Ban on Dog Auctions

Check this out this link from today's Columbus Dispatch.


http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/11/AUCTIONBAN.ART_ART_06-11-09_B1_T8E55KC.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Attention: Update

Today the bill is in meeting for 'sponsor testimony' and then the real hearing will be scheduled. But with only 2 days left in this session, June 11 and June 18, for committee meetings one of these dates willbe picked. It is essential that you get in contact with the committeemembers and your representatives so they can express their position to thecommittee members.If you need a recap on the bill go to:http://www.legislat?ure.state.?oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=128_ SB_95

We need help in Ohio.? SB 95 is being sponsored tomorrow in Ohio.?
http://www.legislat?ure.state.oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=128_ SB_95

You can see there is a lot to be upset about, but here are a couple steamers.(No person shall....II) Breed a dog that is less than eighteen months of age or?Line 702 -- KK)

No person shall....Dock a dog's tail, crop a dog's ear, remove a dog's??claws, or debark a dog. Tail docking, ear cropping, the removal of??a dog's claws, or debarking shall only be conducted by a licensed?veterinarian.?

No person shall...:(line 708 -- MM) Keep a dog in an enclosure, crate, or cage that includes?exposed metal caging without a protective plastic or rubber???

And this one:No person... shall????(Line 700 -- JJ) Permit a dog to have more than one litter per calendar year;

Please let the following senators know that bills about veterinary care should not be written by non-veterinarians and that skipping seasons is hard on the uterus and should be a decision made by the breeder and their veterinarian, not the HSUS.The sponsors are Cates and Hughes.? The others listed are committee members.?

Please call AND write them tomorrow.? Snail mail makes more of an impact than email.

Some of the contacts have changed. Here are the correct ones:

Definitely Hughes and Cates, but also Carey, Stewart, Grendell, Seitz,Wagoner, Miller, Turner and Fedor are on that committee. Call early in themorning and you'll likely get an aide to pass on your message.
Senator Gary Cates Senate BuildingRoom #132, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8072 Email: SD04@senate. state.oh. usHometown: West Chester

Senator Jim HughesRoom #038, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5981Email: SD16@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Columbus

John Carey Senate BuildingRoom #127, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8156Email: SD17@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Wellston

Jimmy Stewart Senate BuildingRoom #040, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: 614/466-8076Email: SD20@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Albany

Tim GrendellSenate Building Room #042, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/644-7718Email: SD18@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Chesterland

Bill SeitzSenate BuildingRoom #143, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8068Email: SD08@senate. state.oh. us Hometown: Cincinnati

Mark WagonerSenate BuildingRoom #129, First FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-8060Email: SD02@senate. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo

Teresa FedorRoom #051, Ground FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5204Email: fedoroffice@ maild.sen. state.oh. usHometown: Toledo

Ray MillerRoom #228, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-5131Email: rmiller@maild. sen.state.?oh.us

Nina TurnerSenate BuildingRoom #226, Second FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215Telephone: 614/466-4583Email: senatorturner@ maild.sen. state.oh. us Hometown: Cleveland

Delegates to consider revised AVMA ear crop, tail dock policy

AVMA delegates will revisit the Association's policy opposing cosmetic ear crops and tail docks on dogs.Resolutions about a potential addition to the AVMA House of Delegates advisory panel, use of random-source animals, judicious use of antimicrobials, and cosmetic surgeries on dogs will be considered at the HOD regular annual session in Seattle, July 9-10. The resolutions were submitted by the May 8 deadline. At press time, the Executive Board was scheduled to make its recommendations to the HOD on the resolutions at its June 4-6 meeting. Resolution 1, submitted by the House Advisory CommitteeAdd American Association of Zoo Veterinarians Representation to AVMA House Advisory Panel"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) add the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians representation to the House Advisory Panel." The advisory panel is currently made up of representatives of eight member organizations: the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians; Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Department of Homeland Security; National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials; National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Food Safety and Inspection services. Advisory panel members do not vote on HOD actions, but instead, offer expert advice on a broad range of veterinary-related issues as needed. Even though the size of the AAZV membership is too small to meet the membership requirements for being a constituent allied organization in the HOD, the HAC believes the group is an important informational resource. Zoo veterinarians protect the health of many nondomestic species as well as contribute to public health by helping prevent zoonotic diseases from spreading. They also see to the welfare of the animals in zoo collections, the HAC explained. "Adding the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians as an advisory panel member would give a voice to this valuable sector of our profession," the HAC wrote in the resolution background. "The House of Delegates would benefit from such an addition to the advisory panel when a resolution is under debate and zoo expertise is required." Resolution 2, submitted by the House Advisory CommitteeRevise Policy on Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise its policy on the Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education to indicate opposition to the use of live animals procured from animal shelters or the use of live animals procured from dealers who deliver such animals from animal shelters, as noted below (deleted text is indicated by strikethrough, added text is indicated by underline)-" Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats for Research, Testing, and Education(EB 1983; revised 6/91, 4/00, 11/07) While the use of animals The carefully controlled use of random-source dogs and cats contributes greatly to improving the health and welfare of both animals and human beings Therefore, the AVMA believes there is ample justification for prudent and humane use of random-source dogs and cats in research, testing, and education, provided that: * The institution conducting such research, testing, or education has met all legal requirements and guidelines pertaining to the acquisition, care, and use of dogs and cats for these purposes; * The investigators have thoughtfully examined the need for such dogs and cats, appropriately justified the use of the species, and carefully determined the minimum number required to meet the needs of the protocol; * Adequate safeguards are used to ensure that only appropriately screened dogs and cats are obtained legally; and * Preventive measures are taken to optimize the health of dogs and cats used in research, testing, and education that no live dogs or cats shall be procured from an animal shelter, or a dealer who provides live animals from an animal shelter, for the purpose of such research, testing, and education (with the exception of dogs/cats which may be used by students in veterinary programs for harmless procedures). Random-source animals can include dogs and cats obtained from shelters, breeders, individuals who offer their own pets, pet stores, and class B dealers, according to the resolution background. Resolution 2 focuses only on live animals, and specifically, live animals originating from animal shelters. The HAC explained in its statement about the proposal that the AVMA should not support a policy whereby animals that are abandoned, neglected, or lost are given over to a research or testing facility instead of a loving home or, where necessary, are euthanized. The present AVMA policy on random-source use runs counter to the public's concept of an animal shelter and may impede the surrender of pets to such a facility, the HAC added. In the resolution background, the term "pound seizure" is described as being commonly used to denote pets originating from an animal shelter as the source for research or testing. It is illegal in 17 states and Washington, D.C. "Representing itself as the authority on animal welfare issues, the AVMA should adopt a policy which is more sensitive to the issues surrounding the source of live dogs and cats used for research, testing, and education," the HAC background states. Examples of the "harmless procedures" mentioned in the resolution are physical examinations, spaying/neutering, bandaging, ultrasonography, and radiology, the background states. Resolution 3, submitted by the New Jersey VMA, Association of Avian Veterinarians, and Washington State VMAJudicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials Policy"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the Judicious Therapeutic Use of Antimicrobials Policy as indicated below (deletions are struckthrough):" The following is the only sentence in the policy with a proposed change. Judicious use of antimicrobials, when under the direction of a veterinarian, should meet all requirements of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship. As organizational policy, the AVMA should have the clearly stated, unequivocal concept that veterinarians are the gatekeepers and decision makers regarding judicious use of antimicrobials, the resolution sponsors explained in the background. "There should be no exclusion in policy that suggests or implies that judicious use is only appropriate when under the direction of a veterinarian," the groups stated. Veterinarians' education, knowledge, experience, and licensure render them as the only individuals entrusted with ensuring judicious use of antimicrobials, they continued. "To state that the judicious use only applies when such use is under the direction of a veterinarian suggests tacit approval of non-judicious use," they wrote. If the HOD accepts the revised policy, the new policy would be expected to supersede and be applied to all AVMA policies in which similar wording and/or intent is present, the groups wrote. Resolution 4, submitted by the Utah VMARevise Policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs"RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) revise the AVMA policy on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of Dogs as indicated below (deletions are stuckthrough and additions are underlined):" Ear Cropping and Tail Docking of DogsThe AVMA opposes ear cropping and tail docking of dogs when done solely for cosmetic purposes. Although cosmetic ear cropping and tail docking of dogs has little or no therapeutic basis, it is a procedure that is condoned by the American Kennel Club and by many members of society. It is imperative that the procedures be performed by trained, licensed, and caring veterinarians using current standard of care. The AVMA encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from in breed standards. Members of the AVMA will conform to all state mandates concerning the procedures. Resolution 4 gives the HOD a chance to weigh in on the recently revised AVMA policy. In November 2008, the Executive Board amended the policy to state that the AVMA opposes these procedures when done solely for cosmetic purposes. In addition, the amended policy encourages the elimination of ear cropping and tail docking from breed standards. The Utah VMA proposes amending the policy to, among other things, retract AVMA opposition to the procedures. The Utah VMA writes in the resolution background that the Executive Board action was made without input from the HOD. The board was within its purview to do so, but the revised policy took a "much more hard line slant" than earlier iterations on the matter, which included warnings about the risks of cosmetic ear crops and tail docks, the Utah VMA wrote. Society has mixed feelings about the procedures, which are minor surgeries, relatively safe, and cause little discomfort to the animals, the Utah VMA continued. Moreover, public demand for ear crops and tail docks is high, and many AVMA members continue performing the procedures. "The issue for the AVMA is not to decide what surgery pet owners want or do not want for their pets, but rather to be sure all surgical procedures performed by licensed veterinarians are with proper protocol and proper postoperative care," the association wrote. Veterinarians are not compelled to perform the procedures, the Utah VMA added, and the resolution indicates only that these procedures should be performed by licensed professionals who are willing and able to do them. The four resolutions and their accompanying statements are posted on the AVMA Web site (_www.avma.org_ (http://www.avma.org/) ) in the About the AVMA section under House of Delegates 2009 Annual Session Agenda Items. - R. Scott

Betty Salman sharing info:

Sen. Hughes' aide, Andy Bowsher, indicated yesterday that SB 95 is at least temporarily sidelined while they deal with budgetary issues. HB 124, however, is still moving right along.

CA SB 250, Radical Tactics

Subject: CA SB 250, Radical tactics A person with the Concerned Dog Owners of California stated yesterday that the Animal Radicals hired a call center to contact the few Senators who had abstained on SB 250 the day before. The offices of these remaining Senators were inundated with telemarketers calling with false names and urging a "Yes" vote. The result of this tactic was a call ratio of 50-1. A Senator's staff member confirmed this with another individual, saying they were receiving a lot of Robo calls and didn't know where they were coming from or if the names were even real. This odiferous activity just puts more pressure on reputable dog breeders, rescuers and pet owners to stand up and be counted on legislative matters! The bill passed when it was voted on the next day. Since this tactic worked for them in CA, expect the ARs to adapt it for other states.

Where Do Humane Society Donations Really Go

Where Humane Society Donations Really GoPosted: 4:03 pm EDT May 14, 2009Updated: 6:50 pm EDT May 14, 2009*ATLANTA

A Channel 2 investigation is looking into millions of dollars in donations given to the Humane Society of the United States. A national consumer organization says the society solicits pet-lovers for money, but little to none of that money ever goes to help local shelters.

Critics tell Channel 2 Action News reporter Amanda Rosseter that this isn't just consumers misunderstanding who they are giving to -- but an organization actively misleading donors to get money. "They do their marketing very well, that's for sure," said Trey Burley of PAWS Atlanta.

Critics say the national organization takes advantage of people who think they are giving to local shelters. DeKalb's "PAWS" shelter says there is no regular funding help from the $100 million HSUS budget. "I think that some of the folks who donate to the national organization may be under the false pretense that that money is going to a local cause," said Burley. While the HSUS does work to stop puppy mills, it also gets media coverage and donations doing it. But the puppies then go to local shelters who have to pay and care for them. "They may initialize the resources for a rescue, but again the animals go to a shelter somewhere in the country," said Richard Rice, VP of the Atlanta Humane Society. Critics said HSUS also takes advantage of high-profile events. After hurricane Katrina, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle promised on national TV to reunite pets with their owners -- and raised $34 million for the cause. But public disclosures of where that money went add up to less than $7 million. The Louisiana attorney general launched an 18-month-long investigation, and then ended it, when HSUS offered to build the state a new shelter.

The HSUS annual report for 2007 showed $120 million in revenue, including $5.4 million just from online donors. Then there's $112 million in expenses -- most of which appears to have gone to legislation for animal rights bills. The list includes raccoons, mice, wild horses, burros and primates. The center for consumer freedom says all worthy causes, but HSUS shouldn't mislead to get money. So where does all the money go? "It goes to lobbying, it goes to political contributions, it goes to pay huge staff salaries and benefits," said David Martosko with Center for Consumer Freedom. Channel 2 Action News went to a local HSUS meeting to find out. The two hour discussion was about activist plans and lobbying.

The Georgia director for the HSUS agrees that's mostly what she does. "I think that in all of our literature, it is very explicit as to what our campaigns are and what we are doing," said Cheryl McAuliffe, Georgia Director for HSUS. "We help where we can and focus on our programs, which are national and international." McAuliffe said there are just too many local shelters to help. "I always tell people, contribute to your local shelter first," said McAuliffe.

When asked how much her budget is for the state of Georgia, McAuliffe said she didn't have a budget and neither did other states. McAuliffe said all money is controlled from headquarters in Washington, D.C. HSUS later contacted Channel 2 about their work during hurricane Katrina. They say all of the money they collected has been spent since the initial crisis on helping Katrina families and pets.

AKC Government Relations Department

AKC Government Relations Department assists state federations and local clubs in fighting anti-dog initiatives across the country, including those that contain numerical limits on ownership, excessive regulation, mandates on breeding ages without regard to reproductive differences within breeds or the use of reproductive technology, and in many cases, provisions that would allow for warrantless searches of private property including breeders' homes.The first step in fighting anti-dog initiatives is keeping yourself informed. You can access pending canine legislation, bill text, official legislative summaries, the latest legislative developments, the progress of specific bills, and AKC legislative alerts and messages for your state with the new AKC Government tracking tool :
http://www.trendtrack.com/texis/cq/viewrpt?event=49bfaef9bd