None of us think it will happen to us...and then they knock at the door and take your dogs. Can't even imagine what this woman must be going through.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/08/05/spca-outrage-in-philadelphia/
"The Murder Hollow Bassets of Philadelphia (a private pack* founded in 1986) is one thirteen organized packs of basset hounds recognized by the National Beagle Club hunting in the United States."
"But neither gentility nor middle-aged respectability was sufficient to protect the Murder Hollow's Master Wendy Willard from a full scale raid by Philadelphia police, nor did it prevent 13 hounds from being taken from their kennels and turned over to a private animal rights organization hostile to hunting."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
The following is appeared on the Maine Legislative Canine list:
FG/CH News A division of the New York Times
August 4, 2009, 4:35 pm
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
By Sarah Maslin Nir
http://tinyurl.com/assemblyman-ahs-Aug6
Let's just put a name on it right now: The Laika Law.
Laika, the Husky "dog-napped" by a well-meaning passerby from the front of a Fort Greene shop where she was tied last week - and since found - has inspired a new bill that would make dog-napping a crime.
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who represents part of Fort Greene, wants to make sure pet-napping is taken seriously by the law, said his media coordinator, Amy Z. Cleary.
Under current law, stealing a dog is treated the same as stealing a VCR. That shouldn't be, Ms. Cleary said. Society, she said, has evolved to the point where a pet is considered a member of a family, and Mr. Lentol wants the law to reflect that, she said.
The bill aims to raise dog and cat-napping (the stealing, not the sleeping) to a Class E felony with two years of jail time if convicted. If a dog-napper aims to sell the animal for scientific research or for malicious purposes (such as for use in dog fighting, an issue Mr. Lentol has campaigned against since 2007) the crime would be upgraded to a Class D felony, under the bill. This would entail four years of jail time if convicted.
Mr. Lentol is most concerned about those who would sell the animals for scientific research, Ms. Cleary said. But that crime appears to be rare: The National Association for Biomedical Research says that 3 percent of all cats and dogs used in lab tests are not sourced from breeders or lab animal dealers. About 66,000 dogs are used in scientific research yearly.
And not everyone is Cruella de Vil, hoping to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats. In the week since Mr. Lentol proposed the legislation, Internet commenters have expressed concern that the law could be a deterrent for would-be rescuers, who might fear prosecution if they take in a distressed animal.
"There is a very strong element of intent with this," said Ms. Cleary. Nevertheless, Mr. Lentol will add "safe harbor" proviso to the proposed law, similar to those that permit mothers to abandon babies at hospitals without fear of reprisal. This would prevent a "chilling effect" on do-gooders, she says.
"You have to know that you are taking someone else's animal from their possession," she said, "not an abandoned animal or street or one that got lost." Only if this level of intent is proven in court by a prosecutor and then affirmed by a jury or judge would a person be convicted, she said.
However, Ms. Cleary said, such a law would likely apply to Giusseppe Francis Leonardo and his wife, who took Laika believing she was abandoned after she was left tied up outside a shop for several hours. Though Mr. Leonardo believed he was saving the dog, Ms. Cleary says that under this legislation, if he knew the animal belonged to someone else, he would be open to prosecution.
"In that case you're supposed to call the ASPCA. You can't just take someone else's animal," she said.
However, "If he truly believed the animal was abandoned," she said, he would not be convicted.
FG/CH News A division of the New York Times
August 4, 2009, 4:35 pm
Assemblyman: Hands Off that Dog!
By Sarah Maslin Nir
http://tinyurl.com/assemblyman-ahs-Aug6
Let's just put a name on it right now: The Laika Law.
Laika, the Husky "dog-napped" by a well-meaning passerby from the front of a Fort Greene shop where she was tied last week - and since found - has inspired a new bill that would make dog-napping a crime.
Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, who represents part of Fort Greene, wants to make sure pet-napping is taken seriously by the law, said his media coordinator, Amy Z. Cleary.
Under current law, stealing a dog is treated the same as stealing a VCR. That shouldn't be, Ms. Cleary said. Society, she said, has evolved to the point where a pet is considered a member of a family, and Mr. Lentol wants the law to reflect that, she said.
The bill aims to raise dog and cat-napping (the stealing, not the sleeping) to a Class E felony with two years of jail time if convicted. If a dog-napper aims to sell the animal for scientific research or for malicious purposes (such as for use in dog fighting, an issue Mr. Lentol has campaigned against since 2007) the crime would be upgraded to a Class D felony, under the bill. This would entail four years of jail time if convicted.
Mr. Lentol is most concerned about those who would sell the animals for scientific research, Ms. Cleary said. But that crime appears to be rare: The National Association for Biomedical Research says that 3 percent of all cats and dogs used in lab tests are not sourced from breeders or lab animal dealers. About 66,000 dogs are used in scientific research yearly.
And not everyone is Cruella de Vil, hoping to turn Dalmatian puppies into fur coats. In the week since Mr. Lentol proposed the legislation, Internet commenters have expressed concern that the law could be a deterrent for would-be rescuers, who might fear prosecution if they take in a distressed animal.
"There is a very strong element of intent with this," said Ms. Cleary. Nevertheless, Mr. Lentol will add "safe harbor" proviso to the proposed law, similar to those that permit mothers to abandon babies at hospitals without fear of reprisal. This would prevent a "chilling effect" on do-gooders, she says.
"You have to know that you are taking someone else's animal from their possession," she said, "not an abandoned animal or street or one that got lost." Only if this level of intent is proven in court by a prosecutor and then affirmed by a jury or judge would a person be convicted, she said.
However, Ms. Cleary said, such a law would likely apply to Giusseppe Francis Leonardo and his wife, who took Laika believing she was abandoned after she was left tied up outside a shop for several hours. Though Mr. Leonardo believed he was saving the dog, Ms. Cleary says that under this legislation, if he knew the animal belonged to someone else, he would be open to prosecution.
"In that case you're supposed to call the ASPCA. You can't just take someone else's animal," she said.
However, "If he truly believed the animal was abandoned," she said, he would not be convicted.
Monday, July 27, 2009
July 22, 2:50 AM
The AKC and AVMA disagree on whether ear cropping is humane.
In recent months, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have been involved in a disagreement over
whether ear cropping, tail docking and other types of cosmetic surgery on dogs
should be encouraged.
AVMA toughens stance on ear crops, tail docks
In November, 2008, the AVMA executive board made a decision to strengthen
their stance opposing the cropping of ears and docking of tails as well as
other surgeries performed on pets for purely cosmetic reasons. This decision
was made amid a great deal of controversy, with the Utah Veterinary
Medical Association (UVMA) even submitting a resolution to the House of Delegates
of the AVMA asking for a more tolerant stance toward these surgical
procedures.
The resolution, also supported by the AKC, was eventually voted down by the
House of Delegates and a new position statement opposing cosmetic
surgeries such as ear cropping and tail docking was adopted by the AVMA.
AKC creates Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel
Following the defeat of the resolution asking for a softer stance on the
performing of cosmetic surgeries, which the AKC supported, a new panel was
created by the American Kennel Club. This 12 member panel, dubbed the AKC
Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, is made up of individuals gathered
from all over the United States with a wide variety of credentials, each
bringing his/her own knowledge and experiences to the newly created panel.
According to the AKC, the purpose of the panel is to "strengthen
opportunities for the public to admire, love and own purebred dogs and to foster
greater public education about health concerns relevant to all dogs." The
panel's goal, according to a press release issued by the AKC, will be "to
provide factual and impartial information by creating a forum for proactive
discourse based on scientific and ethical concerns".
Though the AKC did not mention the recent policy debate concerning ear
cropping and tail docking in certain breeds of dogs, it seems likely that this
panel will address the issue at some point in the near future.
In recent months, the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) have been involved in a disagreement over
whether ear cropping, tail docking and other types of cosmetic surgery on dogs
should be encouraged.
AVMA toughens stance on ear crops, tail docks
In November, 2008, the AVMA executive board made a decision to strengthen
their stance opposing the cropping of ears and docking of tails as well as
other surgeries performed on pets for purely cosmetic reasons. This decision
was made amid a great deal of controversy, with the Utah Veterinary
Medical Association (UVMA) even submitting a resolution to the House of Delegates
of the AVMA asking for a more tolerant stance toward these surgical
procedures.
The resolution, also supported by the AKC, was eventually voted down by the
House of Delegates and a new position statement opposing cosmetic
surgeries such as ear cropping and tail docking was adopted by the AVMA.
AKC creates Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel
Following the defeat of the resolution asking for a softer stance on the
performing of cosmetic surgeries, which the AKC supported, a new panel was
created by the American Kennel Club. This 12 member panel, dubbed the AKC
Canine Health and Welfare Advisory Panel, is made up of individuals gathered
from all over the United States with a wide variety of credentials, each
bringing his/her own knowledge and experiences to the newly created panel.
According to the AKC, the purpose of the panel is to "strengthen
opportunities for the public to admire, love and own purebred dogs and to foster
greater public education about health concerns relevant to all dogs." The
panel's goal, according to a press release issued by the AKC, will be "to
provide factual and impartial information by creating a forum for proactive
discourse based on scientific and ethical concerns".
Though the AKC did not mention the recent policy debate concerning ear
cropping and tail docking in certain breeds of dogs, it seems likely that this
panel will address the issue at some point in the near future.
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
California Mandatory/Spay Neuter Bill Held in Committee
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
7/15/09
An outpouring of opposition by California sportsmen has applied the brakes
to a bill that would trample the rights of sportsmen and dog enthusiasts.
Senate Bill 250, which would with few exceptions mandate that all dogs be
spayed or neutered, appeared on the fast track this year. It passed the
Senate last month and recently cleared the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee. However, during a hearing on July 15, more than 100 opponents
turned out and rallied afterwards. During the rally, they heard from
numerous speakers including longtime sportsmen's supporter, Sen. George Runner (R-
Lancaster) a member of the Outdoor Sporting Caucus.
The bill remains "suspense file" which is where bills with a fiscal
impact go. Once a bill has been placed there, legislators must vote to remove
it before the bill can be considered again.
"The turnout today as well as the calls, letters, and emails from
sportsmen and dog enthusiasts made a difference," said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance (USSA) vice president for government affairs. "Although we're
not out of the woods yet, this kind of grassroots support is what can really
get the attention of legislators. "
In addition to USSA, opposition has come from dog and sporting groups
across California, including key partners such as the California Outdoor
Heritage Alliance (COHA), Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America, NRA,
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and Pet Pac.
Take Action- California sportsmen should continue contacting their
Assembly members and inform them of your continued opposition to SB 250 without
full protections for sporting dog owners.
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
AVMA House Rejects Policy Change on Ear Cropping and Tail Docking
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009, 7:46 p.m., EDT
The _American Veterinary Medical Assn.'s_ (http://www.avma.org/) House of
Delegates on July 10 rejected Resolution 4, which would have revised its
policy on ear cropping and tail docking of dogs.
The action came during the legislative body's semi-annual session, held in
Seattle, Wash., before the AVMA's annual convention.
Submitted by the Utah Veterinary Medical Assn., the resolution would have
eased the AVMA policy, adopted by the executive board in November 2008, that
opposes ear cropping and tail docking when done solely for cosmetic
reasons.
The revision would have noted that the procedures, though offering limited
or no therapeutic value, are condoned by the _American Kennel Club_
(http://www.akc.org/) and many members of society. Because of that acceptance,
the policy would have stated that it is "imperative that the procedures be
performed by trained, licensed and caring veterinarians using current stand
of care" while continuing to support the elimination of those procedures
from breed standards.
In addition, the resolution would have revised AVMA policy to ensure that
association members "conform to all state mandates concerning the
procedures."
The November 2008 policy significantly altered the AVMA's position against
the two procedures; previous policy recommended only that veterinarians
discuss with clients the cosmetic nature of the procedures before performing
them.
A major reason for the resolution was to defend veterinarians willing to
perform such procedures who might otherwise be ostracized by the profession
for going against AVMA policy.
In its argument in favor of the resolution, the Utah VMA said the AVMA
should be wary of restricting pet owners' rights because it supports the
concept of pet ownership.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet
California tax officials target breeders via Internet Article - California tax officials target breeders via Internet) June 29, 2009By: Timothy KirnFor The VIN News Service
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
California tax officials are surfing - the Internet, that is.It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way.
According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders.
The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation," Gore said.According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller's permit and pay the state a sales tax.
Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.
Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club Web sites searching for information and help."It definitely is going to have a chilling effect on information," said Capp, founder of the Coalition of Human Advocates for K9s and Owners (CHAKO).
Capp_posted a notice about the letters on the CHAKO blog_ (_http://news.http://news.http://news._ (http://news.vin.com/Link.plx?ID=70527) ) and alerted a number of other bloggers about the issue, who have also posted notices.Capp said it is heavy-handed of the state to target people just because they are members of a dog club.
She also said that when she called the board, she was told that it will pursue people who do not respond to the first letter with a second letter and might investigate if that second letter is ignored."The problem is that this is a very Big-Brother type of mentality," she said. "They don't know whether anyone is a breeder. There are all kinds of dog clubs out there. It sends the message that you are presumed guilty until proven innocent."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Subject: STRICT OHIO BREEDER BILL TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24
[Tuesday, June 23, 2009]
Ohio House Bill 124 will be considered by the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, June 24.
HB 124 seeks to strictly regulate commercial breeders who produce nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year, including:
Imposing strict engineering standards (including cage sizes, temperature range, etc.) with no regard for various dog breeds or the extensive costs to responsible breeders
Limiting breeding ages to dogs between 18 months and 9 years of age with no regard for alternative reproductive techniques. The AKC believes the decision on whether a dog should be bred is one to be made by the dog's owner in conjunction with a veterinarian.
The AKC strongly opposes cruelty and mistreatment of animals and believes all dogs should be cared for in a humane manner. The AKC is concerned, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs does not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
How You Can Help
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 24, and politely express your concerns with HB 124. The hearing details are as follows:
House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Wednesday, June 14
9:30 a.m.
Room 018
Ohio Statehouse
Columbus, Ohio
*Please note that the committee will be considering a resolution on an unrelated issue prior to hearing HB 124. The Chairman's office has informed AKC that that consideration of this bill may take several hours, depending on the length of public testimony.
If you are unable to attend the hearing, contact the members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and express your concerns with HB 124 and your support for responsible breeding in Ohio. The Committee's contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614) 466-3735Fax: (614) 719-6995Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035Fax: (614) 719-6996Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374Fax: (614) 719-6981Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114Fax: (614) 719-3979Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022Fax: (614) 719-6971Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014Fax: (614) 719-6994Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dan Dodd
Phone: (614) 466-2500Fax: (614) 719-6991Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466-9628Fax: (614) 719-3958Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jennifer Garrison
Phone: (614) 644-8728Fax: (614) 719-6993Email: district93@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone: (614) 644-5094Fax: (614) 719-6953Email: district53@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dennis Murray
Phone: (614) 644-6011Fax: (614) 719-6980Email: district80@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Matthew Dolan
Phone: (614) 644-5088Fax: (614) 719-6998Email: district98@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Deborah Newcomb
Phone: (614) 466-1405Fax: (614) 719-6999Email: district99@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dave Hall
Phone: (614) 466-2994Fax: (614) 719-6997Email: district97@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Mark Okey
Phone: (614) 466-1464Fax: (614) 719-3961Email: district61@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Margaret Ruhl
Phone: (614) 466-1431Fax: (614) 719-6990Email: district90@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Raymond Pryor
Phone: (614) 644-7928Fax: (614) 719-6985Email: district85@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative W. Carlton Weddington
Phone: (614) 466-5343Fax: (614) 719-3581Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative James Zehringer
Phone: (614) 466-6344Fax: (614) 719-3977Email: district77@ohr.state.oh.us
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720; or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Ohio House Bill 124 will be considered by the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, June 24.
HB 124 seeks to strictly regulate commercial breeders who produce nine litters of puppies or at least forty puppies in any given calendar year, including:
Imposing strict engineering standards (including cage sizes, temperature range, etc.) with no regard for various dog breeds or the extensive costs to responsible breeders
Limiting breeding ages to dogs between 18 months and 9 years of age with no regard for alternative reproductive techniques. The AKC believes the decision on whether a dog should be bred is one to be made by the dog's owner in conjunction with a veterinarian.
The AKC strongly opposes cruelty and mistreatment of animals and believes all dogs should be cared for in a humane manner. The AKC is concerned, however, that any bill seeking to protect the health and welfare of dogs does not infringe on the rights of breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
How You Can Help
Attend the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 24, and politely express your concerns with HB 124. The hearing details are as follows:
House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Wednesday, June 14
9:30 a.m.
Room 018
Ohio Statehouse
Columbus, Ohio
*Please note that the committee will be considering a resolution on an unrelated issue prior to hearing HB 124. The Chairman's office has informed AKC that that consideration of this bill may take several hours, depending on the length of public testimony.
If you are unable to attend the hearing, contact the members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and express your concerns with HB 124 and your support for responsible breeding in Ohio. The Committee's contact information is as follows:
Representative John Domenick (Chairman)
Phone: (614) 466-3735Fax: (614) 719-6995Email: district95@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Allan Sayre (Vice Chair)
Phone: (614) 466-8035Fax: (614) 719-6996Email: district96@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jeff Wagner (Ranking Minority Member)
Phone: (614) 466-1374Fax: (614) 719-6981Email: district81@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Richard Adams
Phone: (614) 466-8114Fax: (614) 719-3979Email: district79@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Linda Bolon
Phone: (614) 466-8022Fax: (614) 719-6971Email: district01@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Troy Balderson
Phone: (614) 644-6014Fax: (614) 719-6994Email: district94@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dan Dodd
Phone: (614) 466-2500Fax: (614) 719-6991Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Terry Boose
Phone: (614) 466-9628Fax: (614) 719-3958Email: district58@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Jennifer Garrison
Phone: (614) 644-8728Fax: (614) 719-6993Email: district93@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Timothy Derickson
Phone: (614) 644-5094Fax: (614) 719-6953Email: district53@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dennis Murray
Phone: (614) 644-6011Fax: (614) 719-6980Email: district80@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Matthew Dolan
Phone: (614) 644-5088Fax: (614) 719-6998Email: district98@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Deborah Newcomb
Phone: (614) 466-1405Fax: (614) 719-6999Email: district99@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Dave Hall
Phone: (614) 466-2994Fax: (614) 719-6997Email: district97@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Mark Okey
Phone: (614) 466-1464Fax: (614) 719-3961Email: district61@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Margaret Ruhl
Phone: (614) 466-1431Fax: (614) 719-6990Email: district90@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative Raymond Pryor
Phone: (614) 644-7928Fax: (614) 719-6985Email: district85@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative W. Carlton Weddington
Phone: (614) 466-5343Fax: (614) 719-3581Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us
Representative James Zehringer
Phone: (614) 466-6344Fax: (614) 719-3977Email: district77@ohr.state.oh.us
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720; or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
