CT: Bill increases fines for selling sick dogs
Posted on 03/06/2009
NORWALK
By JILL BODACH, Hour Staff Writer
Man's best friend is the topic of recent legislation at the State Capitol. A group of residents, along with a state legislator and attorney, are trying to pass a law increasing the liability of pet stores that sell sick or diseased dogs. The proposed legislation expands the state's current Lemon Law to include dogs and cats.
"Right now we have better information when we walk into a store to buy an appliance than we do when we go into a pet store to buy a puppy," said Karen Rasmussen, founder of the Westport Coalition Against Puppy Mills. "We treat these animals like commodities, which they aren't, but if that's how we're going to treat them, then we need to have a law to protect them the same way it protects other commodities."
Senate Bill 499, proposed by state Rep. Larry Cafero, R-142, House minority leader, would require a pet store to be liable -- up to two times the cost of the puppy -- for a dog who becomes sick after purchase and requires medical treatment.
"Right now, the law only allows the pet owner to return the pet to the store for a refund, which no pet owner is actually going to do, or to be reimbursed by the store up to $200 for vet bills, which doesn't even begin to cover the cost some of these customers are incurring," said G. Kenneth Bernhard, of Cohen & Wolf, legal counsel for the Westport Coalition Against Puppy Mills.
Bernhard said U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows "most" of the 30 pet stores in Connecticut buy puppies from puppy mills in the Midwest or Pennsylvania that have been cited for numerous violations for "deplorable conditions."
"Right now, no one can definitively say what a 'puppy mill' is because there is no set definition," Bernhard said. "You can usually tell by the number of dogs being bred at one time. Some of these puppy mills have 60, 70, even 100 dogs."
Cafero said he decided to support the legislation after learning about the conditions of the puppy mills. "In some cases these puppies are coming from deplorable conditions, and the consumer becomes vulnerable because they fall in love with these pets and would do anything to help them, which sometimes means spending thousands of dollars in vet bills," Cafero said.
Cafero said the legislation does not mean to accuse all breeders of being unsavory. "There are many very legit, upstanding breeders who take great pride in breeding dogs for household pets and treat the pets with care and love until they find a home for them," Cafero said. "Unfortunately, not all of them are that way."
Rasmussen said her main goal is to educate the public. "We want the public to be educated and the pet stores to be more transparent about where they are getting these puppies from," Rasmussen said.
Jill Bodach is a features and general assignment reporter. She may be reached at (203) 354-1046 or jbodach@thehour.com.
Source: http://www.thehour.com/story/466086
Saturday, March 7, 2009
OK: Happy tails: Puppy-mill bill advances
OK: Happy tails: Puppy-mill bill advances
By World's Editorial Writers
Published: 3/7/2009 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 3/7/2009 3:35 AM
The Oklahoma House chose the right and responsible course recently in approving the Pet Quality Assurance Act, the so-called puppy-mill bill that should help improve Oklahoma's reputation on this front — and the lives of lots of lovable pooches as well.
The fact the bill passed by a huge margin of 74 to 26 suggests House members were keenly aware of the popularity of a measure that will establish some reasonable controls on Oklahoma breeders.
Let's hope the state Senate shares this view.
For years, Oklahoma has been considered one of the top puppy producers in the entire nation, producing tens of thousands of puppies each year that are transported all across the country. While there certainly are many reputable and responsible breeders, there also are some who don't have the ability or willingness to maintain even the most minimal of standards. Recent news stories reflecting horrific conditions at a few breeding operations are testament to that sad phenomenon.
The new measure establishes minimum standards for dog breeding operations, based on federal regulations, and would apply to all facilities transferring more than 35 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies in a year.
Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing, is a veterinarian who was the chief proponent of the measure and who worked long hours to craft a compromise that was acceptable to both animal-welfare advocates and breeders.
In pushing for the bill, Denney noted that it was not as much about the puppies — most of whom are
transferred from breeders at very young ages — as it was about the adult breeding dogs that sometimes are subjected to inhumane conditions. She also correctly observed that the bill should help address some of the consumer issues that arise when substandard conditions are present.
Another veterinarian, Rep. Brian Renegar, D-McAlester, said the bill encompasses common-sense regulations that protect the public as well as animals.
Surely state senators will see the wisdom of approving this reasonable and necessary measure.
Source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20090307_61_A14_TheOkl972942&allcom=1
By World's Editorial Writers
Published: 3/7/2009 2:24 AM
Last Modified: 3/7/2009 3:35 AM
The Oklahoma House chose the right and responsible course recently in approving the Pet Quality Assurance Act, the so-called puppy-mill bill that should help improve Oklahoma's reputation on this front — and the lives of lots of lovable pooches as well.
The fact the bill passed by a huge margin of 74 to 26 suggests House members were keenly aware of the popularity of a measure that will establish some reasonable controls on Oklahoma breeders.
Let's hope the state Senate shares this view.
For years, Oklahoma has been considered one of the top puppy producers in the entire nation, producing tens of thousands of puppies each year that are transported all across the country. While there certainly are many reputable and responsible breeders, there also are some who don't have the ability or willingness to maintain even the most minimal of standards. Recent news stories reflecting horrific conditions at a few breeding operations are testament to that sad phenomenon.
The new measure establishes minimum standards for dog breeding operations, based on federal regulations, and would apply to all facilities transferring more than 35 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies in a year.
Rep. Lee Denney, R-Cushing, is a veterinarian who was the chief proponent of the measure and who worked long hours to craft a compromise that was acceptable to both animal-welfare advocates and breeders.
In pushing for the bill, Denney noted that it was not as much about the puppies — most of whom are
transferred from breeders at very young ages — as it was about the adult breeding dogs that sometimes are subjected to inhumane conditions. She also correctly observed that the bill should help address some of the consumer issues that arise when substandard conditions are present.
Another veterinarian, Rep. Brian Renegar, D-McAlester, said the bill encompasses common-sense regulations that protect the public as well as animals.
Surely state senators will see the wisdom of approving this reasonable and necessary measure.
Source: http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20090307_61_A14_TheOkl972942&allcom=1
IA: Backers: 'Puppy mill' bill in danger
IA: Backers: 'Puppy mill' bill in danger
By TONY LEYS • tleys@dmreg.com • March 7, 2009
An animal-rights group complained Friday that a prominent Iowa legislator is holding up a bill that would crack down on "puppy mills." The activists suspect Rep. Dolores Mertz plans to kill their bill, House File 486. They said the bill passed the Public Safety Committee last week and appeared headed to the House floor, but Mertz asked that it first be brought before the House Agriculture Committee, of which she is chairwoman.
The bill would allow state officials to inspect federally licensed dog breeders if someone filed a complaint about the businesses.
Advocates say the bill is needed because some of the dog breeders with the worst conditions hold licenses from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They said Iowa and Kansas are the only states that do not have some control over such facilities, and they added that Iowa is the nation's third-largest supplier of puppies.
Mary LaHay, director of Iowa Voters for Companion Animals, said many dog breeders are legitimate. But she said some keep dogs in horrible conditions, such as being crammed in small cages around the clock. "They might never get out in their lives," she said. "They might spend eight years in a cage."
Mertz denied doing anything underhanded. She said bills occasionally are considered by two committees before going to the House floor. The Ottosen Democrat said the bill will get a fair hearing, but she expressed mixed emotions about it. She said that she does not support irresponsible breeders but doubts they are a major problem.
"There might be a few bad ones out there, but you shouldn't punish everyone for a few," she said. Mertz said she is wary about adding duties to overburdened state inspectors when federal inspectors already oversee many dog breeders.
The bill is opposed by a dog breeders' group called the Iowa Federation of Animal Owners. Chairman Joe Gerst, who raises Yorkshire terriers in Amana, said federal inspectors do a good job of overseeing the 450 Iowa breeders who have federal licenses. He said the debate over the bill diverts attention from the real problem, which is unlicensed breeders.
Gerst said he was not comforted by the fact that, under the bill, state inspectors would stay away from federally licensed breeders unless they received a complaint. He said animal-rights activists could file baseless complaints about legitimate breeders. "When you're in this business, you're a target," he said.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, a Charles City Democrat who supports the bill, said he was unsure why leaders sent it to the Agriculture Committee instead of to the floor. "If it needs further work, that's fine," he said. "But if they put it there to die, that's disappointing."
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090307/NEWS10/903070332/-1/SPORTS09/Backers+++Puppy+mill++bill+in+danger
By TONY LEYS • tleys@dmreg.com • March 7, 2009
An animal-rights group complained Friday that a prominent Iowa legislator is holding up a bill that would crack down on "puppy mills." The activists suspect Rep. Dolores Mertz plans to kill their bill, House File 486. They said the bill passed the Public Safety Committee last week and appeared headed to the House floor, but Mertz asked that it first be brought before the House Agriculture Committee, of which she is chairwoman.
The bill would allow state officials to inspect federally licensed dog breeders if someone filed a complaint about the businesses.
Advocates say the bill is needed because some of the dog breeders with the worst conditions hold licenses from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They said Iowa and Kansas are the only states that do not have some control over such facilities, and they added that Iowa is the nation's third-largest supplier of puppies.
Mary LaHay, director of Iowa Voters for Companion Animals, said many dog breeders are legitimate. But she said some keep dogs in horrible conditions, such as being crammed in small cages around the clock. "They might never get out in their lives," she said. "They might spend eight years in a cage."
Mertz denied doing anything underhanded. She said bills occasionally are considered by two committees before going to the House floor. The Ottosen Democrat said the bill will get a fair hearing, but she expressed mixed emotions about it. She said that she does not support irresponsible breeders but doubts they are a major problem.
"There might be a few bad ones out there, but you shouldn't punish everyone for a few," she said. Mertz said she is wary about adding duties to overburdened state inspectors when federal inspectors already oversee many dog breeders.
The bill is opposed by a dog breeders' group called the Iowa Federation of Animal Owners. Chairman Joe Gerst, who raises Yorkshire terriers in Amana, said federal inspectors do a good job of overseeing the 450 Iowa breeders who have federal licenses. He said the debate over the bill diverts attention from the real problem, which is unlicensed breeders.
Gerst said he was not comforted by the fact that, under the bill, state inspectors would stay away from federally licensed breeders unless they received a complaint. He said animal-rights activists could file baseless complaints about legitimate breeders. "When you're in this business, you're a target," he said.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, a Charles City Democrat who supports the bill, said he was unsure why leaders sent it to the Agriculture Committee instead of to the floor. "If it needs further work, that's fine," he said. "But if they put it there to die, that's disappointing."
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090307/NEWS10/903070332/-1/SPORTS09/Backers+++Puppy+mill++bill+in+danger
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
NE: Deputies: Kitten Found Stuffed Inside Marijuana Bong
[b]NE: Deputies: Kitten Found Stuffed Inside Marijuana Bong[/b]
'Kitten Was High-Strung' Owner Allegedly Told Officers
TheOmahaChannel.com
updated 10:48 a.m. PT, Tues., March. 3, 2009
LINCOLN, Neb. - A kitten is recovering after allegedly being stuffed in a bong while its owner smoked marijuana at the same time. Lincoln investigators said that 20-year-old Acea Schomaker is accused of animal cruelty for the act. The kitten -- 6-month-old Shadow -- is being treated at a Lincoln animal shelter.
Deputies said they witnessed the animal being trapped inside the homemade bong as it was being smoked. “I have never seen anything like this before,” Lancaster County Chief Deputy Bill Jarrett said. The bong is made of Plexiglas and is about the size of shoebox. “[It was] taped shut so the cat was exposed to large amounts of marijuana smoke,” Jarrett said.
Schomaker was wanted on a warrant for possession of marijuana. Deputies found him in his home south of Lincoln. They said he was smoking the bong when they arrived. Tuesday, Lincoln police said they had cited cat's owner, 23-year-old Marissa Vieux for misdemeanor animal abuse. Police say she knew of the incident, and failed to stop Schomaker. Schomaker allegedly told deputies the kitten was high strung and needed to be put in the bong to keep it calm.
“The cat appeared to be very lethargic, somewhat in a sleeping state,” Jarrett said. Capital Humane Society officials said they have taken X-rays and done other tests to see if the kitten has any long-term affects from the alleged abuse. “The individual stated he had done this several times,” agent Bob Downey said.
The shelter workers said they are working with the sheriff's office and the county attorney to get custody of the animal so it can be put up for adoption. “We'll find a home where it will not be subjected to this type of treatment anymore,” Downey said.
Schomaker was cited for misdemeanor animal cruelty. That charge could be upgraded to a felony if the kitten dies or has long-term effects from the alleged abuse. A misdemeanor conviction could mean up to a year in jail time, a felony conviction would put Schomaker away for up to five years.
Source
Nebraska Statues and Animal Laws
'Kitten Was High-Strung' Owner Allegedly Told Officers
TheOmahaChannel.com
updated 10:48 a.m. PT, Tues., March. 3, 2009
LINCOLN, Neb. - A kitten is recovering after allegedly being stuffed in a bong while its owner smoked marijuana at the same time. Lincoln investigators said that 20-year-old Acea Schomaker is accused of animal cruelty for the act. The kitten -- 6-month-old Shadow -- is being treated at a Lincoln animal shelter.
Deputies said they witnessed the animal being trapped inside the homemade bong as it was being smoked. “I have never seen anything like this before,” Lancaster County Chief Deputy Bill Jarrett said. The bong is made of Plexiglas and is about the size of shoebox. “[It was] taped shut so the cat was exposed to large amounts of marijuana smoke,” Jarrett said.
Schomaker was wanted on a warrant for possession of marijuana. Deputies found him in his home south of Lincoln. They said he was smoking the bong when they arrived. Tuesday, Lincoln police said they had cited cat's owner, 23-year-old Marissa Vieux for misdemeanor animal abuse. Police say she knew of the incident, and failed to stop Schomaker. Schomaker allegedly told deputies the kitten was high strung and needed to be put in the bong to keep it calm.
“The cat appeared to be very lethargic, somewhat in a sleeping state,” Jarrett said. Capital Humane Society officials said they have taken X-rays and done other tests to see if the kitten has any long-term affects from the alleged abuse. “The individual stated he had done this several times,” agent Bob Downey said.
The shelter workers said they are working with the sheriff's office and the county attorney to get custody of the animal so it can be put up for adoption. “We'll find a home where it will not be subjected to this type of treatment anymore,” Downey said.
Schomaker was cited for misdemeanor animal cruelty. That charge could be upgraded to a felony if the kitten dies or has long-term effects from the alleged abuse. A misdemeanor conviction could mean up to a year in jail time, a felony conviction would put Schomaker away for up to five years.
Source
Nebraska Statues and Animal Laws
Friday, February 20, 2009
NEWS: CA Court Grants Meat Industry Request to Allow Sick, Disabled Animals into Food Supply
NEWS: CA Court Grants Meat Industry Request to Allow Sick, Disabled Animals into Food Supply
February 20th, 2009
California Food Safety Law Enacted in Wake of Hallmark Meat Recall Put on Hold
Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Fresno—Friday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association criticized a ruling by a federal judge in Fresno, Calif. that temporarily stops the state from enforcing key provisions of California’s newly upgraded law banning the use of sick and disabled animals in the food supply.
The order prevents any portion of the law from being applied to pig slaughter plants and could set a precedent for other farm animal processors seeking to skirt food safety laws and put meat from other sick and injured animals, including cattle, into the public food supply. The animal protection groups intend to appeal the decision, and are urging the State Attorney General to do so as well.
The suit, brought by the National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute — two trade groups representing major packing and slaughter plant companies — takes aim at a statute that originally went into effect in the 1990s, and was then amended last year by legislation authored by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian in response to an HSUS investigation that exposed torment and horrific abuse of downed cows at a southern California slaughter plant. The Hallmark/Westland plant, based in Chino, was the nation’s number-two supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program. Federal law still allows some downed cattle and other sick and suffering animals to enter the food supply, and the state statute was designed to address this loophole and prevent the abuses this gap in federal law facilitated at Hallmark/Westland from ever happening again in California.
“The plaintiffs’ reckless actions in this case should be a wake-up call to the public that the slaughter industry is prepared to subvert state laws designed to help animals and protect food safety,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “If the federal government drags its feet on proper regulatory oversight because of political pressure by the meat industry, the states should not be forced to stand idly by while animals are abused and the quality of our food threatened.”
The scandal over the abuse of dairy cows at Hallmark exposed major gaps in food safety and humane handling, prompted the largest meat recall in U.S. history and probably cost the meat industry and the federal government more than $1 billion.
“We are deeply disappointed that the court in Fresno has tied the state’s hands from taking responsible action to prevent another inhumane and food safety tragedy like Hallmark from ever occurring again in California,” said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, which was instrumental in the passage of the original statute.
According to the meat industry groups’ papers, they believe California lacks the authority to protect school children from the human form of mad cow disease and other foodborne illnesses, or to prevent wanton cruelty to farm animals. However, two federal appeals courts have already ruled that states have the authority to ban the slaughter of certain animals where it is contrary to the state’s interest in preserving public morals. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice rejected requests to reconsider those rulings.
“This challenge to California law is a stunning example of the meat industry’s utter disregard for animal suffering and public safety. We are confident that this vitally important law will ultimately be upheld,” said Bradley Miller, national director of the Humane Farming Association, which was instrumental in the passage of A.B. 2098 last year.
Downed cattle are more likely to be infected with BSE – bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or “mad cow disease.” Studies suggest animals used for food who are too sick or injured to stand and walk may be more likely to harbor foodborne bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella, which kill hundreds of Americans every year.
“This troubling decision conflicts with two federal court of appeals decisions allowing states to regulate which animals can enter the food supply, and a prompt appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
The suit, National Meat Association v. Brown, No. 1:08-cv-01963-LJO-DLB, is pending before a federal district court in Fresno, Calif.
Source
February 20th, 2009
California Food Safety Law Enacted in Wake of Hallmark Meat Recall Put on Hold
Contact:
Lisa Franzetta, Animal Legal Defense Fund
Fresno—Friday, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the Humane Farming Association criticized a ruling by a federal judge in Fresno, Calif. that temporarily stops the state from enforcing key provisions of California’s newly upgraded law banning the use of sick and disabled animals in the food supply.
The order prevents any portion of the law from being applied to pig slaughter plants and could set a precedent for other farm animal processors seeking to skirt food safety laws and put meat from other sick and injured animals, including cattle, into the public food supply. The animal protection groups intend to appeal the decision, and are urging the State Attorney General to do so as well.
The suit, brought by the National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute — two trade groups representing major packing and slaughter plant companies — takes aim at a statute that originally went into effect in the 1990s, and was then amended last year by legislation authored by Assemblymember Paul Krekorian in response to an HSUS investigation that exposed torment and horrific abuse of downed cows at a southern California slaughter plant. The Hallmark/Westland plant, based in Chino, was the nation’s number-two supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program. Federal law still allows some downed cattle and other sick and suffering animals to enter the food supply, and the state statute was designed to address this loophole and prevent the abuses this gap in federal law facilitated at Hallmark/Westland from ever happening again in California.
“The plaintiffs’ reckless actions in this case should be a wake-up call to the public that the slaughter industry is prepared to subvert state laws designed to help animals and protect food safety,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “If the federal government drags its feet on proper regulatory oversight because of political pressure by the meat industry, the states should not be forced to stand idly by while animals are abused and the quality of our food threatened.”
The scandal over the abuse of dairy cows at Hallmark exposed major gaps in food safety and humane handling, prompted the largest meat recall in U.S. history and probably cost the meat industry and the federal government more than $1 billion.
“We are deeply disappointed that the court in Fresno has tied the state’s hands from taking responsible action to prevent another inhumane and food safety tragedy like Hallmark from ever occurring again in California,” said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, which was instrumental in the passage of the original statute.
According to the meat industry groups’ papers, they believe California lacks the authority to protect school children from the human form of mad cow disease and other foodborne illnesses, or to prevent wanton cruelty to farm animals. However, two federal appeals courts have already ruled that states have the authority to ban the slaughter of certain animals where it is contrary to the state’s interest in preserving public morals. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice rejected requests to reconsider those rulings.
“This challenge to California law is a stunning example of the meat industry’s utter disregard for animal suffering and public safety. We are confident that this vitally important law will ultimately be upheld,” said Bradley Miller, national director of the Humane Farming Association, which was instrumental in the passage of A.B. 2098 last year.
Downed cattle are more likely to be infected with BSE – bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or “mad cow disease.” Studies suggest animals used for food who are too sick or injured to stand and walk may be more likely to harbor foodborne bacteria, such as E. coli and Salmonella, which kill hundreds of Americans every year.
“This troubling decision conflicts with two federal court of appeals decisions allowing states to regulate which animals can enter the food supply, and a prompt appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely,” said Stephen Wells, executive director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
The suit, National Meat Association v. Brown, No. 1:08-cv-01963-LJO-DLB, is pending before a federal district court in Fresno, Calif.
Source
Thursday, February 19, 2009
File this under "From good intentions come problems"
Having been a supporter of vaccinating your dog against rabies, which 'drives' the licensing program in my area, once again something with good intentions has a bad side effect. In our community, you can't get a dog license unless you can prove your dog has an up-to-date rabies vaccination (good thing) and you do get a substantial discount ($20 instead of $50 if your dog is no longer intact - another good thing).
But here's the bad side effect... the use of this data with the insurance companies to either increase or deny homeowners insurance to animal guardians who license their animal companions. In Boston, this problem has compounded itself into causing people to knowingly evade the law and not license their dogs.
"Homeowners who are faced with threats of discriminatory insurance termination have been placed in a position somewhat understandably resolved by evading dog licensing laws. Lets face it, people are not going to easily give away their family pet, and to many of these people, a deficiency in homeowners insurance seems far greater a risk than that of being found for being the keeper of an unlicensed dog."
For more details on this topic, read the entire article at the source but although Massachusetts is working on a bill that would forbid insurance companies to refuse coverage because of this discrimination, there are another 49 states in the union.
If you want to own a dog that is blacklisted, that is certainly your prerogative. If you do not believe your breed should even be blacklisted, you have to communicate with your legislators and make this message heard. But if both positions are yours, then insurance companies may have the right to offer insurance protection, but at a much higher cost... again, herein lies the 'self will' that gets so many of us into trouble.
For those animal guardians that chose to add an animal to their home and then don't get the dog speutered, the general public ultimately pays the price to get those unwanted animals housed, vetted and if not adopted, carcasses to the rendering plants or landfills. We don't have a vote or choice in the matter - if you pay taxes (and whether or not you even have an animal!), your tax dollars pays for the removal of this from the shelters.
Same holds true for the insurance rates - we don't have a vote in the insurance rates and you either pay it or don't get covered. When the insurance companies pay out huge claims, they up the rates to keep the balance sheet looking healthy.
Discriminating against a few breeds - OR - upping the rates for all homeowners that have pets to cover losses by the insurance companies is not only unfair, it is definitely un-American! We don't prey on the weak, uneducated, ill-informed or those unable in this country... so why are we allowing this common practice to stand or even exist???
Inquiring minds want to know - especially in light of the current economy news!
But here's the bad side effect... the use of this data with the insurance companies to either increase or deny homeowners insurance to animal guardians who license their animal companions. In Boston, this problem has compounded itself into causing people to knowingly evade the law and not license their dogs.
"Homeowners who are faced with threats of discriminatory insurance termination have been placed in a position somewhat understandably resolved by evading dog licensing laws. Lets face it, people are not going to easily give away their family pet, and to many of these people, a deficiency in homeowners insurance seems far greater a risk than that of being found for being the keeper of an unlicensed dog."
For more details on this topic, read the entire article at the source but although Massachusetts is working on a bill that would forbid insurance companies to refuse coverage because of this discrimination, there are another 49 states in the union.
If you want to own a dog that is blacklisted, that is certainly your prerogative. If you do not believe your breed should even be blacklisted, you have to communicate with your legislators and make this message heard. But if both positions are yours, then insurance companies may have the right to offer insurance protection, but at a much higher cost... again, herein lies the 'self will' that gets so many of us into trouble.
For those animal guardians that chose to add an animal to their home and then don't get the dog speutered, the general public ultimately pays the price to get those unwanted animals housed, vetted and if not adopted, carcasses to the rendering plants or landfills. We don't have a vote or choice in the matter - if you pay taxes (and whether or not you even have an animal!), your tax dollars pays for the removal of this from the shelters.
Same holds true for the insurance rates - we don't have a vote in the insurance rates and you either pay it or don't get covered. When the insurance companies pay out huge claims, they up the rates to keep the balance sheet looking healthy.
Discriminating against a few breeds - OR - upping the rates for all homeowners that have pets to cover losses by the insurance companies is not only unfair, it is definitely un-American! We don't prey on the weak, uneducated, ill-informed or those unable in this country... so why are we allowing this common practice to stand or even exist???
Inquiring minds want to know - especially in light of the current economy news!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
We care, but do we care enough???
A Modesto, CA petshop closed its doors on Christmas Eve after five years of selling puppies. It was the second location for the owners who intend to keep their original location open. A handwritten note on the front door cited the economy as a reason for the closure.
Convenient the last-minute, impulse buying of puppies as gifts for Christmas still occurred before they closed the petshop on Christmas Eve and not before the holiday puppy-buying season began. Many of those same puppies will undoubtedly show up in our California shelters a few months down the road.
Purely an economic decision and not an ethical or moral one.
There are many who say the downturn in the economy will finally create a dent in the puppy mill industry. Something good might come out of this chaos.
Shelters are reporting increases of 5 to 10% in owner turn-ins of family, citing the economy as the reason. The Los Angeles shelter system instituted a new program called "Operation Safety Net" which basically asks each owner, “What would it take for you to keep this pet instead of surrendering it?” and then seeks to solve the problems cited. Vet bills, an inability to pay for licenses or food, etc. have been listed, and they attempt to help or resolve those reasons to keep a family pet with its family.
The LA system has also begun a program to locate ‘pet-friendly’ rentals around the city. A long-time reason cited for people relinquishing their pets is moving and an inability to find housing that will allow them to take their animals with them. So, for many owners, the top reason cited for years was ‘moving’ and is now ‘the economy.’
It is more politically correct right now, I guess. You can offer only so many solutions to someone wanting to dump a dog or cat onto someone else or an organization. I’ve always been told in marketing a person will cite at least one or two palatable reasons before you actually hear the true reason – usually number three or four is the actual reason for the action or refusal to buy, according to marketing statistics. So if you are trying to make the sale, you keep asking until you get the true reason and that’s the one you concentrate on.
Read statistics from just about any source and you will learn that Americans view their pets as members of the family. With the recent economy downswing, experts cite that people will give up other costs in their lifestyles before relinquishing their pets, simply because they view them as family.
So if this statement is true – that pet owners love and care about their pets like members of their family – why are we still calling them pet owners? How do you "own" a family member?
Simply put because we are not guardians or protectorates of our pets – we are still owners in the legal sense. And until we are no longer owners of personal property in this country, the pet trade will continue unbridled as it has. Backyard breeders and puppy millers cite their rights under the law to do whatever they want with their livestock.
It’s a business to them – to those who have pets inside our homes, the law views us as owners and adheres responsibilities to us accordingly – and we view our pets as family members. But bottom line? Isn’t it still the same living, breathing being that we’re discussing here?
This is the bottom line problem with the pet trade industry – just as it is in the shelter system. Regardless of how you want to label or define it, citing a host of labels, reasons, and positions – we humans as a society simply don’t care enough.
If it is true that the economy is lowering the production levels of the puppy millers and backyard breeders, would this NOT be the time to attack the problem of definitions, legal loopholes and a lack of natural rights for these animals we’ve breed, wholesaled and victimized as pets and family members?
It is much easier to solve a problem when it is not so overwhelming and far reaching.
The economy just as with life revolves in cycles and circles. It is a law of physics for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction and energy is never lost but instead transformed. This is the time – NOW – to mobilize and tell our legislators we want an end to the pet trade industry as it exists in this country.
Petshops should only be offering rescued dogs and cats in their stores. Backyard breeders must be held just as accountable for the massive overpopulation of unwanted pets as the puppy millers are. Taxpayers (whether they own a pet or not) should no longer be shouldering the burden of housing, maintaining and eventually killing the pets which do not get adopted out of the shelter systems.
It only takes the flutter of a butterfly’s wings to be eventually felt around the world – if only we can begin the grassroots movement that tells those in charge we’re sick and tired of this, and we’re not going to take it any more.
Convenient the last-minute, impulse buying of puppies as gifts for Christmas still occurred before they closed the petshop on Christmas Eve and not before the holiday puppy-buying season began. Many of those same puppies will undoubtedly show up in our California shelters a few months down the road.
Purely an economic decision and not an ethical or moral one.
There are many who say the downturn in the economy will finally create a dent in the puppy mill industry. Something good might come out of this chaos.
Shelters are reporting increases of 5 to 10% in owner turn-ins of family, citing the economy as the reason. The Los Angeles shelter system instituted a new program called "Operation Safety Net" which basically asks each owner, “What would it take for you to keep this pet instead of surrendering it?” and then seeks to solve the problems cited. Vet bills, an inability to pay for licenses or food, etc. have been listed, and they attempt to help or resolve those reasons to keep a family pet with its family.
The LA system has also begun a program to locate ‘pet-friendly’ rentals around the city. A long-time reason cited for people relinquishing their pets is moving and an inability to find housing that will allow them to take their animals with them. So, for many owners, the top reason cited for years was ‘moving’ and is now ‘the economy.’
It is more politically correct right now, I guess. You can offer only so many solutions to someone wanting to dump a dog or cat onto someone else or an organization. I’ve always been told in marketing a person will cite at least one or two palatable reasons before you actually hear the true reason – usually number three or four is the actual reason for the action or refusal to buy, according to marketing statistics. So if you are trying to make the sale, you keep asking until you get the true reason and that’s the one you concentrate on.
Read statistics from just about any source and you will learn that Americans view their pets as members of the family. With the recent economy downswing, experts cite that people will give up other costs in their lifestyles before relinquishing their pets, simply because they view them as family.
So if this statement is true – that pet owners love and care about their pets like members of their family – why are we still calling them pet owners? How do you "own" a family member?
Simply put because we are not guardians or protectorates of our pets – we are still owners in the legal sense. And until we are no longer owners of personal property in this country, the pet trade will continue unbridled as it has. Backyard breeders and puppy millers cite their rights under the law to do whatever they want with their livestock.
It’s a business to them – to those who have pets inside our homes, the law views us as owners and adheres responsibilities to us accordingly – and we view our pets as family members. But bottom line? Isn’t it still the same living, breathing being that we’re discussing here?
This is the bottom line problem with the pet trade industry – just as it is in the shelter system. Regardless of how you want to label or define it, citing a host of labels, reasons, and positions – we humans as a society simply don’t care enough.
If it is true that the economy is lowering the production levels of the puppy millers and backyard breeders, would this NOT be the time to attack the problem of definitions, legal loopholes and a lack of natural rights for these animals we’ve breed, wholesaled and victimized as pets and family members?
It is much easier to solve a problem when it is not so overwhelming and far reaching.
The economy just as with life revolves in cycles and circles. It is a law of physics for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction and energy is never lost but instead transformed. This is the time – NOW – to mobilize and tell our legislators we want an end to the pet trade industry as it exists in this country.
Petshops should only be offering rescued dogs and cats in their stores. Backyard breeders must be held just as accountable for the massive overpopulation of unwanted pets as the puppy millers are. Taxpayers (whether they own a pet or not) should no longer be shouldering the burden of housing, maintaining and eventually killing the pets which do not get adopted out of the shelter systems.
It only takes the flutter of a butterfly’s wings to be eventually felt around the world – if only we can begin the grassroots movement that tells those in charge we’re sick and tired of this, and we’re not going to take it any more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)