HoundsGood: Chronicles of a Virtual Volunteer

Koda’s Law is currently in the Michigan State House and Senate.  House Bill 4663 outlaws the seizure of shelter animals for shelter research.  A family took their dog to the shelter in hopes that he would find a home, but the dog was used for research instead.  In some ways, things are a little bit backwards. It seems that the family is upset at the shelter system, when in fact, they should take some responsibility here too.  I do not have all the details, but apparently, their choice of abandoning their dog at a shelter has been minimized.  I do agree with Koda’s law, that shelter animals should not be seized for research, but hopefully some of the outrage will be directed at the epidemic of folks dumping their precious family members.  Tragedies can often be nipped in the bud by taking the time to train a dog who jumps on people or hiring a dog walker to let out a dog when a job changes, or really thinking through the responsibility of pet ownership before taking it on.  Some argue that pound seizures prevent a dog from being euthanized, but some argue that it relegates them to a fate worse than death.

The following was issued by the Humane Society of the United States:

Pound Seizure
House Bill 4663, or Koda’s Law, would eliminate pound seizure. Pound seizure is the practice of allowing shelter cats and dogs to be used in experimental research.

“Koda’s Law” is named after a shelter dog who, instead of being placed for adoption, was sold to a USDA Class B Dealer (animal broker) and resold to the University of Michigan, where he was used in the university’s Advanced Trauma Life Support Class, and then euthanized. Koda’s former family believed that taking him to a shelter would allow him another opportunity to find a home and did not know he would be used in a research experiment.

Companion animals depend on humans for their safety and well-being. Tragically, this dependency is betrayed when shelters allow these pets to be taken by Class B Dealers for resale to research facilities. When Class B dealers and research facilities can obtain cats and dogs like Koda from animal shelters, it diminishes the shelters’ credibility and purpose, and betrays public trust.

Currently, two shelters in Michigan practice pound seizure. Passing this bill is essential toward ensuring that the law supports the community’s overwhelming rejection of this practice. Moreover, Koda’s Law would lessen the burden on the USDA, since the USDA expends significant resources to frequently inspect the activities of Class B dealers due to prior prosecutions regarding pet theft.

Koda’s Law will not prohibit legitimate medical research. Research facilities will still be able to obtain cats and dogs from licensees who breed animals for research. This bill simply stops shelter cats and dogs from being used in research. The bill permits several veterinary training and research activities with shelter cats and dogs, including allowing spay-neuter training, correcting pre-existing medical conditions (such as broken bones or illnesses) and allowing blood banks to obtain life-saving animal blood. The cats and dogs are then placed for adoption.

Koda’s Law is sponsored by Rep. John Espinoza and co-sponsored by Reps. Terry Brown, Mike Huckleberry and Jeff Mayes. It was drafted by American Humane and the State Bar of Michigan Animal Law Section.

If you are a Michigan resident, find contact information for your local representative here.

I receive requests to sign petitions and to help lobby for various causes every single week, and some of them may surprise you. Many revolve around the economy, and concern everything form pledging to buy American to rallying against frivolous lawsuits. I know there are people are hurting in various ways, but what disturbs me is the number of people banking on a frivolous lawsuit as their means of support. In fact, I was in a relationship with someone in the past whose court case wasn’t frivolous, but had a “windfall” mindset, that the other party needed to be taken for all they had.

There is a story that I just found out about that about broke my heart. There was a facility called BasketBall Town that provided a safe environment where kids and families could have birthdays, and play volleyball and soccer. There was another small business that also shared the facility, a pizza place. One day, a guest at a birthday party was an individual who used a wheelchair. When they discovered this, the facility offered to move the party to another room, where it would be wheelchair accessible. They refused and sued Basketball Town instead.

Because of the mounting legal fees, two small businesses closed, and additional people lost their jobs as well. Many families found themselves starting over because of just one person. One family lost everything, despite having kids to put through college. The children and families in the area lost a place to come to as well. You can watch the video that the Friends of the US Chamber of Commerce has about it here. In fact, the group has a lot of great resources on their website. People from all walks of life are coming together for the same cause.

These types of scenarios are crippling our economy and way of life. Few have stood up against frivolous lawsuits in a meaningful way. They are seen as not looking out for the little guy. The other general example I can think of is in the stork department. Fewer and fewer gynecologists are delivering babies, or if so, doing them by C-section because they can’t afford a lawsuit. I remember about 15 years or so ago when there were problems with sidesaddle gas tanks in trucks, people who had experienced no loss or injury were jumping on the sue happy bandwagon, rather than accepting the manufacturer’s willingness to replace the parts in question. Luckily, there is a Good Samaritan law, where if an ordinary person rushes to your aid in an effort to save your life, you cannot sue them for not knowing what they are doing. Of course, that is not the legal verbage.

Sometimes it worries me that people are more and more afraid to reach out to each other for fear of being sued. From an economic standpoint, it cripples small business. Lawsuits also make health care and certain products more expensive, as the service provider in question must charge much more to cover the lawsuit insurance, or just the rising cost of liability insurance in general.

Before you ask me to sign another petition, ask yourself the following: Am I hiring my neighbor first, am I buying American when it is feasible, am I taking responsibility for my own actions? If you are, as change starts at home, THEN I will take a look at what you want me to sign.

Warren, Michigan is contemplating a Pit Bull ban, or more technically known as Breed Specific Legislation.   The reasoning is that if there were no Pit Bulls, there would be no attacks involving Pit Bulls.  Actually, when you look at statistics, dog attacks involve a large sampling of breeds.  The most common Pit Bull attack involves a male, unneutered dog, and typically an irresponsible owner.   The answer is not to remove the right of every person to own a pit bull, but to crack down on animal welfare, to prosecute the rotten apples that are ruining it for the responsible dog owners, and to also encourage people to consider what breed best matches their family.

Once a trusted friend to children, the pit bull in the past two decades have been demonized, chiefly because of overbreeding and greed.   A Pit Bull is a sturdy dog that needs a high amoung of exercise and mental stimulation.   Tossing them in a small pen day in, day out does not satisfy their need.  Of course, some Pit Bulls are couch potatoes, but many need long hikes with their owners, or running in the yard with their people.  The ban will hurt families, forcing responsible owners to uproot their family to another town in order to keep their beloved pet, or an influx of good family pets will end up in shelters.  Some towns with bans euthanize the dogs on the spot, regardless of temperment, or if they truly are the breed in question.

A long while back, I invited people to Spot the PitBull.  Most people could not do it.   It only proves that when bans go into effect, it can be a veritable witch hunt for any dog that people THINK resembles a pit bull.

Let your voice be heard.  If you are in Macomb County, Michigan, please contact a member of City Council and let your voice be heard.   I encourage also cool headed people whose towns found benefit from not enacting a BSL to contact them also.  I ask that if you live on the other side of the world and are not a constituent in the area to mobilize your friends that are.   A council is more likely to listen to their constituents than folks who are in another country.

If you can volunteer your time to write a letter or make a phone call, here is a list of individuals to contact.

Mary Kamp
Council President
586-698-2614 (H)
586-863-8616 (C)
mkamp@cityofwarren.org

Donna Kaczor Caumartin
Council Vice President
586-243-9812
586-573-3900 (alternate number)
mcaumartin@aol.com

Keith Sadowski
Council Secretary
586-216-6377
ksadowski@cityofwarren.org

Scott C. Stevens
Council Assistant Secretary
586-486-4438
scs425@wowway.com

Robert Boccomino
Councilman
586-850-5221
boccomino2007@wowway.com

Patrick Green
Councilman
586-524-1315
pgreen@cityofwarren.org

Mark Liss
Councilman
586-558-8767
mark@markliss.com

Kathy Vogt
Councilwoman
586-268-9452
kvogt@macomblawyers.com

Steven Warner
Councilman
586-296-9894
sgwarner1@yahoo.com

California Assembly Bill 233 would provide a tax deduction to California residents of qualifed costs paid or incuured for pet adoption.  You must adopt from a qualified shelter or rescue (I do believe by “qualified rescue,” they mean licensed rescue), and it must occur during the taxable year, rather than prior. There have been differing reports on the internet, varying from the deduction from $100-300, but most reports cite $100.  The proposed deduction will be available between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2015, if passed.  The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R), and is cosponsored by the ASPCA.

Jurisdictions in California were among the first to have legislation fot mandatory spay or neuter, or at least much higher licensing fees for unaltered dogs.  On a smaller scale. While it may not stop someone who is out to breed anyways, I saw similar programs come off as effective when people felt hit in the wallet.  In some towns in Massachusetts, it is several times the costs to license an unspayed or unneutered dog than one who is.  The average person who has no designs on breeding but just “didn’t get around” to doing it, is usually highly motivated.  While the cost of the spay may be more than the difference in the licensing costs for one year, in the long run it will save them money year after year.

Just like other legislations have hit people in the wallet, this one very may reward people who rescue rather than buy, and may encourage people who don’t know much about it to at least entertain the idea of adoption.  California has a very huge problem with good dogs being euthanized for crowding, just like other states.  It is very shocking to learn that a very high percentage of dogs euthanized at Los Angeles city shelters are small lap dogs, who would be snapped up for adoption immediately in other places.  In otherwords, a shelter dog is not how most people picture them.

It will definitely be interesting to see, if this passes successfully, if it will help slow down the euthanization rate in California, and act as a stopgap.

If you had a choice between buying a dog and adopting, would the tax deduction get you to at least consider rescue?

Awhile back, I discussed Grace’s Law, a measure in the state of Georgia that would close a loophole in the law that would forever silence the gas chambers in the state.   As it stands, counties or jurisdictions with fewer than 25,000, or facilities that had a gas chamber in operation before 1990 are still allowed to operate them in animal shelters.

In order for Grace’s Law to pass, the bill needed to pass the Agricultural Subcommittee, and then move onto the House and also pass through the senate.  Because the Senate hearing was moved up two weeks early, with the decision made on a friday for a 9:30 AM hearing no less, supporters of the bill did not have the turn out they had hoped.   The 8:00 A.M. subcommittee hearing was scheduled a few days earlier, so even though caught off guard, a handful of supporters were able to attend.

With a very heavy heart, readers, I have to tell you that Grace’s Law did not pass the subcommittee.  The Committee Chairman is pro-gassing, so it doesn’t help matters.  There was a heartwrenching account by a staff member from Liberty County AC, where Grace’s story unfolded.  Unfortunately, there were people at the table that were not interested in hearing her and her voice might have been too soft to make an impact.  Mostly, it had to do with people that would not let supporters of the bill speak in their alloted time without being dismissed throughout.

Grace is a tricolor hound who was loaded into the gas chamber, and when the chamber rumbled to a stop, Grace was still alive.  Supporters of the gas chambers believe it is a humane method of euthanization.  Liberty County employees will tell you differently when Grace was retrieved out of the chamber, covered in her own vomit and feces from the very real terror and stress that she endured.  Hanging by a thread, Grace was rushed to a vet where they were able to reverse some of the damage that had been done to her system.   I do not have confirmation, but do believe that this sweet dog was adopted by someone who took care of her at the vet’s office.

As a result, Liberty County shut down the gas chamber for good.  They experienced the concrete proof that gassing is far from a painless method of euthanization and causes deep torture and distress.   Surprisingly, even so, and even though there have been  gas chamber operators who have become ill or died from these same leaking gases, one of the strongest opponents of Grace’s Law was an association for Animal Control Officers.   The sentiment was that they should be able to choose whatever method of euthanization they saw fit and should not be dictated to.

One very vocal supporter of the law was a Rabbi from Macon county that went to investigate and see for himself and he was beyond horrified.  He was so moved that people have organized to attempt to create a non profit organization to see fit that one of the shelters has an actual adoption program.

Why, if dogs and cats have to die anyways should you care about how its done?  It is very simple.  The more people that become aware of Grace’s Law, the more regular, every day people who have no involvement in animal rescue will understand what goes on.  Many people do not know how many shelters in Georgia, or even elsewhere, that a cat or dog doesn’t have a prayer of being adopted or seeing the light of day ever again…perfectly good, friendly, dogs and cats that are right as rain should be at the foot of someone’s bed or running with a kid in a yard.

As for Grace’s Law, it will be a year or two until it can be reintroduced.  In the meantime, please work within your county, if you are in one of the places that gasses, to convince the local authorities that it is not acceptable.   When each one turns, awareness will spread.

Again, here is the list, thanks to Georgia Voters for Animal Welfare:

Ashburn, City of (in Turner County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Ashburn.)
Barnesville, (City of) Animal Shelter (In Lamar County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Barnesville.)
Butts County Animal Control
Cobb County Animal Control (After court order in 2006 to cease using chamber)
Cordele, City of (In Crisp County)
Cuthbert, City of (In Randolph County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Cuthbert.)
Haralson County Animal Shelter
Hawkinsville, City of (In Pulaski County; no county facility.
Henry County Animal Control
Lakeland, City of (In Lanier County; no county facility.)
Macon, City of (In Bibb County; no county facility; chamber operated in City of Macon, under the jurisdiction of Macon Police Animal Control. Macon City Council voted unanimously June 2008 to cease using chamber by July 1, 2009.)
Mitchell County Animal Control
Spalding County Animal Shelter
Vienna, City of Animal Shelter (in Dooly County; no county facility)
Warner Robins (In Houston County; no county facility)

I recently reported on Grace’s Law, whch calls for a closure of the loophole that allows some Georgia animal shelters to continue to operate gas chambers.   It was named for a sweet tricolor hound who survived the odds and was alive, barey alive,  when the chamber door was opened and staff of Liberty County Animal Control understood the torture and horror that they had been putting dogs and cats through.

If you can make it to Atlanta monday morning, please read below. Even if you cannot, read also, because you can help spread the word. The more faces that are seen at the hearing, the more likely lawmakers will understand that constituents no longer stand for it.

Here is the very latest from Chamblee Abernethy:

It is likely that House Bill 606 to outlaw gas chambers in Georgia will be put to a vote at the conclusion of the hearing scheduled for Monday at 8:00 a.m. at the State Capitol, room 403.

It will be much more difficult for the Agriculture Committee members to vote NO to HB 606 if they are facing a ROOM FULL of Georgia residents who support the end of gassing. We need at least 50 people there!

PLEASE MAKE WHATEVER ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING MONDAY MORNING!

I am supposed to be at work Monday morning, but I told my boss that this bill is extremely important to me and that I will arrive at work late on Monday following the hearing. He was understanding. Yours will be as well.

Parking is available in the two Underground Atlanta parking decks on MLK.

See letter below about the opposition of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, John Bulloch.

CALL HIS OFFICE to voice your support of Senate Bill 232 to ban gas chambers! (404) 656-0040.

From:
Subject: Senate bill assigned to Ag Meeting
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 17:21:13 -0500

Senate Bill 232 (SB 232) has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. There may be a hearing on Monday at 9:30 a.m. However, the Chairman of the Committee, John Bulloch [(404) 656-0040] is from a county that has a chamber, so he is opposed to the bill.

Important notes: If the bill does not pass the Agricultural SubCommittee, it will be completely dead. It may be too late to call your representative, but it is not too late for us to reach across the internet and the phone line to get some bodies in those seats!

She was a hound like many of the other countless numbers in Georgia.  She either became nose blind following a squirrel and the trail home went cold, rending her irretrievably lost.  Or she was lost on purpose.  Too old to hunt.  Too unfocused to hunt.  Or just plain was skipped over when the scent hound gene was handed out.  In any case, the result was the same.  Her collar was unbuckled or unsnapped and the person she trusted drove away, or counted on the fact that she would soon get lost on her own.  Afterall, she was just a hound and with all the money spent, she wasn’t making a return.  Kept in a steel crate in the open back of a pick up in the rain, giving out a yodel or pressing her nose up between the home made, flat, rectangular bars just hungry for affection, she was taking up space where a dog earning his/her keep should be.

Like most large hounds in the state of Georgia who find themselves in her position, she found herself at a county pound.  Her number was up.  Large hounds just don’t get adopted, nor does anyone else.  Her card was turned over just as she was settling in.  As most large hounds do, she probably even wagged her tail hopefully as she leaned in to accept the slip lead that would lead her on her very last walk.   Was this a strange looking dog crate they were putting her in?  But there were other dogs in there.  She could hardly moved, even though many of them were sedated or just frozen with fear.  The switch was pulled and the air got thick.

Through some miracle, when the door was opened, she was somehow still alive.  How could it be possible?  There are always stories of infants surviving a fire or young people in Auschwitz, alive through an air pocket under the dozens of bodies that kept them from succumbing.

The staff at Liberty County Animal Control  called her “Amazing Grace,” and believed that she deserved to live after surviving the gas chamber, which had been illegally installed in 2002.   The day a tricolor hound named Grace came out alive, the chamber was never started in the county, ironically named Liberty, ever again.  Bill 1060 started right there. It was nicknamed “Grace’s Law.”

In 1990, the gas chamber was banned from use in the state of Georgia.  To satisfy the bean counters, there was a loophole, exempting from cities and counties with populations less than 25,000 residents from the ban.   They could not purchase a replacement chamber in the future,  but they could continue to operate their current unit for as long as it would run or could be patched up.   One theory is that it prevented a small tax base from necessitating a renovation to their shelter.   However, there couldn’t possibly be fifteen counties and towns, the number which have been grandfathered in, that small running a shelter.  Their aren’t.  The rest have been grandfathered in by the other loophole that if the chamber was in operation prior to 1990, they could also continue on.    Grace’s Law would close the loopholes and stop the chambers altogether.

Through my own independent research, the cost of silencing a gas chamber is less than five calories, the energy an adult in reasonable physical fitness expended to turn a knob, permanently snuff out a pilot light or take the first swing with a hammer.

The shelters operating gas chambers (graciously supplied by Georgia Voters for Animal Welfare). This does not include shelters that have a gas chamber on their facility that are not in use but still physically present.

Ashburn, City of (in Turner County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Ashburn.)
Barnesville, (City of) Animal Shelter (In Lamar County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Barnesville.)
Butts County Animal Control
Cobb County Animal Control (After court order in 2006 to cease using chamber)
Cordele, City of (In Crisp County)
Cuthbert, City of (In Randolph County; no county facility; chamber housed in City of Cuthbert.)
Haralson County Animal Shelter
Hawkinsville, City of (In Pulaski County; no county facility.
Henry County Animal Control
Lakeland, City of (In Lanier County; no county facility.)
Macon, City of (In Bibb County; no county facility; chamber operated in City of Macon, under the jurisdiction of Macon Police Animal Control. Macon City Council voted unanimously June 2008 to cease using chamber by July 1, 2009.)
Mitchell County Animal Control
Spalding County Animal Shelter
Vienna, City of Animal Shelter (in Dooly County; no county facility)
Warner Robins (In Houston County; no county facility)

One small Georgia shelter currently has a gas chamber, but it has been long silenced.  The top of the chamber is now used to pile up supplies and the inside is used for storage. The local magistrates hate that their past includes that chamber, and have promised that the sleeping beast will never be roused.  It would be a poor reflection on their humane administration, they reason.   There are not enough blankets, towels, and bags of dog food in the entire state, however, to hide the elephant in the room.   That may be the way it is now, but at election time, I admit that I wake up in the middle of the night a little apprehensive about a new regime that feels differently.

HB 1060 was heard in the Georgia Assembly only briefly, as perhaps it is not deemed that important.

If you are in Georgia, GVAW encourages you to turn out February 26th.  According to a mailing I received:

The Gathering for Grace will be held next Thursday, February 26th, at the Washington Street entrance of the Georgia State Capitol, from 9:30 A.M. until 2:30 P.M.

Please do it for your “best friends.”

I have heard bits and pieces of legislation that is being presented in Gwinnett County, Georgia, in regards to dogs and ownership.  The good news is that the new proposed ordinance punishes negligent owners and owners versus the dog for being a particular breed.   That is the one shred of good news.   The bad news?  It sounds like dogs are going to be punished anyhow, in the end, just for being dogs. I first heard about this through a local Atlanta area resident.

GWINNETT COUNTY: Barking ordinance may get bigger bite

By Patrick Fox
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Monday, February 02, 2009
Gwinnett County dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.

The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark.  It also allows for tethering of animals.

One of the biggest changes is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.

The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal.

It is well documented that the concept of time as related to witnesses is often faulty, and it is likely that someone does not have a stop watch to document the incident. There will be many public employees wasting their time on bogus calls, or there will be many dogs impounded completely unfairly because of a neighbor’s vindictiveness, or for just being a dog.   Addressing a scientific or objective basis for what constitutes a subjective behavior hardly ever works.

What worries me the most is the specification of “vocalization” rather than the word “bark.”  Vocalization can mean whining, whimpering, howling, or more, which could very well be distress. What about a family running around with a dog, and their dogs being excited and barking?

Read on…

The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.

Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission in the near future.

Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.

“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd.”

DeCarlo added the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more killings.

“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.

The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors —- not one —- to swear out a barking complaint.

“People don’t say ‘I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark’,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”

I would offer that people don’t say that they don’t adopt a dog because it might bark, because if they don’t want a dog because it will bark, they don’t come to the shelter and adopt a dog.  Or, they look at the dogs and adopt the one that is being the quietest at the given moment, thinking in their minds that he/she won’t bark at home, yet not express their impression to the shelter.  Afterall, most county pounds are not adoption agencies that thoroughly screen the lifestyle of the adopters.  A county pound acts more like a sorting facility at times.   Once people see the ordinance publicized, if people think about their nosey neighbors or living on a street where there is wildlife or city noise that could cause a dog to bark, they may think twice about adopting in the first place.  Apartment dwellers may also may shy away.

What I imagine is that a lot of neighbors will be calling not because a dog is a true public nuisance, but because they have been looking to report their neighbor for anything whatsoever for the longest time.  It is well documented that the concept of time as related to witnesses is often faulty, and it is likely that someone does not have a stop watch to document the incident.   There will be many public employees wasting their time on bogus calls, or there will be many dogs impounded completely unfairly because of a neighbor’s vindictiveness, or for just being a dog.

What I seem to think that while they are working out the kinks, animal control could be flooded with even more calls and dogs than they are receiving than the record number they are now.  It just seems that dog ownership will get more and more difficult, or dogs will be inhumanely debarked.   Some owners, unfortunately, are more driven by other things and the threat of paying another fine or getting a charge against them if they already are on thin ice for another matter could motivate someone to preemptively surrender their pet.

Hopefully, the parts of the law that allow dog tethering for extended periods of time will be wiped out, but this one definitely needs a look.

What do you think?