomons, Maryland at The Calvert Marine Museum.
• Our goal in 2006 was to be the platform for the adoption of 10,000 dogs nationwide on August 26th, 2006. We exceeded our goal and watched, as America adopted over 12,000 dogs on August 26th, 2006 and nearly 15,000 dogs in 2007!
• Every year, we will anticipate raising the goal for the number of dogs adopted across the country on National Dog Day and through its associated events. Our goal for 2008 is to save 20,000 dogs on the weekend of August 23rd through August 26th.
• If National Dog Day’s official celebration date (August 26th) falls on a weekday, most events across the nation (including the main event) will be planned for the weekend prior to August 26th.
• National Dog Day is just one of many celebratory and lifesaving pet holidays created by Colleen Paige and AMF. For more information about AMF events, including, but not limited to, National Cat Day, National Puppy Day, National Mutt Day, National Horse Protection Day and National Wildlife Day, please visit http://www.amfAmerica.org/holidays

No Comments »

The largest breeder of greyhounds in Britain is offering to sell healthy young dogs to be killed and dissected for research, an investigation has found.

Charles Pickering told an undercover reporter that his breeding program continually throws up dozens of “fit and healthy” dogs that are “just a bit too slow for the tracks” and therefore a financial burden to him.

Pickering, who offered to sell them for £30 (about $60 US) each, said he was helping to supply dogs to the animal teaching hospital at Liverpool University.

He provides yearling greyhounds to Richard Fielding, a greyhound trainer, who gives his older dogs for free to university veterinary staff, who put them to sleep and remove organs for teaching and research.

Pickering said he wanted to keep his dealings “nice and confidential” because it was “extremely sensitive”. The disclosure throws fresh light on the way in which the greyhound racing industry treats both retired dogs and those that fail to make the grade.

The Sunday Times disclosed in March that the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) was buying canine body parts from John O’Connor, a vet whose clinic was willing to euthanize healthy greyhounds, no questions asked.

An undercover reporter approached Pickering after hearing he was quietly sending young dogs to be put down at Liverpool University.

Pickering, a former pig farmer, breeds about 200 racing dogs a year at his Zigzag Kennels. Its website says: “We make the welfare of all our stock our highest priority.”

The reporter told Pickering that he was from another university and was interested in procuring surplus dogs for research. Pickering, 56, who is based at Dunholme in Lincolnshire, said: “We look to sell them [for racing] for a minimum of £200-£300 at 12 weeks [old].

“When they get to a year old we are hoping that we can get between £800 and £20,000 for the very fastest. But, of course, along the way we get some that aren’t quite suitable. If it’s in the interest of someone for scientific purposes or study purposes, well that’s a good thing. It’s better than just being put down and disappearing.”

Asked which of his dogs were not “suitable” for racing, he said: “We’ve got ones that simply won’t chase, they are absolutely healthy, fit as you could want, but just choose not to chase the artificial hare or are just a little bit too slow for the tracks. Or the ones that turn and fight.”

Pickering said he had been supplying up to 30 dogs a year to Liverpool University but “we could do more if required”. He later said that the dogs sent to Liverpool had either “finished racing or they are the ones that don’t make the grade” and were taken there by Fielding, who is accredited by the National Greyhound Racing Club, the sport’s governing body.

Pickering said that he could supply as many dogs as required at £30 each and could even breed them specifically to be killed. “When we are breeding, the ones that only reach the minimum standard for what we want, if we get too many of those it becomes a complication because we have to look for pet homes and all that sort of thing,” he said.

“I do give as many away for pets as we can, but these young ones, they are not used to the house environment. If they can have a use and help someone somewhere, and it gets me a tiny bit of money back, that’s all the better for me.”

Fielding, who is based in Lancashire told the reporter he had four “very healthy” dogs which he was happy to have taken away and killed immediately.

“I got shot of 10 old ones last year. Liverpool is a godsend in that respect because they are used for a good purpose.” He did not charge the university for them.

When contacted by the Sunday Times he denied taking any of Pickering’s dogs to the university and insisted the only greyhounds he took there were old and not able to be rehomed.

Pickering later denied ever having sent dogs for research.

Dr. Eithne Comerford, who works at the university’s hospital and had arranged to take greyhounds from Fielding, told the undercover reporter that it was “not something we’re particularly mad about . . . we’re all vets”. She stressed that the dogs were euthanized properly” and used for “multiple projects”. She said they were not paid for and the RVC scandal had caused “huge havoc”.

A spokeswoman for Liverpool University defended its activities. “Our approach to veterinary research is of the highest ethical standard. We only carry out research on tissues of dogs and cats that have died or been euthanized and with the full consent of the animal’s owner.”

source: Times Online

What can you do to help? Please Take Action to urge Liverpool University to set an official policy forbidding researchers from accepting healthy greyhounds for dissection.

No Comments »

Photo Courtesy Tumbler Ridge News

Charges of animal cruelty have been laid against Tumbler Ridge resident Stacey Lajeunesse following a large-scale BC SPCA investigation involving badly-neglected husky dogs last November. SPCA constables removed 34 sick and malnourished dogs - 23 puppies and 11 adults - from Lajeunesse’s rural property after he failed to provide proper care for the animals.

BC SPCA Const. Debbie Goodine says there was no evidence of food for the animals when SPCA officials entered the property. “The adult dogs were extremely emaciated. The puppies were also in very poor body condition and were suffering from internal parasites.” She adds that the dogs were entangled in heavy chains and there was evidence of psychological distress, such as ground wear from repetitive pacing. Lajeunesse voluntarily surrendered custody of the animals to the SPCA during the investigation.

The animals received ongoing care and veterinarian treatment at the North Cariboo SPCA shelter in Prince George and many have since been adopted into loving homes.

Lajeunesse is facing two counts of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code of Canada and one count under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He makes his first court appearance on June 12, 2008.

According to media reports, Lajeunesse was the organizer for the The Northern Dog Mushers Association of Tumbler Ridge’s 4th annual dogsled races in March 2008.

source: Pet-Abuse.com

No Comments »

Another great step in the right direction for the sentient animals of our nation!

A problem that has dogged Volusia County would diminish, civic leaders and animal-welfare advocates claim, if pet owners are forced to keep their animals from reproducing.

After years of lamenting the deaths of thousands of stray and unwanted dogs and cats each year, the County Council is moving toward requiring most pet owners to spay or neuter their animals.

Supporters say the number of pets without homes will decline, especially if cities follow suit and enact mandatory spay-and-neuter laws. The county law could not be enforced inside city limits.

“It’s important for Volusia County to take the lead,” Council Member Carl Persis said. “I do feel confident the cities will get on board.”

On May 1, the County Council approved, in principle, a draft spay-and-neuter ordinance, and set June 5 as the date for a vote on the new law.

As it has been at earlier meetings, the County Council Thursday was treated to a litany of statistics about the fate of most impounded dogs and cats. Notably, of the approximately 17,000 animals taken to Halifax Humane Society last year, only about 6,000 were reclaimed by their owners or adopted. The other 11,000 or so animals were euthanized — “basically slaughtered,” as Halifax Humane Society President Mel Stack put it.

“Spend one day at Halifax watching them kill animals,” urged Nikki Linn, who heads the ARNI Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes spaying and neutering of pets in low-income households.

“Stop the killing!” pleaded Pat Mihalic of Daytona Beach, representing Concerned Citizens for Animal Welfare.

Mihalic noted the unwanted-animal problem costs the county $1.2 million a year, mostly to euthanize dogs and cats.

“Forty a day are put down,” she said.

The measure is not without its critics. Opponents of the spay-neuter law claim pet owners should have the right to choose whether to sterilize their animals, and said animal-owners may want to breed their pets later.

Elizabeth Schmid of New Smyrna Beach warned the measure may deter people from having their dogs and cats vaccinated against rabies, if they think taking their pets to a veterinarian or vaccine clinic may cause them to get in trouble for not sterilizing their animals.

“Be very careful, because people will stop bringing in their animals,” Schmid told the County Council. She also noted veterinarians “don’t want to be cops.”

DeLand Realtor Charles Thompson said the proposed spay-neuter policy is misdirected, in that it affects responsible pet owners.

“These people care about their dogs. It’s really not fair to suggest that there are not very valid reasons for not altering your dog,” Thompson said, noting he has a specially bred Labrador retriever.

The proposed spay-and-neuter ordinance would apply only in the unincorporated areas of the county. Under the draft ordinance, a dog or cat six months old or older would have to be sterilized, “unless it qualifies for an unaltered license tag.”

To make it easier for low-income households to afford spaying and neutering of their pets, the county has a mobile clinic in the unincorporated areas. That clinic, a converted bus bought from the ARNI Foundation last year, has provided “over 1,000″ sterilizations, said Dr. Joni Goldstein, the county’s veterinarian.

“For a lot of people, it’s a money issue,” Goldstein said.

Pet owners who use the mobile clinic pay for the service according to their ability.

The measure includes exceptions to the spaying and neutering requirement. The exceptions are dogs or cats that take part in animal shows; animals deemed “medically unfit” for sterilization; animals used by law-enforcement agencies; service animals used by blind or otherwise disabled people; and dogs or cats kept for breeding.

Unaltered animals would have to have a microchipped, to make it easier to identify their owners if they are picked up by animal-control officers or impounded. The county will issue — at no charge — a special license tag for unaltered pets.

In addition, seasonal visitors who bring animals into Volusia County would not have to alter their dogs or cats.

Pet owners who do not have their dogs or cats spayed or neutered, and whose animals are not in an exempt category, will be warned to comply with the law before being fined, County Animal Services Director Becky Wilson said.

“Most people want to be in compliance,” she said.

Those who ignore official warnings may be subject to a civil citation requiring them to pay a fine of $55. A third or subsequent citation for the same violation will be referred to County Court, where the judge may impose a fine of as much as $500, Wilson said.

If the County Council passes the ordinance, it will go into effect Sept. 1.

Assistant County Attorney Mike Dyer wrote the ordinance, noting Volusia County’s proposed law is modeled after spay-neuter ordinances in Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles and Palm Beach County.

“The idea of a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance is a relatively new concept,” said Dyer, when asked about possible legal challenges. Dyer said the Los Angeles County law was challenged in federal court, but the suit was dismissed.

Although he endorsed the proposed ordinance, Council Member Jack Hayman saw shortcomings in it.

“I have a problem with enacting an ordinance as far-reaching as this without it affecting the entire county,” said Hayman. “Dogs and cats don’t recognize jurisdictions. Fire hydrants, maybe.”

Council Member Pat Northey called for approval of the concept, “not only because it’s the right thing to do for the animal, but there’s a cost to us.”

To encourage even more spaying and neutering, County Manager James Dinneen proposed buying another mobile clinic, this one to serve low-income pet owners inside Volusia County cities, with the understanding the cities would pay the costs of operating the bus. Dinneen said he will discuss the idea with the city managers.

Moreover, he suggested the county establish a fund to receive donations from animal-welfare advocates, to subsidize pet sterilizations.

“We are willing to look into that,” Dinneen said.

“Make Volusia County a kill-free zone,” urged Kim Texter of the ARNI Foundation.

source article: The Beacon

No Comments »

A note from Judie Mancuso: “In a demonstration of how strong support for AB 1634 is, and how the opposition to the bill comes primarily from noisy animal exploiters who feel any protection for animals is a threat to their profits, all of the ballot initiatives meant to stifle AB 1634 and progress for California’s pets have failed to qualify for the ballot. This is wonderful news for the animals and those of us dedicated to protecting them. The anti-pet forces working in California simply could not find enough people to collect signatures, or donors that would enable them to further their self interests.”

Seven initiatives that would have limited the state’s ability to regulate animal ownership have failed to qualify for the ballot due to a lack of signatures.

The measures were introduced in November by opponents of AB 1634, the mandatory spay/neuter bill from Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys. The Secretary of State reported on its website on May 2 that the proposals had not qualified.

Among the provisions of the various initiatives were clauses that would declare animals as property, prevent the state from limited the number of animals someone could own, ban putting microchips in animals, limit animal licensing fees, and prevent “coerced sterilization of humans or animals.”

“We didn’t get enough signatures,” said Jill Holt of We the People Pets, the group behind the failed initiatives. “It was a grassroots effort, but with not enough money. We’re going to re-file.”

“I don’t want to say ‘I told you so,’ but I have a pretty good idea when they started circulating they were probably miscalculating the voters feelings on the issue,” Levine said. “I don’t think there were many voters out there who wanted to do the things the initiatives would do.”

Levine said that he’s concentrating on talking to senators on the Local Government Committee, which is AB 1634’s next stop. The bill passed the Assembly on a narrow 41-38 vote last June. It would require any dog or cat over six months old to be spayed or neutered, with exceptions for many breeders and working animals. Levine said not only would it save upwards of a million dogs and cats from being euthanized in shelters each year, but it could save state and local governments $300 million currently spent on warehousing these excess animals.

Holt and others said the bill awakened a grassroots resistance against what they see as government intrusion. AB 1634 was unquestionably one of the most watched bills of last year, generating thousands of letters, emails and phone calls to Capitol offices. She pledged her group would be back with more money and experience.

“It’s a very interesting process,” Holt said. “We’ll be a lot better prepared next time.”

The American Kennel Club, the American Dog Breeders Association and several other groups are still opposing the bill. But they did not materialize as funders of the initiatives, as some on the pro-AB 1634 side feared.

“I don’t think they ever really had an organized campaign,” said Judie Mancuso, coordinator for the pro-AB 1634 media campaign. “I think it was more to just get attention. It got their word out that they’re against protecting animals in any size, shape or form.”

In the meantime, she said, the bill is having national influence. Legislators in Arizona and Colorado are patterning bills based on it, as are several cities, including Chicago. Los Angeles passed a spay/neuter ordinance in March; mayor Antonio Villaraigosa signed it at a ceremony that including former “Price is Right” host Bob Barker, a well-known animal welfare activist.

article link: Capitol Weekly

No Comments »