Farmers Find Rewards in Helping Bog Turtles (Cash)
November 14, 2011, 1:50 PMNYTimes (Green Blog), By Deborah Weisberg
The bog turtle, whose numbers have been halved in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states.
The future of the bog turtle, North America's tiniest reptile and one of its rarest, is in the hands of private landowners who are being given incentives to help it recover, wildlife biologists say.
"We're engaging so many partners in various projects that for the first time in five years, I feel we're really moving forward," says Alison Whitlock, the bog turtle recovery coordinator for the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, which is sponsoring a conference this week in Langhorne, Pa., for a species-status review.
"We're finding new populations in areas not surveyed in a long time," she added.
These sites, particularly in the limestone belt that encompasses parts of Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, are wet sedge meadows that contain entire communities of specially adapted plants and animals. Among these are the Canadian burnet, a plant belonging to the rose family; the Baltimore checkerspot butterfly; and bog turtles, as well as the mounds of tussock sedge grass and moss hummocks on which they lay eggs.
Most of these marshy pastures are owned by farmers and others who can now be compensated up to $23,000 by the federal Department of Agriculture for each acre they agree to restore and protect.
Bog turtle numbers in seven Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, from Maryland to Connecticut, have dropped by half in the past 20 years. While some turtles have fallen prey to the illicit pet trade, the biggest blow has been habitat loss or fragmentation as a result of development.
"Bog turtles are a semiaquatic species endemic to wetlands fed by springs and seeps, where groundwater recharge is critical," said Scott Smith, an endangered-species biologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. "They lay their eggs on elevated vegetation, but they need to be able to burrow in mud to escape raccoons, foxes and other predators."
"When you develop and create a lot of impervious surfaces, you alter groundwater budgets, and you may not get recharge," he said.
Mr. Smith is one of dozens of biologists from federal and state agencies and conservation organizations working to engage landowners in the recovery of bog turtles, which were listed as threatened in 1997 by the federal government and have endangered status in some states.
One of the more successful approaches is the Wetlands Reserve Program, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Enrollees are paid to restore and protect fens and their upland buffer zones and guard against alterations to their hydrology, according to Hathaway Jones, who runs the program in Pennsylvania.
"Before this, we didn't have a good way to preserve bog turtle sites," he said. "But Congress set aside money to conserve wetlands. We're well funded and can make good offers to farmers who would have no other use for this land."
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Agriculture Department provide landowners with restoration plans that promote open-canopy habitat. That means removing woody vegetation like red maple and the multiflora rose, and minimizing regrowth through a surprisingly simple means: using livestock for controlled grazing.
"We make the call about whether grazing should be included in a management plan," said Jessica Groves, a Wetlands Reserve Program manager. She said that the grazing is carefully regulated to protect fens from nutrient impacts and damage to turtle nesting sites. "If fencing is considered part of the restoration, we can pay for that," she added,
Restoration grazing in Maryland has even spawned niche entrepreneurial opportunities for beef cattle and goat farmers, who have found a profitable way to fatten their livestock for market, Mr. Smith said.
"I know of at least one company that is leasing its goats to folks enrolled in the wetlands restoration program," he said.. "It's a good example of market-driven conservation that's creating a win-win for the goat farmer and the landowner."
Mr. Smith called the wetlands restoration program the best tool scientists have for ensuring bog turtle recovery, especially when it involves contiguous sites.
"We know that if we enhance habitat and make it suitable, bog turtles will colonize," he said. "Our goal is to create connectivity among known sites. Enabling animals to cross watershed boundaries helps maintain crucial gene flow."
Enrollment has grown to include more than 1,000 acres, and enthusiasm is growing among the landowners, Ms. Whitlock said. "The program is helping people understand what an amazing thing they have on their property and encourages them to take ownership, and they absolutely love it.
"They keep an eye out," she said. "They call police if they see something they don't like. They are actively involved.
Showing posts with label Animal welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animal welfare. Show all posts
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
'Watch out before lighting your bonfires,' hedgehog carers warn
Sunday 30 October 2011
THE Help a Hedgehog Hospital in Brimscombe is urging householders to be vigilant before lighting bonfires this month.
Woodpiles make ideal places for hedgehogs to sleep and raise their families in and recently a mother with a litter of autumn juveniles hoglets were found while a bonfire was being dismantled before it was rebuilt elsewhere in the garden.
"Had they not been discovered they would have perished in the fire," said hedgehog carer John Crowther.
"Ideally the entire pile should be re-sited before being lit.
"If this is not possible the base of the pile should be examined carefully using a torch or better still it should be lit the same day it is built before a hedgehog has had chance to move in."
Help a Hedgehog Hospital held an awareness event in Stratford Park on Sunday, October 18 to highlight the plight of hedgehogs. More than £400 was raised to enable the hospital to buy food and medication for many of the sick and injured animals in its care.
In addition, Alicia Dembny took part in the recent horseless event at Badminton and raised £150.
Another awareness day is being held in Bussage Village Hall from 10am until 2pm on Sunday, November 20 - come along and meet the hedgehogs.
For more details call 01453 886424 or go to www.helpahedgehog.org
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/archive/2011/10/30/News+%28snj_news%29/9332789._Watch_out_before_lighting_your_bonfires____hedgehog_carers_warn/
THE Help a Hedgehog Hospital in Brimscombe is urging householders to be vigilant before lighting bonfires this month.
Woodpiles make ideal places for hedgehogs to sleep and raise their families in and recently a mother with a litter of autumn juveniles hoglets were found while a bonfire was being dismantled before it was rebuilt elsewhere in the garden.
"Had they not been discovered they would have perished in the fire," said hedgehog carer John Crowther.
"Ideally the entire pile should be re-sited before being lit.
"If this is not possible the base of the pile should be examined carefully using a torch or better still it should be lit the same day it is built before a hedgehog has had chance to move in."
Help a Hedgehog Hospital held an awareness event in Stratford Park on Sunday, October 18 to highlight the plight of hedgehogs. More than £400 was raised to enable the hospital to buy food and medication for many of the sick and injured animals in its care.
In addition, Alicia Dembny took part in the recent horseless event at Badminton and raised £150.
Another awareness day is being held in Bussage Village Hall from 10am until 2pm on Sunday, November 20 - come along and meet the hedgehogs.
For more details call 01453 886424 or go to www.helpahedgehog.org
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/archive/2011/10/30/News+%28snj_news%29/9332789._Watch_out_before_lighting_your_bonfires____hedgehog_carers_warn/
Monday, August 1, 2011
Terrapin haven in Tuscany for UK rescued reptiles is ruined and overrun (via HerpDigest)
Terrapin haven in Tuscany for UK rescued reptiles is ruined and overrun (Carapax)
Carapax sanctuary, which gave new home to UK's abandoned terrapins, in disarray after legal battle and neglect claims.
It seemed the perfect solution to the problem of Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello. Thousands of red-eared terrapins had been dumped in Britain's waterways in the early 1990s, after being bought as pets during the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle craze.
Rather than allow them to devour native animals including fish, newts, moorhens and ducklings, a terrapin charity paid for more than 800 to be flown abroad to start a new life in Italy.
The terrapins took up residence at an idyllic site, a sanctuary in Massa Marittima, 90 miles south of Pisa. However, after the eviction last year of the sanctuary's manager hundreds of the rescued reptiles are dead or dying, while scores more of the non-native animals have escaped into the Tuscan countryside, according to local people and terrapin experts.
The Italian sanctuary, known as Carapax, or the European Centre for Chelonian Conservation, and run by Donato Ballasina, the director, attracted funds from charities across Europe. It received £25 for every terrapin and other non-native chelonian sent to the centre.
"This was a shipping of animals to their death - to be put in lakes which were not fit for purpose," said Tom Langton, an independent ecologist who investigated the project. "Animals were underfed and dying with disease. The whole thing is bizarre and worrying."
In Britain, there are more than 2,000 terrapins still at large in waterways in the London area alone. Many are dinner plate-sized red-eared terrapins (Trachemys scripta elegans), also called sliders, which were discarded by their Ninja Turtle-loving owners. Red-eared terrapins are now banned from sale in Britain but many enthusiasts have switched to other similar non-native species.
In 2007, the City of London Authority captured rogue terrapins from park ponds in the capital and, along with other organisations and individuals, passed them to the British Chelonia Group.
The BCG funded the terrapins' expatriation to the Tuscan sanctuary, which was billed as a home for life, where the creatures could swim in lakes fed by streams warmed by volcanic rock. The sanctuary was also claimed to be "hermetically sealed" so that no red-eared terrapins could escape and start terrorising the native species.
Almost immediately, the BCG received evidence that terrapins were dying because the sanctuary's ponds were too small and because fencing was not secure. But the charity said it dispatched people to check on the animals' conditions and found no problems, so it continued to part-fund the project.
"It all sounded too good to be true, and it was," said Paul Eversfield, a former BCG member, referring to his visit to the sanctuary in the autumn of 2007.
Eversfield said that he found a muddy pond overcrowded with terrapins with no filtration, and fencing through which the creatures could easily escape. He said he warned the BCG of the situation.
Don Freeman, the BCG's chairman, said Eversfield's findings were not ignored. "When we sent people out to have a look, including those who had sent terrapins there, they were satisfied with what they found." According to Freeman it was difficult to prove that terrapins had escaped because feral red-eared terrapins were already at large in Tuscany before the sanctuary was built.
"The problems were none of ours. It was a question of [Ballasina's] tenure and that's it," added Freeman. "What can we do about another organisation? Nothing. It's up to them. The book is closed."
A former Carapax employee said the sanctuary "lost control" of its animals and "turtles spilled into streams, ponds and rivers, creating environmental pollution".
After a court battle with the local landowner, Ballasina was last year evicted from the site for breaking his tenancy terms. Native tortoises and turtles were seized by the Italian authorities but the non-native terrapins were left on the site and the Italian courts allowed Ballasina access to feed the animals. Ballasina could not be reached to put the allegations to him.
In a letter purporting to be from the Belgian based charity the International RANA Foundation, the umbrella group of Ballasina's defunct Carapax project, a representative accused "local mafia" of forcing the Tuscan centre to close, claimed reports of salmonella infections at the site were invented, and appealed for more money to pay to feed "8,000 turtles" still there.
Freeman confirmed the BCG was still funding the feeding of the terrapins left in the sanctuary from charitable donations, but insisted that the money - ?180 (£157) a week according to the BCG's website - was no longer going to Ballasina or Carapax.
The Italian authorities appointed Marco Zuffi, of the Museum of National History, at the University of Pisa, to monitor the derelict sanctuary. According to Zuffi the sanctuary became overcrowded because Ballasina was incapable of refusing requests to help terrapins. "He should not have accepted so many individuals coming from the UK or other countries," said Zuffi. "He wasn't able to say 'no'." Observers who regularly visited the site said that the remaining 1,500 terrapins were in a "pretty bad" way, he said.
"The animals are evidentially very distressed. They come to the shore with their mouths open looking for food. It is a sign of animals in a very bad condition."
Eversfield said the remaining terrapins were a dilemma for all parties involved. "This solution to this is very uncomfortable. The site needs to be sanitised and we need to collect the animals and humanely destroy them," he suggested.
According to Zuffi, euthanasia was not a solution. "If you [tell] the public you are going to kill hundreds and hundreds of sliders you're likely to be stopped at all legal levels. People want to protect their pets, and sliders are considered pets."
He said that the terrapins could be repatriated to their countries of origin, including the UK (some are micro-chipped), or taken to secure centres. But he said that there was no timetable for cleaning up the sanctuary.
Carapax sanctuary, which gave new home to UK's abandoned terrapins, in disarray after legal battle and neglect claims.
It seemed the perfect solution to the problem of Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello. Thousands of red-eared terrapins had been dumped in Britain's waterways in the early 1990s, after being bought as pets during the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle craze.
Rather than allow them to devour native animals including fish, newts, moorhens and ducklings, a terrapin charity paid for more than 800 to be flown abroad to start a new life in Italy.
The terrapins took up residence at an idyllic site, a sanctuary in Massa Marittima, 90 miles south of Pisa. However, after the eviction last year of the sanctuary's manager hundreds of the rescued reptiles are dead or dying, while scores more of the non-native animals have escaped into the Tuscan countryside, according to local people and terrapin experts.
The Italian sanctuary, known as Carapax, or the European Centre for Chelonian Conservation, and run by Donato Ballasina, the director, attracted funds from charities across Europe. It received £25 for every terrapin and other non-native chelonian sent to the centre.
"This was a shipping of animals to their death - to be put in lakes which were not fit for purpose," said Tom Langton, an independent ecologist who investigated the project. "Animals were underfed and dying with disease. The whole thing is bizarre and worrying."
In Britain, there are more than 2,000 terrapins still at large in waterways in the London area alone. Many are dinner plate-sized red-eared terrapins (Trachemys scripta elegans), also called sliders, which were discarded by their Ninja Turtle-loving owners. Red-eared terrapins are now banned from sale in Britain but many enthusiasts have switched to other similar non-native species.
In 2007, the City of London Authority captured rogue terrapins from park ponds in the capital and, along with other organisations and individuals, passed them to the British Chelonia Group.
The BCG funded the terrapins' expatriation to the Tuscan sanctuary, which was billed as a home for life, where the creatures could swim in lakes fed by streams warmed by volcanic rock. The sanctuary was also claimed to be "hermetically sealed" so that no red-eared terrapins could escape and start terrorising the native species.
Almost immediately, the BCG received evidence that terrapins were dying because the sanctuary's ponds were too small and because fencing was not secure. But the charity said it dispatched people to check on the animals' conditions and found no problems, so it continued to part-fund the project.
"It all sounded too good to be true, and it was," said Paul Eversfield, a former BCG member, referring to his visit to the sanctuary in the autumn of 2007.
Eversfield said that he found a muddy pond overcrowded with terrapins with no filtration, and fencing through which the creatures could easily escape. He said he warned the BCG of the situation.
Don Freeman, the BCG's chairman, said Eversfield's findings were not ignored. "When we sent people out to have a look, including those who had sent terrapins there, they were satisfied with what they found." According to Freeman it was difficult to prove that terrapins had escaped because feral red-eared terrapins were already at large in Tuscany before the sanctuary was built.
"The problems were none of ours. It was a question of [Ballasina's] tenure and that's it," added Freeman. "What can we do about another organisation? Nothing. It's up to them. The book is closed."
A former Carapax employee said the sanctuary "lost control" of its animals and "turtles spilled into streams, ponds and rivers, creating environmental pollution".
After a court battle with the local landowner, Ballasina was last year evicted from the site for breaking his tenancy terms. Native tortoises and turtles were seized by the Italian authorities but the non-native terrapins were left on the site and the Italian courts allowed Ballasina access to feed the animals. Ballasina could not be reached to put the allegations to him.
In a letter purporting to be from the Belgian based charity the International RANA Foundation, the umbrella group of Ballasina's defunct Carapax project, a representative accused "local mafia" of forcing the Tuscan centre to close, claimed reports of salmonella infections at the site were invented, and appealed for more money to pay to feed "8,000 turtles" still there.
Freeman confirmed the BCG was still funding the feeding of the terrapins left in the sanctuary from charitable donations, but insisted that the money - ?180 (£157) a week according to the BCG's website - was no longer going to Ballasina or Carapax.
The Italian authorities appointed Marco Zuffi, of the Museum of National History, at the University of Pisa, to monitor the derelict sanctuary. According to Zuffi the sanctuary became overcrowded because Ballasina was incapable of refusing requests to help terrapins. "He should not have accepted so many individuals coming from the UK or other countries," said Zuffi. "He wasn't able to say 'no'." Observers who regularly visited the site said that the remaining 1,500 terrapins were in a "pretty bad" way, he said.
"The animals are evidentially very distressed. They come to the shore with their mouths open looking for food. It is a sign of animals in a very bad condition."
Eversfield said the remaining terrapins were a dilemma for all parties involved. "This solution to this is very uncomfortable. The site needs to be sanitised and we need to collect the animals and humanely destroy them," he suggested.
According to Zuffi, euthanasia was not a solution. "If you [tell] the public you are going to kill hundreds and hundreds of sliders you're likely to be stopped at all legal levels. People want to protect their pets, and sliders are considered pets."
He said that the terrapins could be repatriated to their countries of origin, including the UK (some are micro-chipped), or taken to secure centres. But he said that there was no timetable for cleaning up the sanctuary.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
More Reasons Not to Abandon the Baby Turtle Ban (Via herp Digest)
More Reasons Not to Abandon the Baby Turtle Ban
Animals.Change.org, By Laura Goldman, September 19, 2010
Louisiana turtle farmers are suing the FDA to lift a 35-year-old ban on the sale of baby red-eared slider turtles, saying they desperately need the business and now have efficient ways to eliminate salmonella, which was the reason for the 1975 ban on the U.S. sale of turtles smaller than 4 inches. A major reason why those of us who support the ban want it to stay in place is because, although the baby turtles may be salmonella-free, they can still continue to shed the bacteria throughout their lives, wreaking havoc on humans and wildlife alike.
When I wrote about this last month, I didn't realize there were equally compelling reasons to keep the ban intact, and those reasons are practically in my own backyard. The Madrona Marsh Preserve in the Los Angeles area is a 10-acre refuge - basically a suburban pond - and many turtle owners apparently think it's the perfect habitat in which to abandon their turtles. That's right, when the adorable, silver-dollar-sized baby red-eared sliders illegally bought at flea markets, on the internet or elsewhere grow up to become not-so-cute, foot-long, high-maintenance adults, they're often dumped.
Although the turtles can live to be 50 or older in a proper pond, they have difficulty surviving in places like Madrona Marsh. The Daily Breeze reported last week that officials are finding increasing numbers of the turtles either dead or sick from extreme dehydration. They're also easy prey for raccoons and other wildlife.
"In the last couple of weeks I've found three dead ones," Tracy Drake, manager of the preserve, told the newspaper. "We have people that go up to the gate at night and push them through."
In a fact sheet, the U.S. Geological Society says that throughout its nonindigenous range, the turtles "are introduced primarily through pet releases and escapes; a situation which has continued for several decades since the 1930s, reaching a peak during the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles television cartoon craze of the late 1980s-early 1990s."
Sadly, the turtles have no mutant ninja powers in real life, and rarely grow up to become teenagers.
"The animal trade business is a little scary and we see the dark side of it here," Drake said. "They have their lives and personalities. When they get abandoned, I don't know if they think like we do, but they know they've been abandoned."
The dumped turtles that are strong or lucky enough to survive have become a major threat to western pond turtles, a species native to California. Because of the sliders' aggressive eating and reproducing habits, the USGS has labeled them "clearly invasive."
Since Madrona Marsh represents just one small area inundated with illegally obtained sliders - turtles that carry salmonella, are capable of destroying other species and are typically abandoned and left to die by dehydration or starvation - what's the point of lifting the ban and opening the floodgates for thousands of more unwanted turtles?
At http://animals.change.org/petitions/view/dont_lift_the_us_ban_on_the_sale_of_small_turtles there is a petition asking the FDA to continue banning the sale of baby red-eared slider turtles.
Animals.Change.org, By Laura Goldman, September 19, 2010
Louisiana turtle farmers are suing the FDA to lift a 35-year-old ban on the sale of baby red-eared slider turtles, saying they desperately need the business and now have efficient ways to eliminate salmonella, which was the reason for the 1975 ban on the U.S. sale of turtles smaller than 4 inches. A major reason why those of us who support the ban want it to stay in place is because, although the baby turtles may be salmonella-free, they can still continue to shed the bacteria throughout their lives, wreaking havoc on humans and wildlife alike.
When I wrote about this last month, I didn't realize there were equally compelling reasons to keep the ban intact, and those reasons are practically in my own backyard. The Madrona Marsh Preserve in the Los Angeles area is a 10-acre refuge - basically a suburban pond - and many turtle owners apparently think it's the perfect habitat in which to abandon their turtles. That's right, when the adorable, silver-dollar-sized baby red-eared sliders illegally bought at flea markets, on the internet or elsewhere grow up to become not-so-cute, foot-long, high-maintenance adults, they're often dumped.
Although the turtles can live to be 50 or older in a proper pond, they have difficulty surviving in places like Madrona Marsh. The Daily Breeze reported last week that officials are finding increasing numbers of the turtles either dead or sick from extreme dehydration. They're also easy prey for raccoons and other wildlife.
"In the last couple of weeks I've found three dead ones," Tracy Drake, manager of the preserve, told the newspaper. "We have people that go up to the gate at night and push them through."
In a fact sheet, the U.S. Geological Society says that throughout its nonindigenous range, the turtles "are introduced primarily through pet releases and escapes; a situation which has continued for several decades since the 1930s, reaching a peak during the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles television cartoon craze of the late 1980s-early 1990s."
Sadly, the turtles have no mutant ninja powers in real life, and rarely grow up to become teenagers.
"The animal trade business is a little scary and we see the dark side of it here," Drake said. "They have their lives and personalities. When they get abandoned, I don't know if they think like we do, but they know they've been abandoned."
The dumped turtles that are strong or lucky enough to survive have become a major threat to western pond turtles, a species native to California. Because of the sliders' aggressive eating and reproducing habits, the USGS has labeled them "clearly invasive."
Since Madrona Marsh represents just one small area inundated with illegally obtained sliders - turtles that carry salmonella, are capable of destroying other species and are typically abandoned and left to die by dehydration or starvation - what's the point of lifting the ban and opening the floodgates for thousands of more unwanted turtles?
At http://animals.change.org/petitions/view/dont_lift_the_us_ban_on_the_sale_of_small_turtles there is a petition asking the FDA to continue banning the sale of baby red-eared slider turtles.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
No cull of badgers in Wales during scientific review
Controversial plans for a badger cull in west Wales have been put on hold while a review is carried out. The Labour-run Welsh Government says an independent panel of experts will examine the science involved.The cull had been part of an attempt by the previous Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition government to combat bovine TB. But Environment Minister John Griffiths said there would be no cull while the panel carried out its work.
The Labour-Plaid coalition had planned the cull alongside other measures to control TB in cattle in an area of north Pembrokeshire - the so-called Intensive Action Area.
Read on...
Monday, June 13, 2011
Alliance for Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals File Complaint Over Crimes Against Animals
AFA and PETA filed a complaint with the Dane County District Attorney’s office on June 9, 2011, documenting over a decade of violations of Wisconsin’s Crimes Against Animals stemming from research involving staged animal fights in the Stephen C. Gammie and the Catherine A. Marler labs.
The Wisconsin statute is easy to understand:
951.08 Instigating fights between animals.
(1) No person may intentionally instigate, promote, aid or abet as a principal, agent or employee, or participate in the earnings from, or intentionally maintain or allow any place to be used for a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person. This section does not prohibit events or exhibitions commonly featured at rodeos or bloodless bullfights.
951.08 (2) No person may own, possess, keep or train any animal with the intent that the animal be engaged in an exhibition of fighting.
951.08 (3) No person may intentionally be a spectator at a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person.
951.18 Penalties.
951.18 (2) Any person who violates s. 951.08 (2m) or (3) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any person who violates s. 951.08 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class I felony for the first violation and is guilty of a Class H felony for the 2nd or subsequent violation.
Fights between mice have been instigated at the UW-Madison for over a decade. Mice have been kept for this purpose. Mice have been trained through multiple fights with other mice known to be winners or losers. Researchers have earned money from instigating the fights and have paid others in their labs from those earnings. Other university staff and probably students have been spectators at the fights.
Fights between mice are not genteel affairs. Wounding and even death are common results. A BBC video of a fight between mice is available here.
Coming on the heels of the university’s legal problems surrounding the illegal sheep decompression deaths, this new complaint makes clear that the university has a long history of disdain for or ignorance of Wisconsin State laws against cruelty to animals.
In short, the University does not want to follow Wisconsin's Crimes Against Animals laws.
What you can (MUST) do:
Contact your state legislators today. Ask them to request a formal Report on Item 27 of the University System Omnibus Motion passed in the Joint Finance Committee as part of the state budget bill.
Don't know your legislators? Click here. It's easy.
Telll them that the language of item 27 is confusing. Are all persons engaged in research at the university exempt from all the state’s anti-cruelty laws all the time wherever they are? Will the university be able to stage dog fights if item 27 becomes law? Tell them that the state has an obligation to regulate the use of animals and protect them from cruelty, especially at the state university.
You can read the complaint here.
http://www.allanimals.org/fighting_mice.html
The Wisconsin statute is easy to understand:
951.08 Instigating fights between animals.
(1) No person may intentionally instigate, promote, aid or abet as a principal, agent or employee, or participate in the earnings from, or intentionally maintain or allow any place to be used for a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person. This section does not prohibit events or exhibitions commonly featured at rodeos or bloodless bullfights.
951.08 (2) No person may own, possess, keep or train any animal with the intent that the animal be engaged in an exhibition of fighting.
951.08 (3) No person may intentionally be a spectator at a cockfight, dog fight, bullfight or other fight between the same or different kinds of animals or between an animal and a person.
951.18 Penalties.
951.18 (2) Any person who violates s. 951.08 (2m) or (3) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any person who violates s. 951.08 (1) or (2) is guilty of a Class I felony for the first violation and is guilty of a Class H felony for the 2nd or subsequent violation.
Fights between mice have been instigated at the UW-Madison for over a decade. Mice have been kept for this purpose. Mice have been trained through multiple fights with other mice known to be winners or losers. Researchers have earned money from instigating the fights and have paid others in their labs from those earnings. Other university staff and probably students have been spectators at the fights.
Fights between mice are not genteel affairs. Wounding and even death are common results. A BBC video of a fight between mice is available here.
Coming on the heels of the university’s legal problems surrounding the illegal sheep decompression deaths, this new complaint makes clear that the university has a long history of disdain for or ignorance of Wisconsin State laws against cruelty to animals.
The university has now slipped a measure into the state budget bill by way of the University System Omnibus Motion. Item 27:
Liability Protections for Scientific Researchers: Specify that current law provisions prohibiting crimes against animals would not apply to persons engaged in bona fide scientific research at an educational or research institution or persons who are authorized or otherwise regulated under federal law to utilize animals for these purposes.
What you can (MUST) do:
Contact your state legislators today. Ask them to request a formal Report on Item 27 of the University System Omnibus Motion passed in the Joint Finance Committee as part of the state budget bill.
Don't know your legislators? Click here. It's easy.
Telll them that the language of item 27 is confusing. Are all persons engaged in research at the university exempt from all the state’s anti-cruelty laws all the time wherever they are? Will the university be able to stage dog fights if item 27 becomes law? Tell them that the state has an obligation to regulate the use of animals and protect them from cruelty, especially at the state university.
You can read the complaint here.
http://www.allanimals.org/fighting_mice.html
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Beached 44ft whale dies on Redcar beach
 |
| The mammal died despite hopes it would survive until the tide went out |
A 44ft (13m) long whale has died three hours after becoming stranded on a beach on Teesside.
Police alerted the RNLI after spotting the 20 tonne stricken mammal on Redcar Beach, just after 0620 BST.
A rescue bid started which involved trying to keep the adult sperm whale wet until high tide but it died.
Richard Ilderton, of British Divers Marine Life Rescue, said the North Sea was not a suitable environment for such a large creature.
RSPCA officers were involved in the rescue attempt, along with those from the Coastguard and Cleveland Fire Brigade, while RSPCA vets assessed the mammal's condition.
An RNLI spokesman said: "We don't know the reasons but usually when they get to this situation the conclusion is that they don't survive.
"A post mortem will be carried out on the whale and then it will be up to the local council to dispose of it."
'Becomes malnourished'
Crowds went to the beach to see the whale.
Redcar and Cleveland Council said cordons had been put up around the whale, which is due to remain on the beach overnight, watched by security guards.
Mr Ilderton said: "While we have whales in the North Sea, it is not a suitable environment for a sperm whale because the food supply is not there.
"It doesn't eat, it becomes malnourished, it becomes dehydrated because whales do not drink - they get their liquid from their food.
"It can cause all sorts of health problems and ultimately results in something like this happening."
He said the whale's death might actually have been the best outcome.
"If we were able to put the animal back out to sea, all we would be doing is putting it back out to starve, which is massively cruel and against what we want to do," he said.
Robbie Marsland, UK Director of International Fund for Animal Welfare, said whales stranded for a variety of reasons.
He said: "While it is not possible to pinpoint the cause in every case, we do know that human activity in the seas is increasing the threats to these highly intelligent and complex marine mammals.
"Manmade ocean noise, from shipping, oil and gas excavation and naval sonar, makes it ever harder for whales to navigate, communicate, find food or mates and avoid prey."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-13601654
(Submitted by Liz R)
Township mob burns 'talking' monkey as witch
Children traumatised as animal welfare group blames 'dreadful superstition' fuelled by ignorance
David Smith in Johannesburg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 May 2011 14.07 BST
A monkey was pelted with stones, shot at and burned to death in a South African township because residents believed it was linked to witchcraft, an animal welfare agency has said.
A mob chanted "Kill that witch!" as the vervet monkey was put in a bucket, doused with petrol and set on fire, according to witnesses. Children who witnessed the killing last week were said to be traumatised.
One resident, Tebogo Moswetsi, admitted he had captured the monkey as it sought refuge up a tree in Kagiso, west of Johannesburg.
"I was curious to see this monkey that people claimed could talk, and when I saw a group of people chasing after it, I joined them," he told South Africa's Star newspaper. "When it went up the tree, I climbed after it and brought it down because I was curious as I found it unbelievable that a monkey could talk.
"I feel guilty. I shouldn't have taken it down from that tree. I dropped it down after someone poured petrol on it. I had no choice."
Moswetsi added: "Someone struck a match. [The monkey] got out of the bucket and dropped down dead. They continued throwing stones at it."
Cora Bailey, manager of Community Led Animal Welfare (Claw) in South Africa, was alerted by a local resident and arrived at a scene of "sheer criminality".
She said: "We just got there too late. What was incredibly sad is that there were so many little children in the crowd – some of them very traumatised.
"There were youngsters literally laughing in my face. But there were older people who were devastated by it. Everyone was saying sorry. While I was talking, the monkey was burning behind me."
Bailey said there is a "dreadful superstition" about monkeys and witchcraft in some communities, fuelled by ignorance that the animals can become separated from their troops or displaced from their natural habitats.
"We deal with this kind of situation on a very regular basis. We usually manage to do crowd control so the monkey doesn't come to any harm."
Bailey said she was horrified by racist comments that have appeared online in reaction to the incident. "Every time this happens, it's people in the community who call us. Cruelty to animals is not a racial thing. I've worked in townships for 20 years and there are good and bad people in all communities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/mob-burns-monkey-as-witch
David Smith in Johannesburg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 May 2011 14.07 BST
A monkey was pelted with stones, shot at and burned to death in a South African township because residents believed it was linked to witchcraft, an animal welfare agency has said.
A mob chanted "Kill that witch!" as the vervet monkey was put in a bucket, doused with petrol and set on fire, according to witnesses. Children who witnessed the killing last week were said to be traumatised.
One resident, Tebogo Moswetsi, admitted he had captured the monkey as it sought refuge up a tree in Kagiso, west of Johannesburg.
"I was curious to see this monkey that people claimed could talk, and when I saw a group of people chasing after it, I joined them," he told South Africa's Star newspaper. "When it went up the tree, I climbed after it and brought it down because I was curious as I found it unbelievable that a monkey could talk.
"I feel guilty. I shouldn't have taken it down from that tree. I dropped it down after someone poured petrol on it. I had no choice."
Moswetsi added: "Someone struck a match. [The monkey] got out of the bucket and dropped down dead. They continued throwing stones at it."
Cora Bailey, manager of Community Led Animal Welfare (Claw) in South Africa, was alerted by a local resident and arrived at a scene of "sheer criminality".
She said: "We just got there too late. What was incredibly sad is that there were so many little children in the crowd – some of them very traumatised.
"There were youngsters literally laughing in my face. But there were older people who were devastated by it. Everyone was saying sorry. While I was talking, the monkey was burning behind me."
Bailey said there is a "dreadful superstition" about monkeys and witchcraft in some communities, fuelled by ignorance that the animals can become separated from their troops or displaced from their natural habitats.
"We deal with this kind of situation on a very regular basis. We usually manage to do crowd control so the monkey doesn't come to any harm."
Bailey said she was horrified by racist comments that have appeared online in reaction to the incident. "Every time this happens, it's people in the community who call us. Cruelty to animals is not a racial thing. I've worked in townships for 20 years and there are good and bad people in all communities."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/mob-burns-monkey-as-witch
Monday, April 18, 2011
TSA Europe Assists with Illegal Turtle Confiscations
TSA Europe Assists with Illegal Turtle Confiscations
by Henk Zwartepoorte on March 29, 2011
Over the past few years in Hong Kong, large numbers of illegally imported and/or traded turtles have been confiscated. On one hand, these confiscations are a good sign of effective law enforcement, but on the other hand it indicates that the mass illegal trade in Asia is on-going. The CITES Hong Kong authorities, in close contact with the Kadoorie Farm Botanic Gardens (KFBG), has offered these confiscated turtles to the TSA for re-homing within TSA assurance colonies and breeding programs.
TSA Europe has played a vital role in re-homing significant numbers of turtles within the European zoos organized within the European Association for Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA) and the privately managed European Studbook Foundation (ESF). The year 2010 was a particularly busy year for re-homing confiscated shipments.
A history of cooperation with KFBG goes as far back as 2001 when 10,000 turtles were confiscated in Hong Kong and about 6,000 were shipped to the USA and Europe. December 2001 through January 2002 was a very hectic, but well-organized time in all three parts of the world. This large operation put the TSA on the map worldwide. Over the past decade, a total of nine shipments came to Europe comprised of 1500 turtles representing 20 species.
Early in the past decade, the so-called "paperwork period" took a long time, too long some times. During this time, some of the confiscated animals unnecessarily died while waiting in Hong Kong for shipment. These "paperwork periods" has become much shorter in recent years and cooperation with KFBG, CITES, and Hong Kong broker has improved significantly. This improved communication has resulted in much better results for the confiscated animals.
During 2010 three shipments of a total of 122 turtles were sent to Europe.
April - 37 turtles arrived:
20 Astrochelys radiata, 1 Geochelone platynota, 1 Cuora mouhoti, 10 Cuora amboinensis, 1 Heosemys depressa, 2 Siebenrockiella crassicollis, 1 Cuora flavomarginata and 1 Indotestudo elongata
July - 39 turtles arrived: 7 Heosemys grandis, 10 Cuora amboinensis, 10 Cyclemys dentata, 8 Cuora galbinifrons, 3 Cuora boureti and 1 Malayemys macrocephala
November - 46 turtles arrived: 32 Hieremys annandalii, 8 Heosemys grandis, 2 Notochelys platynota, 4 Siebenrockiella crassicollis
July - 39 turtles arrived: 7 Heosemys grandis, 10 Cuora amboinensis, 10 Cyclemys dentata, 8 Cuora galbinifrons, 3 Cuora boureti and 1 Malayemys macrocephala
November - 46 turtles arrived: 32 Hieremys annandalii, 8 Heosemys grandis, 2 Notochelys platynota, 4 Siebenrockiella crassicollis
All of the animals arrived at Amsterdam airport and as always the KLM animal hotel staff people, airport agent Malenstein Air and customs staff were very cooperative. The animals were distributed among EAZA zoos and ESF privates on the day of their arrival. Thankfully, the private recipients always arrived on time at the airport or at the Rotterdam Zoo and someone was always prepared to arrange transport to the various final destinations within Europe. Beyond the Netherlands, some animals were rehomed as far away as Poland, the Czech Republic, France, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, and Austria. We wish to thank all of these private individuals for making these transfers within Europe possible.
All animals will be included in EAZA and ESF studbook/breeding programmes and as such will be part of ex situ assurance colonies. With these colonies, the TSA is aiming at securing these endangered and critically endangered species for the future.
For those of you who would like to support the shipments, medical care and placement of these turtles with a donation to TSA Europe, click here. Given not only the sheer number, but also the size of some of these turtles, shipment costs are anticipated to be high and any support that you can provide would be appreciated. One of the hallmarks of the TSA is our ability to respond quickly to wildlife crises, but we can only do so with your support.
New Protests in Egypt: Activists to Picket Cairo Zoo for Animal Rights
11 April 2011
By: Erin Skarda
The Egyptian uprising was enough to wrestle a dictator from his long-held post and bring shadows of democracy to a Middle Eastern nation. But can people power also be utilized to elicit support for an animal-rights movement?
A coalition of organizations and activists in Egypt have banded together to demand an overhaul of animal treatment within the country, and just as weeks of protests forced the resignation of former president Hosni Mubarak in February, they hope that a citizen demonstration will bring a renewed focus to the issues that have long plagued the country and seem to only get worse over time.
The Egyptian Society for Mercy to Animals (ESMA), along with the Egyptian Society of Animal Friends (ESAF) and Animal Welfare Awareness Research (AWAR), announced over the weekend that a protest will take place outside the Giza Zoo on April 16 to bring to light matters ranging from the state of the zoo itself to illegal wildlife trades, unregulated pet breeding and the government's propensity for shooting or poisoning homeless animals in order to control their population.
(More on TIME.com: See the fate of Cairo's many cats)
Mona Khalil, ESMA co-founder, said in a press release announcing the protest that now is the time to seek rights for Egypt's animals, as the nation is currently focused on building a more humane society overall.
"The way Egypt treats animals is a shame. The Giza Zoo is a national disgrace, Egypt has become known as a hub of the international illegal trade in wildlife, and the municipal policy of controlling street animal populations by shooting and poisoning is deplorable," Khalil said in the release. "At the root of all this is a not only systemic corruption but also policy failure, as Egypt is lacking even the basic animal welfare legislation that would enable the prosecution of violators."
As a new, democratic government is being constructed within Egypt, these organizations and their supporters have outlined specific (and likely controversial) demands, including launching investigations into corruptions at the Ministry of Agriculture and enacting legislation that will provide legal standards on how animals should be treated within the country. But while Egypt has a history of respecting — and even revering – animals like cats and camels, the current environment is a far cry from ancient times.
Whether or not the demands of these demonstrators will be met remains in question, but NewsFeed agrees with the group's effort to piggyback on the country's newly-united spirit. After all, if you're going to reform a nation, why stop at its human citizens?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/11/new-protests-in-egypt-activists-to-picket-cairo-zoo-for-animal-rights/
By: Erin Skarda
The Egyptian uprising was enough to wrestle a dictator from his long-held post and bring shadows of democracy to a Middle Eastern nation. But can people power also be utilized to elicit support for an animal-rights movement?
A coalition of organizations and activists in Egypt have banded together to demand an overhaul of animal treatment within the country, and just as weeks of protests forced the resignation of former president Hosni Mubarak in February, they hope that a citizen demonstration will bring a renewed focus to the issues that have long plagued the country and seem to only get worse over time.
The Egyptian Society for Mercy to Animals (ESMA), along with the Egyptian Society of Animal Friends (ESAF) and Animal Welfare Awareness Research (AWAR), announced over the weekend that a protest will take place outside the Giza Zoo on April 16 to bring to light matters ranging from the state of the zoo itself to illegal wildlife trades, unregulated pet breeding and the government's propensity for shooting or poisoning homeless animals in order to control their population.
(More on TIME.com: See the fate of Cairo's many cats)
Mona Khalil, ESMA co-founder, said in a press release announcing the protest that now is the time to seek rights for Egypt's animals, as the nation is currently focused on building a more humane society overall.
"The way Egypt treats animals is a shame. The Giza Zoo is a national disgrace, Egypt has become known as a hub of the international illegal trade in wildlife, and the municipal policy of controlling street animal populations by shooting and poisoning is deplorable," Khalil said in the release. "At the root of all this is a not only systemic corruption but also policy failure, as Egypt is lacking even the basic animal welfare legislation that would enable the prosecution of violators."
As a new, democratic government is being constructed within Egypt, these organizations and their supporters have outlined specific (and likely controversial) demands, including launching investigations into corruptions at the Ministry of Agriculture and enacting legislation that will provide legal standards on how animals should be treated within the country. But while Egypt has a history of respecting — and even revering – animals like cats and camels, the current environment is a far cry from ancient times.
Whether or not the demands of these demonstrators will be met remains in question, but NewsFeed agrees with the group's effort to piggyback on the country's newly-united spirit. After all, if you're going to reform a nation, why stop at its human citizens?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/11/new-protests-in-egypt-activists-to-picket-cairo-zoo-for-animal-rights/
Mo. lawmakers overhaul law aimed at puppy mills
Thursday, Apr. 14, 2011
By CHRIS BLANK - Associated Press
Missouri voters thought they scored a big win against some of the nation's most notorious puppy mills when they approved strict new dog breeding regulations last year. Now state lawmakers are changing the rules.
A state law aimed at cracking down on disreputable breeders and improving animal care has been overhauled by lawmakers who say the voter-approved version is too costly, and punished legitimate dog-breeders who generate an estimated $1 billion annually in the state. Animal advocates complain elected officials are overruling the will of the people and some are prepared to put the issue on the ballot again next year.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said public confidence is undercut when about 100 lawmakers change a law backed by about 1 million voters.
"The effort in Jefferson City is a piece-by-piece dismantling of every core provision," Pacelle said. "It suggests to me that this is an industry that wants deregulation. They want to do things that they want and to heck with the people who care about dogs or consumers as long as there are enough dogs purchased."
Missouri Rep. Jerry Nolte, who represents part of a county that passed the ballot measure, said he voted for the bill because it will help protect dogs by increasing funding for enforcement.
"What I was trying to do was interpret what the voter intent was, and what they wanted to do was to lessen the suffering of these animals," said Nolte, a Republican. "And I believe that this, on balance, will reduce the suffering of these animals."
A spokesman for Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon said Thursday the bill would get a careful review and declined comment on whether he planned to sign it.
Missouri's law passed last November on the strength of residents from heavily populated Kansas City and St. Louis but failed in rural areas where many dog breeders operate. But swayed by breeders who argued the law would close them down and concerned about possible future regulation for other agricultural industries, a bipartisan group of mostly rural lawmakers voted to change most of the law's provisions. For example, a 50-dog cap is scrapped but breeders would pay more to boost state oversight of the industry.
The Humane Society of Missouri and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were among the animal advocates who pushed for ballot measure, pointing to emaciated and flea-infested dogs that lived in filthy conditions. Even breeders who followed the rules, proponents said, have been allowed to keep dogs in wire cages not much larger than their bodies and exposed to excess heat and cold.
Advocates say more than a dozen states have approved stiffer dog-breeding laws in recent years, and like Missouri, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering changes to that new law.
Many of Missouri's roughly 1,300 licensed breeders pushed back, warning lawmakers the voter-approved law could shutter the industry by limiting the number of the breeding dogs they can own and forcing costly housing upgrades. They said some requirements also could worsen care, including mandating solid floors in indoor enclosures that could slow the draining of fluids and lead to cold and sick dogs.
Critics of the law contend the industry's worst has tainted public perception and blame many problems on unlicensed breeders.
The voter-approved measure "is just going to put the law-abiding, licensed, legitimate, conscientious, caring breeders out of business, and the only ones remaining will be the illegal people already flying under the radar," said Mindy Patterson with the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.
Over the past decade, several state audits have criticized Missouri's dog regulation efforts. But the state is working to do better, now employing 12 inspectors, who each on average cover a region with 225 licensees. The governor also has proposed adding $1.1 million to the budget to hire more personnel.
Supporters of the voter-approved law said insufficient regulations remained a problem. Last year, the Better Business Bureau in Missouri reported receiving 352 complaints and reports against dog breeders and sellers over three years - including many about ill dogs.
"It is interesting to hear some of the statements that are made now that somehow this industry has been wronged," said Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager for the measure. "This industry has had a very long time to voluntarily correct the problems that exist. They have not done so. Lawmakers have failed to act, and the voters stepped in."
Numerous Missouri breeders raise dogs on their farms, selling puppies through Internet ads and word-of-mouth, while others sell to pet stores and to brokers that buy dogs nationwide.
One of those breeders, Hubert Lavy, said people who wrote the law don't fully understand the business and shouldn't develop rules to regulate it. Lavy, 68, whose family raises Labrador retrievers, Maltese, Yorkshire terriers and French bulldogs, said dogs - like employees - are most productive when treated well.
Outdoor pens are cleaned daily and connected to a building with heaters at Lavy's Tenderheart Kennels in Silex about 70 miles northwest of St. Louis. Indoor cages connect through a doggy door to an elevated outdoor cage and have a coated mesh pattern that allows waste to drain.
The kennel donates some dogs and sells roughly 200 puppies per year to earn about $20,000, Lavy said. He estimates it would cost $50,000 to comply with the voter-approved law, which would include expanding indoor space and building solid floors. However, he said he's more likely to just go out of business if the voter-backed law stands.
"There is a place for what I do. There (are) people who want what I do, and I just don't think they should be able to take it away," Lavy said.
http://www.bradenton.com/2011/04/14/3115459_p2/mo-lawmakers-overhaul-law-aimed.html
By CHRIS BLANK - Associated Press
Missouri voters thought they scored a big win against some of the nation's most notorious puppy mills when they approved strict new dog breeding regulations last year. Now state lawmakers are changing the rules.
A state law aimed at cracking down on disreputable breeders and improving animal care has been overhauled by lawmakers who say the voter-approved version is too costly, and punished legitimate dog-breeders who generate an estimated $1 billion annually in the state. Animal advocates complain elected officials are overruling the will of the people and some are prepared to put the issue on the ballot again next year.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said public confidence is undercut when about 100 lawmakers change a law backed by about 1 million voters.
"The effort in Jefferson City is a piece-by-piece dismantling of every core provision," Pacelle said. "It suggests to me that this is an industry that wants deregulation. They want to do things that they want and to heck with the people who care about dogs or consumers as long as there are enough dogs purchased."
Missouri Rep. Jerry Nolte, who represents part of a county that passed the ballot measure, said he voted for the bill because it will help protect dogs by increasing funding for enforcement.
"What I was trying to do was interpret what the voter intent was, and what they wanted to do was to lessen the suffering of these animals," said Nolte, a Republican. "And I believe that this, on balance, will reduce the suffering of these animals."
A spokesman for Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon said Thursday the bill would get a careful review and declined comment on whether he planned to sign it.
Missouri's law passed last November on the strength of residents from heavily populated Kansas City and St. Louis but failed in rural areas where many dog breeders operate. But swayed by breeders who argued the law would close them down and concerned about possible future regulation for other agricultural industries, a bipartisan group of mostly rural lawmakers voted to change most of the law's provisions. For example, a 50-dog cap is scrapped but breeders would pay more to boost state oversight of the industry.
The Humane Society of Missouri and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were among the animal advocates who pushed for ballot measure, pointing to emaciated and flea-infested dogs that lived in filthy conditions. Even breeders who followed the rules, proponents said, have been allowed to keep dogs in wire cages not much larger than their bodies and exposed to excess heat and cold.
Advocates say more than a dozen states have approved stiffer dog-breeding laws in recent years, and like Missouri, Oklahoma lawmakers are considering changes to that new law.
Many of Missouri's roughly 1,300 licensed breeders pushed back, warning lawmakers the voter-approved law could shutter the industry by limiting the number of the breeding dogs they can own and forcing costly housing upgrades. They said some requirements also could worsen care, including mandating solid floors in indoor enclosures that could slow the draining of fluids and lead to cold and sick dogs.
Critics of the law contend the industry's worst has tainted public perception and blame many problems on unlicensed breeders.
The voter-approved measure "is just going to put the law-abiding, licensed, legitimate, conscientious, caring breeders out of business, and the only ones remaining will be the illegal people already flying under the radar," said Mindy Patterson with the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.
Over the past decade, several state audits have criticized Missouri's dog regulation efforts. But the state is working to do better, now employing 12 inspectors, who each on average cover a region with 225 licensees. The governor also has proposed adding $1.1 million to the budget to hire more personnel.
Supporters of the voter-approved law said insufficient regulations remained a problem. Last year, the Better Business Bureau in Missouri reported receiving 352 complaints and reports against dog breeders and sellers over three years - including many about ill dogs.
"It is interesting to hear some of the statements that are made now that somehow this industry has been wronged," said Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager for the measure. "This industry has had a very long time to voluntarily correct the problems that exist. They have not done so. Lawmakers have failed to act, and the voters stepped in."
Numerous Missouri breeders raise dogs on their farms, selling puppies through Internet ads and word-of-mouth, while others sell to pet stores and to brokers that buy dogs nationwide.
One of those breeders, Hubert Lavy, said people who wrote the law don't fully understand the business and shouldn't develop rules to regulate it. Lavy, 68, whose family raises Labrador retrievers, Maltese, Yorkshire terriers and French bulldogs, said dogs - like employees - are most productive when treated well.
Outdoor pens are cleaned daily and connected to a building with heaters at Lavy's Tenderheart Kennels in Silex about 70 miles northwest of St. Louis. Indoor cages connect through a doggy door to an elevated outdoor cage and have a coated mesh pattern that allows waste to drain.
The kennel donates some dogs and sells roughly 200 puppies per year to earn about $20,000, Lavy said. He estimates it would cost $50,000 to comply with the voter-approved law, which would include expanding indoor space and building solid floors. However, he said he's more likely to just go out of business if the voter-backed law stands.
"There is a place for what I do. There (are) people who want what I do, and I just don't think they should be able to take it away," Lavy said.
http://www.bradenton.com/2011/04/14/3115459_p2/mo-lawmakers-overhaul-law-aimed.html
Saturday, April 9, 2011
LIVE ANIMAL KEYRINGS
Animal rights groups are appalled by a new popular trinket being soldon the streets of China - live animal key rings.The key rings are attached to a bag filled with coloured watercontaining either a live Brazil turtle or two small fish.Vendors spoken to by China's Global Times claimed the water containednutrients and that the animal could live for months, however theanimal would suffocate sooner because of a lack of oxygen, animalrights activists say. -- full story:
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Police: Video Shows Animal Rights Activist Beating Dog
Ottumwa Police Charge Woman With Animal Cruelty
POSTED: 9:30 pm CDT March 29, 2011
UPDATED: 10:11 am CDT March 30, 2011
OTTUMWA, Iowa -- Ottumwa police said they have a shocking video that shows a local animal rights activist beating a dog with a club.
Investigators said what happened on the video is not only cruel but criminal.
"Fifteen times taking a club to an animal, nearly pulling its leg out of a socket, in my mind -- that's abuse," Ottumwa police Chief Jim Clark said.
Officers said 41-year-old Noelle Stanbridge faces one count of cruelty to animals.
"Unfortunately, with our state laws, if you beat your own dog and it does not suffer serious injuries, it's just a simple misdemeanor," Clark said. "It appeared that she was going beyond disciplining the animals and actually abusing them."
Detectives said a concerned resident videotaped the incident.
"It appears she was disciplining the dog for digging in the backyard," Clark said. "I think it's, frankly, pretty hypocritical of her to turn around and treat the animals like you see on this video."
Clark said Stanbridge identifies herself as an animal rights activist and is very critical of his department's policy on stray dogs.
"We put them down after seven days, which is very common around the state. And yet, you can see for yourself on the video how she treats her animals," Clark said.
Stanbridge refused to comment about the video or her arrest.
Officers accompanied by a licensed veterinarian served a search warrant at her home Tuesday afternoon and discovered 10 dogs inside.
Investigators said none of them showed obvious signs of injury and will be allowed to stay for now.
Stanbridge will appear in court Wednesday morning and if convicted, she could face a $500 fine.
The case is far from complete. Investigators expect more charges to be filed and a judge will decide whether the 10 dogs in her home should remain there.
Video at: http://www.kcci.com/r/27365120/detail.html
POSTED: 9:30 pm CDT March 29, 2011
UPDATED: 10:11 am CDT March 30, 2011
OTTUMWA, Iowa -- Ottumwa police said they have a shocking video that shows a local animal rights activist beating a dog with a club.
Investigators said what happened on the video is not only cruel but criminal.
"Fifteen times taking a club to an animal, nearly pulling its leg out of a socket, in my mind -- that's abuse," Ottumwa police Chief Jim Clark said.
Officers said 41-year-old Noelle Stanbridge faces one count of cruelty to animals.
"Unfortunately, with our state laws, if you beat your own dog and it does not suffer serious injuries, it's just a simple misdemeanor," Clark said. "It appeared that she was going beyond disciplining the animals and actually abusing them."
Detectives said a concerned resident videotaped the incident.
"It appears she was disciplining the dog for digging in the backyard," Clark said. "I think it's, frankly, pretty hypocritical of her to turn around and treat the animals like you see on this video."
Clark said Stanbridge identifies herself as an animal rights activist and is very critical of his department's policy on stray dogs.
"We put them down after seven days, which is very common around the state. And yet, you can see for yourself on the video how she treats her animals," Clark said.
Stanbridge refused to comment about the video or her arrest.
Officers accompanied by a licensed veterinarian served a search warrant at her home Tuesday afternoon and discovered 10 dogs inside.
Investigators said none of them showed obvious signs of injury and will be allowed to stay for now.
Stanbridge will appear in court Wednesday morning and if convicted, she could face a $500 fine.
The case is far from complete. Investigators expect more charges to be filed and a judge will decide whether the 10 dogs in her home should remain there.
Video at: http://www.kcci.com/r/27365120/detail.html
Flathead Co. wants couple to relinquish control of their cats
Posted: Mar 30, 2011 4:11 PM by Katy Harris (KAJ News)
Updated: Mar 30, 2011 6:43 PM
COLUMBIA FALLS- Back in December, animal wardens seized over 100 cats from a remote location in Marion. Animal Cruelty charges are pending for Cheryl and Edwin Criswell, meanwhile The Flathead County Spay and Neuter Task Force is spending hundreds of dollars still caring for the cats.
The county wants the Criswell's to relinquish control so that they can now start to be adopted.
The Criswells want to keep anywhere from 15 to 45 of their 100 cats that are currently housed in the task force shelter but the county says they will not have any of the cats back in their possession.
The Criswells are charged with cruelty to animals and aggravated animal cruelty. Because of the crowded and poor conditions the cats were living in, one was put down, 2 cats are blind in both eyes due to conjunctivitis and 6 have only one eye. 5 cats had to get surgery to remove teeth due to an immune disorder.
The task force had to purchase a trailer for $500 to specifically accommodate the Criswell's cats. Flathead County pays for food and litter for the cats, which should be paid in restitution costs by the Criswells.
Until the Criswells release control over the animals it will cost the Spay and Neuter Task $150 a day to take care of them.
http://www.kpax.com/news/flathead-co-wants-couple-to-relinquish-control-of-their-cats/
Updated: Mar 30, 2011 6:43 PM
COLUMBIA FALLS- Back in December, animal wardens seized over 100 cats from a remote location in Marion. Animal Cruelty charges are pending for Cheryl and Edwin Criswell, meanwhile The Flathead County Spay and Neuter Task Force is spending hundreds of dollars still caring for the cats.
The county wants the Criswell's to relinquish control so that they can now start to be adopted.
The Criswells want to keep anywhere from 15 to 45 of their 100 cats that are currently housed in the task force shelter but the county says they will not have any of the cats back in their possession.
The Criswells are charged with cruelty to animals and aggravated animal cruelty. Because of the crowded and poor conditions the cats were living in, one was put down, 2 cats are blind in both eyes due to conjunctivitis and 6 have only one eye. 5 cats had to get surgery to remove teeth due to an immune disorder.
The task force had to purchase a trailer for $500 to specifically accommodate the Criswell's cats. Flathead County pays for food and litter for the cats, which should be paid in restitution costs by the Criswells.
Until the Criswells release control over the animals it will cost the Spay and Neuter Task $150 a day to take care of them.
http://www.kpax.com/news/flathead-co-wants-couple-to-relinquish-control-of-their-cats/
Monday, March 28, 2011
Shocking number of animals dying at Kiev Zoo
Dozens, maybe hundreds, have died in recent years, animal welfare groups say
By Maria Danilova
The Associated Press
updated 3/23/2011 8:42:37 PM ET
KIEV, Ukraine — An Indian elephant called Boy, the pride of the Kiev Zoo, collapsed and died in his enclosure. Around the same time, Maya the camel succumbed to a digestive illness and Theo the zebra died after crashing into a metal fence.
And there's more, much more.
The animals just keep on dying at the Kiev Zoo, a place some have likened to an unkempt warehouse for those with fur and feathers. Animal welfare groups say dozens if not hundreds of animals have died at the zoo in recent years due to malnutrition, a lack of medical care and mistreatment — and some suspect that corruption is at the heart of the problem.
Naturewatch, a British-based animal welfare group, is among the organizations calling for the 100-year-old zoo to be closed and its animals sent elsewhere in Europe.
"The Kiev Zoo will never attain any basic standards, it's so far removed from any zoo in Europe," said John Ruane of Naturewatch. "The conditions have been absolutely horrendous and no matter how many more directors were appointed the situation still remained the same."
New managers appointed in October said that nearly half of the zoo's animals either died or mysteriously disappeared over two years under their predecessors, and a government audit found that thousands of dollars were misspent as animals were illegally sold and funds earmarked for their food and care disappeared. Ukrainian prosecutors have also opened an investigation.
But despite the management change, the zoo's animals are still dying. Some activists suspect a secret real estate deal is in the works — that the zoo is being deliberately decimated so it can be closed down and the prime land that it sits on in the center of Kiev can be sold.
Other violations included the purchase of medication for already deceased apes, paying for hyenas that were never shipped to the zoo, the illegal sale of 12 macaques, the unrecorded sale of zoo tickets and the misallocation of funds earmarked for feeding zoo animals. The violations totaled the equivalent of $200,000, according to Irina Parkhomenko, spokeswoman for the government auditing agency.
Deterioration started after Soviet Union's collapse
Once the jewel of the Ukrainian capital and a favorite weekend spot for families, the zoo began to deteriorate after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the years of poverty that followed. Animals were kept in cramped, poorly lit and poorly heated enclosures, fed improperly and left unattended, according to watchdogs.
The Kiev Zoo gained international notoriety in 2007 when it was expelled from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria after the tragic death of a female bear.
The elderly brown bear named Dinara had been moved from a small enclosure where she had spent all her life to a bigger pen with a male Malayan sun bear. Stressed by the new premises and her new companion, Dinara began to bang her head against the concrete walls of the enclosure, leaving blood stains on the walls and floor. After days of this, she was euthanized.
On a recent visit, the zoo looked desolate. The elephant's pen stood empty, a lonely wolf paced an open-air enclosure, a collection of farm animals was closed to visitors and two giraffes were locked in two small indoor cells.
Mayor accused of mismanagement
The zoo's problems grew worse under the leadership of the city's eccentric mayor, Leonid Chernovetsky, who has been widely accused of mismanagement. Under his appointed zoo director, Svitlana Berzina, about a quarter of the animals died and another quarter disappeared in the two years before she was ousted in October, according to the new zoo director, Oleksiy Tolstoukhov.
Boy, the biggest Indian elephant in a European zoo, collapsed in his enclosure and died in April at age 39. Berzina denied any wrongdoing and claimed the elephant was poisoned.
Others disagree. Serhiy Hryhoryev, a zoo worker who has set up a group to protect the animals, believes that Boy was killed by a yo-yo diet. He said zoo staff considered Boy to be overweight and put him on a diet of mainly water and hay, causing him to lose more than a third of his weight in four months.
"By the end, his ribs were sticking out," Hryhoryev said.
Then Boy was put back on beets, carrots and apples, which caused rapid weight gain, which Hryhoryev said led to the elephant's heart failure. An autopsy was inconclusive.
Bad diet — or poison?
A month later, Maya the camel died. Hryhoryev said zoo workers failed to treat her for abdominal bloating after a sudden diet change. The zoo, however, blamed the death on a mysterious poisoner, a middle-aged man with an earring who just happened to resemble the whistleblower Hryhoryev. He was fired from his job but then reinstated through a court order late last year.
Theo the zebra died in late March after being separated from his female companions, as the animals were let outside after spending the winter in cramped indoor quarters. The male zebra threw himself into a metal fence in a desperate attempt to reach the females.
Officials are having a hard time determining exactly how many animals died or disappeared under the previous management. The zoo now has 2,600 animals from 328 species.
'Not as bad as they say'
Oleksandr Mazurchak, deputy head of the Kiev city administration, said about 250 animals died due to "problems" during two years under Berzina. The government audit last year also found that 131 other animals were missing.
Mazurchak said 50 animals have died since Tolstoukhov took over, though most from old age. But some deaths could have been avoided, like those of the three fish that died in late December when a power outage stopped the flow of oxygen into their tank.
Defending his record, the new director said the zoo has not purchased any new animals in recent years due to funding shortages and 60 percent of the zoo's animals are approaching the end of their natural life span anyway.
"It's not as bad as they say," Tolstoukhov said. "In all the zoos, including in Europe, animals don't live a million years. They also die and get sick."
Ecologist cites close to 250 deaths
But Volodymyr Boreiko, an ecologist who has monitored developments at the zoo, said in a report last week that the number of animals that have died since the new managers took over in October is closer to 250 and includes a penguin, a crane, turkeys and mongooses. The zoo said his findings are falsified.
Tolstoukhov said the zoo hopes to attract funds to restore existing enclosures and build new ones, and to repair the heating, air conditioning and electric systems. The zoo also plans to acquire new animals, including two young female elephants and 12 blue sheep.
He denied any plans to sell the 84 acres of land the zoo occupies in central Kiev.
Luisa Kuznetsova, 26, who came to the zoo last week with her 2-year-old twins Kolya and Karina, hopes it can be saved.
"I want there to be a beautiful zoo here with all the beautiful animals because the kids are growing and the zoo helps them develop," Kuznetsova said as the twins watched a giraffe attempt to kiss them through a glass wall.
But Tamara Tarnavska of the Kiev-based SOS animal rights group believes the zoo must be closed to protect its animals from further abuse.
"The zoo is in such a condition that it's no longer a zoo, it's a concentration camp," Tarnavska said. "When I look those animals in the eyes, I am ashamed to be a human being."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42240723/ns/technology_and_science-science/
By Maria Danilova
The Associated Press
updated 3/23/2011 8:42:37 PM ET
KIEV, Ukraine — An Indian elephant called Boy, the pride of the Kiev Zoo, collapsed and died in his enclosure. Around the same time, Maya the camel succumbed to a digestive illness and Theo the zebra died after crashing into a metal fence.
And there's more, much more.
The animals just keep on dying at the Kiev Zoo, a place some have likened to an unkempt warehouse for those with fur and feathers. Animal welfare groups say dozens if not hundreds of animals have died at the zoo in recent years due to malnutrition, a lack of medical care and mistreatment — and some suspect that corruption is at the heart of the problem.
Naturewatch, a British-based animal welfare group, is among the organizations calling for the 100-year-old zoo to be closed and its animals sent elsewhere in Europe.
"The Kiev Zoo will never attain any basic standards, it's so far removed from any zoo in Europe," said John Ruane of Naturewatch. "The conditions have been absolutely horrendous and no matter how many more directors were appointed the situation still remained the same."
New managers appointed in October said that nearly half of the zoo's animals either died or mysteriously disappeared over two years under their predecessors, and a government audit found that thousands of dollars were misspent as animals were illegally sold and funds earmarked for their food and care disappeared. Ukrainian prosecutors have also opened an investigation.
But despite the management change, the zoo's animals are still dying. Some activists suspect a secret real estate deal is in the works — that the zoo is being deliberately decimated so it can be closed down and the prime land that it sits on in the center of Kiev can be sold.
Other violations included the purchase of medication for already deceased apes, paying for hyenas that were never shipped to the zoo, the illegal sale of 12 macaques, the unrecorded sale of zoo tickets and the misallocation of funds earmarked for feeding zoo animals. The violations totaled the equivalent of $200,000, according to Irina Parkhomenko, spokeswoman for the government auditing agency.
Deterioration started after Soviet Union's collapse
Once the jewel of the Ukrainian capital and a favorite weekend spot for families, the zoo began to deteriorate after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the years of poverty that followed. Animals were kept in cramped, poorly lit and poorly heated enclosures, fed improperly and left unattended, according to watchdogs.
The Kiev Zoo gained international notoriety in 2007 when it was expelled from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria after the tragic death of a female bear.
The elderly brown bear named Dinara had been moved from a small enclosure where she had spent all her life to a bigger pen with a male Malayan sun bear. Stressed by the new premises and her new companion, Dinara began to bang her head against the concrete walls of the enclosure, leaving blood stains on the walls and floor. After days of this, she was euthanized.
On a recent visit, the zoo looked desolate. The elephant's pen stood empty, a lonely wolf paced an open-air enclosure, a collection of farm animals was closed to visitors and two giraffes were locked in two small indoor cells.
Mayor accused of mismanagement
The zoo's problems grew worse under the leadership of the city's eccentric mayor, Leonid Chernovetsky, who has been widely accused of mismanagement. Under his appointed zoo director, Svitlana Berzina, about a quarter of the animals died and another quarter disappeared in the two years before she was ousted in October, according to the new zoo director, Oleksiy Tolstoukhov.
Boy, the biggest Indian elephant in a European zoo, collapsed in his enclosure and died in April at age 39. Berzina denied any wrongdoing and claimed the elephant was poisoned.
Others disagree. Serhiy Hryhoryev, a zoo worker who has set up a group to protect the animals, believes that Boy was killed by a yo-yo diet. He said zoo staff considered Boy to be overweight and put him on a diet of mainly water and hay, causing him to lose more than a third of his weight in four months.
"By the end, his ribs were sticking out," Hryhoryev said.
Then Boy was put back on beets, carrots and apples, which caused rapid weight gain, which Hryhoryev said led to the elephant's heart failure. An autopsy was inconclusive.
Bad diet — or poison?
A month later, Maya the camel died. Hryhoryev said zoo workers failed to treat her for abdominal bloating after a sudden diet change. The zoo, however, blamed the death on a mysterious poisoner, a middle-aged man with an earring who just happened to resemble the whistleblower Hryhoryev. He was fired from his job but then reinstated through a court order late last year.
Theo the zebra died in late March after being separated from his female companions, as the animals were let outside after spending the winter in cramped indoor quarters. The male zebra threw himself into a metal fence in a desperate attempt to reach the females.
Officials are having a hard time determining exactly how many animals died or disappeared under the previous management. The zoo now has 2,600 animals from 328 species.
'Not as bad as they say'
Oleksandr Mazurchak, deputy head of the Kiev city administration, said about 250 animals died due to "problems" during two years under Berzina. The government audit last year also found that 131 other animals were missing.
Mazurchak said 50 animals have died since Tolstoukhov took over, though most from old age. But some deaths could have been avoided, like those of the three fish that died in late December when a power outage stopped the flow of oxygen into their tank.
Defending his record, the new director said the zoo has not purchased any new animals in recent years due to funding shortages and 60 percent of the zoo's animals are approaching the end of their natural life span anyway.
"It's not as bad as they say," Tolstoukhov said. "In all the zoos, including in Europe, animals don't live a million years. They also die and get sick."
Ecologist cites close to 250 deaths
But Volodymyr Boreiko, an ecologist who has monitored developments at the zoo, said in a report last week that the number of animals that have died since the new managers took over in October is closer to 250 and includes a penguin, a crane, turkeys and mongooses. The zoo said his findings are falsified.
Tolstoukhov said the zoo hopes to attract funds to restore existing enclosures and build new ones, and to repair the heating, air conditioning and electric systems. The zoo also plans to acquire new animals, including two young female elephants and 12 blue sheep.
He denied any plans to sell the 84 acres of land the zoo occupies in central Kiev.
Luisa Kuznetsova, 26, who came to the zoo last week with her 2-year-old twins Kolya and Karina, hopes it can be saved.
"I want there to be a beautiful zoo here with all the beautiful animals because the kids are growing and the zoo helps them develop," Kuznetsova said as the twins watched a giraffe attempt to kiss them through a glass wall.
But Tamara Tarnavska of the Kiev-based SOS animal rights group believes the zoo must be closed to protect its animals from further abuse.
"The zoo is in such a condition that it's no longer a zoo, it's a concentration camp," Tarnavska said. "When I look those animals in the eyes, I am ashamed to be a human being."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42240723/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Monday, February 21, 2011
Animal protection statute threatened, says veterinarian
February 20, 2011
Veterinarian Yesenia Fernández Santos spoke out in favor of the newest animal welfare law Friday, saying it was a far reaching legislation which only needs to be understood better.
However, she said an animal registry is necessary to protect people and animals from the threat of rabies. The registry has been an unpopular measure which also must be explained before it can be effective, she said.
Law 154 — known as the Law for the Welfare and Protection of Animals — signed by Gov. AnÃbal Acevedo Vilá in August 2008, is considered the best animal protection law to date.
Fernández testified in a public hearing of the Senate Natural and Environmental Resources Committee which was considering eliminating the 2008 law and integrating it into yet another proposed law.
Senate Bill 1811, introduced by Sen. Melinda Romero, would eliminate Law 154 and two earlier ones. The bill would create the Welfare Code for Animal, Wildlife and Flora and supersede the laws of Regional Animal Refuge (Law 36 of 1984), the New Wildlife Law (Law 241 of 1999) as well as Law 154.
Fernández said that Law 154 should not be included in Bill 1811, because a law of such length would become diluted within the measure, she said at the hearing presided by Sen. Ramón DÃaz Hernández substituting Chairwoman Luz M. Santiago González.
“The deficiencies of that statute have nothing to do with the content of the law, but rather with the limited knowledge of the law, on the part of the general public, the police as well as prosecutors and judges.”
The law covers a number of issues relating to domestic animals, including classing many actions of mistreatment, abuse or abandonment as felonies, with harsh penalties.
Despite her endorsement of Law 154, she suggested in her testimony that the government mount an anti-rabies campaign in the same way they did for dengue and flu.
“Since rabies is a deadly illness and endemic in our country, the veterinarians have been advocating an animal registry for years,” said Fernández. “I am happy to know that this piece of legislature is considering this action. However, I should mention that the way the animal registry has been developed, the people see it as just another tax and not a solution to the problem of rampant animal overpopulation. If we want to change that mentality, we must educate the people about rabies and its implications, as much for the sake of our health as for that of the animals.”
She noted that since the bill provides for the free registry of farm animals, it would be wise to begin with mandatory rabies vaccination for dogs, cats, cows and horses, which are the link between humans and our “principal carrier of rabies, the mongoose.”
The Health Department has long endorsed the need for mandatory rabies vaccines, but have consistently shown figures which indicate that only one or two cases of rabies have among humans have ever been reported in Puerto Rico.
http://www.prdailysun.com/news/Animal-protection-statute-threatened-says-veterinarian
Veterinarian Yesenia Fernández Santos spoke out in favor of the newest animal welfare law Friday, saying it was a far reaching legislation which only needs to be understood better.
However, she said an animal registry is necessary to protect people and animals from the threat of rabies. The registry has been an unpopular measure which also must be explained before it can be effective, she said.
Law 154 — known as the Law for the Welfare and Protection of Animals — signed by Gov. AnÃbal Acevedo Vilá in August 2008, is considered the best animal protection law to date.
Fernández testified in a public hearing of the Senate Natural and Environmental Resources Committee which was considering eliminating the 2008 law and integrating it into yet another proposed law.
Senate Bill 1811, introduced by Sen. Melinda Romero, would eliminate Law 154 and two earlier ones. The bill would create the Welfare Code for Animal, Wildlife and Flora and supersede the laws of Regional Animal Refuge (Law 36 of 1984), the New Wildlife Law (Law 241 of 1999) as well as Law 154.
Fernández said that Law 154 should not be included in Bill 1811, because a law of such length would become diluted within the measure, she said at the hearing presided by Sen. Ramón DÃaz Hernández substituting Chairwoman Luz M. Santiago González.
“The deficiencies of that statute have nothing to do with the content of the law, but rather with the limited knowledge of the law, on the part of the general public, the police as well as prosecutors and judges.”
The law covers a number of issues relating to domestic animals, including classing many actions of mistreatment, abuse or abandonment as felonies, with harsh penalties.
Despite her endorsement of Law 154, she suggested in her testimony that the government mount an anti-rabies campaign in the same way they did for dengue and flu.
“Since rabies is a deadly illness and endemic in our country, the veterinarians have been advocating an animal registry for years,” said Fernández. “I am happy to know that this piece of legislature is considering this action. However, I should mention that the way the animal registry has been developed, the people see it as just another tax and not a solution to the problem of rampant animal overpopulation. If we want to change that mentality, we must educate the people about rabies and its implications, as much for the sake of our health as for that of the animals.”
She noted that since the bill provides for the free registry of farm animals, it would be wise to begin with mandatory rabies vaccination for dogs, cats, cows and horses, which are the link between humans and our “principal carrier of rabies, the mongoose.”
The Health Department has long endorsed the need for mandatory rabies vaccines, but have consistently shown figures which indicate that only one or two cases of rabies have among humans have ever been reported in Puerto Rico.
http://www.prdailysun.com/news/Animal-protection-statute-threatened-says-veterinarian
Friday, February 4, 2011
Food fight: Controversy a New Over Live-Animal Markets (Via Herp Digest)
Food fight: Controversy a New Over Live-Animal Markets
By Malcolm Maclachlan | 02/03/11 12:00 AM PST
When the California Fish and Game Commission meets in Sacramento this week, live animal markets won't be high on the agenda.
But after a near miss last year at limiting and regulating vendors who sell live turtles and frogs for food, and banning numerous species from these markets, several groups plan on pushing the idea during the commission's meeting on Thursday.
This is the latest round in an obscure but hard-fought battle that combines ethnic politics and the animal rights movement. When members of the commission attempted to ban the importation of turtles and frogs for food last year, a half-dozen Asian-American legislators joined together to block the idea, noting that the animals were traditional to the Asian diet.
The de facto leader of that group, Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is now viewed as the front-runner to replace Gavin Newsom as mayor of San Francisco. The heavily Asian city, with its famed Chinatown, is ground zero of the live-animal market fight.
Meanwhile, the other side joins the unlikely bedfellows of Bay Area animal rights activists and a conservative southern California developer who has been their main voice on the commission. Commissioner Dan Richards has been a major donor to Republicans in California, but he's also supported a ban on turtle and frog imports on the grounds that they could worsen the state's problems with invasive species.
After 15 years of efforts by animal groups, the Commission voted last March to ban bringing frogs and turtles into the state for food. Eric Mills, coordinator of the Oakland-based group Action for Animals and one of the driving forces behind the ban, said that these markets import about 300,000 turtles into the state each year for human consumption. He is one of those planning on speaking at the meeting this week.
Mills said the representatives from the Humane Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Animal Switchboard and other groups will be on hand.
This decision to ban the import of these animals led Yee to join with five Asian-American Democrats - including four current members of the Assembly and one former lawmaker -- to send a letter to the Commission: Mike Eng of Monterrey Park, Paul Fong of Mountain View, Warren Furutani of Long Beach, Fiona Ma of San Francisco and former Assemblyman Ted Lieu of Torrance. They signed the May 4 letter to commission members urging them to oppose an import ban.
The letter stated that it was "disturbing" that the regulation "appears to disproportionately target Asian-American owned businesses" and implied that the commission didn't "proactively seek the involvement" of members of "the Asian-American community." The letter also noted that the regulation would not affect pet stores, where someone could buy an animal and release it into the wild.
Yee, Ma and Lieu also were on a May 20 teleconference with the commission where they again spoke out against the proposal.
"For over 5,000 years, it has been the practice of both the Chinese community and the Asian-American community to consume these particular animals," Yee said in his testimony. "They are part of our staple. They are part of our culture. They are part of our heritage."
This led to a testy exchange with Richards, in which the commissioner wondered whether Yee was concerned about invasive species. Richards also brought up the trade in bear parts, used in some traditional Chinese medicines.
"The state is being permeated with invasive species across the board," Richards said.
In the end, the commission opted to continue to study the issue and ordered a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, essentially shelving the idea rather than issuing a strong regulation. The Fish and Game Department operates separately from the Commission, but generally enforces regulations the commission hands down.
Yee has been a strong environmental and animal-rights vote for many years. He's received perfect voting scores from numerous environmental groups, authored several pieces of green energy and conservation legislation, and opposed allowing more hunting of black bears.
But he's long had his ire up about attacks on Asian-Americans and their culture. In recent days, he's made headlines for his fight with conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.
On Jan. 19, Limbaugh on his radio show mocked Hu Jintao with a fake version of Chinese during the premier's visit to Washington, D.C. After Yee issued a statement demanding that Limbaugh apologize, Yee's office released a faxed death threat against the lawmaker that stemmed from Yee's criticism against Limbaugh. The radio host declined.
Yee also targeted women golfers.
On Jan. 18, he introduced SB 111, which would add protections for "language rights" into the state's civil rights act. The bill was inspired by a short-lived 2008 effort by the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) to suspend players who do not speak English. Players from Korea, Japan and Taiwan held 14 of the tour's top 25 spots according to the Jan. 31 rankings.
"It just seems like there is an assault on Asian culture and staples of their communities," said Yee's chief of staff, Adam Keigwin. "Senator Yee is not just going to sit idly by while that happens."
Mills has a different take: "The six legislators who signed that letter have been really good votes on animal and environmental issues overall. But when push comes to shove, they play the race card."
Former Fish and Game warden Miles Young takes issue with the idea that a ban is an affront to anyone's culture. For one thing, he said, the main turtle species involved is the red-eared slider, a turtle that is native to neither Asia nor California. These animals have been imported in huge numbers from southeastern states like Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina.
"Literally millions of turtles from those states have been shipped to our live animal markets out here," Young said. "There's hardly a 5,000-year history of red-eared sliders."
Even while their numbers are plummeting in Dixie, Young added, they're now loose in several places around California - including in the Capitol grounds (though they are generally inactive this time of year, going into to an amphibian version of hibernation known as brumation.
"Go to the pond in the Capitol," Young said. "You're not going to see western pond turtles, our native species. You'll see red-eared sliders."
Young spent 27 years as a warden - most of it on the urban beat of San Francisco, and much of that in Chinatown. He said he had good relations with many business owners in the area. But after retiring in 2004, he's become a volunteer expert consultant to many animal groups on the live market issue.
Current California law calls for animals to be killed before a customer can take them away. But both Mills and Young said this often doesn't happen. Mills pointed to a 1997 report from the San Francisco Sunset Beacon newspaper detailing how a group of more than two dozen people were detained by wardens pouring sack-loads of turtles and frogs into Lake Merced, a freshwater lake near the beach in San Francisco.
When asked if he had worked that particular incident, Young said he couldn't remember because he had come across similar situations too many times during his time with as a warden.
In many cases, he added, these releases appeared to be related to Buddhist religious rituals, or sometimes are just the work of well-meaning people. Non-native species introduced in this way can not only out-compete natives but spread diseases like the Chytrid Fungus, a fungal infection that has been blamed for the extinction of over 100 species of amphibians since the 1970s.
By Malcolm Maclachlan | 02/03/11 12:00 AM PST
When the California Fish and Game Commission meets in Sacramento this week, live animal markets won't be high on the agenda.
But after a near miss last year at limiting and regulating vendors who sell live turtles and frogs for food, and banning numerous species from these markets, several groups plan on pushing the idea during the commission's meeting on Thursday.
This is the latest round in an obscure but hard-fought battle that combines ethnic politics and the animal rights movement. When members of the commission attempted to ban the importation of turtles and frogs for food last year, a half-dozen Asian-American legislators joined together to block the idea, noting that the animals were traditional to the Asian diet.
The de facto leader of that group, Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is now viewed as the front-runner to replace Gavin Newsom as mayor of San Francisco. The heavily Asian city, with its famed Chinatown, is ground zero of the live-animal market fight.
Meanwhile, the other side joins the unlikely bedfellows of Bay Area animal rights activists and a conservative southern California developer who has been their main voice on the commission. Commissioner Dan Richards has been a major donor to Republicans in California, but he's also supported a ban on turtle and frog imports on the grounds that they could worsen the state's problems with invasive species.
After 15 years of efforts by animal groups, the Commission voted last March to ban bringing frogs and turtles into the state for food. Eric Mills, coordinator of the Oakland-based group Action for Animals and one of the driving forces behind the ban, said that these markets import about 300,000 turtles into the state each year for human consumption. He is one of those planning on speaking at the meeting this week.
Mills said the representatives from the Humane Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Animal Switchboard and other groups will be on hand.
This decision to ban the import of these animals led Yee to join with five Asian-American Democrats - including four current members of the Assembly and one former lawmaker -- to send a letter to the Commission: Mike Eng of Monterrey Park, Paul Fong of Mountain View, Warren Furutani of Long Beach, Fiona Ma of San Francisco and former Assemblyman Ted Lieu of Torrance. They signed the May 4 letter to commission members urging them to oppose an import ban.
The letter stated that it was "disturbing" that the regulation "appears to disproportionately target Asian-American owned businesses" and implied that the commission didn't "proactively seek the involvement" of members of "the Asian-American community." The letter also noted that the regulation would not affect pet stores, where someone could buy an animal and release it into the wild.
Yee, Ma and Lieu also were on a May 20 teleconference with the commission where they again spoke out against the proposal.
"For over 5,000 years, it has been the practice of both the Chinese community and the Asian-American community to consume these particular animals," Yee said in his testimony. "They are part of our staple. They are part of our culture. They are part of our heritage."
This led to a testy exchange with Richards, in which the commissioner wondered whether Yee was concerned about invasive species. Richards also brought up the trade in bear parts, used in some traditional Chinese medicines.
"The state is being permeated with invasive species across the board," Richards said.
In the end, the commission opted to continue to study the issue and ordered a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, essentially shelving the idea rather than issuing a strong regulation. The Fish and Game Department operates separately from the Commission, but generally enforces regulations the commission hands down.
Yee has been a strong environmental and animal-rights vote for many years. He's received perfect voting scores from numerous environmental groups, authored several pieces of green energy and conservation legislation, and opposed allowing more hunting of black bears.
But he's long had his ire up about attacks on Asian-Americans and their culture. In recent days, he's made headlines for his fight with conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.
On Jan. 19, Limbaugh on his radio show mocked Hu Jintao with a fake version of Chinese during the premier's visit to Washington, D.C. After Yee issued a statement demanding that Limbaugh apologize, Yee's office released a faxed death threat against the lawmaker that stemmed from Yee's criticism against Limbaugh. The radio host declined.
Yee also targeted women golfers.
On Jan. 18, he introduced SB 111, which would add protections for "language rights" into the state's civil rights act. The bill was inspired by a short-lived 2008 effort by the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) to suspend players who do not speak English. Players from Korea, Japan and Taiwan held 14 of the tour's top 25 spots according to the Jan. 31 rankings.
"It just seems like there is an assault on Asian culture and staples of their communities," said Yee's chief of staff, Adam Keigwin. "Senator Yee is not just going to sit idly by while that happens."
Mills has a different take: "The six legislators who signed that letter have been really good votes on animal and environmental issues overall. But when push comes to shove, they play the race card."
Former Fish and Game warden Miles Young takes issue with the idea that a ban is an affront to anyone's culture. For one thing, he said, the main turtle species involved is the red-eared slider, a turtle that is native to neither Asia nor California. These animals have been imported in huge numbers from southeastern states like Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina.
"Literally millions of turtles from those states have been shipped to our live animal markets out here," Young said. "There's hardly a 5,000-year history of red-eared sliders."
Even while their numbers are plummeting in Dixie, Young added, they're now loose in several places around California - including in the Capitol grounds (though they are generally inactive this time of year, going into to an amphibian version of hibernation known as brumation.
"Go to the pond in the Capitol," Young said. "You're not going to see western pond turtles, our native species. You'll see red-eared sliders."
Young spent 27 years as a warden - most of it on the urban beat of San Francisco, and much of that in Chinatown. He said he had good relations with many business owners in the area. But after retiring in 2004, he's become a volunteer expert consultant to many animal groups on the live market issue.
Current California law calls for animals to be killed before a customer can take them away. But both Mills and Young said this often doesn't happen. Mills pointed to a 1997 report from the San Francisco Sunset Beacon newspaper detailing how a group of more than two dozen people were detained by wardens pouring sack-loads of turtles and frogs into Lake Merced, a freshwater lake near the beach in San Francisco.
When asked if he had worked that particular incident, Young said he couldn't remember because he had come across similar situations too many times during his time with as a warden.
In many cases, he added, these releases appeared to be related to Buddhist religious rituals, or sometimes are just the work of well-meaning people. Non-native species introduced in this way can not only out-compete natives but spread diseases like the Chytrid Fungus, a fungal infection that has been blamed for the extinction of over 100 species of amphibians since the 1970s.
TWO GEORGIA COUNTIES ASKED TO ENFORCE STATE WILDLIFE LAWS AT RATTLESNAKE ROUNDUPS (Via Herp Digest)
TWO GEORGIA COUNTIES ASKED TO ENFORCE STATE WILDLIFE LAWS AT RATTLESNAKE ROUNDUPS
Atlanta- 2/3/11 CBD Press Release-The Center for Biological Diversity and allies today sent a letter to law-enforcement officials in Grady and Evans counties, Georgia, calling for enforcement of state wildlife laws at "rattlesnake roundups" - annual contests in which hunters bring in as many snakes as they can catch in a year to be milked for venom, butchered, then sold for meat and skin. Two roundups take place every year in Georgia, one in Whigham in January, the other in Claxton in March. The letter was sent to the sheriffs of Grady and Evans counties and to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Georgia state law requires that a wildlife exhibition permit be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources before wildlife is publicly displayed. Another law states that wildlife cannot be brought into the state without obtaining an importation permit. The letter asks that appropriate law-enforcement measures be taken before and during the roundups to ensure that the events are in compliance with state laws. The letter was sent by the Center, Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy and One More Generation.
"We are concerned that the rattlesnake roundups may be violating state wildlife laws, and we urge law-enforcement officials to take action to enforce those laws," said Tierra Curry, a biologist at the Center. "It is time to end rattlesnake roundups."
A recently published study shows that rattlesnake roundups have depleted populations of Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes in the southeastern United States: This once-common species is being pushed toward extinction by hunting pressure, habitat loss and road mortality. The snake hasn't been seen in Louisiana since 1980, and is now uncommon throughout its range in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and the Carolinas.
In response to dwindling rattlesnake populations, public pressure and environmental concerns, the town of Fitzgerald, Georgia, replaced its rattlesnake roundup with a wild chicken festival, which organizers report has been an enormous success.
"All rattlesnake roundups should be replaced with festivals celebrating wildlife and offering educational programs on the importance of saving native species," said Dr. Bruce Means, author of the recent study and executive director of the Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy.
Last January the Center and allies called on Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue to amend state law to ban rattlesnake roundups and to work with communities to replace the roundups with wildlife festivals. The Center has also urged the state to investigate the extent of gassing and destruction of Gopher Tortoise burrows to collect snakes for rattlesnake roundups. Though the practice is illegal, hunters commonly catch snakes by pouring gasoline or ammonia into burrows or by digging out the burrows. In January 2010, four men were apprehended pouring gasoline into tortoise burrows before the Whigham roundup. Pouring gasoline into burrows sickens or kills the animals inside and makes the burrows unusable for tortoises and the hundreds of other wildlife species that use tortoise burrows.
"Rattlesnakes are an important part of the web of life that help control rodent populations," said Jim Ries, community director at One More Generation. "Roundups are harmful to the healthy environment on which we all depend, and must be banned."
For more information, contact;
Tierra Curry, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 522-3681
Dr. Bruce Means, Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy, (850) 681-6208
Jim Ries, One More Generation, (678) 491-6222
Atlanta- 2/3/11 CBD Press Release-The Center for Biological Diversity and allies today sent a letter to law-enforcement officials in Grady and Evans counties, Georgia, calling for enforcement of state wildlife laws at "rattlesnake roundups" - annual contests in which hunters bring in as many snakes as they can catch in a year to be milked for venom, butchered, then sold for meat and skin. Two roundups take place every year in Georgia, one in Whigham in January, the other in Claxton in March. The letter was sent to the sheriffs of Grady and Evans counties and to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Georgia state law requires that a wildlife exhibition permit be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources before wildlife is publicly displayed. Another law states that wildlife cannot be brought into the state without obtaining an importation permit. The letter asks that appropriate law-enforcement measures be taken before and during the roundups to ensure that the events are in compliance with state laws. The letter was sent by the Center, Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy and One More Generation.
"We are concerned that the rattlesnake roundups may be violating state wildlife laws, and we urge law-enforcement officials to take action to enforce those laws," said Tierra Curry, a biologist at the Center. "It is time to end rattlesnake roundups."
A recently published study shows that rattlesnake roundups have depleted populations of Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes in the southeastern United States: This once-common species is being pushed toward extinction by hunting pressure, habitat loss and road mortality. The snake hasn't been seen in Louisiana since 1980, and is now uncommon throughout its range in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and the Carolinas.
In response to dwindling rattlesnake populations, public pressure and environmental concerns, the town of Fitzgerald, Georgia, replaced its rattlesnake roundup with a wild chicken festival, which organizers report has been an enormous success.
"All rattlesnake roundups should be replaced with festivals celebrating wildlife and offering educational programs on the importance of saving native species," said Dr. Bruce Means, author of the recent study and executive director of the Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy.
Last January the Center and allies called on Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue to amend state law to ban rattlesnake roundups and to work with communities to replace the roundups with wildlife festivals. The Center has also urged the state to investigate the extent of gassing and destruction of Gopher Tortoise burrows to collect snakes for rattlesnake roundups. Though the practice is illegal, hunters commonly catch snakes by pouring gasoline or ammonia into burrows or by digging out the burrows. In January 2010, four men were apprehended pouring gasoline into tortoise burrows before the Whigham roundup. Pouring gasoline into burrows sickens or kills the animals inside and makes the burrows unusable for tortoises and the hundreds of other wildlife species that use tortoise burrows.
"Rattlesnakes are an important part of the web of life that help control rodent populations," said Jim Ries, community director at One More Generation. "Roundups are harmful to the healthy environment on which we all depend, and must be banned."
For more information, contact;
Tierra Curry, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 522-3681
Dr. Bruce Means, Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy, (850) 681-6208
Jim Ries, One More Generation, (678) 491-6222
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Pet ban misleading, anti-business (Via Herp Digest)
Editor - trying to find copy of new rules in Fort Collins, CO. But meanwhile the op-ed war over it in a college paper has started.
Guest Column: Pet ban misleading, anti-business
by JOSH PHILIPS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/25/2011
You may have heard of the initiative to ban pet sales in Fort Collins, and some of you may have even signed the petition to include it on the ballot this year. If so, you may want to consider finding the petition and scratching your name out before you become an accomplice to prolonging the recession in Fort Collins.
The proposed ordinance originated from a local CSU student, Laure Molitor, who has taken it upon herself to ensure pet establishments can no longer feed on the "uninformed"-- and possibly inept -- animal lovers of Fort Collins.
The ordinance, according to a website dedicated to the initiative, would "negatively impact commercial breeders such as puppy mills and kitten factories." While this intent is not a bad one -- nobody wants to see animals suffer in disgusting living conditions --the ordinance is clearly designed to punish pet stores by utilizing a perverted sense of justice.
Perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the proposed ordinance is that it completely ignores the recession, and its advocates seem incapable of understanding that removing any business in Fort Collins can only lead to negative consequences. This blind mindset clearly shows a failure to grasp the basics of economics.
For example, they suggest that pet stores will not suffer from the loss of pet sales but fail to offer evidence anywhere to the contrary. Even if they could offer such proof, the idea of diminishing the revenues of local businesses for the sake of sending a message remains on shaky moral ground.
Strangely enough, the rest of the website seems to be an attack against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, especially in the case of "puppy mills" and "kitten factories." The backers of the ordinance have come to the conclusion that pet stores must pay for the USDA's transgressions because "it's too difficult to fight the government." So with the ordinance in mind, the ends justify the means, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
This proposal carries with it numerous unintended consequences. If pet stores can no longer sell pets, people will buy them online. And if you think people are "uninformed" walking into pet stores, imagine how uninformed will they be when buying from somebody in Kansas on Craigslist.
If the large chains like Petco and Petsmart are reduced to selling only feed, they will assuredly sell their products at a lower price -- and no doubt they will offer a much wider variety. The feed stores she offers as poster children for the wild agenda will lose their niche in the local community, post record losses, and no doubt be swallowed whole by the very corporate giants she wishes to subvert. Once again, a basic understanding of economics.
Not to mention the number of veterinarians who will lose business. Less supply of animals means less visits to the vet's office, which means less revenues, which means people will start losing jobs. It's that simple.
It's doubtful the ordinance writers took the time to study pet stores before they made such outrageous and indefensible claims against them. The employees at Petco are instructed not to sell any animal to a person unwilling to care for it -- one merely has to be a customer to see how much compassion the employees and managers are capable of.
The scariest aspect of the ordinance is that it has loose ties to PETA, the extremist group that tends to provide "euthanasia services" for those adorable puppies and kittens they claim to protect. The website for the ordinance offers links to PETA, suggesting they either are supportive of or, at the very least, inspired by the group's aberrant behavior.
In the end, the ordinance is poorly thought-out and, if put in place, would offer more problems than solutions. It seems its advocates spent very little time weighing the pros versus the cons and are simply out to implement an anti-business law for the sake of a few sad photos they saw on the Internet. It is little more than a personal vendetta against pet stores, which just isn't worth the cost to the community.
Josh Philips is a Fort Collins resident and former Collegian columnist.
A response to the pet ban ordinance, Really to editorial above.
by MARY ROBERTS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/26/2011
Ah, Josh, after reading your column (in Monday's paper) I see that people who write in to the Collegian still spout meaningless metaphors, convoluted thinking, personal attacks and a basic misunderstanding of the topic altogether.
Allow me to explain. First, I wrote for the Collegian many years ago (almost 40), and I disparaged anyone who looked cross-eyed at me, and thought that I was most clever. So I understand the thrilling aspect of having a bully pulpit. So, rah, rah and all that.
Let's go point by point.
1. The ordinance is designed to cut off the puppy pipeline to buyers from large-scale, commercial dog breeders who run an inherently abusive practice. Keeping breeding dogs in cages for a lifetime to breed time after time is abusive. You cannot argue that. And every large-scale breeder of necessity has to do that. They can't take out the 100 or so breeding females for a romp in the park. Most of them live in wire cages for their entire life.
We don't want to punish pet stores. There is a movement that is asking pet stores to reconsider their practices and instead work with shelters and breed rescues to help get dogs (and other animals) adopted. One thousand pet stores have taken the "no puppy" pledge. Diminishing revenues for the sake of a message is shaky moral ground? Really? How about killing 1,200 dogs because the owner didn't want to pay their vet bill?
2. Jeff Fortin, who killed his 1,200 dogs because he couldn't manage their care, is not the exception. He is the rule. I have been researching this for seven years. Laurie Molitor has worked for Humane Societies, including the Reptile Humane Society, and has seen first-hand how reptiles are bought on a whim and die when the owners either lose interest or have no idea how to care for a non-native reptile. Many pet store employees are not educated on their care either.
3. In 2010 The USDA's Office of Inspector General published a highly critical report of the Animal and Pet Health Inspections Services organization that oversees pet care nationally calling it inept and mismanaged. We have known that for years. There are numerous groups working with the USDA to improve their oversight of animal welfare. Meanwhile, animals suffer. We are no longer willing to wait for the slow wheels of government.
4. We euthanize annually 4 million to 5 million dogs and cats that are healthy and adoptable. How about if the American public thoughtfully adopted instead of walk by a pet store, become enamored of that "poor thing" in the window and impulsively pay hundreds of dollars for an animal that's not even spayed or neutered? Shelters vet their adopters; breed rescues even do a home visit. Pet stores and commercial breeders don't care who buys their animals. Adopt these millions of dogs or cats, and I don't think vets are going to run out of clients.
5. I have decided to not address your fear of PETA. We don't always agree on each other's tactics, but calling them aberrant just because you disagree with someone is adolescent.
6. We have seen more than a few little sad photos on the Internet. I suggest you visit a puppy mill. How about Fortin's Beaver Creek Kennels in Kansas where it took days to kill 1,200 dogs and acres to bury them. Laure Molitor is in school full-time hoping to become a veterinarian. She also works at a vet clinic. She does not know the owners of any of the pet stores and has no thought of a "personal vendetta." She could no longer stand by and wait for someone else to do something.
Like all great Americans who have ever stood up to be heard, she has risked personal ridicule, sacrificed any leisure time and acted on her sense of right and wrong.
It's easy to mock someone with whom you disagree, and it gets you a lot more ink. A thoughtful exchange of ideas and concerns, a mutual show of respect, well that's just too damn boring.
Mary Roberts is a local real estate agent and writes about animal welfare. She earned her bachelor's in technical journalism from CSU in 1974 and a master's in communications in 2010.
Guest Column: Pet ban misleading, anti-business
by JOSH PHILIPS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/25/2011
You may have heard of the initiative to ban pet sales in Fort Collins, and some of you may have even signed the petition to include it on the ballot this year. If so, you may want to consider finding the petition and scratching your name out before you become an accomplice to prolonging the recession in Fort Collins.
The proposed ordinance originated from a local CSU student, Laure Molitor, who has taken it upon herself to ensure pet establishments can no longer feed on the "uninformed"-- and possibly inept -- animal lovers of Fort Collins.
The ordinance, according to a website dedicated to the initiative, would "negatively impact commercial breeders such as puppy mills and kitten factories." While this intent is not a bad one -- nobody wants to see animals suffer in disgusting living conditions --the ordinance is clearly designed to punish pet stores by utilizing a perverted sense of justice.
Perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the proposed ordinance is that it completely ignores the recession, and its advocates seem incapable of understanding that removing any business in Fort Collins can only lead to negative consequences. This blind mindset clearly shows a failure to grasp the basics of economics.
For example, they suggest that pet stores will not suffer from the loss of pet sales but fail to offer evidence anywhere to the contrary. Even if they could offer such proof, the idea of diminishing the revenues of local businesses for the sake of sending a message remains on shaky moral ground.
Strangely enough, the rest of the website seems to be an attack against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, especially in the case of "puppy mills" and "kitten factories." The backers of the ordinance have come to the conclusion that pet stores must pay for the USDA's transgressions because "it's too difficult to fight the government." So with the ordinance in mind, the ends justify the means, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
This proposal carries with it numerous unintended consequences. If pet stores can no longer sell pets, people will buy them online. And if you think people are "uninformed" walking into pet stores, imagine how uninformed will they be when buying from somebody in Kansas on Craigslist.
If the large chains like Petco and Petsmart are reduced to selling only feed, they will assuredly sell their products at a lower price -- and no doubt they will offer a much wider variety. The feed stores she offers as poster children for the wild agenda will lose their niche in the local community, post record losses, and no doubt be swallowed whole by the very corporate giants she wishes to subvert. Once again, a basic understanding of economics.
Not to mention the number of veterinarians who will lose business. Less supply of animals means less visits to the vet's office, which means less revenues, which means people will start losing jobs. It's that simple.
It's doubtful the ordinance writers took the time to study pet stores before they made such outrageous and indefensible claims against them. The employees at Petco are instructed not to sell any animal to a person unwilling to care for it -- one merely has to be a customer to see how much compassion the employees and managers are capable of.
The scariest aspect of the ordinance is that it has loose ties to PETA, the extremist group that tends to provide "euthanasia services" for those adorable puppies and kittens they claim to protect. The website for the ordinance offers links to PETA, suggesting they either are supportive of or, at the very least, inspired by the group's aberrant behavior.
In the end, the ordinance is poorly thought-out and, if put in place, would offer more problems than solutions. It seems its advocates spent very little time weighing the pros versus the cons and are simply out to implement an anti-business law for the sake of a few sad photos they saw on the Internet. It is little more than a personal vendetta against pet stores, which just isn't worth the cost to the community.
Josh Philips is a Fort Collins resident and former Collegian columnist.
A response to the pet ban ordinance, Really to editorial above.
by MARY ROBERTS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/26/2011
Ah, Josh, after reading your column (in Monday's paper) I see that people who write in to the Collegian still spout meaningless metaphors, convoluted thinking, personal attacks and a basic misunderstanding of the topic altogether.
Allow me to explain. First, I wrote for the Collegian many years ago (almost 40), and I disparaged anyone who looked cross-eyed at me, and thought that I was most clever. So I understand the thrilling aspect of having a bully pulpit. So, rah, rah and all that.
Let's go point by point.
1. The ordinance is designed to cut off the puppy pipeline to buyers from large-scale, commercial dog breeders who run an inherently abusive practice. Keeping breeding dogs in cages for a lifetime to breed time after time is abusive. You cannot argue that. And every large-scale breeder of necessity has to do that. They can't take out the 100 or so breeding females for a romp in the park. Most of them live in wire cages for their entire life.
We don't want to punish pet stores. There is a movement that is asking pet stores to reconsider their practices and instead work with shelters and breed rescues to help get dogs (and other animals) adopted. One thousand pet stores have taken the "no puppy" pledge. Diminishing revenues for the sake of a message is shaky moral ground? Really? How about killing 1,200 dogs because the owner didn't want to pay their vet bill?
2. Jeff Fortin, who killed his 1,200 dogs because he couldn't manage their care, is not the exception. He is the rule. I have been researching this for seven years. Laurie Molitor has worked for Humane Societies, including the Reptile Humane Society, and has seen first-hand how reptiles are bought on a whim and die when the owners either lose interest or have no idea how to care for a non-native reptile. Many pet store employees are not educated on their care either.
3. In 2010 The USDA's Office of Inspector General published a highly critical report of the Animal and Pet Health Inspections Services organization that oversees pet care nationally calling it inept and mismanaged. We have known that for years. There are numerous groups working with the USDA to improve their oversight of animal welfare. Meanwhile, animals suffer. We are no longer willing to wait for the slow wheels of government.
4. We euthanize annually 4 million to 5 million dogs and cats that are healthy and adoptable. How about if the American public thoughtfully adopted instead of walk by a pet store, become enamored of that "poor thing" in the window and impulsively pay hundreds of dollars for an animal that's not even spayed or neutered? Shelters vet their adopters; breed rescues even do a home visit. Pet stores and commercial breeders don't care who buys their animals. Adopt these millions of dogs or cats, and I don't think vets are going to run out of clients.
5. I have decided to not address your fear of PETA. We don't always agree on each other's tactics, but calling them aberrant just because you disagree with someone is adolescent.
6. We have seen more than a few little sad photos on the Internet. I suggest you visit a puppy mill. How about Fortin's Beaver Creek Kennels in Kansas where it took days to kill 1,200 dogs and acres to bury them. Laure Molitor is in school full-time hoping to become a veterinarian. She also works at a vet clinic. She does not know the owners of any of the pet stores and has no thought of a "personal vendetta." She could no longer stand by and wait for someone else to do something.
Like all great Americans who have ever stood up to be heard, she has risked personal ridicule, sacrificed any leisure time and acted on her sense of right and wrong.
It's easy to mock someone with whom you disagree, and it gets you a lot more ink. A thoughtful exchange of ideas and concerns, a mutual show of respect, well that's just too damn boring.
Mary Roberts is a local real estate agent and writes about animal welfare. She earned her bachelor's in technical journalism from CSU in 1974 and a master's in communications in 2010.
Pet ban misleading, anti-business (Via Herp Digest)
Editor - trying to find copy of new rules in Fort Collins, CO. But meanwhile the op-ed war over it in a college paper has started.
Guest Column: Pet ban misleading, anti-business
by JOSH PHILIPS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/25/2011
You may have heard of the initiative to ban pet sales in Fort Collins, and some of you may have even signed the petition to include it on the ballot this year. If so, you may want to consider finding the petition and scratching your name out before you become an accomplice to prolonging the recession in Fort Collins.
The proposed ordinance originated from a local CSU student, Laure Molitor, who has taken it upon herself to ensure pet establishments can no longer feed on the "uninformed"-- and possibly inept -- animal lovers of Fort Collins.
The ordinance, according to a website dedicated to the initiative, would "negatively impact commercial breeders such as puppy mills and kitten factories." While this intent is not a bad one -- nobody wants to see animals suffer in disgusting living conditions --the ordinance is clearly designed to punish pet stores by utilizing a perverted sense of justice.
Perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the proposed ordinance is that it completely ignores the recession, and its advocates seem incapable of understanding that removing any business in Fort Collins can only lead to negative consequences. This blind mindset clearly shows a failure to grasp the basics of economics.
For example, they suggest that pet stores will not suffer from the loss of pet sales but fail to offer evidence anywhere to the contrary. Even if they could offer such proof, the idea of diminishing the revenues of local businesses for the sake of sending a message remains on shaky moral ground.
Strangely enough, the rest of the website seems to be an attack against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, especially in the case of "puppy mills" and "kitten factories." The backers of the ordinance have come to the conclusion that pet stores must pay for the USDA's transgressions because "it's too difficult to fight the government." So with the ordinance in mind, the ends justify the means, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
This proposal carries with it numerous unintended consequences. If pet stores can no longer sell pets, people will buy them online. And if you think people are "uninformed" walking into pet stores, imagine how uninformed will they be when buying from somebody in Kansas on Craigslist.
If the large chains like Petco and Petsmart are reduced to selling only feed, they will assuredly sell their products at a lower price -- and no doubt they will offer a much wider variety. The feed stores she offers as poster children for the wild agenda will lose their niche in the local community, post record losses, and no doubt be swallowed whole by the very corporate giants she wishes to subvert. Once again, a basic understanding of economics.
Not to mention the number of veterinarians who will lose business. Less supply of animals means less visits to the vet's office, which means less revenues, which means people will start losing jobs. It's that simple.
It's doubtful the ordinance writers took the time to study pet stores before they made such outrageous and indefensible claims against them. The employees at Petco are instructed not to sell any animal to a person unwilling to care for it -- one merely has to be a customer to see how much compassion the employees and managers are capable of.
The scariest aspect of the ordinance is that it has loose ties to PETA, the extremist group that tends to provide "euthanasia services" for those adorable puppies and kittens they claim to protect. The website for the ordinance offers links to PETA, suggesting they either are supportive of or, at the very least, inspired by the group's aberrant behavior.
In the end, the ordinance is poorly thought-out and, if put in place, would offer more problems than solutions. It seems its advocates spent very little time weighing the pros versus the cons and are simply out to implement an anti-business law for the sake of a few sad photos they saw on the Internet. It is little more than a personal vendetta against pet stores, which just isn't worth the cost to the community.
Josh Philips is a Fort Collins resident and former Collegian columnist.
A response to the pet ban ordinance, Really to editorial above.
by MARY ROBERTS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/26/2011
Ah, Josh, after reading your column (in Monday's paper) I see that people who write in to the Collegian still spout meaningless metaphors, convoluted thinking, personal attacks and a basic misunderstanding of the topic altogether.
Allow me to explain. First, I wrote for the Collegian many years ago (almost 40), and I disparaged anyone who looked cross-eyed at me, and thought that I was most clever. So I understand the thrilling aspect of having a bully pulpit. So, rah, rah and all that.
Let's go point by point.
1. The ordinance is designed to cut off the puppy pipeline to buyers from large-scale, commercial dog breeders who run an inherently abusive practice. Keeping breeding dogs in cages for a lifetime to breed time after time is abusive. You cannot argue that. And every large-scale breeder of necessity has to do that. They can't take out the 100 or so breeding females for a romp in the park. Most of them live in wire cages for their entire life.
We don't want to punish pet stores. There is a movement that is asking pet stores to reconsider their practices and instead work with shelters and breed rescues to help get dogs (and other animals) adopted. One thousand pet stores have taken the "no puppy" pledge. Diminishing revenues for the sake of a message is shaky moral ground? Really? How about killing 1,200 dogs because the owner didn't want to pay their vet bill?
2. Jeff Fortin, who killed his 1,200 dogs because he couldn't manage their care, is not the exception. He is the rule. I have been researching this for seven years. Laurie Molitor has worked for Humane Societies, including the Reptile Humane Society, and has seen first-hand how reptiles are bought on a whim and die when the owners either lose interest or have no idea how to care for a non-native reptile. Many pet store employees are not educated on their care either.
3. In 2010 The USDA's Office of Inspector General published a highly critical report of the Animal and Pet Health Inspections Services organization that oversees pet care nationally calling it inept and mismanaged. We have known that for years. There are numerous groups working with the USDA to improve their oversight of animal welfare. Meanwhile, animals suffer. We are no longer willing to wait for the slow wheels of government.
4. We euthanize annually 4 million to 5 million dogs and cats that are healthy and adoptable. How about if the American public thoughtfully adopted instead of walk by a pet store, become enamored of that "poor thing" in the window and impulsively pay hundreds of dollars for an animal that's not even spayed or neutered? Shelters vet their adopters; breed rescues even do a home visit. Pet stores and commercial breeders don't care who buys their animals. Adopt these millions of dogs or cats, and I don't think vets are going to run out of clients.
5. I have decided to not address your fear of PETA. We don't always agree on each other's tactics, but calling them aberrant just because you disagree with someone is adolescent.
6. We have seen more than a few little sad photos on the Internet. I suggest you visit a puppy mill. How about Fortin's Beaver Creek Kennels in Kansas where it took days to kill 1,200 dogs and acres to bury them. Laure Molitor is in school full-time hoping to become a veterinarian. She also works at a vet clinic. She does not know the owners of any of the pet stores and has no thought of a "personal vendetta." She could no longer stand by and wait for someone else to do something.
Like all great Americans who have ever stood up to be heard, she has risked personal ridicule, sacrificed any leisure time and acted on her sense of right and wrong.
It's easy to mock someone with whom you disagree, and it gets you a lot more ink. A thoughtful exchange of ideas and concerns, a mutual show of respect, well that's just too damn boring.
Mary Roberts is a local real estate agent and writes about animal welfare. She earned her bachelor's in technical journalism from CSU in 1974 and a master's in communications in 2010.
Guest Column: Pet ban misleading, anti-business
by JOSH PHILIPS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/25/2011
You may have heard of the initiative to ban pet sales in Fort Collins, and some of you may have even signed the petition to include it on the ballot this year. If so, you may want to consider finding the petition and scratching your name out before you become an accomplice to prolonging the recession in Fort Collins.
The proposed ordinance originated from a local CSU student, Laure Molitor, who has taken it upon herself to ensure pet establishments can no longer feed on the "uninformed"-- and possibly inept -- animal lovers of Fort Collins.
The ordinance, according to a website dedicated to the initiative, would "negatively impact commercial breeders such as puppy mills and kitten factories." While this intent is not a bad one -- nobody wants to see animals suffer in disgusting living conditions --the ordinance is clearly designed to punish pet stores by utilizing a perverted sense of justice.
Perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the proposed ordinance is that it completely ignores the recession, and its advocates seem incapable of understanding that removing any business in Fort Collins can only lead to negative consequences. This blind mindset clearly shows a failure to grasp the basics of economics.
For example, they suggest that pet stores will not suffer from the loss of pet sales but fail to offer evidence anywhere to the contrary. Even if they could offer such proof, the idea of diminishing the revenues of local businesses for the sake of sending a message remains on shaky moral ground.
Strangely enough, the rest of the website seems to be an attack against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, especially in the case of "puppy mills" and "kitten factories." The backers of the ordinance have come to the conclusion that pet stores must pay for the USDA's transgressions because "it's too difficult to fight the government." So with the ordinance in mind, the ends justify the means, no matter who gets hurt along the way.
This proposal carries with it numerous unintended consequences. If pet stores can no longer sell pets, people will buy them online. And if you think people are "uninformed" walking into pet stores, imagine how uninformed will they be when buying from somebody in Kansas on Craigslist.
If the large chains like Petco and Petsmart are reduced to selling only feed, they will assuredly sell their products at a lower price -- and no doubt they will offer a much wider variety. The feed stores she offers as poster children for the wild agenda will lose their niche in the local community, post record losses, and no doubt be swallowed whole by the very corporate giants she wishes to subvert. Once again, a basic understanding of economics.
Not to mention the number of veterinarians who will lose business. Less supply of animals means less visits to the vet's office, which means less revenues, which means people will start losing jobs. It's that simple.
It's doubtful the ordinance writers took the time to study pet stores before they made such outrageous and indefensible claims against them. The employees at Petco are instructed not to sell any animal to a person unwilling to care for it -- one merely has to be a customer to see how much compassion the employees and managers are capable of.
The scariest aspect of the ordinance is that it has loose ties to PETA, the extremist group that tends to provide "euthanasia services" for those adorable puppies and kittens they claim to protect. The website for the ordinance offers links to PETA, suggesting they either are supportive of or, at the very least, inspired by the group's aberrant behavior.
In the end, the ordinance is poorly thought-out and, if put in place, would offer more problems than solutions. It seems its advocates spent very little time weighing the pros versus the cons and are simply out to implement an anti-business law for the sake of a few sad photos they saw on the Internet. It is little more than a personal vendetta against pet stores, which just isn't worth the cost to the community.
Josh Philips is a Fort Collins resident and former Collegian columnist.
A response to the pet ban ordinance, Really to editorial above.
by MARY ROBERTS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/26/2011
Ah, Josh, after reading your column (in Monday's paper) I see that people who write in to the Collegian still spout meaningless metaphors, convoluted thinking, personal attacks and a basic misunderstanding of the topic altogether.
Allow me to explain. First, I wrote for the Collegian many years ago (almost 40), and I disparaged anyone who looked cross-eyed at me, and thought that I was most clever. So I understand the thrilling aspect of having a bully pulpit. So, rah, rah and all that.
Let's go point by point.
1. The ordinance is designed to cut off the puppy pipeline to buyers from large-scale, commercial dog breeders who run an inherently abusive practice. Keeping breeding dogs in cages for a lifetime to breed time after time is abusive. You cannot argue that. And every large-scale breeder of necessity has to do that. They can't take out the 100 or so breeding females for a romp in the park. Most of them live in wire cages for their entire life.
We don't want to punish pet stores. There is a movement that is asking pet stores to reconsider their practices and instead work with shelters and breed rescues to help get dogs (and other animals) adopted. One thousand pet stores have taken the "no puppy" pledge. Diminishing revenues for the sake of a message is shaky moral ground? Really? How about killing 1,200 dogs because the owner didn't want to pay their vet bill?
2. Jeff Fortin, who killed his 1,200 dogs because he couldn't manage their care, is not the exception. He is the rule. I have been researching this for seven years. Laurie Molitor has worked for Humane Societies, including the Reptile Humane Society, and has seen first-hand how reptiles are bought on a whim and die when the owners either lose interest or have no idea how to care for a non-native reptile. Many pet store employees are not educated on their care either.
3. In 2010 The USDA's Office of Inspector General published a highly critical report of the Animal and Pet Health Inspections Services organization that oversees pet care nationally calling it inept and mismanaged. We have known that for years. There are numerous groups working with the USDA to improve their oversight of animal welfare. Meanwhile, animals suffer. We are no longer willing to wait for the slow wheels of government.
4. We euthanize annually 4 million to 5 million dogs and cats that are healthy and adoptable. How about if the American public thoughtfully adopted instead of walk by a pet store, become enamored of that "poor thing" in the window and impulsively pay hundreds of dollars for an animal that's not even spayed or neutered? Shelters vet their adopters; breed rescues even do a home visit. Pet stores and commercial breeders don't care who buys their animals. Adopt these millions of dogs or cats, and I don't think vets are going to run out of clients.
5. I have decided to not address your fear of PETA. We don't always agree on each other's tactics, but calling them aberrant just because you disagree with someone is adolescent.
6. We have seen more than a few little sad photos on the Internet. I suggest you visit a puppy mill. How about Fortin's Beaver Creek Kennels in Kansas where it took days to kill 1,200 dogs and acres to bury them. Laure Molitor is in school full-time hoping to become a veterinarian. She also works at a vet clinic. She does not know the owners of any of the pet stores and has no thought of a "personal vendetta." She could no longer stand by and wait for someone else to do something.
Like all great Americans who have ever stood up to be heard, she has risked personal ridicule, sacrificed any leisure time and acted on her sense of right and wrong.
It's easy to mock someone with whom you disagree, and it gets you a lot more ink. A thoughtful exchange of ideas and concerns, a mutual show of respect, well that's just too damn boring.
Mary Roberts is a local real estate agent and writes about animal welfare. She earned her bachelor's in technical journalism from CSU in 1974 and a master's in communications in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)