Total Clips: 24 Headline Date Outlet City State Animal rights groups pick up momentum 01/28/2008 USA Today - Atlanta Bureau Smyrna GA Ban only hurts horses it tries to protect 01/28/2008 Kansas City Star Kansas City MO Bill to increase penalties for animal fighting advances 01/28/2008 Roanoke Times, The Roanoke VA By Kristina Riggle 01/28/2008 The Grand Rapid Press Proposed trapping rule change would limit sale of live coyotes 01/28/2008 Bloomington Herald Times Riverside County shelters have dogs rolling over for Beethoven 01/28/2008 Press-Enterprise - Desert Bureau Palm Desert CA State court ruling might root out 'canned' wild boar hunts 01/28/2008 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Pittsburgh PA Easy answers elusive for salmon vs. sea lions 01/27/2008 Tri-City Herald Kennewick WA Miami-Dade County voters to decide on pari-mutuel slot machines 01/27/2008 Associated Press (AP) New York NY Mobile clinic provides low-cost veterinary services for furry friends 01/27/2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Milwaukee WI More pets abandoned; more pets put to death 01/27/2008 Hutchinson News Hutchinson KS New state law on pet shops imposes stricter standards of care 01/27/2008 Ventura County Star Camarillo CA PETA supporters barking up the wrong tree 01/27/2008 SouthCoastToday.com Team looks out for animals in case of disaster 01/27/2008 Telegraph, The Hudson NH Vote for better care for needy pets 01/27/2008 Chicago Tribune Chicago IL Whales A Cause In West But A Delicacy In Japan 01/27/2008 Day, The New London CT A Clash of Views On Whale-Loving Creature Is a Delicacy in Japan, a Cause in the West 01/26/2008 Washington Post Washington DC Deer killing resumes at Point Reyes 01/26/2008 San Francisco Chronicle - San Rafael Bureau San Rafael CA Family pets on losing end of the mortgage crisis; Shelters report overflow of abandoned animals as s 01/26/2008 Edmonton Journal, The Edmonton AB Horse lobby presses for slaughter ban; Cruelty Cited; Horses flood into Canada after U.S. practice e 01/26/2008 National Post Don Mills ON Letters to the Editor - 1/26/2008 01/26/2008 North County Times Escondido CA North Central Indiana Spay and Neuter offering discounts 01/26/2008 Journal Review Robert Fulford Go ahead. Take a bite 01/26/2008 National Post Don Mills ON Whaling in the Southern Ocean 01/26/2008 Economist - Online, The Animal rights groups pick up momentum 01/28/2008 USA Today - Atlanta Bureau Copeland, Larry Return to Top The growing influence of animal rights activists increasingly is affecting daily life, touching everything from the foods Americans eat to what they study in law school, where they buy their puppies and even whether they should enjoy a horse-drawn carriage ride in New York's Central Park. Animal activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) say they are seeing a spike in membership as their campaigns spread. "There's been an explosion of interest" in animal welfare issues, says David Favre, a Michigan State University law professor and animal law specialist. "Groups like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA have brought to our social awareness their concerns about animals and all matter of creatures." "Animals are made of flesh and blood and bone just like humans," says Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vice president for campaigns. "They feel pain just like we do. Recognition of that grows year by year. The animal rights movement is a social justice movement (similar to) suffrage and civil rights." Among other initiatives, PETA supports a measure introduced last month by a New York City councilman that would ban carriage horses that haul tourists around Manhattan. Many other cities feature such businesses. FIND MORE STORIES IN: Michael Vick | Atlanta Falcons | Agriculture | Humane Society | People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals | American Bar Association "I think it's clear that animal issues are part of the public domain like never before," says Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society, the largest animal welfare organization. "People have started thinking more and more about how we treat animals in our society." Food producers say the activists aren't just concerned about animal welfare but are trying to win them the same rights as human beings. "Ultimately, their goal is to eliminate animals being used as food," says Kay Johnson-Smith of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, an industry-supported organization that seeks to educate the public about agriculture. "There's a real danger when we allow a very small minority of activists to dictate procedures that should be used to raise animals for food." Animal rights campaigns are moving on several fronts: •The Humane Society says it expects 28 state legislatures this year to consider strengthening existing bans on dogfighting and cockfighting; 13 states are considering bills regulating "puppy mills," mass dog-breeding operations that keep puppies in small crates. •Massachusetts activists are collecting signatures to get a statewide initiative on the November ballot that would ban commercial greyhound racing by 2010. The Committee to Protect Dogs says state records show that since 2002, 728 greyhounds have been injured racing at the state's two tracks. •Over the past three years, 330 colleges have stopped or dramatically reduced the use of eggs from hens in cramped wire crates called battery cages; retailers including Burger King, Hardee's, Carl's Jr. and Ben & Jerry's now use eggs produced by cage-free hens, Markarian says. •More than 90 American Bar Association-approved law schools now offer courses in animal law, compared with only a handful 10 years ago. Favre compares the growing interest in animal law among incoming law students to an explosion of interest in environmental law in the 1970s. Monastery under fire When it comes to food production and animal rights activists, even monks don't get a pass. After months of protests by PETA, the monks at Mepkin Abbey, a Trappist monastery in Moncks Corner, S.C., announced last month that they were giving up the egg production business that had sustained them for nearly 50 years. The monks were targeted because their chickens were kept in battery cages, the nation's most common method of egg-farming but a practice many animal rights advocates consider cruel. Father Stan Gumula, abbot of Mepkin Abbey, said the monks were reluctant to give up the egg business. "The pressure from PETA has made it difficult for (the monks) to live their quiet life of prayer, work and sacred reading," he said. David Martosko, director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization supported by restaurants and food companies, says most Americans oppose cruelty to animals. But he says that activists who say animals shouldn't be eaten or used for medical research or any other purpose won't find much mainstream support. "That is a position that very few Americans agree with," he says. Martosko also says abandoning some current agricultural practices will drive up food prices. According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, a dozen regular eggs cost $1.56 in mid-2007, compared with $2.89 for cage-free eggs. Pivotal events unfolded Animal welfare organizations are riding a wave of popularity. The Humane Society says it has 10.5 million members or supporters, up from 7.4 million five years ago; during the same period, PETA says its rolls have doubled to 1.8 million. The groups attribute intensified public interest partly to three recent events that highlighted the vulnerability of animals: •New Orleans residents forced to leave pets to die in 2005 when they were evacuated during Hurricane Katrina. •The recall last year of 60 million containers of pet food after an unknown number of cats and dogs were poisoned, raising questions about pet-food safety. •The conviction last year of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick for dogfighting. "Those were major events that made people realize we have so much power over animals," says Markarian of the Humane Society. "We can use that power to be cruel and indifferent, or to be kind and careful stewards." Johnson-Smith of the Animal Agriculture Alliance says current farming practices have "a scientific basis" and "have been supported by the animal science, research and veterinarian communities." Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for the American Meat Institute, whose members produce about 95% of the beef, pork, lamb, veal and turkey consumed in the USA, says the industry is diligent in handling animals humanely. But, she adds, "people have different opinions about what constitutes humane handling." Ban only hurts horses it tries to protect 01/28/2008 Kansas City Star Return to Top They shoot horses, don't they? Well, not in Illinois, or Texas, where the only three horse slaughter facilities in the United States have recently been closed. The Illinois state legislature has outlawed the slaughter of horses for human consumption, and courts in Texas have required enforcement of a long ignored law against horse slaughter. A nationwide ban has been passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a veto proof margin. A similar bill awaits Senate approval. No one likes to contemplate the idea that Flicka will someday end up on the menu in a Paris restaurant, and the success of the ban is certainly seen by many as a step forward in our treatment of animals. Only agriculture groups argued against the ban, and celebrities like Bo Derek and groups like the Humane Society easily defeated them. But repealing the right to turn horses into steaks was easy: It's more difficult to repeal the law of unintended consequences. Neither the animal rights groups nor the various legislatures have provided funding to take care of horses whose owners can no longer provide for them. Horses eat a lot, and need veterinary care, and clean water, and a place to live. The ability to sell horses to the slaughterhouses was the most efficient, and yes, the most humane way to handle horses whose owners wouldn't or couldn't take care of them. Public animal rescue facilities are full, and horses without caring owners have been sentenced to a long, slow, painful death. Three years ago, a fully-grown horse sent to slaughter was worth around $600. Even though only 1 percent of horses were sent to slaughterhouses each year, the ability to market horses in this manner put a floor under horse prices. Now the same horse will net around $30. It costs about $70 per year to vaccinate horses against West Nile and to treat for parasites. It takes about $200 a year for feed to maintain a horse, and that assumes plenty of grass is available. The ban on horse slaughter has guaranteed that more horses will be mistreated and will be abandoned. “We have cases where they have been turned loose in parks,” said Dave Howell of the American Horse Council. “They've been turned loose in coal mine areas, they've been turned loose on private property.” The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the issue, discussing abandoned horses in the Everglades, and the financial strains felt by a shelter trying to care for its population of 57 horses. The American Horse Council has documented 212,000 starving horses in the United States. Ignoring the law of unintended consequences is reaping a grim harvest. Horses are still being slaughtered in Mexico and Canada, and a small number of U.S. horses are being exported to both places. Slaughter conditions in Mexico are much less humane than in U.S. plants. This equine rendition is another unintended and tragic consequence of the ban. But groups in favor of the ban, instead of calling for a repeal, are arguing for laws banning the export of horses for slaughter. To expect the Border Patrol to successfully take on another responsibility is the triumph of hope over experience, but common sense left this argument long ago. There are a series of larger issues here. Horse owners have been deprived of the right to dispose of their property. Some animal rights advocates don't consider horses property, but rather family members. Not all horse owners agree, or there wouldn't be a quarter of a million neglected horses. The logical next step would be to govern horse ownership as we do neglected children, with a series of state funded and regulated foster homes. Society does, of course, have an interest in preventing cruelty to animals. But some deference has to be shown to the farmers and ranchers who actually raise, care for, and yes, love the animals they sell. Bill to increase penalties for animal fighting advances 01/28/2008 Roanoke Times, The Adams, Mason Return to Top A Senate committee voted this morning to approve legislation to toughen penalties for those who engage in the fighting of dogs, game fowl and other animals. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources voted unanimously to approve Senate Bill 592, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Tommy Norment, R-Williamsburg. The bill would broaden the Class 6 felony applied to dogfighting to other animals, make attendance at an animal fight a Class 1 misdemeanor, give law enforcement officials additional tools to conduct warranted searches and penalize the use of drugs or other materials intended to enhance animals' fighting ability. That latter provision applies to cockfighting razors as well as performance-enhancing drugs that Norment said turns “dogs and chickens into the Barry Bonds of Virginia.” The bill now goes to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for consideration of the language specific to criminal penalties. The legislation is endorsed by Gov. Tim Kaine, Attorney General Bob McDonnell and a coalition of animal welfare groups. It was inspired largely by the case of Michael Vick, the former Virginia Tech and NFL quarterback who pleaded guilty and is serving 23 months in federal prison for his role in a Surry County dogfighting ring. The committee's unanimous vote included votes from Sens. Emmett Hanger, R-Augusta County, and Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, who had voiced wariness about the bill earlier this year. John Goodwin, deputy manager of animal fighting issues for the Humane Society of the United States, said he believed they voted to support the bill because the broad coalition of organizations behind the bill “makes it hard to oppose it.” By Kristina Riggle 01/28/2008 The Grand Rapid Press Kristina Riggle Return to Top The first speaker in Calvin College's new lecture series says Christianity singles out humans as "the fulcrum of God's authority over the world." But when it comes to animals, some humans abuse that power, said Steven H. Webb, the author of "On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals" and other books. Webb, a professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College, in Crawfordsville, Ind., was the debut speaker for the series on animals and the kingdom of God. "The Bible is full of compassion for animals," Webb said, citing Noah saving animals from the flood and pets mentioned in the Bible. His speech also served as an unofficial kickoff to Wake Up Weekend, a conference featuring animal advocacy, an art auction, a vegan chili cookoff and a vegan potluck. In a question-and-answer session after his talk, Webb tackled faith and animal advocacy. One audience member asked if people who consume products from factory farms are sinning. Webb said factory farming is a sin, but he did not include the consumer in that assessment. "I wouldn't want to go that far," he said. "Sin really should involve some kind of intentionality." Webb also addressed animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. He said one reason that practice existed was to serve as God's way of looking ahead to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. But God also was intervening in the violence of nature with the strict and ritualized sacrifices, he said. "It's a way of trying to control violence," he said. "Why did God limit meat-eating to that one costly ritual?" But he said his arguments do not mean a good Christian must be vegetarian. "It's an ideal; it's not an imperative," he said. "If it were an imperative, then not being vegetarian would put you at odds with the church and with God," he said. "I think the best way to look at it is: It's commendatory, and it's part of our spiritual life, part of our spiritual growth." Christine Gutleben, director of a Humane Society program addressing animals and religion, also was participating in Wake Up Weekend. "The fact that he's here tonight speaks to this growing movement within the religious community about awareness of these issues and a desire to broaden the issues to work for justice and nonviolence," she said. Matt Halteman, an assistant professor of philosophy at Calvin and a member of the committee that put together the new lecture series, said he liked the fact that Webb tried to start conversations rather than tell others what to think. "That's exactly what this lecture series is all about," said Halteman. "It's about opening doors and raising questions on an issue that a lot of earnest Christians just haven't had the chance to think about." Proposed trapping rule change would limit sale of live coyotes 01/28/2008 Bloomington Herald Times Return to Top A dog fight is brewing between animal rights activists and trappers over how coyotes may be treated in Indiana. When a trapper catches a coyote during hunting season, he can kill it for its pelt or keep it in a pen for live sale for the duration of coyote season. A regulation change would require that coyotes be killed within 24 hours of being trapped outside of trapping season, and that has some trappers seething. Trappers say their profits are threatened, while animal rights advocates say current laws let coyotes be sold year-round as live bait in dog-running enclosures. Why keep a live coyote? According to the Department of Natural Resources, coyote pelts sold for an average of $11.60 during the 2006-07 season. Coyote urine, which can be collected from the bladder of a killed coyote or collected under the pen of a captive animal, sells for $6.99 a pint on eBay. The summer pelt of a coyote has no market value, so trappers don't make any money in helping farmers by killing nuisance coyotes in warm months. Live coyotes, trapped any time of year, make the most money for trappers. Live coyotes can be sold outside of Indiana for use in training and running hunting dogs. Trappers say they can get from $50 to $200 for a live coyote. The rule change would limit their sale to five months of the year, and forbid possession of live coyotes except during hunting season unless the trapper has a game breeder license. The proposed change is to the Indiana Administrative Code, in a section that regulates natural resources, including wildlife. The Indiana state organizer for the Humane Society of the United States calls enacting the change “a top priority.” As things stand Coyote hunting and trapping season runs Oct. 15 through March 15, but nuisance coyotes may be taken on private land outside of the season with written permission from the land owner. Livestock farmers often depend upon coyote hunters when the predators kill calves, lambs, baby goats and poultry. Current Indiana wildlife regulations do not restrict how long a trapper may keep a live coyote, nor the conditions in which the animal is housed until it is killed or sold. The Natural Resources Commission, an advisory body to the DNR, has proposed deleting the rule that states, “A coyote must not be possessed from April 5 through October 14 except to provide for its prompt disposal” because “prompt disposal” is vague and difficult to enforce. Another change adds “A coyote taken ... from March 16 through October 14 must be euthanized within twenty-four (24) hours of capture. A coyote taken ... from March 16 through October 14 shall not be: possessed for more than twenty-four (24) hours; or sold, traded; bartered; or gifted.” Changes to the regulations do not place restrictions on what a trapper may do with a live coyote during hunting season. Mike Crider, director of law enforcement for the DNR, said the statute's current wording makes enforcement difficult. “We don't believe it was the Legislature's intent to ever allow live sale of coyotes outside of regular season. Most folks believe the intent of the statute was to allow land owners to kill (nuisance coyotes). ... We tried to change the rules so everyone understands the rules and is on the same playing field.” In November 2007, Crider was involved in an eight-state undercover investigation of the illegal sale of live coyotes, which revealed that Indiana was a major supplier of coyotes to predator enclosures where hunting dogs are run. Wildlife officials in other states have asked Indiana to stop being a source, Crider said. The heads of the Ohio and Kentucky natural resource departments have formally asked Indiana officials to ban the sale of live coyotes. Trappers oppose changes Tim Rose is the Indiana state organizer for the Fur Takers of America. In an e-mail interview, Rose said the organization opposes the proposed rule changes. “Ask any farmer that has had a newborn calf taken down and killed by coyotes if they feel that ‘free' coyote control isn't important to them during the summer months. Currently trappers do a service to the farmer/landowner for free in the off season. “The only way a trapper can recoup his or her cost is by being able to trade, sell or barter the coyote. “If trappers cannot recoup the cost, then the farmer or, worse yet, the tax payer may have to bear the burden in the near future. Why take away the incentive for trappers to do ‘free' coyote control?” Rose said. “Many serious coyote men and women have hung up their traps in protest over the proposed rule change and this will have a very serious effect on Indiana's coyote population if we can't get these professionals back out in the field,” Rose said. Those in favor In support of the rule changes, the Humane Society cites state code, which states, “All wild animals, except those that are: (1) legally owned or being held in captivity under a license or permit ... are the property of the people of Indiana.” They say trappers have no right to sell live coyotes that belong to the state's taxpayers. The proposed changes are a step in the right direction, animal advocates say, but do not prevent sale of live coyotes during trapping season. “We would like to see it be a year-round ban,” said Anne Sterling, Indiana director of the Humane Society of the United States, who lives in Bloomington. What about coyotes that threaten livestock? “No one wants to see farmers lose their animals, but folks have a responsibility to (protect) their investment. If farmers complain that coyotes are killing their livestock, then it would make sense that the farmers would put the animals in at night or take other measures to protect their livestock,” Sterling said. In the Statehouse There are no bills before the Legislature to either ban the sale of live coyotes or to block the proposed trapping rule changes. Both Rose, the trapper, and Sterling, with Humane Society, are urging legislators to take up their opposing banners. State Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, endorses the changes, saying “The DNR rule is a small step in the right direction. However, more needs to be done. I hope the Legislature will act to prohibit the export of coyotes for use as live bait. No civilized society should tolerate this inhumane treatment.” Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Commission is accepting comments from the public on the rule change. If approved by the NRC, the attorney general and the governor, the changes would become effective in 2009. Riverside County shelters have dogs rolling over for Beethoven 01/28/2008 Press-Enterprise - Desert Bureau Moore, Steve Return to Top Britney and Metallica hyped them up. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" and Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" soothed. For dogs, a growing body of research indicates they bark less and suffer fewer anxiety attacks when listening to Bach, Schubert and Chopin. In the Inland area, piped-in chamber music, concertos and sonatas waft through county animal shelters 24 hours a day in Riverside and Thousand Palms. Brian Cronin, division chief of San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control, said his agency will study results in Riverside County and may consider a similar program. Senior animal behaviorist Teryn Hartnett sees happier, better-adjusted, easier-to-adopt dogs as she strolls among the kennels for the Riverside County Department of Animal Services. "A shelter dog's world is pretty stressful," she says. "Their owners are gone, the only environment they've probably ever known -- their home -- is gone. "They don't understand why they were left here or why an animal control officer picked them up off the street and put them in the back of a truck." Familiar with the research on dogs' reactions to music, Hartnett won approval for canine classical. The piped-in music began last summer, and the cost at each facility is about $100 a month. Anecdotal evidence from shelter employees and visitors shows that the animals are calmer and spend more time at the front of the cage -- boosting their adoption chances, she said. Music is catching on. "I remember this big, burly guy in a plaid shirt walking down the hallway in Riverside," Hartnett said. "He told me, 'You guys didn't use to play this music? It's for the dogs? Well, I like it, too.' " Some experts say stressed-out dogs overwhelmed by the sounds around them are sending a warning signal about our noisy world. Aromatherapy And besides soothing music, shelter dogs could soon get a whiff of something really calming: lavender. The fragrant bluish-purple plant will sprout inside the county's desert animal shelter in unincorporated Thousand Palms. Aromatherapy worked well at the Riverside shelter during a 1 ½-month experiment, Hartnett said. Barking, pacing and jumping decreased as dogs enjoyed the perfumelike smell, Hartnett said. People liked it, too. "They would say, 'This kennel is cleaner. The dogs are cleaner,' " Hartnett said. "But they didn't realize what it was." Roll Over, Beethoven Today, it's a big job giving dogs -- and cats -- peace of mind at an estimated 6,000 shelters across the United States. Researchers have long known that music can calm people or stir them up. With humans, exposure to "grunge rock" can trigger increased hostility, sadness, tension and fatigue. But listening to "designer" music (sound created for a specific effect) gives people greater mental clarity, vigor and relaxation, research shows. Only recently did science learn that the same things happen with dogs. In her 2003 research paper, professor Deborah L. Wells of the Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, found the link. Wells' work involving 50 mixed-breed dogs (male and female, all neutered) exposed the animals to music by Britney Spears, Metallica and others -- along with more than a dozen pieces by such classical giants as Beethoven and Vivaldi. Researchers tested how dogs reacted to different music (and to no music) for four hours at a stretch, tracking their behavior every 10 minutes. Experts say dogs hear much higher frequencies than people do -- about 50,000 hertz. "Anything with a loud, rapid, harsh beat wouldn't be soothing to their ears," said Nancy Peterson, issue specialist for the Humane Society of the United States. Wells also tried aromatherapy and, based on the dogs' behavior, found lavender to be the most calming. Listen Up Sound researcher Joshua Leeds, Juilliard-trained pianist Lisa Spector and veterinary neurologist Susan Wagner produced a new book and CD called "Through a Dog's Ear: Using Sound to Improve the Health & Behavior of Your Canine Companion." "Doggie classical" features slower tempos, fewer instruments and reorchestration techniques, including deleting complex, melodic sections, Leeds said. And to a dog's ear, a solo piano sounds sweeter than an entire symphony orchestra, Leeds said. For 20 years, the researcher has studied the effect of music and sound on the human nervous system. Researchers found tempo, pattern and tone can change brainwaves, heart rate and breathing, he said. But would dogs react the same way, Leeds wondered "I'd never seen a dog pant, wag its tail, tap a paw in rhythm," Leeds writes in liner notes. "I was certainly a little skeptical." His company, BioAcoustic Research & Development, undertook two pilot studies between June 2004 and September 2005. In all, 150 dogs were scientifically observed in animal shelters, veterinary clinics, service organizations, grooming facilities and homes. They heard regular classical music and "doggie classical" featuring Mozart, Chopin, Debussy and Rachmaninoff. The bottom line: Dogs don't react the same way to all classical music. Clinical trials showed 70 percent of kenneled canines and 85 percent of household dogs became noticeably calmer listening to specially designed classical music, Leeds said. Dogs also exhibited less anxiety in many troublesome situations, including an owner leaving, a doorbell ringing and a thunderstorm. As a sound researcher, Leeds fears people aren't hearing the subtle message about a human world filled with blaring TVs, ringing phones and screaming sirens. Such sounds are a major factor in why canines act out, he said. During veterinary visits, about 90 percent of pet owners bring up a behavioral problem about their animal. "Our dogs are a first indicator," he said. "And we're not paying attention." He uses the example of coal miners relying on caged canaries to tell them when the air has become toxic. Dogs do the same with "auditory overload," Leeds said. After 10,000 years of being around humans, canines work at coping. "But what are we doing to our best buddies, our canine companions?" Leeds asks. "We're perhaps poisoning them with too much auditory garbage. "Dogs are showing us the symptoms for them and ourselves," Leeds said. "But are we smart enough to see it? "You begin to think, 'How am I feeling?' "The finger points back. "It's all one big loop," he said. State court ruling might root out 'canned' wild boar hunts 01/28/2008 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review LaRussa, Tony Return to Top Since he began hunting in his early 20s, Dr. John Zora has looked forward to every opportunity to get away with friends and enjoy nature. "I love going out in the woods to hunt," said Zora, 52, of Whitehall. "But all the great experiences I've had through the years didn't match the feeling of taking my 12-year-old son, Matthew, out hunting for the first time." Zora's recent hunting excursion with his son was on a wild boar preserve in Butler County where they paid to bag prey in a fenced-in area. Hunters and preserve operators are worried that a Dec. 27 state Supreme Court ruling could put an end to so-called "canned hunts." "We've invested a substantial amount of time and money in this business, so we're certainly concerned about the impact the court's ruling could have on our operation," said Andy Krantz, whose 208-acre Double Boar Ranch outside of Clarion opened just a day after the court issued its ruling. "I would have no problem with a certain amount of regulation, but they shouldn't be so excessive that it forces us out of business," he said. The state Supreme Court ruling reclassified wild boars as "protected mammals," which means the state Game Commission will regulate how the animals are hunted. Before the ruling, the commission considered wild boars as domestic pigs rather than game animals and allowed them to be killed when and where they were encountered in the woods. Opponents of pay-to-hunt operations say shutting down preserves is precisely their goal. "I think the hunting preserves should be banned," said Johnna Seeton of Harrisburg, who filed the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court decision. "As long as the animals are fenced in, they don't have a fair chance of getting away. What occurs on these preserves is absolutely gruesome," she said. Seeton, a board member of the Pennsylvania Legislative Animal Network, said she is opposed to any hunting. Zora and other hunters say harvesting game from reserves can be more humane than hunting in the wild because there is no chance a wounded animal will run off and die slowly. "I see no difference between going to the supermarket and buying pork chops that came from a slaughterhouse and going to a preserve and shooting an animal myself, except the animals I harvest aren't pumped up with hormones or other chemicals," Zora said. Seeton said she decided to go after preserves after seeing video footage of wounded animals chased to the end of a preserve and killed while up against a fence. "How can anybody possibly call that hunting?" she said. "I've lived among hunters all my life, and most of them oppose canned hunts." The lack of oversight opens the door for more nefarious practices such as drugging animals, tying them up or luring them with food, Seeton said. She conceded, however, that when bringing the lawsuit, no evidence was presented that these practices occur at preserves in Pennsylvania. Melody Zullinger, executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, said even hunters who do not hunt on preserves generally do not oppose canned hunts as long as operators treat animals humanly, prevent them from escaping into the wild and take steps to make sure they are disease-free. "If you're talking about tying animals up or drugging them, most hunters would say that isn't hunting," Zullinger said. "But I think they're OK with canned hunts as long as the animals have a fair chance." The Game Commission is expected to issue regulations this week on how wild boars can be hunted legally. The agency, however, is awaiting a separate ruling from the Commonwealth Court before deciding what to do with private boar hunting preserves, said Jerry Feaser, commission spokesman. "We may have to come up with a new set of regulations and ways to enforce them for the pay-to-hunt operations," Feaser said. "The final chapter has not been written on this issue." Easy answers elusive for salmon vs. sea lions 01/27/2008 Tri-City Herald Return to Top The days appear to be numbered for a few salmon-poaching sea lions who use the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River as their own all-you-can-eat buffet. Washington, Oregon and Idaho had been seeking a solution to the sea lion dilemma for years, after failed attempts to drive off or relocate the offending sea lions. The states didn't get exactly what they wanted in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service recommendation to kill 30 sea lions at the Bonneville Dam, but it's a good start considering the pinnipeds eat about 4 percent of the spring run at the dam. When you take into account that some people have been lobbying to remove the dams from the Snake River and upset the entire system of electrical power, navigation and irrigation water to save salmon, sacrificing a few dozen sea lions doesn't seem like such an extreme measure. Those who think sea lions are simply cute and funny blobs of blubber to be enjoyed from the shoreline might want to talk to some boat owners in Northern California, where sea lions have taken over vessels. A good-sized sea lion can sink a small boat. Some marinas have been abandoned entirely because of sea lions. A permit was awarded in the 1990s to kill gluttonous sea lions at the Ballard Locks in Seattle, but the sea lions were spared by a public more interested in the mammals than the fish. The offending sea lions were relocated to Sea World in Florida, but the damage already was done. The sea lions killed 65 percent of the winter steelhead at the locks and the fish population never recovered. What has recovered quite nicely in the past few decades is the sea lion population on the West Coast. From only around 10,000 in the 1950s, the population now numbers 300,000. Wildlife biologists say that is about the maximum number the environment can sustain. Despite a population that is maxed out at �carrying capacity,� sea lions still are protected in U.S. waters under the Marine Mammal Act, hence requiring approval from the federal government to cull the herd of those wreaking havoc on salmon runs. Killing the 30 most damaging sea lions at Bonneville Dam is one of four options for which NOAA will be taking public comments through Feb. 19. The other options include doing nothing, which would further decimate the fragile salmon run; continue to try to find a hazing solution like rubber buckshot and loud noises, none of which have created long-term solutions; or kill all sea lions within five miles of the dam. That last option may have the most lasting consequences for salmon survival, is closest to what the states requested and would result in the deaths of about 150 sea lions. Any option is sure to be controversial. Powerful groups are lined up on both sides, with the Humane Society of the United States opposing the sea lion kill and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission supporting the plan. We don't envy any agency that's stuck in the middle of that fight. Unfortunately, nonlethal methods have been tried repeatedly without success. Significant damage is being done to endangered salmon runs by a tiny percentage of the sea lion population. When you weigh the two consequences, saving the salmon is the obvious choice to have the greatest benefit on our Northwest waterways. Miami-Dade County voters to decide on pari-mutuel slot machines 01/27/2008 Associated Press (AP) SAINZ, ADRIAN Return to Top Voters in Florida's largest county will reconsider Tuesday whether they want slot machines installed at three pari-mutuel facilities, with tax dollars from the new gambling attraction bolstering a state education fund. Miami-Dade County voters rejected slot machines in a 2005 referendum, though voters in neighboring Broward County approved them for its jai-alai fronton and horse and dog racetracks during the same election. Miami-Dade voters will determine whether to add Las Vegas-style slot machines at Miami Jai-Alai, the Flagler Sports and Entertainment Center dog track and Calder Race Course, which features horses. It's a contentious issue that again brings the pros and cons of gambling to the forefront. Slot machine critics say gambling is a vice that targets the poor, erodes family values and is not the answer for Florida's education needs. Proponents say slots in Florida generate needed money for education and can help bolster a sluggish economy. They point out that slots are already available in Broward and on gambling boats that leave Miami for international waters. Video lottery machines, which are similar to slots, are available at an Indian casino. And since 2006, slot machines have been operating at three Broward County "racinos" _ Gulfstream Park, Pompano Park Race Track and Mardi Gras Racetrack and Gaming Center _ generating more than $100 million for the state's Educational Enhancement Trust Fund, said Sam Farkas, spokesman for the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. The state levies a 50 percent tax on Broward slot machine revenues, and Miami-Dade's rate would be the same if slots are approved. Supporters have raised millions in their pro-slot machines campaigns. One political committee, called Yes for a Greater Miami-Dade, had received more than $5.2 million in contributions and spent more than $3.3 million as of Dec. 31, according to Florida Department of State elections reports. A study done by Coral Gables-based Washington Economics Group said more than 6,400 jobs could be created by the slot machines in their first year of operation, according to Yes for a Greater Miami-Dade. The study projects $26 million in tax revenues will go to the county and the cities of Miami and Miami Gardens in the first year. Among those who support the slots measure are Flagler Sports and Entertainment Center owner Barbara Havenick, former U.S. Rep. Carrie Meek and state Sen. Alex Villalobos, R-Miami. Havenick has said she plans to make improvements to the aging facility if slots are approved. One constant from the 2005 vote is the involvement of Jeb Bush, who campaigned against the slots measure when he was governor. His efforts back then are widely believed to have helped sway voters against the proposal. This time around, both Bush and former governor and U.S. Sen. Bob Graham oppose Miami-Dade slots. A group called Truth for Our Community sent out statements from Bush and Graham urging a "no" vote, and both former politicians have or will cut radio commercials to publicize their stance. "As a lifetime citizen of this community, I am saddened at the continued attempts to define our beautiful community's future as tied to a slot machine. We are better than that," Graham wrote. Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina, a catalyst behind Truth for Our Community, said slot proponents overestimate how much money will go to education and how many jobs will be created. And, Robaina said, Miami-Dade will absorb the negatives of gambling while creating revenues from which the 66 other Florida counties will benefit. "Why are we producing this money that's going to Orlando, that's going to Gainesville, that's going to Orlando and Tallahassee? They're laughing at us," Robaina said, calling Miami-Dade a "donor county." Even the Humane Society of the United States has chimed in, donating $500,000 for the anti-slots campaign because of the potential economic benefits the machines present for dog racing, which it strongly opposes. With an estimated 2,402,208 people, Miami-Dade ranks eighth among the nation's counties in population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. State figures show there are about 3,285 slot machines running in Florida. The addition of slots in Miami-Dade could potentially add 2,000 to that total. Some industry observers said the Broward slots have not met expectations, partly because of the high tax rate and competition from the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Seminoles have seven casinos in the state, including two juggernauts: the Hard Rock hotels and entertainment centers in Tampa and Hollywood. Joseph Weinert, senior vice president of Spectrum Gaming Group in Northfield, N.J., said Wall Street investors and slot machine manufacturers have been nonplussed with the amount of money generated by Broward's slots. "Given the relatively poor performance of slot machines in Broward, I don't think that too many people see slot machines in Miami-Dade as being an instant bonanza," Weinert said. David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at University of Nevada Las Vegas, said the 50 percent tax rate "discourages investment, discourages amenities and ultimately discourages people from going there." However, Schwartz did note that the slots could have some economic benefit, a "ripple effect" for the immediate area around the Miami-Dade facilities. In November, the Seminole Tribe and the state agreed to allow Las Vegas style slots, blackjack and other card games at the Indian casinos, in return for tax dollars generated by those games. Legislative leaders have challenged the agreement in court. If Miami-Dade pari-mutuels get slot machines, they will join Broward's facilities in competing with the vast experience and deep pockets of the Seminoles, Weinert said. "Whatever the racinos can do from a marketing perspective, the Seminoles can do three times better," Weinert said. Mobile clinic provides low-cost veterinary services for furry friends 01/27/2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Johnson, Annysa Return to Top Lisa J. Kerwin-Lucchi scrubs in, leans over the operating table and gets to work. She makes a short incision just under the patient's umbilicus and sets about removing the ovaries and uterus. Dodge County Humane Society employee Jessica Matos shaves anesthetized cats before they are neutered this month in Beaver Dam. Photo/Mark Hoffman Volunteer Sabine French gently wakes an anesthetized cat after it was neutered. This is no high-tech surgical suite, but rather a makeshift setup in a former factory in this Dodge County community, and the patient is no woman, but Boz, a 7-year-old pit bull who's had 26 pups. Boz's breeding days ended this month, thanks to a year-old program - the only one of its kind in the state - that provides low-cost spaying and neutering services to mostly rural communities in six Wisconsin counties. 'Our focus is on keeping these animals in their homes and out of the shelters, to keep those litters from coming in,' said Liz Yohn, who oversees the Dane County Humane Society's Shelter Outreach Services, or SOS, Mobile Clinic. SOS, modeled after a program in Ithaca, N.Y., hit the road in November 2006 with a grant from the Humane Society of the United States. In its first year, it spayed or neutered nearly 1,500 dogs and cats; many of their owners could not afford the $120 to $250 the procedures typically cost at a private veterinarian's office. The mobile unit arrived on this day for one of its twice monthly clinics in Beaver Dam, where the Dodge County Humane Society takes in about 1,000 animals a year, according to shelter director Kim Waugus. By the end of the day, the surgical team - on this day veterinarian Kerwin-Lucchi and technician Lori McAuley - had spayed or neutered seven dogs and 12 cats with the help of Waugus and a small crew of shelter workers and volunteers. Waugus, whose facility housed 70 kittens at one point last year, has specifically targeted cat owners because of the felines' prolific reproductive abilities. (They can produce up to four litters a year starting at 6 months.) And she's seeing some progress. 'For the first one we did, a farmer in Markesan brought in 16 cats, his entire (outdoor) colony,' said Waugus, who negotiated a reduced rate for the man. 'There's no way he could have afforded to do that at a vet's office,' she said. Prices vary among the groups that host SOS. Dodge County Humane Society charges $30 to $50 for cats and $60 to $80 for dogs, depending on their gender, which affects the complexity of the surgery. That attracted Melissa Carpenter of Watertown, who brought in her two Pomeranians, Marvin and Rufus, along with her brother's cat. Carpenter has a great vet, she said, 'a heck of a guy.' 'But even at his prices, we couldn't afford it,' she said. The day starts early, around 7:30 a.m., as owners begin dropping off their crated animals, and Waugus and company prepare the donated space for the SOS team's arrival. They erect tables in suites around the room, one for exams and another for pre-op and surgery, and lay old quilts on the floor in the center. 'That's the recovery room,' Waugus said. Kerwin-Lucchi and McAuley arrive in short order, carrying their equipment - portable anesthesia machines, oxygen tanks - and plastic bins full of supplies. 'It's not ideal,' Kerwin-Lucchi said of the makeshift nature of the clinics. 'But it works. I've not heard of any post-op problems.' Waugus assists as Kerwin-Lucchi weighs and examines each animal, checking its ears, its eyes, its heart rate and, for males, ensuring that they are in fact intact. McCauley gives the initial injections, and the parade of animals into pre-op begins. Not everyone is as enamored of the program. It's faced opposition in some communities from veterinarians, who fear it will take away their business. Waugus and Yohn disagree, saying most of the people they serve don't have the resources to see a private vet. 'When you go to a vet, you're paying for that long-term relationship and the availability of services down the road,' said Yohn, a veterinary technician who left a career in emergency medicine to focus on relief work after volunteering in post-Katrina Louisiana. 'And it's worth it,' she said. 'But we're making this available for people who can't afford that.' More pets abandoned; more pets put to death 01/27/2008 Hutchinson News Clarkin, Mary Return to Top Peace, surrounded by Happiness and Love, could be found Friday afternoon at the Hutchinson Animal Shelter. "Surrendered," noted the one-sheet description for each 4-month-old Labrador mix puppy.And there were more. Siblings Meadow, Petal and Harmony rounded out the six-puppy batch that arrived at the shelter Thursday. The number of animals surrendered by the public to the shelter shot up more than 250 percent in 2007 over 2006. Stray animals captured and brought to the shelter, at 1501 S. Severance, continued to account for the majority of the shelter's population. But in 2007, the next-largest category became animals surrendered by the public, surpassing the number of lost animals reclaimed by their owners. Another number also rose at the animal shelter in 2007.About 1,800 dogs and cats were killed by lethal injection, for a 21 percent climb in euthanasia. Entering year three A citizen-driven movement spurred Hutchinson to drop its method of contracting animal shelter services and to erect a city-run shelter, which opened Jan. 3, 2006. One complaint about the old shelter had been the killing rate of animals, amounting to 73 percent during 2000. More animals were euthanized in 2007 at the new shelter than in 2000 at the old operation, but the new shelter handles more animals than its predecessor. The monthly euthanasia rate for dogs and cats at the new shelter averaged 51 percent in 2006 and 49 percent in 2007, according to shelter records. "Because we do have a nice, new facility here, people are more willing to leave them here," said Hutchinson Animal Services director Amber Mings, speculating on the rise in surrendered animals. A national shelter survey, prompted by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy and conducted over a four-year span in the 1990s, found an average euthanization rate exceeding 63 percent. Unfortunately, not every shelter collects data in the same fashion, making it difficult to gather statistics on euthanasia, said Kim Intino, director of sheltering issues for the Humane Society of the United States. It is estimated, though, she said, that about 6 million to 8 million dogs and cats enter a shelter yearly, and roughly half of them are euthanized. By that measure, the local shelter would fit in the national average. Medical, behavioral reasons Some animals arrived at the Hutchinson Animal Shelter with a case of mange or ringworm, or a history of biting people. Feral cats, unfriendly cats or cats with upper respiratory problems also were checked in. Mings said behavioral assessments are conducted to determine if an animal is adoptable. A biting dog, for example, is not considered a candidate for adoption. Last year, more dogs and cats were euthanized at the shelter for medical or behavioral reasons than because of space needs. The most astonishing statistics that Mings sees in 2007 data deal with the overlooked cats. Last year, more than twice as many dogs were adopted at the shelter than cats. Outside rescue groups provide one outlet for animals not adopted, but they are more interested in dogs than cats, she noted. Three out of four animals euthanized for any reason at the shelter last year were cats. What they mutter At Golden Belt Humane Society's shelter in Great Bend, the euthanization rates for dogs and cats were 55 percent and 52 percent, respectively, in 2007, said director Gayle Broberg. Rates were higher for puppies and kittens. "Everybody thinks all these animals get adopted. They don't," she said. Broberg is pleased that the number of animals returned to owners has risen considerably from prior years, but she is dismayed by the euthanasia numbers that included 97 kittens, many of them surrendered to the shelter, unwanted. "People don't realize that basically, what we're doing is we're cleaning up somebody else's mess," she said. "There's one common thing you will hear all shelter people and animal control people say, and they mutter it a lot: 'We hate people,' " Broberg said. People surrender animals to the shelter, and staff must watch them die. "And when you do it week after week after week after week after week, it just is ridiculous," Broberg said. If you don't educate people about this, she said, it will never change. 'Not a God-given right' "Stop the breeding. Period," said Hutchinson resident Danny Brizendine, an advocate for the spaying and neutering of animals. "Then, once it gets under control, you ration the breeding." Brizendine sees a "real serious epidemic" and thinks the community response "has to be as aggressive as the problem." Brizendine recently placed ads in The News offering "dead dogs and cats for sale," claiming that the euthanized animals "make great bookends, door stops, and can be stuffed for viewing." He ended the ads with the advice for pet owners to spay and neuter their pets. It's not the responsibility of veterinarians to provide discount prices for these procedures, said Brizendine. "I would say 80 percent of Hutchinson cannot afford an animal," he said. Having a pet is "not a God-given right. We think it is, but it is not," he said. Hutchinson has a new license that dog breeders must obtain. As of last week, no licenses had been issued. 'Sadder thing to hear' The failure to fix animals so they can't reproduce remains the underlying issue, according to the Humane Society's Intino. If fewer animals were born in the first place, she said, that would reduce the need for euthanization at shelters. "These animals are generated by the public, whether they are because someone is not spaying or neutering or whether someone is taking on a pet they can't handle and they bring that pet to the animal shelter," Intino said. It's understandable that very sick or very aggressive animals would be euthanized, she said, but the "sadder thing to hear" is the euthanization of healthy animals because of a lack of cages. Pet program The Stop Overpopulation of Pets (STOP) voucher program is available for lower-income Reno County residents seeking financial help to spay or neuter their pet. Services are rendered for little or no cost to the pet owner. Generally, applicants must meet federal Housing and Urban Development income guidelines, but special circumstances will be considered. STOP is a collaborative effort of Cause for Paws Inc., the Hutchinson Animal Shelter Support Group, and participating veterinarians at five centers in Hutchinson and South Hutchinson. Applications are available at the shelter, 1501 S. Severance. For more information, call the shelter at 694-1924 between noon and 6 p.m. Tuesday through Sunday. New state law on pet shops imposes stricter standards of care 01/27/2008 Ventura County Star Hoops, Stephanie Return to Top Unlike other parts of the state, Ventura County does not have pervasive problems with pet stores, according to Ventura County Animal Regulation Director Kathy Jenks. "We don't have dozens or hundreds of pet shops that sell imported puppies or kittens that come from puppy mills," she said. "We're really lucky." The state's pet store industry has come under attack by citizens and legislators, with California stepping up regulation and the Humane Society of the United States tracing problems to Midwest puppy mills. In October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1347, the Pet Store Animal Care Act, which imposes stricter standards for the daily care of all animals sold in stores, not just cats and dogs. The new law also gives enforcement officers the power to ticket store owners for violations. In addition, veterinary care is required for illness or injuries, and procedures for euthanasia are spelled out for the first time. Since December, the Humane Society has received more citizen complaints, likely as a result of its investigation tracing puppies sold at Pets of Bel Air, an upscale Los Angeles shop that caters to Hollywood stars. The organization accused the store of selling puppies from mills that mass-breed dogs for sale, often keeping them in bare-wire cages. The practice is not illegal but many animal welfare groups consider it cruel. The Humane Society reported that five of the puppy mills were "large-scale breeding facilities — like factories" that house 100 to 300 dogs. "We do not condone puppy mills; we would never knowingly buy a dog from a puppy mill, and we are appalled by the possibility that this may have happened," according to a statement on the store's Web site. The statement continues that the shop purchases dogs from pet breeders approved by the United States Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for inspecting facilities. The store added that "it feels as though the USDA has failed our business." "Since the situation in L.A., we're hearing a lot more (dissatisfaction)," said Eric Sakach, director of the West Coast Region of the Humane Society of the United States. "Many people don't know what their rights are and what they're supposed to receive from the pet store." California law requires that pet retailers "state on each dog's cage where the dog was bred/brokered." They also must have the dog examined by a veterinarian and maintain documented health records. A sign also must be posted in "close proximity" to the dog's cage indicating that information on "veterinary treatments received by these dogs is available." Complaint-driven system State law does not require that pet store owners be licensed. California also does not conduct its own investigations, unlike 25 states including Oregon and Nevada that have a state agency overseeing the industry. Instead, inspections are done at the local level by either local Animal Control or the Humane Society, said Monica Engebretson, senior program associate with the Sacramento-based animal advocacy nonprofit Born Free USA United With the Animal Protection Institute. "Every area might have a different procedure," she said. Regular inspections are not required, but local authorities can conduct them if they choose to do so. Typically, pet stores are inspected at the urging of citizens. "It's complaint-driven," Engebretson said, "so it requires concerned citizens to call attention to the stores." In Ventura County, the Humane Society enforces state law. "If people have concerns about how animals are cared for in a pet store, they need to contact the Humane Society, because they do investigations on cruelty and abuse or neglect," said Jenks of Ventura County Animal Regulation. Jolene Hoffman, shelter director for the Humane Society of Ventura County, said its enforcement officer gets about 12 complaints and conducts up to 48 inspections a year involving various pet stores throughout Ventura County. She declined to release information about the complaints, saying they're confidential. Operating under a spotlight Although it's difficult to be certain because there is no licensing system, All Pet Headquarters in Camarillo might be the only pet store in the county that sells puppies. Jenks said it is. The others, she said, offer animals for adoption. "The pet stores here are reputable," Jenks said. "These are people living in the community, and they aren't out making problems for us." While All Pet Headquarters has been taken to small claims court by customers seeking reimbursements after purchasing sick puppies, the Better Business Bureau has given the business an "A" or "excellent" rating. Hoffman had no comment about All Pet Headquarters. All Pet Headquarters' owners, Dennis and Laurie Pickersgill, say they purchase puppies from breeders in the Midwest but are adamant that they don't come from puppy mills. Laurie said she's visited her breeders to ensure they're reputable. The Pickersgills' puppies aren't caged in the store. They romp freely in a large pen filled with newspaper, dog beds and toys. The Pickersgills say they find it difficult to run a pet store because so many people come in with ideas that aren't always true. "If they've got their mind made up," said Laurie, "nothing I say or do, nothing they see is going to make any difference. If they come in with an open mind, they're going to find that our puppies are well cared for, well socialized, and healthy and happy." In anticipation of the changes in California law that will go into effect Jan. 1, 2009, the Pickersgills have purchased a 350-gallon tank of fresh water. Dennis said disaster plans must be documented and the tank is on site "in case the infrastructure goes down." Most of the new requirements won't be burdensome, he said, because the store is in compliance. "All these things we do," he said, "even without legislation because it was the right thing to do, so we've done it well for 20 years." All Pet Headquarters is working with the nonprofit rescue group Concerned People for Animals, which makes rescued or abandoned dogs available for adoption at the store, 2530 E. Las Posas Road. Consumer tips Animal care - Dogs must be examined by veterinarians within five days of being offered for sale, and at 15-day intervals thereafter. Puppies sleep together in the corner of a large pen at All Pet Headquarters. An owner says puppies romp freely in the pen filled with newspaper, dog beds and toys. - Dogs must have enough space to stand, sit and turn around freely using normal body movements, without their heads touching the tops of cages. - They must be able to lie in natural positions. - All animals must be provided with "adequate nutrition." - Pet dealers must provide sanitary housing for all animals. - Dogs must be provided with "adequate socialization and exercise," meaning "physical contact with other dogs or with human beings." - Sick dogs must receive proper veterinarian care without delay. Pet stores - Retail dealers must state on each dog's cage where the dog was bred or brokered. - If a dog is returned to the pet dealer for illness or disease, the dealer must provide proper veterinary care. - Pet dealers are prohibited from knowingly selling diseased or ill dogs. - Pet dealers must give purchasers of cats or dogs written papers recommending spaying or neutering as well as veterinarian-wellness visits. - Pet dealers must give purchasers of cats or dogs written papers stating the animals' health, vaccination and ownership histories. - Pet dealers must post consumer notice signs near the cages of dogs that describe the dogs' veterinarian treatments. PETA supporters barking up the wrong tree 01/27/2008 SouthCoastToday.com Return to Top An animal rights person was mad at me (honest, no kidding) because I used a report from the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) in last week's column exposing PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as animal killers. The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) had announced that PETA, a Virginia-based animal rights extremist organization, filed a report with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, indicating the group killed over 97 percent of the pets surrendered to the organization (to be placed in adoption) in 2006. This placed PETA at nearly three times the average euthanasia rate of local animal shelters (34.7 percent) throughout Virginia. In all, the self-proclaimed ethical(?) animal rights organization killed nearly 3,000 animals in 2006 while only placing 12 pets into adoption that same year, reported the USSA. Most Popular StoriesSo Tracy Habenicht from IL wrote in to The S-T, saying that I need a refresher course in Journalism 101 because I used that information from a press release without giving PETA a chance to respond. Let's set the record straight. Refresher courses are for people who already have taken the course in question. I have never taken a course in Journalism 101, so there is no need for a refresher. I am not a journalist. I am a columnist, outdoors specifically, therefore I can write opinion, humor, adventure, how-to or tips and almost any kind of story as long as I can tie it in with the outdoors. As the S-T responded to Habenicht, "Mr. Folco writes a column from his personal perspective. The column is not intended to be an objective news story." (Thank you, S-T). PETA is notoriously anti-hunting, anti-fishing and anti-meat eating so it's no secret that the group and I are enemies. They demonize the sporting lifestyle that I live and write about and they want to end that traditional lifestyle for millions of people nationwide (and worldwide), so whenever reliable news releases come through that "stick it to 'em," I like to use them. I don't need to get their response. If animal rights extremists don't like hunting, fishing or eating meat, then they shouldn't hunt, fish or eat meat. But instead of being tolerant of other people's lives, they want to end the sporting lifestyle and also remove beef and chicken from out plates, while shoving their bean sprouts and tofu down our throats. And they make their millions to further their agenda and feather the nests of rich executives by masquerading as pet lovers. In her letter, Habenicht didn't dispute the report that exposed PETA as placing only 12 pets out of 3,000 killed. Instead, she spun it and said that the CCF cares only about making money. So, let's talk money. If anybody cares about taking your money, it's the animal rights extremist groups. PETA's latest financial report lists its total revenue at more than $31 million. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) another animal rights extremist group, has even deeper pockets. In its 2006 financial report, the group's total revenue was more than $123 million with total assets worth more than $218 million. If they make another measly $32 million, the HSUS will be worth a quarter billion dollars. In 2004, now retired HSUS president, Paul Irwin, made more than $500,000. The same year, two executive vice presidents were making $195,000. More than 10 staff members made more than $100,000 per year. And they want little old ladies, barely making ends meet on social security, to open their purses and send them more money. After all — it's all for the fuzzy kittens and puppies — so they say. Still want to send them a check? Hunters' input is valuable My column hit the S-T's Opinion pages twice this week. The second was a letter from Retired Environmental Police Sergeant Normand Saucier, responding to my recent columns about the dwindling deer herd and the allocation of too many doe permits (in my opinion) here in Southeastern Mass. Saucier was highly respected in his field and I agree with him that wildlife management should be left in the hands of professional biologists and not subject to public opinion or politicians. But even biologists need some "input" every now and then. And in my opinion, input from local hunters, who are in the area's woods and see what's happening to the deer herd, is a valuable management tool in assessing the allocation of doe permits. After all, the state's chief deer biologist usually manages things through computer models and harvest reports from a desk at Field Headquarters in Westborough. Again I agree with Saucier that MassWildlife's main concern is the health of the deer herd, but I also have to say that the lure of selling almost 50,000 doe permits at $5 each is difficult to resist, especially during the budget crunch when agencies are subject to major cutbacks. In years past, hunters only needed a doe permit for the shotgun season and were allowed only one. Allocations increased as the herd grew until there were more permits than applications, resulting in a surplus. Hunters were then allowed to shoot a doe, check it in and then buy another surplus permit, if they were still available. The policy also changed to require doe permits during all three seasons — archery, shotgun and muzzleloader. Policy changed again and allowed surplus permits to be purchased at one per day, going on sale a week prior to the season's start, allowing hunters to hoard permits and shoot as many does in one day as they had permits. We went from one a year to one a day. And the low deer numbers must have something to do with it. So yes, I think everyone needs a little "input" every now and then. And this past season, input from hunters is that many are discouraged with seeing few, if any, deer in their usual hunting areas, which is reflected by the 25 percent decrease in the harvest during the shotgun season and a decrease during the muzzleloader season. Discouraged hunters may not buy licenses or doe permits in the future if the trend continues, which would hurt the sport — and MassWildlife. Saucier is also right about the loss of wildlife habitat and misuse of land. Land — they just aren't making any more of that stuff. Team looks out for animals in case of disaster 01/27/2008 Telegraph, The Shalhoup, Dean Return to Top The scenario is heartbreaking: Disaster pushes ashore in the form of a powerful storm, smashing and drowning property, injuring and killing your neighbors, friends, perhaps even members of your own family. You're battered, drenched, homeless and in despair. Just when you think your situation couldn't get much worse, it does: You suddenly remember Fido and Fluffy. There's no sign of them, dead or alive. Where are they? Already reeling from the trauma of loss and the anxiety of what might lie ahead, you suffer yet another blow – when you most need it, the special comfort and unconditional love that only pets can bring is also gone. But now, thanks to a grassroots effort spurred by state veterinarian Dr. Steve Crawford and a host of volunteer directors and advisers from across New Hampshire, the extra trauma of losing pets, or having to abandon them during disaster evacuation, is fast becoming a thing of the past. Called the New Hampshire Disaster Animal Response Team, the program aims to fold the handful of small, existing animal-rescue resources scattered throughout the state into a coordinated system that would take care of companion, livestock and exotic animals when disasters or large-scale emergencies strike. The NHDART initiative came into being in May, roughly nine months after the passage of the federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006, said NHDART executive director Lora dePlante, of New Ipswich. States that create such agencies become eligible for FEMA funding. The organization comes under the umbrella of the N.H. Department of Agriculture and N.H. Homeland Security and Emergency Management. It will work with local emergency officials, fire departments, humane societies, and volunteer organizations to plan and train for incidents that involve the evacuation and care of animals. A week ago, volunteers and representatives of animal agencies in several states convened at the Animal Rescue League of New Hampshire in Bedford for a day-long workshop and live-animal drill. Among those overseeing the event was Joanne Bourbeau, New England regional director for the Humane Society of the United States. "I was at Katrina," she said of helping out in the aftermath of the hurricane that hit New Orleans, "and it was so sad coming face to face with pet owners who had already lost family members and were facing losing their pets, too . . . mostly because they didn't know what to do with them. "Pets are part of the family, not objects that people own." Florida and North Carolina were the first states to push officials to look closely at the need for post-disaster animal care, dePlante said. "It was right after Hurricane Andrew," dePlante said of the hurricane that hit Florida. ". . . One farmer lost 30,000 pigs that were swept downriver during the storm. . . . Needless to say, it wasn't long before the carcasses became a major health hazard." At the workshop, several friendly but well-behaved dogs solicited pats and hugs while their human companions role-played various scenarios that could take place during an actual disaster. "It's about 'what would happen if . . .' " dePlante said. "We're set up much the same way as are local and state emergency management agencies – when an event occurs, the 'home team' owns it," she said of the city, town or region where the incident happens, "and NHDART coordinates other teams for support as needed." Arranged on tables were a series of booklets and pamphlets with information on all aspects of animal care and tips on disaster preparedness for events from hurricanes to barn fires, for creatures ranging from livestock to the common housecat. "Planning for your own pets is very important," Bourbeau said, "especially for those who have exotic or special-needs pets." DePlante agrees: "Disasters can begin right in our own backyards. The difference been a disaster and an inconvenience is planning." Animal advocacy professionals from as far away as Rhode Island came to the workshop, with the bulk representing agencies in Manchester, Laconia, Rochester, Cheshire County and Stratham, the home of the N.H. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "There's a lot of mentoring going on today, which is great – that's just what we were hoping for," Bourbeau said, listening as trainees compared notes, tweaked procedures and brought up oft-overlooked details, such as asking owners if their pet is on medication that should come with them. "It's estimated that 60 percent of the American population has pets," Bourbeau said. "A main thing we make sure to emphasize is that we're not about putting animals before people; rather, it's a matter of taking care of people with pets." Vote for better care for needy pets 01/27/2008 Chicago Tribune Return to Top What pet shelter couldn't use a $1 million face-lift? Zootoo.com, a new networking site for pet owners, is offering that amount as the top prize in a contest running through March 31. The top 20 shelters -- as chosen by Zootoo.com users' votes -- will be visited by Zootoo.com founder Richard Thompson; Bill Meade, founder of Shelter Planners of America; Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States; and other experts from the pet industry. The group will determine which of the shelters is most deserving and will get the makeover. The runner-up shelter will win $10,000, and the 18 other finalists will receive $5,000 each. Nearly 1,000 shelters are participating, including several from the Chicago area: the Green Lake Area Animal Shelter in Green Lake, Wis., Chicago's Anti-Cruelty Society, Lake Shore Animal Shelter in Chicago, and Animal Adoption Associates in Chicago. Whales A Cause In West But A Delicacy In Japan 01/27/2008 Day, The Return to Top The mammalian flesh for these dishes available year-round and served mostly to businessmen older than 40 comes from Japan's annual whale hunt, carried out, the government here declares, to advance scientific knowledge of cetaceans. An international ban on whaling grants an exception for scientific hunts, and Japan's whaling fleet uses it nearly every year to harpoon several hundred whales killing and dissecting the animals is the best way to study their physiology and learn how to safeguard them, Japanese officials contend. The fleet then brings home thousands of tons of whale meat for sale to grocery stores and restaurants such as Ohana. The hunt is on again this year in Antarctica's Southern Ocean. It's generating photogenic high-seas confrontations between whaling vessels and eco-activists while severely straining relations between Australia and Japan, longtime allies and major trading partners. The hunt also seems to be widening a cultural chasm between Japan and the Western world. Many people here regard whale as merely seafood. But in much of the West, the whale is special. It is not a creature to be sliced thin and served on a plate with ginger and grated garlic. Courts and political leaders in Australia are trying and, so far, failing to stop the Japanese from whaling in Antarctic waters over which Australia claims jurisdiction. The claim to those waters is not generally recognized by other countries, and certainly not by Japan. This is not scientific whaling, Kevin Rudd, Australia's new Labor prime minister, said recently. This is commercial whaling. Using language that seemed to mark a shift in Australian foreign policy, Rudd said his government intends to accumulate an evidence base for a legal challenge that would end commercial whaling, period. An Australian federal court order demanding that Japan abandon its hunt was hand-delivered this week by the Humane Society International to a Japanese whaling firm in Tokyo. The firm refused to accept it. In the Southern Ocean earlier this month, two activists from the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd boarded a Japanese whaler on the high seas by jumping onto a low deck from a speedboat. They were promptly grabbed by crewmen as other activists videotaped the stunt from the speedboat. Rhetoric on both sides quickly escalated, with Sea Shepherd officials accusing the Japanese of assault and kidnapping and Japanese officials in Tokyo calling Sea Shepherd a terrorist group. After generating headlines around the world, the two activists were removed from the Japanese whaler three days later by an Australian customs boat that was in the vicinity to collect information for a legal challenge to Japan's whaling operation. Several days after that, Greenpeace whaling opponents maneuvered a small inflatable boat between a Japanese whaling ship and a tanker in a bid to block a refueling. Meanwhile, the Japanese government is expressing increasing impatience with international rules that ban commercial whaling. As far as the whale issue is concerned, our position is rigid, said Hideki Moronuki, chief of the whaling section of Japan's Fisheries Agency. We have made so many compromises already. The Japanese originally announced that they would take up to 50 humpback whales in the current hunt in addition to 800 minke and 50 fin whales. The humpback kill would have been the first in more than 40 years for a recovering species whose numbers had been reduced by about 90 percent by industrial whaling. Under pressure from the United States and the European Union, where the humpback holds a special place in environmentalists' hearts, Japan backed away from that hunt. But the fleet is proceeding against the rest of the prey. The 78-member International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed the global ban in 1986 and has since declined to lift it, despite repeated demands to do so from Japan and other countries that support whaling. Citing the language of the IWC charter, Japan notes that the organization was created in 1946 not only to conserve whales but also to make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The world's whale population has substantially recovered since the ban on commercial hunting, Japan argues, so it is now time for normalization sustainable hunting of species whose numbers have bounced back. The anti-whaling camp has been insisting only on conservation, said Moronuki, the Fisheries Agency official. This contradicts the spirit of the commission. He said that unless the IWC moves this year to allow commercial whaling, the organization will collapse, as far as Japan is concerned. We consider whales as one of our fishing resources, Moronuki said. If we compromise about whales, we may have to compromise about all our fishing. A Clash of Views On Whale-Loving Creature Is a Delicacy in Japan, a Cause in the West 01/26/2008 Washington Post Harden, Blaine Return to Top At Ohana, a restaurant not far from the Japanese parliament in central Tokyo, a small plate of chilled raw whale costs $17.50. Grilled whale is $9, while whale in a hot pot goes for $29. The mammalian flesh for these dishes -- available year-round and served mostly to businessmen older than 40 -- comes from Japan's annual whale hunt, carried out, the government here declares, to advance 'scientific' knowledge of cetaceans. An international ban on whaling grants an exception for scientific hunts, and Japan's whaling fleet uses it nearly every year to harpoon several hundred whales -- killing and dissecting the animals is the best way to study their physiology and learn how to safeguard them, Japanese officials contend. The fleet then brings home thousands of tons of whale meat for sale to grocery stores and restaurants such as Ohana. The hunt is on again this year in Antarctica's Southern Ocean. It's generating photogenic high-seas confrontations between whaling vessels and eco-activists while severely straining relations between Australia and Japan, longtime allies and major trading partners. The hunt also seems to be widening a cultural chasm between Japan and the Western world. Many people here regard whale as merely seafood. But in much of the West, the whale is special. It is not a creature to be sliced thin and served on a plate with ginger and grated garlic. (Ohana serves minke whale sashimi. It has a dark red color, a soft texture and a delicate taste, not fishy, a bit like carpaccio.) Courts and political leaders in Australia are trying and, so far, failing to stop the Japanese from whaling in Antarctic waters over which Australia claims jurisdiction. The claim to those waters is not generally recognized by other countries, and certainly not by Japan. 'This is not scientific whaling,' Kevin Rudd, Australia's new Labor prime minister, said recently. 'This is commercial whaling.' Using language that seemed to mark a shift in Australian foreign policy, Rudd said his government intends to 'accumulate an evidence base' for a legal challenge that would 'end commercial whaling, period.' An Australian federal court order demanding that Japan abandon its hunt was hand-delivered this week by the Humane Society International to a Japanese whaling firm in Tokyo. The firm refused to accept it. In the Southern Ocean earlier this month, two activists from the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd boarded a Japanese whaler on the high seas by jumping onto a low deck from a speedboat. They were promptly grabbed by crewmen as other activists videotaped the stunt from the speedboat. Rhetoric on both sides quickly escalated, with Sea Shepherd officials accusing the Japanese of assault and kidnapping and Japanese officials in Tokyo calling Sea Shepherd a 'terrorist group.' Deer killing resumes at Point Reyes 01/26/2008 San Francisco Chronicle - San Rafael Bureau Fimrite, Peter Return to Top Hunters resumed shooting of nonnative deer in the Point Reyes National Seashore today, sparking renewed criticism from animal rights groups. The National Park Service approved a plan a year ago to get rid of about 1,100 fallow and axis deer using a combination of contraception and high-powered rifles. A Connecticut company, White Buffalo Inc., killed about 400 of the deer in the summer and fall, prompting and outcry from local residents who claimed carcasses were being left out to rot. The hunters reportedly returned today to a place called Muddy Hollow, where opponents say hundreds more deer are likely to be killed within the next week. The Humane Society of the United States sent a letter today that calls on U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer to end the "futile, destructive, and inhumane" program. State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco; U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma; and Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, have called for a moratorium on the killing. The culling plan, which is supported by several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, aims to get rid of all nonnative deer by 2021. So far, 80 does have been captured and sterilized with an experimental contraceptive drug. John Dell'Osso, the chief of interpretation and resource education for the Point Reyes National Seashore, said 80 percent of the dead deer are removed, but the hunters cannot retrieve every carcass and must to leave some for scavengers. Family pets on losing end of the mortgage crisis; Shelters report overflow of abandoned animals as s 01/26/2008 Edmonton Journal, The Return to Top Forget about the lost furnishings and finances. The most pitiful victims of the subprime mortgage crisis rocking the United States are the family pets. Shelters across the country have seen sharp upticks in the number of people giving up their pets in recent months because they have been forced out of their homes. And -- more tragically -- neighbours, police and foreclosure agents are finding increasing numbers of pets left to fend for themselves in abandoned homes. "We're finding too many animals who have starved to death," said Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States. While some people dump their pets on the street, others go so far as to lock the animal in a closet where their cries for help are harder to hear, she said. It can take weeks for an animal to starve to death, and desperate scratch and bite marks are usually found on doors and windows. "They will eat anything -- furniture or carpet or wallboard -- to try to ingest something,' Shain said in a telephone interview. "It's a very fearful and frantic and panicked situation for that animal to be in.' While there are no national statistics tracking how many animals are abandoned or dropped off at shelters, Shain said anecdotal evidence has shown 'huge spikes' in areas hardest-hit by the housing downturn that shows no sign of easing. Nearly two million families lost their homes to foreclosure in the first 11 months of last year after failing to keep up with mortgage payments, a hefty chunk of which were subprime loans. That's an increase of 73 per cent compared with a year earlier and represents one out of every 63 households nationwide, according to RealtyTrac which tracks mortgage data. The Humane Society recently instigated a public-awareness campaign to offer tips on finding animal-friendly rental housing and remind people that pets are much better off in a shelter. In one of the more shocking stories, more than 60 cats were found abandoned in a foreclosed home in Cincinnati last May, shortly after the foreclosure rate began to spike nationally. Twenty of those cats are being fostered while awaiting a permanent home, according to Foreclosurecats.org, a group which launched art projects to help finance the cost of caring for the kitties. Most are not as lucky. Shelters across the country are habitually overcrowded and underfunded. Even animals which stand a good chance of being adopted are often euthanized in order to free up much-needed space. That's why one pet rescue group which used to only deal with finding homes for hard-to-place strays has started temporarily fostering the pets of owners in distress. "Most of the calls we get are from people who really want to keep their pets,' said Melanie Roeder, the outreach manager at Chicago's Tree House Animal Foundation. "We try to counsel them and talk about the idea of fostering, or finding a place on their own.' The group took in the cat of one woman who only needed a few weeks to find a new place to live and is open to helping others. For others who are not able to find such a quick fix, saying goodbye is the only option. "It's pretty traumatic for everybody, especially the kids," said Terri Sparks, a spokeswoman for Chicago's largest shelter, the Animal Welfare League. "It's part of the family and they have