Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) Doesn't Work

I've previously posted facts showing that mandatory spay/neuter increases, rather than reduces the number of dogs turned in to the local humane societies.

On the other side of things, it doesn't stop people who want a dog from getting one. For example, 75% of the puppies from our last litter went to performance and companion homes in areas where MSN is in place. Good for me, of course. But it certainly means MSN is pretty useless.

And, then there's the national report on puppies being brought in from other countries:

Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for underage puppies.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) tracks anti-puppy mill legislation and saw a huge jump after 2008, with 90 bills introduced across 33 states — five of them adopted in 2009. "There's a campaign, clearly well-organized, to bring these bills forward," says Adrian Hochstedt, AVMA's assistant director of state legislative and regulatory affairs.



Additionally, foreign countries make it easier to breed dogs because of loose animal-health standards, contends California attorney John Hoffman, who has crusaded against puppy importers on behalf of various breed groups.


For instance, one French Bulldog group he provided services for claims there are now more French Bulldogs imported into the United States than are bred here, because artificial insemination and cesarean deliveries can be performed cheaper by unlicensed veterinary workers in other countries.

"The sale over the Internet of both commercially bred puppies and imported puppies has become a big business — and probably considerably outstrips sales of puppies through pet shops," Hoffman said during testimony before Congress in 2006 on an importation law that never passed. "USDA regulations prohibit carriers from accepting animals for transport without a health certificate signed by a licensed veterinarian and from transporting puppies younger than 8 weeks. It appears that both regulations are routinely flouted by commercial puppy exporters abroad. That health certificates are being forged is evidenced by the large incidence of illness and death among puppies within a day or two of arrival in the United States."

Many of these imported dogs are irresponsibly bred with a host of genetic problems and are shipped young — too young to vaccinate — to meet market demand. Importers often lie about age and health issues on a dog's records and get away with it, Hoffman claims.

But importers for profit aren't the only violators. One rescue organization alone imported 295 dogs from the Middle East in 2006, according to Galland and Marano's article, and even veterinarians can be pulled into a laissez-faire attitude about pet importation.

Galland's 2009 article reveals a 2007 case of a puppy imported from India by a Washington state veterinarian. The dog was given to another veterinarian, bit veterinary clinic staff and another dog while showing signs of rabies, but wasn't diagnosed with the disease until another veterinarian brought it to Alaska. Eight people had to be treated for rabies.

Several rabies cases in imported dogs have been tracked in recent years, as well as cases of other diseases long-eradicated in the United States, like screwworm. Screwworms are monitored by the USDA and could cause up to $750 million in livestock production losses, the article notes. New World screwworms were eradicated from the United States in 1966, and Old World screwworm had never been seen in this country until it was found in a puppy imported from Singapore to Massachusetts in 2007.

****

So, which would you rather have people buy - that imported puppy that whose background you don't know and that has had no shots etc. Or, a puppy from someone like myself that tests the parents and provides exceptional care for the puppies?

Arizona HB 2375 - Dangerous Animal Bill

Sponsored by: Chad Campbell, Cloves Campbell, Kyrsten Sinema, Nancy Young Wright, Edward Ableser

The title of this bill sounds good, doesn't it? But, let's take alook at the "dangerous wildlife" that "A person shall not import or transport into the this state, or sell, trade or release within thethis state or have in his possession possess any live wildlife exceptas authorized by the commission, as provided by section 17-321 or asdefined in title 3, chapter 16."

* All species of the order carnivora. Common names include:carnivores, skunks, raccoons, bears, foxes and weasels. What this bill doesn't point out is that the order carnivora INCLUDES ALL DOGS AND CATS!

* The family bovidae - which includes GOATS, SHEEP AND COWS but has an exemption for water buffalo! Although what makes a water buffalo less dangerous than a cow I can't imagine. This bill would instantly put all the cattle, sheep and dairy farmers out of business in the state.

* Quail, turtles, grouse, fish and practically every mammal and non-mammal a person could think of having as a pet are listed as"dangerous."

I don't know what's more frightening: The fact that these representatives didn't understand the bill sponsored. Or the fact that they understand it completely and hope the citizens of Arizona don't understand it.

Arizona: Confiscation of dogs returns to bite county

As you can see from the news article below, animal rights wackos are alive & well in parts of Arizona. We sincerely hope that Barbara & Bob Ratliff win their lawsuit and there is enough financial pain generated to stop vendetta's such as these.

*****


By Shar Porier/wick communications in the WilcoxRangeNews.com

BISBEE -- The seizure of a number of dogs from an Elfrida breeder in April 2008 by a county animal control officer has led to a tort complaint being filed against the county, the sheriff's office and members of an anti-puppy mill/animal rescue group.

Barbara and Bob Ratliff are suing the county, People Assisting Kindred Spirits (PAKS), Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Veterinary Clinic and various persons for taking 29 dogs from their property based on a complaint of neglect that was several months old.

When the matter came before Judge David Morales on June 13, 2008, he tossed the warrant on the grounds of "staleness" and then stated that the dogs were to be returned to the owners.

The county appealed Morales's decision, but Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt upheld the decision on December 16, 2008.


On February 9, 2009, Morales mandated the dogs be returned. The county failed to comply.

The Ratliffs' attorney Perry Hicks states in the tort suit, "... It is obvious from the records attached to this claim there was never any intent to return the dogs to the Ratliffs, despite valid, lawful court orders ... The dogs were farmed out and adopted off with the full knowledge and consent of (county Animal Control Officer Crystal) Callahan, despite the dogs were in the custody and care of the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, were evidence in a criminal case and were subject to being returned to the Ratliffs if they prevailed ... The loss of Barbara Ratliff's dogs is the direct result of the illegal search and seizure of the dogs and negligent acts of Cochise County, Officer Callahan, the sheriff's office and animal control, as well as the intentional acts of PAKS and members of PAKS."

The Ratliffs are now seeking damages from the county, the sheriff's department, the animal control division and Callahan for unlawful search and seizure, wrongful taking of property, violation of the right to privacy, negligent entrustment and negligence as stated in the complaint filed December 31, 2009, in Superior Court.

Also named in the suit are PAKS, Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Animal Clinic, Mary Pencin, Tipling, Donna Dunham, Karen Radcliff, Darlene Burnett, Mary Hinton, Sherry Hoard, Jenelle Rodenberg and associated persons involved for civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution and aiding and abetting tortious conduct.

Problems for the Ratliffs began in April 2008 with a search warrant.

According to documents provided by Hicks, the warrant was based on a four-month-old complaint made by Marjorie "Heidi" Tipling, a technician at the Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox and a member of PAKS. Tipling stated in her complaint on March 31, 2008, to Callahan, the dogs were not being cared for, had no clean water, were infested with ticks, had eye and limb injuries and had no food available to eat at the time of her "surprise shopper" visit in December 2007.

With the warrant in hand, Callahan took possession of four adult dogs and eight puppies on April 16, 2008 and transported the dogs to Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox for evaluations. Callahan stated the dogs were suffering from "gum disease, eye problems, tick scabs, hernias and pale mucous membranes."

Callahan later returned and collected seventeen additional dogs from the Ratliffs on the grounds that their medical health could not be determined without a "complete medical examination," documents show.

The Ratliffs requested the dogs be taken to their vet in Bisbee, Dr. Charles Behney until the matter could be resolved. Deputies told them the dogs would go to Pencin and then transport to Behney's could be arranged.

But that didn't happen. Instead, six dogs were transported to Pantano veterinary clinic in Tucson and several were adopted out to other people involved with PAKS.

In an April 16, 2008, letter to the county, Veterinarian Mary Pencin stated, "Today the Cochise County Animal Officer from Sierra Vista, Laurie, (no last name given), brought to the clinic and turned over to PAKS for treatment and adoption twelve dogs."

According to PAKS adoption agreements, adopters agree to "provide a foster animal with proper and routine veterinary care, including wellness exams, current required and recommended vaccinations and urgent emergency care as needed ..." It also acknowledges that the owner of the animal has the "right to access the animal."

Copies of ten foster care agreements from PAKS were provided to Hicks, but no other information was given about the whereabouts of the remaining nineteen dogs.

In May 2008, the county filed a motion in Justice Court to have the Ratliffs forfeit the dogs.

But, later in June, Hicks filed a motion for dismissal of charges due to a "stale" search warrant. Tipling allegedly shopped Ratliff on December 20, 2007, yet waited until March 2008 to make a formal complaint. Then it took three more weeks for the ACO to act on the complaint.

Justice David Morales tossed the evidence found under the "stale" search warrant. He then dismissed the charges against Ratliff. He also ordered the county to transport the dogs to Behney's office at Ratliff's expense for examination and care.

The date of the transport of the dogs was set for June 27. However, Callahan stated in an affidavit the dogs couldn't be transported since she didn't know where the dogs were.

The county appealed Morales's decision and refused to return the dogs until the appeal had been heard. Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt upheld Morales's ruling in favor of Ratliff on December 22, 2008..

Charges against Ratliff were dismissed with prejudice by the county attorney's office on January 22, 2009.

On the same day, Donna Dunham, with PAKS, sent a letter to Callahan stating "It has been nine months since these dogs were turned over to Tipling and during that period all the dogs have expired." She also stated in that letter that instructions were given not to provide "extraordinary care, not to vaccinate, spay/neuter, or treat any of the conditions the dogs were experiencing." Dunham did not say who told her the dogs were not to be treated. She goes on to say that all of the dogs suffered from "some sort of malady" and that "many of them expired as a result of parvo or distemper."

It was a curious response in that the county stated in a letter on July 1, 2008, to Hicks that the people who adopted the dogs had become attached to them and wanted to keep them.

Deputy County Attorney Gregory Harding wrote in that letter, " .. Many if not all of the foster caregivers wish to continue providing for the care of the dogs ... Many of these individuals have provided medical care and attention to these dogs at their own expense and have become attached to them."

One thing that has proven puzzling to Hicks is a statement Tipling makes in her complaint to Callahan: "She (Ratliff) had no idea I had purchased two dogs one year before." And in an email sent from Tipling describing the encounter to Karen Heider on Sunday, March 27, 2007, some details are very similar to the March 2008 complaint. That means Tipling knew of the problem for a year before coming forward, said Hicks in an interview.

"If things were so bad, why did she wait that long," pondered Hicks.

Deputy Civil County Attorney Britt Hanson said the suit had been passed on to the Arizona Counties Insurance Pool (ACIP) for review.

ACIP's Cindy Byrne is handling the case for the county and said the organization provides coverage for the county on many matters. She will act as the county's attorney if or when the case reaches the courts.

Right now there is no dollar figure the Ratliffs seek, added Hicks. That will be determined by the court if it comes to that.

There's more to life than dog shows!

GO PACK GO!

Where does HSUS Money Go?

H$U$ (Humane Society of the United States) porports to be an animal welfare organization. It has over $150 MILLION in assets. In 2008 alone it collected over $82 MILLION ($82,000,000) in donations. So, where does it spend it's money?

Campaigns, litigation and legislation against hunters, dog breeders, chicken farmers, etc. cost $20M. $24M (28 cents of every dollar) went into fund raising. $31M went to salaries...H$U$ has 41 employees making over $100,000.

Out of the $82,000,000 raised, only $4,700,000 was spent in grants. And, over half of that went to “Californians for Humane Farms,” the main lobbying organization responsible for California’s “Proposition 2” ballot initiative.

So, how much $$ did the animals actually get? H$US gave only a little more than $450,000—that’s just half of one percent (.005) of its total budget—in grants to organizations providing hands-on care to dogs and cats.

If you truly care for animals, don't give your money to H$U$. Give to your local shelter!

Another Example Of HSUS Idea of "Rescue"

A Baltimore Sun investigation reveals that 19 HEALTHY horses HSUS & Baltimore city officials confiscated last month from street peddlers who sell produce in urban neighborhoods have been penned up under a rat infested tent & forgotten about.

Bob Wood, a Baltimore veteran of training horses for polo, grew suspicious while viewing photos of these horses. After looking into it further, Wood couldn’t disguise his disgust when talking to the Sun:

At the time the horses were seized, the Humane Society of the United States said "many of the horses were suffering from medical ailments including parasite infestation, malnutrition & extremely overgrown hooves."

Mr. Wood says that's an exaggeration, and that the words "parasite" & "malnutrition" appear nowhere on the citations against horse owners, Mr. Savoy & the Chases. After reviewing the documents, Mr. Wood concluded that only two animals had serious problems. Most of the violations were innocuous, he says, or the kind of things common to stables.


HSUS is trying to raise $1 MILLION by 12/31/2009 for it's "Animal Survivor Fund." Yet it couldn't use any of the $162 MILLION it already has to care for the animals it had seized! WHERE IS YOUR MONEY GOING TO? Salaries, travel & lobbying officials - NOT to the animals!

MSN - Compensation for Diminished Value

Dogs & cats are personal property, like your house, for example. If I rezone where you live and that rezoning diminishes the value, you have a claim forcompensation. If the government takes part of your land to widen the road, you have a claim for compensation for value lost.

Adhering to msn laws devalue your property as well. You lose the potential stud fees and/or puppy sales. You are thus entitled to compensation from the entity that passed these laws. The affected dog and cat fancy need to make claims for this lost income and, if not paid, need to begin filing class action lawsuits on this issue.