August, 2011

Articles of interest

http://chrisinmaryville.net/agenda-21-coming-to-a-farm-near-you-as-federal-government-moves-to-ban-family-farms.html

Agenda 21 Coming To A Farm Near You As Federal Government Moves To Ban Family Farms

The U.S. Department of Transportation in an Agenda 21 style order, has moved to essentially ban a large part of family farms.

For hundreds of years family farms have been passed from generation to generation and it has been a way of life for younger family members to learn and work on their farms.

New rules being prepared in Washington could change that forever.

Apparently discussions are now under way to require farmers to have a commercial drivers license to operate farming equipment. This would require farmers to hire expensive commercial drivers instead of using members of their family.

The time-honored initiation into working the family farm could one day be a thing of the past, with discussions underway in Washington to require operators of farm equipment to have a commercial driver’s license, or CDL.

Ned Meister’s work in agriculture began similarly at the age of ten. Meeting with News Channel 25 Wednesday at the Texas Farm Bureau, Meister explained the critical role of family on the farm.

“The vast majority of our farms are family farms, operators of equipment are usually family members, and if [those changes] were to take place, that would eliminate some of the family participation in the farm operation.”

Farmers also fear the prospect of replacing family help with expensive professional drivers, something that could end up costing everyone ­ if it doesn’t break the bank.

“When you consider salaries and benefits and all the other things that go with hiring people that otherwise would have been doing by your family, well it’s just a more expensive proposal,” says Meister.

This is clearly an outright attack on family owned farms and would be a huge benefit to large scale GMO companies such as Monsanto. This is also part of the systematic deindustrialization of America.

If we continue to let politicians, corporations, and lobbyists control our food supply, the American people will soon have no choice but to eat GMO food from large corporate farms or go hungry.

These plans line up directly with the United Nations Agenda 21 which is now being implemented worldwide.

Our country is under full scale attack by bureaucratic world government type globalists who are openly working to destroy the American way of life in favor of a totalitarian police state.

======================================================================

Ranchers Fear End of Tradition - CONSUMERS WILL PAY AT GROCERY STORE

<http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=3889315>

The future of the hot-iron brand, an icon of Western heritage, is at the center of a nearly decade-long battle over cattle identification and traceability.

"It's the latest hot lightning rod," said John Reid, an Ordway rancher who is past president of the Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is expected soon to release a draft of new regulations, which will remove the hot-iron brand from its list of official identification for cattle sold or shipped across state lines.

The new rules will require each animal to be identified by a number stamped on a removable ear tag.

States would still be able to use brands as official IDs within their boundaries.

Individual agreements between states can be reached to allow brands as official IDs for interstate movement -- more complications.

Critics fear this is the beginning of the end for America's centuries-old branding tradition.

"The federal government's action sends a signal to the entire industry that the ear tag is a superior means of identification," said Bill Bullard, chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund.

Ranchers argue that ear tags can fall off or be stolen by thieves, so are not a good form of official ID.

State brand commissioner Rick Wahlert said nothing will change for the state's cattle producers.

However, the new system is a critical element of participation in the interstate beef market, he said.

Negative reaction to the new rules, he said, "is really about change, and a fear of the government being in your business."

Gerald Schreiber, a third-generation rancher in northeastern Colorado, already uses ear tags for identification within the herd but bristles at the new regulations.

"It sounds good on the surface, but anytime you get the Big Brother approach, I don't trust it," he said. "The brand has worked for 1000 years, I don't know why they want to disregard it. In the West, branding is more than just a tradition; it's our identity as ranches."

First proposed in 2002, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was rolled out in 2004, but flatly rejected in USDA listening sessions by over 90% of the cattle producers.

Producers across the country are skeptical about the new program, which nwould require radio-frequency ear tags that would let cattle be tracked from slaughterhouse to birth.

Their concerns ranged from potential costs to confidentiality of information, including fears that animal-rights advocates would be able to gain information on ranchers through the use of the federal Freedom of nInformation Act.

"It got pretty ugly," said Ordway rancher Reid.

From 2004 to 2009, the USDA spent $142 million on NAIS, according to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress. Because it was a voluntary program,ï less than 30 percent of cattle producers participated.

In February 2010, the USDA announced it was abandoning NAIS due to mass rejection by livestock producers. Now a new name and a new program has evolved called Animal Disease Traceability.

*Loss of tradition*

The draft of the proposed USDA rule was due in April but has been delayed. It is now expected to be released within weeks, followed by a 60- to 90-day period of public comment. It will take an additional 12 to 15 months before the final rule is released.

"Americans want two things," Rohr said. "They want to know their food is safe, and they have an interest in knowing where their food comes from."

Still, the plan to remove the hot-iron brand as an official method of ID across state lines has angered Westerners, who worry about a loss of tradition and the addition of more red tape to their businesses.

"The piece of the deal that is awfully hard for producers to understand is that most disease comes from meat processing plants more than individual cattle or cattle herds." Reid said.

The brand is the oldest and more permanent form of herd identification, while ear tags, with their unique numbers, can easily fall off in brush and trucks where cattle frequent.

"So the question is," said Reid, "do we need individual ID or is herd ID enough?"

=================================================================

Banned breeds are no more aggressive than others, new study finds

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/new-study-finds-banned-breeds-no-more-aggressive-than-any-others/

One of many new reports that can be found on the National Canine Research Council website.

Banned breeds are no more aggressive than others, new study finds

Posted on July 26, 2011

Share

Every study completed to date has found breed specific legislation to be completely ineffective in reducing the incidence of dog bites. Now a study of pet dogs in Spain published in The Journal of Veterinary Behavior, offers new insight into why. The study found that the so called dangerous breeds simply behave no differently from dogs in general when it comes to behaviors likely to lead to biting.

The authors looked for risk factors for various behavior problems as reported by dog owners. They found that dogs identified as belonging to breeds designated as dangerous according to Spanish law were no more likely to behave aggressively toward people or toward other dogs than were dogs of the random group of breeds in the sample.

What the study did find was that the larger the dog (dividing the 232 dogs studied into 3 size categories), the less likely it was to exhibit aggressive behaviors toward people such as barking, growling, snarling lunging, snapping or biting. Large dogs were also less likely to behave fearfully. This is particularly striking with regard to the breeds identified as dangerous according to Spanish law, since most fall into the large dog category and the rest into the medium. Thus they are disproportionately represented within the least aggressive groups the study identified. Another notable aspect of this finding is that it is consistent with a larger study conducted in Canada a decade earlier, (Guy, 2001) suggesting that this inverse relationship between aggression and size may carry over across continents and long periods of time.

In looking at aggression toward their fellow dogs, the study found that gender and age played a role. Males were more likely to show aggression toward other dogs, as were to a small degree, the older dogs in the sample, but dangerous breed identification made no difference.

The researchers conclude simply, that “dogs classified as dangerous do not seem to be more aggressive than the rest.”

Martinez,A.G., Pernas, G.S., Casalta,J.D., Rey,M.L.S., Palomino, L.F,dlC., Risk factors associated with behavioral problems in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Veterinary Behavior (2011) 6, 225-231.

====================================================================

STATES - in alphabetical order

ALABAMA

Jasper - city council earlier last month appointed a committee to study the issue and make a recommendation for a vicious dog ordinances. UPDATE Committee has recommended breed-specific regulations (not a breed ban) to the council. Three breeds are confirmed to be restricted, but the specific breeds have not been publicized yet. The council is expected to read and discuss the recommended ordinance during the Sept 6 council meeting

CALIFORNIA

Fontana - (08/10/11) City council, by a 5-0 vote, has passed an ordinance requiring all owners of pit bulls and pit bull mixed breed to spay or neuter their dog before it reaches the age of four months. Pit bull is defined as any Stafforsdshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier. Purebred pit bulls are exempted from the requirement if they are registered and the owner possesses such paperwork when requested by any Fontana Police Department employee.

Glendale - (08/17/11) City Council voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance to ban the retail sale of commercially bred dogs and cats in pet stores within the city limits. The ordinance, which was revised to exclude a section that would have permitted backyard commercial breeding, will be presented to the Council for an official vote on Aug. 23. If the ordinance is adopted, it will go into effect 30 days later.

Sonoma - (08/15/11) City Councilwoman, Joanne Sanders, wants the city to reconsider regulating pit bulls and other dog breeds. Sanders said she supports banning pit bulls within city limits, and has previously support an attempt to enact BSL in Sonoma. California state law prohibits breed specific legislation in any form other than breed specific MSN. Sanders asked city staff at City Council meeting to research options for regulating what she called vicious dogs. Sanders plans to bring the issue before the City Council at an upcoming meeting.

FLORIDA

Port Orange - City leaders have allocated $40,000 in next year's preliminary budget to begin a feral cat sterilization and release program. But an actual plan still must be formalized. City Councilman Bob Ford urged his colleagues during a recent budget workshop to set aside the money to address a growing problem.

ILLINOIS

SB 1637 was signed into law on Wednesday, August 3, 2011. This bill was initiated by the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners [IFDCO]. The Federation is dedicated to protecting dog ownership rights in Illinois and worked very hard with legislators to get our first bill passed. We are thankful to Senator Pam Althoff for sponsoring the bill in the Illinois Senate and to Representative David Reis who sponsored it in the House. It passed both the Senate and the House unanimously on the first attempt. The law actually protects both cats and dogs and requires Animal Control facilities to scan for microchips and examine the pet for any other form of identification twice, once upon intake and again before transfer, adoption, or euthanasia if the pet is not claimed, to alert owners that their pet is in possession of an Animal Control facility. Also protected will be ownership interests, since the law will better ensure that a strayed pet who has any form of identification, including tags, tattoos, or microchips, is reunited with its real owner.
Thank you Margo Milde

IOWA

Gliddon - (08/22/11) City Council is considering a vicious dog ordinance that could be breed specific. At this week’s meeting, the council discussed what other communities have in place for in terms of breed specific and breed-neutral ordinances. The council is expected to discuss this issue in an upcoming meeting. Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month, at 5:30 PM, in the Glidden Council Chambers at City Hall

Lisbon - city council is considering an ordinance that would regulate the ownership of pit bulls. UPDATE (08/26/11) City Council members are reconsidering a ban on pit bull breeds and are doing further research after a lengthy discussion at their meeting. Both council members John Bardsley and Jubeck said the council needs more time to consider and research this issue, and the item was tabled. However, at least two council members (Mayor Rex Cook and Councilman Doug Kamberling) indicated continued interest in pursuing something breed specific, so this issue is probably not dead.

KANSAS

Gardner City - Councilman Fotovich has requested the city code be revised to ban “pit bulls.” The city previously had a breed specific ordinance before moving to the current breed-neutral vicious dog ordinance. Following extensive discussion on the issue, it was determined that a proposal to ban pit bulls would be placed upon an upcoming agenda. The ordinance change will probably appear on the September 5th agenda.

KENTUCKY

Junction City - city council is considering a vicious dog ordinance that could target pit bulls, rottweilers, and German shepherds

MARYLAND

Charles County - Proposed new animal regulations for Charles County include stricter controls on pit bulls, bulldogs and other “pit bull terrier-type” breeds, deeming them “potentially dangerous,” a label previously reserved for animals that had attacked or threatened a person or animal. The proposed change aims at reducing the general public’s contact with these dogs, according to a presentation compiled by county staff members.

MISSISSIPPI

Oktibbeha County - currently does not have a leash law or dangerous/vicious dog ordinance. Over the last few years, dog bites (some severe) have made headlines particularly “pit bull” bites and on these occasions residents have asked the board to enact dog laws. Some of the board members have also looked into the dog laws of surrounding areas. Several board members and the county attorney have stated in the past that they do NOT want proposed dog laws to be breed-specific. Despite ongoing dialogue about the need for county dog laws, the county remains without any kind of leash law or vicious dog law. County board does not seem inclined toward breed-specific measures.

MISSOURI

Hollister - officials are working on a new exotic animals ordinance. Currently several large cats are being housed in a warehouse facility in the city's industrial park. HometownDailyNews.com has learned that the cats are part of the new Fercos Brothers show in the Branson Mall. City Administrator Rick Ziegenfuss commented on how the proposed ordinance would affect that operation. As it stands now, the ordinance would require a 100-dollar application fee per animal, and require a 1-million dollar liability insurance policy naming the City of Hollister as "additionally insured." Aldermen will consider first-reading of the bill at their next regular meeting August 18th.

NORTH CAROLINA

+

Davidson County - Commissioners decided to set up another committee to discuss the ordinance. NEW ORDINANCE SECTIONS: SECTION 8 Control of Over Population of Dogs and Cats No person shall own or harbor any dog or cat over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered unless such person holds an unaltered animal permit issued by animal control for each un-spayed or un-neutered animal. A. Un-spayed or un-neutered dogs or cats may be possessed without a permit under the following circumstances: 1. The animals are either service dogs or police work dogs; or 2. the animals belong to non-residents of Davidson County and will reside temporarily therein for a period not to exceed thirty days; or 3. the animals are housed in animal shelters or in veterinary hospitals; or 4. a certification is provided signed by a licensed veterinarian stating that a dog or cat is unfit to be spayed or neutered because such procedure would endanger the life of the animal. B. A citation will only be issued under this Section if the animal(s) is in violation of or being investigated for a violation(s) of another provision(s) of this Ordinance. C. Each unaltered animal without a permit shall represent a separate offense. D. For 60 days after the effective date of this provision, warning citations will be issued for unaltered animals without a permit. After this 60 day period citations will be issued to owners of unaltered animals not holding a permit. E. A tag will be issued identifying the animal as an unaltered animal and must be displayed on the animal at all times. SECTION 9 Obtaining an Unaltered Animal Permit. Applicants must apply for permits required under the provisions of Section 8 with the animal control division of the Davidson County Sheriff's Department. A. The fee for an unaltered animal permit for individual pet owners shall be $100 for each animal that is to remain unaltered. B. Unaltered Animal Permit Fees for owners of multiple animals shall be as follows: a. $100 per animal for the first 5 animals; and, b. $50 per animal for each additional animal. C. This permit fee shall be valid for the life of the animal. D. Permits will be issued upon identification of the unaltered animals. Options of identification shall be at least one (1) of the following: a. Microchip; b. Registration papers; c. Photographs; and, d. Veterinary records. E. Verification of proper registration of an unaltered animal shall be the presentation of the permit.
Thank you Susan Wolf

Forsyth County - County is closer to having a law on the books that bans persistent, restrained leashing or tethering of animals, after commissioners said in a briefing Thursday that they want the proposed law to be enacted. The law would ban the tethering of animals that causes choking and neurotic or aggressive behavior, and restricting their movement so that they are deprived of food, water and exercise. It also carries heavier penalties for pet owners found guilty of the practice. Currently, pet owners can be charged if a restrained animal becomes injured. UPDATE - (08/30/11) Narrow vote 4-3 with Commissioners Gloria Whisenhunt, Bill Whiteheart and Richard Linville, the board chairman voting against. Forsyth County now makes history with a totally interpretative ordinance for tethering procedures that leaves enforcement to the whim of animal control officers.

OHIO

Parma - City Council members approved changing the phrase pet "owner" to pet "guardian" on all animal-related ordinances and becomes the first in the state to recognize pets as part of the family and change a term on all animal-related ordinances. The Guardian Campaign was created in 1999 by In Defense of Animals (IDA).

PENNSYLVANIA

Pottsville - (08/09/11) City Council unanimously approved its dangerous dog ordinance, but before the vote, the board gave the law even more bite. According to Ordinance 803, a "dangerous" or "vicious" dog is: - Any dog that bites, inflicts injury, assaults or otherwise attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation. - Any dog that, without provocation, approaches in a threatening or terrorizing manner, any person or domestic animal on the streets, sidewalks or any public places. - Any dog that is trained to attack or cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals, or any dog that has a history of attacking or propensity to attack. - Police dogs, guard dogs acting under the supervision of a police officer or certified trained dog handler or guide dogs are exceptions.

WISCONSIN

Marinette - (08/10/11) Public Safety and Code Enforcement Committee unanimously voted against the ordinance banning residents from owning the bully breeds. "We did research, reviewed all the material provided to us and we just did not have a good feeling prohibiting one breed versus another," said Carol Kempka, the committee chairperson.

Waukesha - Alderwoman Kathleen Cummings is working with the city attorney's office to bring forward an ordinance that about vicious dogs. Such an ordinance has not yet appeared on a city meeting agenda for discussion or adoption. An ordinance would first have to go before the Ordinance & License Committee and then approved by the entire Common Council. She will be working with the city attorney and police to craft a city ordinance, which may include restricting pit bulls or other breeds that are considered dangerous. Sturtevant Police Chief Sean Marschke recently saaid "Not all pit bulls or German shepherds are dangerous." The definition of "vicious" includes: * Two unprovoked bites or injuries to humans and/or pets in 12 months; * Three attacks - even without a bite or injury - against humans and/or pets in 12 months; * Animals who are trained to fight against other animals; * Attacks or bites or injuries against U.S. Postal Carriers.

IN OTHER COUNTRIES – OF INTEREST !!!

NEW ZEALAND

Presa Canario has been banned in New Zealand. Local Government Minister Rodney Hide said the move to ban it is a pre-emptive strike, as none of the dogs are in New Zealand yet. The measure does not affect the review of public safety around dogs that is ongoing.

POLAND

Warsaw - proposed amendment to animal rights legislation stipulates that local government must take more responsibility for stray animals, and demands an improvement in living conditions of farm animals. The new law would also ban the trimming of dogs "ears and tails“ a fashion with some pet owners - and set specific requirements in water tank conditions for fish for sale.