April, 2011

 

Articles of interest

ACTION ALERT - PUPS Bill - U.S. S 707 & HR 835

The Cat Fanciers' Association, Inc.

Legislative Alert - April 25, 2011

Appropriate forwarding is appreciated

ACTION IS NEEDED NOW- from all pet lovers in the United States. BRIEF SUMMATION: The "Puppy Uniform Safety & Protection Act" (PUPS) is a bill to amend the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA regulates large-scale commercial breeders who sell pets at wholesale or research. PUPS would dramatically change the concept of the AWA as established by Congress. It would require federal licensing and inspection of the private homes of many hobby dog breeders. It would vastly expand the power of the federal government to regulate pets in private homes.

CURRENT STATUS: PUPS has been introduced in both houses of congress. Senate Bill 707 has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry. House Bill 835 has been assigned to the Livestock, Dairy & Poultry Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture. Neither bill has been scheduled for committee hearing. The supporters of both bills have been actively gathering additional sponsors. IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED. WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL MEAN TO YOU AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS LEGISLATION: For almost forty years the AWA has been used by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate commercial activity in animals. This includes transportation, handling, housing, treatment and care of certain animals, which includes the licensing of persons who deal in pets for commerce and profit. The current law and regulations exempt retail sales by home-based hobby breeders who raise pets in their own homes and do not sell wholesale or for research. This allows many dog breeders to be exempt from federal licensing requirement because they sell direct to the ultimate pet owner, buy no animals for resale and sell no animals to other dealers.

PUPS would require USDA licensing for "high volume" dog breeders who own at least one breeding female and exceed the quota of 50 puppies placed in a year. This would dramatically expand the scope of the USDA responsibility, bringing many thousands of dog fanciers within the scope of federal inspection and regulation. Currently, hobby breeders are regulated by local authorities, leaving the USDA to concentrate on large-scale commercial and interstate animal raising and transportation. By expanding inspections to include homes of dog fanciers, the proposed changes would overwhelm the ability of the USDA to enforce the Animal Welfare Act for those it was intended to regulate - large commercial breeders who sell pets at wholesale. PUPS is NOT limited to Internet sales as the supporters imply. It applies to any breeder who reaches the numerical quota who places pets "via any means of conveyance" which includes talking on the phone or placing an ad in the classified section of a local newspaper! Supporters of the bill fail to demonstrate how use of the Internet, telephone, newspaper of other means to communicate with potential buyers have any inherent relationship with the welfare of the animals or substandard conditions.

The AWA regulates large-scale commercial breeders, many of whom ship wholesale to other states. The USDA currently has about 100 inspectors working to regulate over 3,000 commercial breeding operations. PUPS would bring thousands more hobby breeders under Federal regulation and inspection. By expanding the USDA responsibility to include home hobby breeders the USDA will be less able to concentrate on the commercial breeders and animals will suffer. The USDA will be less able to concentrate on those the AWA was intended to regulate, the large, commercial breeders who sell at wholesale. Commercial breeders may face fewer inspections if PUPS passes. The USDA has approximately 100 inspectors to cover the 3,000 Class A dealers. PUPS would greatly overextend the enforcement capacity of the USDA. The numbers of facilities/homes that would be added cannot be accurately determined but a reasonable estimate is 5,000 AKC dog breeders plus those of other registries, added to the existing 3,000 Class A Dealers. Since most home-based breeders work at a job elsewhere inspectors would experience many "call-backs". All of this is a waste of taxpayers' money and diverts the resources of the USDA from focusing on the business motivated and truly large sub-standard facilities as intended by the AWA.

The AWA currently exempts hobby breeders who sell directly to the public at retail. Consumers who buy pets directly from home breeders can see for themselves the conditions under which their prospective pet was raised. This also allows people to buy from local hobby breeders, rather than being dependent on out of state commercial breeders. If PUPS becomes law, local sources for pets will dry up, increasing the market for the commercial breeders. This will mean fewer choices for pet buyers and less personal contact with the breeder of their pet.

The proposed changes would bring private residences into the inspection and regulation process. This would improperly infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of hobby breeders of dogs by subjecting their private homes to search and inspection. No compelling justification has been shown for this intrusion into personal residences.

The federal regulations were designed for commercial operations, not residences, to regulate commercial animal raising and transportation matters. The regulations assume kennel facilities separate from the fancier's residence, which is not the case for many dog fanciers. For example, USDA regulations all but prohibit carpet and furniture in areas occupied by the animals! Home-based hobby breeders, used to treating pets as part of the family, will be unable to comply, and have to stop raising dogs. Health and socialization of pets will suffer.

 

Federal regulation of breeders selling at retail from their homes may mean individuals could face unintended problems. Zoning laws in local jurisdictions would consider a USDA licensed facility or activity to be a commercial business and individuals could be forced to move or to apply for difficult-to-obtain variances. Extensive record keeping, health certificates, fees and unknown penalties for violations would be a substantial burden for most small/moderate private home breeders. Public availability of information concerning the names/addresses of breeders or buyers would be a privacy and security concern for residential breeders.

ACTION TO TAKE:

ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS (clubs, rescue groups, etc.) should contact both your U.S. Senators and your Congressmen to let them know you oppose the "Puppy Uniform Safety & Protection Act" (PUPS) as it is written. Ask them to NOT be a cosponsor of PUPS (Senate Bill 707 or House Resolution 835) and if they are already signed on as cosponsors ask them to WITHDRAW their support.

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED.

PLANNED MEETINGS: Neither bill has been scheduled for committee hearing but either could begin moving at any time. Each is already gathering cosponsors so please contact your representatives today. Please visit the CFA web site alerts page for updates on the status of both bills at: www.cfa.org/Client/exhibitorsalert.aspx

CONTACT LIST: To find your two U.S. Senators and your Congressmen to let them know you oppose PUPS you may use the following links: U. S. Senate:  www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hunt Corp. steps up to defend ALL breeders

 

A LETTER TO PROFESSIONAL PET BREEDERS FROM ANDREW HUNTE

My Friends,

Last month, every federally licensed Missouri breeder received a letter from USDA stating that it has decided to release confidential personal and business information to the Humane Society of the United States, a wealthy, extremist animal rights group dedicated to wiping out our industry using legal and legislative tactics.  HSUS filed a lawsuit to compel USDA to release the confidential information about breeders, and for whatever reason USDA decided to comply without fighting in court on behalf of licensed breeders.

 

If USDA is allowed to follow through and release the information to HSUS, it would be a terrible, destructive precedent that would affect all breeders, not just those in Missouri. This cannot be tolerated, and The Hunte Corporation will do everything it can to stop USDA from becoming a tool of HSUS and the animal rights movement. That is why we have today filed a lawsuit in federal court together with Missouri professional pet breeders, to prevent USDA from releasing the confidential personal and business information. Joining The Hunte Corporation as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Missouri Pet Breeders Association, representing all USDA licensed Missouri breeders, and Carolyn Jurewicz.

We intend to win this lawsuit and send a signal that the professional pet industry will not stand by without a fight. We cannot accept manipulation of our government agencies by animal rights extremist groups dedicated to destroying our industry. Winning this suit and other legal actions in the future will require a coordinated effort by all professional breeders working together to assure that our lawyers have the resources to carry the day for us in court.  The Hunte Corporation is making funds available to begin this important lawsuit, but we can't do it alone. We must act together to defend our common interest. 

So, The Hunte Corporation is supporting the creation of a new legal fund "War Chest" by MPBA and other professional breeder associations across the nation.  This will be a check off fund managed by a board of directors representing each of the breeder associations, and the leadership of the USDA licensed distributors.  Its sole purpose will be to defend the professional pet breeding industry against legal attacks by the animal rights extremists.  The Hunte Corporation will contribute $2.00 into this new fund  for every puppy it sells.  We are asking every breeder to contribute $1.00 for each puppy they sell, and we are recommending that all USDA licensed puppy distributors participate in this fund in the same manner.  We are also asking that pet retailers contribute $2.00 for each puppy they purchase. 

Together, we can and must win this important legal fight.  If you agree, please join with me and other pet industry professionals.

Sincerely,

Andrew P. Hunte

THE HUNTE CORPORATION 

121 N. ROYHILL BLVD. - GOODMAN, MO 64843 - 800.829.4155 - fax: 417-364-8954 www.thehuntecorporation.com

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/purdue-vaccination-studies/

The Purdue Vaccination Studies and Auto-antibodies

by Catherine O'Driscoll on April 26, 2011


A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs � �but not the non-vaccinated dogs�� were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern�s 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don�t Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? �Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die.�

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they�re vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it�s not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the �oops� list.

But other species are okay � right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.

It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard�s Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government�s Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases

We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.

The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)

Then, in 2000, CHC�s findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that �examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections�.

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that �paresis� is listed in Merck�s Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:

�Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed.�

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.

Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response

The word �allergy� is synonymous with �sensitivity� and �inflammation�. It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word �vaccination�. This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or �-itis� diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it�s where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.

There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are �people�, too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.

Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn�t stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.

Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.

A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:

Dr Jean Dodds: �Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines�� (9)

Christina Chambreau, DVM: �Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine.� (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: �I think that vaccines�are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today.�

Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: �Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits.� (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: �In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals.� (13)

A Theory on Inflammation

Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they�ve not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease � including Alzheimer�s, Parkinson�s, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.

Gary�s theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

�Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals,� he says. �All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body�s reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.

�The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis].� (14)

If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.

If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the �flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway � but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult

All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.

Dogs� and cats� immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no �boosted�, nor are more memory cells induced.

Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.

In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I�ve been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year � unnecessarily.

The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we�ve been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature�s supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.


Endnotes
1. �Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II�, Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). �Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog�, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, �Immune System and Disease Resistance�, at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., �AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents� report on cat and dog vaccines�, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002, http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., �Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs�, Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., �Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices�, Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., �Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs�, J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.petmd.com/blogs/fullyvetted/2011/apr/pet_imports_undermine_pet_welfare

The Invisible Threat: How Pet Imports Are Undermining Animal Health and Welfare

Over the past ten years the business of overseas pet importation has seen some pretty impressive growth. Which is a very, very bad thing. That is, if you care at all about animal welfare and public health.

 

According to a March 1st article in DVM Newsmagazine online,

At last count, in 2006, 287,000 dogs crossed the United States' borders, and veterinary officials fear the problem is getting worse.

Consumer demand for pure-bred and cross-bred puppies coupled with strict new domestic breeding laws is believed to be driving importation numbers even higher than four years ago. To exacerbate the problem, federal regulators have no real way of tracking exactly how many dogs are brought in the country, where they come from, where they are going and whether importers are following up on vaccination requirements for underage puppies.

So it is that our domestic successes have translated ­ yet again ­ into (a) worse conditions for others elsewhere (Latin American and Eastern European puppy mills cannot be a nice place to come from if the health of the imports I've seen is any guide); and (b) a huge potential health hazard ­ to humans, I mean.

It's this latter point that's usually glossed over, but not in this article, where CDC researchers are looking hard for a solution on the basis of the importation of serious zoonotic diseases along with these puppies:

Based on import trends suggesting that the annual number of unvaccinated puppies being imported into the United States increased substantially from 2001 to 2006, imported dogs pose a risk for introducing zoonotic pathogens such as rabies into the United States…

But it's not just rabies. There are other scary bugs out there, too, bugs that haven't seen our soils for decades due to better health screening of more traditional agricultural species (like hogs and beef cattle). The dog as ag species is still novel enough that we can't even properly track their numbers at our borders:

No definitive data is available on the number of dogs and puppies imported to the United States each year since no single agency is required to keep track of those numbers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) monitors only commercial breeders who sell animals through pet stores, brokers and research facilities. The CDC monitors rabies vaccinations in imported pets, but its regulations neither require a health screen for dogs prior to arrival to the United States, nor an evaluation for specific zoonoses of concern. Enforcement of regulations are "problematic, because there is no federal requirement mechanism, or capacity for documenting compliance," according to a 2008 article in the journal Zoonosis and Public Health by Marano and fellow CDC veterinarian G. Gale Galland, DVM.

Plus, CDC can't man all the nation's ports of entry, leaving Customs and Border Protection, whose officers have no veterinary training, as the first line of defense to ensure all imported animals meet federal agency requirements.

Scary, right? The fact that there is a huge loophole in our war on animal welfare is one thing, the yawning gap in our nation's biological defenses is quite another.

To be sure, it's already a big problem where I live. In South Florida, I guesstimate that over 50 percent of the French bulldog and French bulldog crosses (yes, these are popular here, too) are imported from Eastern Europe, where it must cost next to nothing to C-section a bitch.

How do I know? These pups are arriving as four- to six-weekers, I've been informed (and I've seen some terribly young ones, too), which is partly why morbidity and mortality rates in these pups in the days immediately post-arrival are sky-high.

Federal regulators, who are so new to the problem that they lack the capacity to handle this burgeoning new breed of animal import may be asking, but what are we to do?

Well, for starters, I suggest we consider treating these dogs like any kind of agricultural import. But then, that's just a veterinarian's opinion. And what do we know? Animal welfare and public health are obviously someone else's purview when it comes to commerce.



Dr. Patty Khuly

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/bca6395d6f604e6a9c3df6d37af96f5c/NE-XGR--Hunting-Amendment/

Nebraska lawmakers debate a constitutional amendment to guarantee hunting, fishing rights

LINCOLN, Neb. ­ Hunters, trappers and anglers in Nebraska would have their sporting rights locked into the constitution under a proposed ballot question that lawmakers debated Thursday.

Omaha Sen. Pete Pirsch pitched his measure as a pre-emptive defense against any future attempts to limit hunting rights. Opponents said the amendment proposal was unnecessary and too frivolous for the state constitution.

The proposal, modeled after an Oklahoma law, would include Nebraska among 14 other states that have declared hunting and fishing a constitutional right.

"Since the founding of our state ­ and for that matter, for as long as humans have been here ­ hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife have been fundamental freedoms that people have engaged in," Pirsch said. "These activities are critical to our state's economy."

His measure would place the question on the November 2012 general election ballot. The proposal would need majority support to pass, with the "yes" votes accounting for at least 35 percent of the total number of Nebraskans who cast a ballot. The amendment would allow law changes that promote wildlife conservation and management and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.

Pirsch said Nebraska faces "a clear and realistic reason for concern" given changing attitudes about hunting. He pointed to a 1990 California ballot measure that halted mountain lion hunting, which caused the population to explode, dove and pheasant hunting restrictions in several states, and a bear hunting ban in New Jersey.

Nebraska issued 164,000 fishing permits and 140,000 habitat stamps to hunt big and small game in 2010, according to the state Game and Parks Commission. Those anglers and hunters spend an estimated half-billion dollars annually in Nebraska.

Lincoln Sen. Amanda McGill countered the proposal with a tongue-in-cheek amendment that would guarantee the right to swim, farm, ranch, drive, boat, golf, nap and watch Husker football.

"I don't think anyone in this body wants to get rid of hunting and fishing," McGill said. "Does this really rise to the level of needing a constitutional amendment?"

McGill said she introduced the amendment to embrace her "inner Ernie," a reference to former Omaha state Sen. Ernie Chambers, who became famous for his ability to derail bills with filibusters and headline-grabbing antics.

Chambers, who was term-limited out of office in 2009, had introduced a 2008 bill that would have banned all hunting, fishing and trapping in Nebraska. At the time, he said he introduced the measure to demonstrate that protection was unnecessary.

In 2004, when lawmakers tried to insert hunting rights into the constitution, Chambers responded with a proposal of his own: a measure that would guarantee constitutional rights to "hunt for Osama bin Laden," "hunt for the Holy Grail," and "hunt for a way to protect the constitution against frivolous amendments."

Lawmakers adjourned Thursday without voting on Pirsch's measure, but are scheduled to resume debate when they reconvene on Tuesday. Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh said the measure deserves serious attention.

"It's not under assault here yet," he said. "But make sure you add the 'yet,' because it surely will come."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 Things You Didn't Know About Puppy Mills

 
1) There is no such thing as a "puppy mill". "Puppy mill" is not a legally defined term, it is slang used by the animal rights community to denigrate any and all breeders -- small or large, standard or substandard. It's the "N-word" of breeders. The phrase "puppy mill" has been promoted in the media by the animal "rights" movement, people who want to end all animal ownership. It is applied indiscriminately by these fanatics to anyone who breeds dogs.
 
2) There are three types of breeders: Commercial, Pet and Hobby/show breeders. Every one of these can be a large-scale breeder, every one of these can be a substandard breeder. Commercial kennels are subject to state and/or federal oversight. Substandard care can be found with all types of breeders. It is about the standard of care, NOT the numbers.
 
3) Many commercial breeders have state of the art kennels that meet USDA standards and the standards of their state laws. They are inspected at least yearly and must meet or exceed standards far higher than those expected of the average hobby breeder.
 
4) "Sick" puppies do not sell. It is counterproductive for any industry to produce a defective product and expect to stay in business.
 
5) Passing laws intended to outlaw "puppy mills" will not solve any problem. Most substandard breeders are already in violation of existing laws. New, stricter laws will only affect those who are already working to follow the laws. The only way to have any effect is to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
 
6) All the hobby breeders in this country cannot produce enough puppies to meet the demands of the American market.
 
7) BREEDERS are NOT responsible for the presence of dogs in shelters.
 


For more information:

www.naiaonline.org
www.humanewatch.org
www.saova.org
http://mnlreport.typepad.com/the_monthly_national_legi

 

Elizabeth Brinkley

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL

S707 - A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide further protection for puppies. (PUPS)
Referred to Senate committee
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

 

STATES - in alphabetical order

ARIZONA

HB2127 - AN ACT Amending sections 3-1298, 3-1427 and 3-1428, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to trespassing livestock.
Referred to COMMITTEES AW & RULES

HB2137 - AN ACT Amending title 11, chapter 7, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 11-1014.01; amending sections 11-1022 and 13-1208, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to handling of animals.
Referred to Rules Committee

HB2220 - AN ACT amending section 5-111, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to horse and dog racing.
Referred to COMMITTEES JUD & RULES

HB2396 - AN ACT amending title 17, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 17-215; Amending sections 17-340, 41-619.51 and 41-1758.01, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to wildlife.
PASSED

HB2431 - AN ACT amending section 11-1009, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to animal control. Kennel permit; fee; denial; microchip requirement; fees; inspection; violation; classification.
Referred to COMMITTEES GOV & RULES

HB2529 - AN ACT amending sections 5-105 and 5-115, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to dog racing. Dog Racing; Crimes; Anabolic Steroids.
Referred to COMMITTEES JUD & RULES

HB2536 - AN ACT amending section 5-112, Arizona Revised Statutes; RELATING to dog racing. Wagering legalized; simulcasting of races; unauthorized wagering prohibited; classification; report.
Referred to COMMITTEES EDJC & RULES

HB2725 - AN ACT Amending sections 3-108, 3-214.01, 3-218, 3-233, 3-234, 3-266, 3-269, 3-344, 3-345, 3-350, 3-354, 3-415, 3-417, 3-447, 3-448, 3-449, 3-449.04, 3-450, 3-466, 3-468.04, 3-468.06, 3-484, 3-489, 3-491, 3-492, 3-498, 3-521, 3-526.04, 3-526.06, 3-590, 3-710, 3-716, 3-717, 3-911, 3-913, 3-1294, 3-1350, 3-1372, 3-1377, 3-1402, 3-1403, 3-1721, 3-2602, 3-2604, 3-2607, 3-2913 and 5-113, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to agricultural funds.
Referred to COMMITTEES AW, APPROP & RULES

SB1269 - AN ACT amending sections 32-2201, 32-2202, 32-2232, 32-2237, 32-2249, 32-2276 and 32-2296, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to veterinarians.
Referred to House COMMITTEES AW & RULES

 

CALIFORNIA

Santa Clara County - county officials dropped the breed specific language in their proposal, and moving forward with a breed-neutral law.

 

 

 COLORADO

Aurora - City Council compromise: A proposal would allow pit bulls in Aurora only as service dogs while whittling the list of restricted breeds from 10 to three but continue to ban the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Councilman Bob FitzGerald agreed, saying allowing pit bulls in the city would compromise the safety of citizens. The issue will come before them for a formal vote on April 25.  UPDATE (04/25/11) City Council  introduced an ordinance to allow pitbulls as service dogs and also trimmed the list of restricted breeds in the city from 10 to three, amending the ordinance to prohibit three breeds of dogs: Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Those three, however, can serve as service dogs in Aurora if the final measure is passed. The council will vote on the ordinance at a final reading at an upcoming meeting.

 

FLORIDA

Daytona Beach mulls a mandatory spay/neuter law for city's cats and dogs. Under a new ordinance, Daytona Beach residents would have to spay or neuter pet cats over the age of six months. In an effort to reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs, officials in Daytona Beach, Fla., have introduced an ordinance that would require all of the city’s dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered. A public hearing on the measure is set for Wednesday, April 20, 2011. The proposed ordinance would prohibit anyone from harboring in the city a dog or cat six months old or up that has not been spayed or neutered, unless the dog or cat owner obtains an unaltered dog or cat permit for the animal. UPDATE (04/29/11) City Commission adopted an ordinance requiring most pet owners to spay or neuter dogs and cats 6 months and older. Exceptions include hunting, show, service and law-enforcement animals, along with registered breeding stock. Under the new ordinance, an unaltered animal permit is $10.

 

GEORGIA

HB385 - A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Titles 48, 2, 28, 33, 36, 46, and 50 of the O.C.G.A., relating respectively, to revenue and taxation, agriculture, the General Assembly, insurance, local government, public utilities, and state government, so as to provide for comprehensive revision of the revenue structure of the State of Georgia; to implement the recommendations of the 2010 Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians as provided for and required by Chapter 12 of the Title 28 of the O.C.G.A.; to repeal Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 28, relating to fiscal bills generally; to amend certain titles of the O.C.G.A. so as to correct certain cross-references and make conforming changes; and for other purposes.
Referred to Special Joint Committee on Georgia Revenue Structure

HB388 - A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Titles 48, 2, 28, 33, 36, 46, and 50 of the O.C.G.A., relating respectively, to revenue and taxation, agriculture, the General Assembly, insurance, local government, public utilities, and state government, so as to provide for comprehensive revision of the revenue structure of the State of Georgia; to implement the recommendations of the 2010 Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians as provided for and required by Chapter 12 of the Title 28 of the O.C.G.A.; to repeal Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 28, relating to fiscal bills generally; to amend certain titles of the O.C.G.A. so as to correct certain cross-references and make conforming changes; and for other purposes.
Referred to Special Joint Committee on Georgia Revenue Structure

 

IOWA

HF489 - A BILL FOR An Act relating to the application of foreign laws, and including effective date provisions.
Referred to Judiciary
Subcommittee, Rogers, R. Olson, and Pearson

SF 431 - A BILL FOR An Act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies.
Referred to Agriculture

HF589 - A BILL FOR An Act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies.
Referred to COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

 

KANSAS

Seward County - commission voted to repeal a twenty-year-old ordinance banning pit bulls, but at the April 18 commission meeting, the county attorney provided the board with two resolutions ­ one for vicious dogs and the other for the regulation of pit bulls. The commission will host a work session at a later date to consider whether they will once again implement a breed specific ordinance or pass a breed-neutral ordinance that focuses on “vicious dogs” regardless of breed.

 

LOUISIANA

Monroe - City Council will decide later this month whether to approve a ban on roadside animal sales. The move is part of a push parishwide to ban the practice and already has the support of several other local governments in Ouachita Parish. The City Council is expected to adopt the ordinance at its April 26 regular meeting.

Lake Arthur - police in are actively enforcing a seven year-old citywide ban on the breed. Police Chief Cheryl Vincent said her department is confiscating pit bulls within the city limits and writing tickets. Furthermore, any dog owner who lives in Lake Arthur must verify the breed of their dog if police have any suspicion.

Patterson - (04/05/11)city council passing an ordinance restricting the ownership of pit bulls.

Terrebonne Parish - (04/25/11) A breed specific ordinance proposed in Terregonne Parish, LA is on the agenda for  parish council meeting. The proposed ordinance was drafted by Parish council, and is similar to those in other Louisiana parishes. The proposal defines “dangerous and vicious animals” as (among other things): e. Any pit bull terrier dog which, for purposes of this section, shall be defined as the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, or any other dog of mixed breed which contains as an element of its breeding any of the aforesaid mentioned breeds of dog and, which is, due to its size, color or conformity, identifiable by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine by the State of Louisiana as being partially of any of the aforementioned breeds of dog. UPDATE proposed "dangerous dog ordinance" was tabled for 2 weeks to allow Valerie Robinson (shelter manager) to give her proposal to the legal dept. Ms Robinson is opposed to any BSL, and gave a very compelling presentation. Councilman Billy Hebert is adamant about having  Pit Bulls and their owners targeted. Several other council members had more level heads and wanted a more comprehensive approach. These were Kevin Voisin, Clayton Voisin, and Teri Cavalier.
Thank you Jodi Preis and Mary Clement

 

MASSACHUSETTS

HB1437 (HD1174) - An Act relative to the spaying and neutering of cats

Lowell - city council is considering enacting an ordinance that would require pit bulls in the city to be muzzled at all times. Several council members appear to support a breed specific ordinance, and point to laws already in place in Lynn, Worcester and Boston as examples. Lowell passed a comprehensive, generic dangerous dog law in 2009 which, according to Mayor James Milinazzo, has been effective. The mayor also pointed out that enforcement would be a challenge due to lack of manpower, and would force the animal control officers to be more reactive than proactive. However, despite these statements, Mayor Milinazzo suggested the Public Safety Committee look at a provision of Worcester’s ordinance which does regulate pit bull ownership.

New Bedford - City Councilwoman Debora Coehlo has once again proposed an ordinance that would regulate the ownership of “pit bulls” in New Bedford. She previously proposed a similar ordinance in June 2010. At the April 14, 2011 council meeting, Coelho filed a motion requesting two council subcommittees look into a breed-specific pit bull ordinance. The next city council meeting is April 28, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Meetings are held at City Council Chambers, 133 William Street, Room 214.

 

MICHIGAN

Manton - leaders are considering drafting an ordinance that would prohibit city residents from owning or purchasing a Pitbull. The mayor said a public meeting will be held before any final decisions are made.

Saginaw - proposed ordinance would regulate the ownership of pit bulls, rottweilers, German Shepherds, Presa Canarios and Alaskan Malamutes. New ordinance won't outright ban five dangerous breeds of dogs, it will force owners to pay up if they want to keep their pets. UPDATE (04/19/11) city council postponed the first of two votes necessary to implement this ordinance. The first vote could come at the May 9, 2011 council meeting.

 

MINNESOTA

HF1369 - A bill for an act relating to agriculture; imposing penalties and remedies for certain offenses; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 17.
Referred to Agriculture and Rural Economies

SF1118 - A bill for an act relating to agriculture; imposing penalties and remedies for certain offenses; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 17.
Referred to Agriculture and Rural Economies

 

MISSOURI

Jefferson City - (04/13/11)  Legislation regulating dog breeders was approved in the Missouri House, revising many of the provisions from Proposition B.  The legislation now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon, who has not said whether he will sign it into law.

 

MONTANA

SB421 - A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REVISING THE ANIMAL WELFARE HEARING LAWS; CLARIFYING THE PROCESS FOR POSTING A BOND OR SECURITY; AMENDING SECTION 27-1-434, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."

 

NEBRASKA

Beatrice - (04/18/11)  City Council voted to approve a new animal ordinance at its Monday meeting. The new ordinance passed, controversial wording that automatically classified pit bull breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous animals was removed. Council member Calvin Carey, who has expressed opposition to breed-specific wording over the course of the ordinance's three readings, proposed the amendment to the ordinance that would remove the wording, saying he hasn't seen community support for pit bull specific laws.

 

NEW MEXICO

HB234 - AN ACT RELATING TO BOARDS; EXTENDING THE SUNSET DATE FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTERING BOARD.
PASSED 03/15/11

 

NEW YORK

A259 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation  to  orders of restitution in certain cases.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A286 -  AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law and the general business law, in relation to penalties and fees for pet dealers.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

S2650 - An act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to management of wildlife resources.
Referred to Committee Environmental Conservation

S3806 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation  to  orders of restitution in certain cases.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

 

NORTH CAROLINA

HB29 / S.L. 2011-22 - AN ACT to authorize the retrieval of killed or wounded BIG GAME using a single dog on a leash.
Referred to Senate Commitee On Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources

HB426 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS REGARDING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Referred To Committee On Judiciary
Subcommittee B

HB610 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO PHASE OUT TRADITIONAL ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS THAT SERVE SWINE FARMS AND TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HUMANE STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF COWS, POULTRY, AND SWINE.
Referred To Committee On Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House

HB816 - AN ACT to establish the animal welfare advisory board and the spay/neuter donation and memorial fund.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

 

OHIO

Ban on exotic-animal sales to expire: Kasich won't renew 90-day order issued on Jan. 6 by Strickland. The expiration of this ban is due in great part to the work of the Polly Britton and the Ohio Association of Animal Owners. Polly and other OAAO members worked tirelessly to help the new governor and the state's DNR see that a ban is unreasonable, expensive to implement and enforce, and possibly illegal under current state law that allows ODNR to deal only with indigenous wildlife. The ban was issued by executive order as part of an agreement between HSUS and former Gov. Strickland.

HB108 - A BILL To amend sections 959.131 and 959.99 of the Revised Code to specifically prohibit an owner of a kennel of dogs from committing cruel treatment of a companion animal and to give a prosecutor who prosecutes an owner of a kennel of dogs who commits cruel treatment of a companion animal discretion in prosecuting the owner for the offense.
Referred to Criminal Justice Committee

Xenia - town is considering an ordinance that would prohibit pit bulls within the city limits. The ordinance DOES NOT contain a grandfather clause which means pit bulls currently residing within the city limits would be forced out or risk being confiscated by authorities. UPDATE (04/14/11) proposed amendment to basically ban pit bulls by council member Bill Miller drew strong criticism from fellow members Dale Louderback and John Caupp. The proposed amendment, which was not up for a vote in the work session, would ban pit bulls from Xenia except for a commercial kennel in a light industrial district. There was no immediate announcement about when or if the pit bull amendment will appear on another city council agenda. "Let's vote on it in the near future", Louderback said. "Let's vote on it in a public meeting, not a work session, a televised public meeting to let everybody know everybody's opinion because you can't hide (from) the camera."

 

PENNSYLVANIA

SB1002 - An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for the offense of home invasion.
Referred to JUDICIARY

Philadelphia - City Council is considering numerous changes to its animal control code, including limits on dog ownership, requiring the sterilization of any animal sold, and numerous new licensing provisions. Bill 110210 has already passed the City Committee on Law and Government.  It will be formally presented to the full city council on Thursday, April 14, and is expected to be given a final vote on April 28. Bill requires that all dogs and cats sold be sterilized � Exceptions innclude dogs obtained by a governmental entity for law enforcement or public safety, dogs obtained to be service or guide dogs, and dogs of a recognized breed, obtained for the purposes of participation in a recognized competition, limiting ownership to two intact dogs � Current law limits ownershiip to no more than 12 adult dogs or cats, of which no more than four may be intact.  The proposal changes this to clarify that within the limit of 12, only 2 dogs and 2 cats may be intact.  Exceptions are made for those licensed as a kennel (defined as a facility in which 13 or more dogs or cats combined are kept, bred, whelped, harbored, boarded, sold or in any way transferred in a calendar year). New/increased license fees � Currently the city charges a $16 annuaal licensing fee for each intact dog and an $8.00 fee for each sterilized dog.  Permanent licensing is available at the rate of $40 for each intact dog and $16 for each sterilized dog.  This proposal would not allow the purchase of permanent licenses going forward, and increase the fee to $40/$16 each year.  An additional license is required for all animal shelters and "animal retailers".  "Animal retailer" is defined as anyone "engaged in the business of selling dogs or cats to the ultimate owner".
From AKC

 

TEXAS

HB251 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of dangerous wild animals.
Referred to Culture, Recreation & Tourism

HB456 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to a security services contractor's lien.
Referred to Committee on Business & Industry

HB1102 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the penalty for theft of a pet.
Referred to Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence

HB1103 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to payment of a fee as a required condition of community supervision for certain criminal offenses involving animal cruelty.
Referred to Criminal Jurisprudence

HB1451 - Passed House - vote was 95 Ayes, 44 Nays, 2 Present-Not-Voting and 9 Absent.
Rep. David Simpson being the only speaker to oppose the bill at the podium.

HB1546 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of dangerous wild animals.
Referred to Culture, Recreation & Tourism

HB3450 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to restrictions on the operations of public and private animal shelters, providing a penalty.
Referred to Public Health Committee

SB958 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of dangerous wild animals.
Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs

 

VERMONT

H229 - An act relating to requiring that certain surgical procedures on dogs be performed by a licensed veterinarian.
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary

H303 - An act relating to pet merchants - bill proposes to require that a person that sells more than one litter of animals per year or two or more animals over the age of six months to a consumer for monetary consideration be licensed as a pet merchant. The bill also proposes to require the agency of agriculture, food and markets to inspect the premises of a pet merchant before issuing a pet merchant license.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

H340 - An act relating to prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills - bill proposes to prohibit puppy mills by requiring any large-scale dog breeding operation to provide each dog under its care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch its limbs, and regular exercise.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

 

 

IN OTHER COUNTRIES – OF INTEREST !!!

CANADA

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Castlegar - city council has formed a committee to review a 10-year old bylaw regulating the ownership and licensing of pit bulls because it is ineffective.

Coquitlam - considering removing the breed specific provisions from their bylaws.

Delta - removed breed specific requirements from their bylaws

North Vancouver - removed breed specific requirements from their bylaws

Port Moody - council rejected a breed specific ordinance. No changes are in the works for dog muzzle regulations.

Surrey - removed breed specific requirements from their bylaws

Vancouver - removed breed specific requirements from their bylaws

NOVA SCOTIA

Yarmouth - A public meeting will be held on May 9 to get the public's input on a draft dog bylaw that the town of Yarmouth is considering. The draft bylaw immediately sets out to define a "fierce and dangerous" dog, saying it is any dog that "is a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier; Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding, which includes any of the aforementioned breeds". The bylaw reads: "If the owner of a dog that has been designated as dangerous is unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of this section after 14 days, the said dog shall then be humanely euthanized by an animal shelter, animal control agency or licensed veterinarian. Any dog that has been designated as dangerous under this bylaw may not be offered for adoption". The bylaw also states that the owner of a dangerous dog who is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of the bylaw will have all current dog licences revoked, and no future dog licences will be issued for a period of five years.
Thank you LeeAnn O'Reilly, Pres.DLCC

 

 

IRAN

Tehran - Thirty-nine of Iran's 290 parliamentarians have tabled a motion  to ban dogs from public places, as well as private flats, according to media reports on Thursday (04/14/11). Dogs are considered "unclean" by Muslims. "Walking dangerous, unhealthy or unclean animals such as dogs in places and public transport is forbidden," states the bill, which specifies that violators will be fined $100 (69 euros) to $500 and that "their animal will be confiscated." Similarly, the draft bill states that "it is forbidden to keep such animals in an apartment." A police circular already forbids dogs from cars and from being walked in public places, but the law is barely enforced. The MPs who signed the motion aim to take on the growing number of people who "own dogs and walk them in public, which has become a problem for society and represents a blind imitation of vulgar Western culture," according to official news agency IRNA.

 

 

NETHERLANDS

Jews argue against ritual slaughter ban. Jewish ritual slaughter isn’t cruel, says the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism. Dutch MPs are soon to hold a second debate on a bill that would outlaw ritual slaughter in which animals have their throats cut without first being stunned. The proposal comes from animal rights party the Party for the Animals. Jewish organisations are calling on MPs to vote against the private member’s bill. They say a ban on ritual slaughter would infringe on freedom of religion, and go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.