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.

Apparently They Never Learn! - Phoenix, AZ

Item 33 on the agenda of the October 21st Phoenix City Council meeting includes a proposal to: An increase in the bond requirement - $500 per animal to defray some of the cost and care of the animal during the time the animal is under Arizona Humane society care. Any unused bond amount is to be returned to the owner.

And, A separate disposition process - A law enforcement officer may request a hearing if there is probable cause to believe that an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. At the hearing, the court may determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. If the court makes such a finding, the court may order the animal: (1) forfeited to the officer or agent to be made available for adoption or for transfer to a legally incorporated humane society or approved rescue agency, or (2) humanely destroyed.

***

Has the Phoenix legal counsel reviewed this in view of the recent decision in the U.S. District Court (Louisville Kennel Club, Inc Et AL vs Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government)? This Court found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], and the requirement of a seizure bond is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt - not merely probable cause - must occur before a court can take your property. The Court furthered reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.

Item 33 appears counter to this US District Court ruling and if implemented Phoenix Is likely to face expensive litigation on this matter.

Are owners due restitution for monetary losses

I now have a copy of the judgement rendered by US District Court Judge Charles Simpson III in the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc ET AL. X Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. One of the most important parts of his ruling is the affirmation that dogs are personal property. As such, I am the OWNER of my dogs and not their guardian. And, as an OWNER, I am due restitution for any devaluation or "taking" of my property.

The question now becomes: Does mandatory spay/neuter constitute a devaluation of property? It does deprive the owner of puppies from that dog and from the income that could be derived from those puppies. While this could be an issue with mixed breed puppies, it becomes an even larger issue with purebred puppies that are often sold for hundreds of dollars each.

Does a government that enacts mandatory spay/neuter laws have to reimburse dog owners for their loss of potential stud fees and puppy sales? I urge owners living under such a rule to file a class action demanding just compensation for this mandate.

Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!

This past Friday the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government. The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as in Louisville.

Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.

He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.

the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.

Chardonnay - 10 weeks

Here's our puppy, Chardonnay, at 10 weeks old. As a singleton, she's totally spoiled and working on training US.

AVMA Response to HSUS Blog

Ron DeHaven, DVM, AVMA’S CEO said: “Once again, Mr. Pacelle has resorted to misleading statements. His attempt to paint the AVMA and veterinarians in a negative light is little more than an attempt to raise more money for his organization. Veterinarians choose their careers because they care about animals. At the same time, veterinarians understand that, when it comes to animal welfare, a knee-jerk response based solely on emotion, not science, might not be in the best interest of animals.

"For example, the AVMA's stance against a ban on horse processing in the United States was not taken because we are ‘pro-slaughter,’ but because we know there is a large population of unwanted horses in this country, and feared what would happen if those horses couldn't be humanely euthanized in a regulated environment. Unfortunately, our fears have come true and have been made worse by the current economic climate. Large numbers of horses are being abandoned and left to starve across the country. Mr. Pacelle's stance has only increased the suffering of horses in the United States.

"Mr. Pacelle is ignoring the legitimate concerns of animal welfare scientists and veterinarians, and misleading the American public to further his organization's agenda,” continued DeHaven. “If he truly cared about the welfare of animals, he would not be so quick to criticize and minimize the input of veterinary experts." Well said!

Obviously, HSUS is frustrated that they are not controlling AVMA, so therefore they are slinging as much mud as they can, and using this opportunity to bolster their Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association and other groups.

Pacelle finished his blog with, “We’d like some day to stand shoulder to shoulder with the AVMA on matters relating to the defense of animals. But too often, we stand on opposite sides of the major policy debates for animal welfare in America.” So in other words, if AVMA toes the line with HSUS’s “vast” food-animal welfare knowledge, they’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, but until then, HSUS will try to drag AVMA – and any other food animal veterinary organizations -- down by any means possible. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen.

Geni Wren, Editor

Bovine Veterinarian

LA becomes Slaughterhouse after mandaory spay/neuter passed

All of the statistics quoted below come from California Department of Public Health.

* 96,630 animals were admitted to the Los Angeles County sheltering system in 2008, which is a 55,178 increase from 2007. This is a 133-percent increase in the year after a spay/neuter mandate was passed into law.

* If compared to the state, Los Angeles County alone exceeded the entire statewide increase in shelter admissions, and is 11 times higher than the state average.

* In 2008, the entire state of California saw a 16.4-percent increase in euthanasia, to 153,793 (an increase of 21,677).

*HOWEVER, ALMOST ALL OF THE ENTIRE STATEWIDE INCREASE IN SHELTER EUTHANAIS IN CALIFORNIA CAME FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER! The Los Angeles County shelter system euthanasia rate rose by an incredible 178-percent in the year following the ordinance. In 2007, 12,118 dogs had to be killed in the county. In 2008, this soared to 33,601 dogs.

* The official state data shows that following the spay/neuter ordinance, LA County experienced a 107-percent increase in animal control captures of abandoned dogs, a 163-percent increase in owner surrenders by people who cannot afford to keep their pets and comply with the law, and a 153-percent increase in abandoned dogs brought to the shelters by good Samaritans.

If you think that statistics like these are unique to LA County, here's a link to an article about Dallas' experience with mandatory spay/neuter.

http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/State/0907-Spay-Neuter-Dallas_Yates.asp

And of course you can read about Santa Cruz's "success" in the blog below this one.

Santa Cruz County Proves Mandatory Spay/Neuter Doesn't Work

* Santa Cruz County, California passed mandatory spay/neuter in 1995 and is often held up as a model of how that "works." So, let's take a look at how it actually works and compare Santa Cruz with other Counties that don't have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter.

* Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

In addition to soaring euthanasia rates, costs for animal control in Santa Clara have also soared. Costs for Santa Cruz County as a whole have doubled - from approximately $650,000 a year to over $1,300,000. For example, the city of Watson's contribution to the Santa Cruz County Animal Services Authority has spiked $100,000 to more than $490,000.

In Capitola, the decision to drop out of the agency June 30, the end of the fiscal year, was based on the bottom line, said City Manager Richard Hill. That city has seen its costs triple in recent years. Capitola was expected to pay in excess of $70,000 in the coming year. Since the agency serves little more than 100 animals from Capitola each year, the price tag was too high, he said.

Even this data does not seem to have proved to Californians and others that mandatory spay/neuter laws do not work. For example, California's SB250 threatens to take this law statewide. Can California afford the increased costs?

Increased costs are not the only impact the passage of SB250 will have on California. Decreased revenue is another. Each year over 1100 AKC events are held in that state with each bringing $300,000 to $1,000,000 into the local economy coffers. How many of these events will be eliminated once SB250 passes? Can Californians afford to lose this revenue?

Istari Blanc De Blanc

Athena had her baby by C-section last week. We had one girl puppy. It was touch and go for a few days as we tube fed her. But, now she's out of the woods & demanding mom's attention 24/7. We've named this baby after our favorite sparkling wine _ Blanc De Blanc. Her call name is Chardonnay.

Is HSUS fulfilling its non-profit charter?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization by the Internal Revenue Service. But, is the HSUS in compliance with requirements to maintain its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status? According to Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for the HSUS, activist and lobbying efforts form the bulk of her activities. According to IRS 501 (c) 3 regulations:

“In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying ). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

The Humane Society of the Unites States dedicates a vast amount of resources toward introducing and influencing legislation. You only need to look at its website tracking to see HSUS legislative efforts at the state and federal levels as well as through ballot initiatives.

Only 4% percentage of donations made to the Humane Society of the United States are granted to local shelters and Humane Societies. In 2007, less than 6 million dollars were handed out as US grants out of the 152 million taken in. In addition, large percentage of the grants were handed out to organizations that did not provide direct care to animals in need.

So, if the HSUS is not fulfilling its 501(c)3 non-profit charter, then all of its income should be taxable. And, the US and state governments are losing out on millions of dollars of badly needed revenue.

We urge our readers to take the following actions:

1. Cease donating any money to HSUS. Instead, send your donations to your local animal shelter.

2. Contact your state senators and representatives asking for an investigation into the HSUS policies and practices as they relate to their non-profit status. Let them know that there may be monies due the state if they are not following the non-profit guidelines.

3. Contact your local news organizations asking for a similar investigation.

4. And most importantly, contact the Internal Revenue Service at Internal Revenue Service
Criminal Investigations
Fresno, CA 93888

Getting the Nursery Ready

AKC/UKC Champion Sierra's Athena (pictured below) has been bred to Sierra's The West Wing (pictured above). While we never count puppies before they're born, it looks like the breeding took. Puppies are expected mid-June. This will be Athena's last litter and our only Eskie litter for 2009. We can't wait to see these little bundles of white fluff.

Animal Rights Activist on FBI most wanted list

In other animal rights news, the FBI today placed Daniel Andreas San Diego on its list of most-wanted terrorists. He is wanted in connection with summer 2003 explosions at a California biotechnology research laboratory, Chiron Life Sciences Centre and another facility. The FBI has offered a $250,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

"Animal rights and environmental extremism pose a significant domestic terror threat," the FBI said in a press statement. It said that animal-rights extremists have caused more than $110m in damages.

Helmsley Trust Grants

Most of you know that billionaire Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her Maltese and directed the majority of her estate be directed towards "purposes related to the provision of care for dogs," along with other charities. However, in February judge, Troy K. Webber of Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan decided that he knew better what should be done with Mrs. Helmsley's estate. He reduced the Maltese's share to $2 million, gave $6 million to each of the two grandchildren she explicitly excluded and told the trustees they weren't limited to dog related charities and could divy up her monies as THEY saw fit.

So, out of the $136 million in grants today, only $1 million went to the dogs. The monies went to service dog organizations, seeing eye dog organizations and dogs for the deaf. The only good thing is that none of it went to the animal rights groups, PETA and HSUS.

American Shetland Sheepdog Association National Specialty Show

The American Shetland Sheepdog Association (ASSA) will be holding its National Specialty Show in Perry, GA April 18 - 26. Obedience, agility, junior showmanship, futurity and conformationwill be held at Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agricenter. Herding will be held at Woods End in Watkinsville, GA. Visitors are welcome


For more information see: http://www.sscgeorgia.org/national//welcome.html