LookingOut4Them - Tips2UsSaveThem

A Pet For a Christmas Gift?

2011-12-08T14:30:00.000-08:00

A Pet For a Christmas Gift?

December 8, 2011

By Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net

Christmas is fast approaching, and people are shopping for pets for Christmas presents.

They are swarming the pet stores, and unless they're adopting a shelter pet from PetSmart, they're probably looking at a puppymill puppy, which likely will have health issues (due to puppymill "breeding") that will arise later in life.

"Purebred" doesn't mean "healthy."

"Wanting" a pet and being READY and ABLE to provide a pet with a great home and life, are NOT synonymous.

I may "want" a Hummer or F-350 crewcab diesel dually, but I cannot afford to fill up the fuel tank of either, or buy tires for either, or buy full insurance coverage, so I have no business GETTING either.

With a pet, the difference is even more pronounced.

It will mean whether that new pet you WANT, will get a home -- for the duration of its LIFETIME -- that is happy and healthy for it, or NOT. It is sobering and very sad, to think that people are turning in their pets -- or even worse, DUMPING THEM -- because of a laundry list of "reasons," very few of which have actual merit.

If you buy a St. Bernard or other large breed puppy, don't think it's okay to get rid of it by whatever means you deem "all right" because the puppy grows up to be a BIG DOG. If you buy a breed of dog that's known to be a barker, don't consider it a valid excuse for disposing of your loud pet.

If you have a job (or go to school, or have a houseful of young children), consider, PLEASE! how much actual time you'll have for your potential new pet. Pets are family members, too, and should receive comparable time and care.

No, they're not children -- but they have even more needs than children, because they cannot run away from home when things are tough. They cannot phone a friend to commiserate when their people are fighting and screaming at each other. They don't understand marital or other breakups, yet they often pay a terrible price for the discord they did not initiate.

Many times, buying a stuffed animal for a present is doing the real thing a favor.

What really gets to me, though, are the dogs that are kept outside during all weather and are ill-suited for it (example: a very short-haired dog outside when it's cold, or a very long-haired dog outside when it's terribly hot), with invisible 'owners' who appear to have lots of cares -- but care and love for their dog/dogs isn't one of them. Why have a dog if you're not interested in playing with it, walking it, loving it, and being around it?

I'm not judging folks whose animals are properly sheltered outside, but get to spend time with their people, either inside the home or outside on park trails, etc.

"Absentee parents" is a phrase that can also apply to pets, and far too often, does. Pets can't open the door to come inside when the weather is bad, nor can they open the door to go outside when they need to go potty.

Christmas is a time of year when getting an animal should not be a gift. It is a serious responsibility -- not something that can be fed / watered / cared for whenever the person happens to think of it! Please, adopt your next pet, but do so AFTER committing to take the best possible care of it. We're talking about a living, breathing creature with a heart and soul, needs and wants! Also, hoping people will steer clear of pet stores that market puppymill puppies. PetSmart offers shelter pets to adopt, God bless them!

Website Update and New Blog

2011-01-08T09:17:00.000-08:00

Website Update and New Blog

January 8, 2011

By Julie Kay Smithson, AWM (Always Wiggles' Mommy) aka LookingOut4Them

It's a new year and past time to catch readers up on events. This website has languished for ten months, waiting on the person whose idea it was to start the site, to supply it with updated information. Numerous requests for this information have been met with delays, excuses, etc. Bottom line: I already work eighty hours a week and cannot put any more of myself into keeping this web log aka blog updated and current/correct in its information.

Ohio is in the throes of a major change in its dog wardens. More than fifteen percent of the dog wardens on the contact list are no longer in their jobs due to retirement, job restructuring or termination.

So, I will occasionally post helpful, articles, information, etc., but will not be keeping the dog warden contact list information updated. Thank you for understanding.

On a new note, my own beloved dog, Wiggles Blue Heeler -- who shared his life and love with me unconditionally for over twelve years and who loved the whole world and everyone in it -- shed his earthly trappings on Sunday morning, December 5th, 2010.

A celebration of Wiggles' life was held on December 11th, 2010. We had two half-sheet cakes, each with a photo, lots of photos, blank notecards with a photo for folks to write remembrances in, and kisses. Wiggles stock-in-trade was kisses -- one of his nicknames was Many Kisses -- and this was the year Hershey made individually-boxed, 1 1/2-ounce kisses. There was a kiss for each of Wiggles' friends, his last gift to them. I highly recommend a celebration of life for others whose beloved pets are known to a number of folks. Just be sure to bring a few boxes of Kleenex to set on the tables!

For those of you that knew Wiggles, you know that he will live forever in our hearts. He was a miracle worker and I was always certain that he was a gift on loan from God. I am thankful beyond words for every moment of every day, week, month and year that Wiggles graced my life with his physical presence, and am grieving much, but trying to use Wiggles' ever-positive outlook to help heal.

Please visit this new blog, Wiggles Blue Heeler, at: http://WigglesBlueHeeler.blogspot.com enjoy it, take the poll (right side), and share with everyone you know that loves animals and appreciates unconditional love. It is my prayer that not only me, but also others, will be helped by it.

I'm also working on Wiggles' book, which will hopefully be completed by July 19 (his birthday).

Have you a remembrance of Wiggles Blue Heeler that you'd like to share? Please comment on this article to share with me.

Pet health Q & A: Leash laws, loose cats and when to spay and neuter

2010-03-15T21:39:00.000-07:00

Pet health Q & A: Leash laws, loose cats and when to spay and neuter

The answers contained here apply to people who reside in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County and the cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and Santee, as those areas fall under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services. If you live in another area, please check with the organization that provides animal control services for that city as the local laws may differ; however, state laws apply.

March 14, 2010

By Jennifer Reed, SDNN jennifer.reed@sdnn.com or 858-309-4897

San Diego News Network (SDNN)

8253 Ronson Road, Suite 200

San Diego, California 92111

858-309-4897 (main)

Fax: 858-408-1958

http://www.sdnn.com and http://www.sdnn.com/about-us

To submit a Letter to the Editor: feedback@sdnn.com

Welcome to your pet questions, answered.

In this section, SDNN and a range of local experts answer your burning pet questions – everything from exercise and diet to common animal laws. We’ll crack the myths, correct the contradictory information and give you the truth about your pet.

What do you want to know? Get a professional’s opinion and send your questions to health and wellness editor, Jennifer Reed, at jennifer.reed@sdnn.com

Answering this week’s questions, from the San Diego Department of Animal Services, is Animal Medical Operations Manager David Johnson and Supervising Animal Control Office Lt. Dan DeSousa.

The answers contained here apply to people who reside in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County and the cities of San Diego, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar and Santee, as those areas fall under the jurisdiction of the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services. If you live in another area, please check with the organization that provides animal control services for that city as the local laws may differ; however, state laws apply.

Q. Do I have to keep my dog on a leash all the time?

A. Dan says: Yes. By keeping your dog on a leash whenever you leave your property, you are helping to keep both the public and your pet safe. When your dog is on a leash, you can control the dog and prevent anyone else from being bitten. It’s simple: if the dog is unrestrained, you have no control over the dog and would not be able to prevent the dog from harming another person. A dog being walked on a leash cannot dart out into traffic and get hit by a car or cause a traffic accident (for which you could be held liable). Nor can a leashed dog chase after and injure another animal, be it a cat, wild animal or other dog. A leash will also help you prevent your dog from getting into things which could either kill him or her (antifreeze, poison) or nauseate you (eating feces or rolling in trash).

Also, dogs are territorial animals by nature. If they are allowed to run loose throughout the neighborhood, they will likely come to see your front yard and those of your neighbors as being their territory. Any “intruder” into that territory (be it a person or another dog) could easily be attacked.

As a note, the County of San Diego Department of Animal Services describes a leash as “any rope, strap, chain or other material six feet or less in length, intended to be held in the hand of a person for the purpose of controlling an animal to which it is attached.”

Q. What can I do about cats coming onto my property?

A. Dan says: There are no regulatory laws for cats and, as such, our Animal Control Officers have no authority to impound loose or homeless cats. However, as a property owner, you do have the legal authority to humanely trap any loose cats on your property and deliver them to our animal shelters. (Note: All state and local anti-animal cruelty laws do apply to cats).

I would recommend that you first speak to the owner of the cat (if known) and advise them that you do not want the cat to come onto your property. Let them know if the problem continues that you intend to set out humane traps to capture the cats and bring them to a shelter. One would hope that they will cooperate as they don’t want to see the cat trapped and brought to a shelter. You may borrow a trap from our shelter by leaving a $50 deposit. Generally we allow a person to keep the trap for one week, but if an extension is needed, it can be granted. After you have trapped a cat, you must keep it safe from harm (there is an instruction sheet with the trap) and you simply need to bring the cat (in the trap) to the closest animal shelter that can legally accept strays. If you know who owns the cat, you must provide us with that information so that we may notify the owner that their cat has been impounded. The owner will be required to pay fees in order to reclaim the cat from the shelter.

As a note, there are thousands of feral (unsocialized domestic) cats in neighborhoods throughout the county. Feral cat colony caretakers place food out for these cats. The cats are captured by members of the Feral Cat Coalition (FCC) and taken to a veterinary hospital to be spayed and neutered, vaccinated, tested for feline leukemia and if, deemed healthy, returned and released in the area where they were trapped. This is known as “Trap, Neuter and Release.” The colony caretakers then continue to feed and otherwise manage the colony.

Q. It’s kitten season. When should I spay or neuter my cat?

A. David says: (see 2-minute and 22-second video at originating website address / URL, scroll down page) http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-03-14/lifestyle/pet-health-q-a-leash-laws-loose-cats-and-when-to-spay-and-neuter

Copyright 2010, San Diego News Network.

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-03-14/lifestyle/pet-health-q-a-leash-laws-loose-cats-and-when-to-spay-and-neuter

Facebook Group "I Love My Blue Heeler" picks Wiggles Blue Heeler

2010-03-14T17:34:00.000-07:00

Facebook Group "I Love My Blue Heeler" picks Wiggles Blue Heeler as "Heeler of the Week"

(Note: My dearest friend, Wiggles Blue Heeler, known as WigglesBlue Heeler on Facebook, returned to Heaven Sunday morning, December 5th, 2010. My grief, like the joy Wiggles gave me every second of his dear life, is immeasurable. I thank God for the precious, priceless loan to me of Wiggles for over a dozen years. I am not less of a person because Wiggles returned to Heaven; I am more of a person because he lived! We will always love each other, ALWAYS.)

March 14, 2010

By Julie Kay Smithson, aka Wiggles' Mommy

Wiggles Blue Heeler is my "dog of a lifetime," in addition to being my best friend, loyal companion, walking buddy, playtime bundle of energy, & more, since he was 9 weeks young in September 1998. He is still vibrant and cheerful, full of life, love and playfulness!

There aren't enough words to describe how this sweetest soul in the universe makes me, and everyone he meets, happy.

He just loves everyone and everything, never growling or barking at anyone in his whole life!

Every day is a special blessing, being Wiggles' person.

Thanks so much to the Facebook Group, "I Love My Blue Heeler" for making Wiggles Blue Heeler this week's featured heeler from March 13 through March 19, 2010!

God bless heelers and their people everywhere; may they all appreciate and cherish these most special and precious irreplaceable blessings in dog clothes!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=2212897445

http://www.facebook.com/?sk=messages&tid=1105593097799#!/group.php?gid=2212897445&ref=search&sid=100000266756981.2114109923..1

Update on Bosco, the Dutch Shepherd Zanesville, Ohio, K-9 Officer, and his partner, Officer Mike Schiele

2010-03-01T10:42:00.000-08:00

Update on Bosco, the Dutch Shepherd Zanesville, Ohio, K-9 Officer, and his partner, Officer Mike Schiele

March 1, 2010

By Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net

Bosco, the beautiful brindle Dutch Shepherd K-9 Officer, has almost completely recovered from his August 23, 2009, injuries suffered in the line of duty. Bosco is now officially retired from the Zanesville, Ohio, K-9 Unit. Bosco, however, is not resting on his laurels, but continues to amaze and delight people of all ages in his new role as public relations K-9.

Zanesville Police Officer Mike Schiele, Bosco's partner, is still a K-9 Unit officer and has been assigned a new K-9 officer, German Shepherd Tino, but Officer Mike and Bosco now spend time visiting and telling their story to the public in locations around Ohio.

The Zanesville K-9 Unit is paid for entirely by donations. People wishing to contribute to Bosco's care and to the Unit may send donations to the Zanesville Police Department, K-9 Unit, 332 South Street, Zanesville, OH 43701. Contact: 740-455-0700 (Linda Highfield)

History

Bosco, a Dutch Shepherd Canine Officer in Zanesville, Ohio, was shot on Sunday, August 23, 2009, when Officer Mike Schiele attempted to arrest a Zanesville man on a misdemeanor warrant.

Officer Schiele was shot in the leg and was treated and released from Grant Hospital.
Bosco was shot through the neck and suffered multiple injuries, one of which caused temporary paralysis, which affected his front end most. Over the course of the next four months, an intensive rehabilitation program was developed and used to help Bosco recover, but his indomitable spirit and will to live was crucial to its success. Bosco never quit trying!

This great dog and his owner are now recovered. Bosco still visits the Officer Schiele (pronounced SHEE-Lee) has been assigned a new K-9 officer, Tino, but Bosco lives with Schiele and his family and is now in great demand for public relations visits.

Both Bosco and Officer Mike love this new work and are scheduled to visit a Newark nursing home rehabilitation center in March and a Girl Scout Camp in June, among other PR visits. Bosco still visits the Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine twice a week for maintenance therapy, but is doing extremely well.

Visit the following links to read all updates and see other photos and videos. Keep your Kleenex handy; this is a story with courage in spades!

http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com/2009/08/brave-dog-diaries-police-dog-bosco.html

http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com/2009/09/bosco-zanesville-police-canine-officer.html

Contact information regarding Bosco's therapy: Kristine McComis, Coordinator of Information Services, The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine mccomis.2@osu.edu or 614-292-7159 or 614-688-3517.

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu.5971.html

New Name Quells Opposition: NAIS not Dead

2010-02-13T23:36:00.000-08:00

New Name Quells Opposition: NAIS not Dead

(Note: Please click on this link to read this timely and important article.)

February 9, 2010

http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-name-quells-opposition-nais-not.html

National Animal Identification System / NAIS is NOT DEAD

2010-02-13T23:27:00.000-08:00

National Animal Identification System / NAIS is NOT DEAD: USDA Announces New Framework for Animal Disease Traceability

(Note: No one should be breathing a sigh of relief that the "National Animal Identification System," or "NAIS," is dead. It becomes immediately clear, when reading the "Factsheet" below the news release, that the language deception has simply been ramped up a couple of notches. The "840" "country code" -- which is an INTERNATIONAL identification code -- remains firmly in place. RFID tags are still the preferred way. The information already gathered will NOT be deleted or removed. There is no mention whatsoever of giving up on the original intent or its tentacles. Notice that there is no contact information for a USDA spokesperson. Whoever said "There's a sucker born every minute" is alive and working for the USDA.)

February 5, 2010

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2010%2F02%2F0053.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

Release No. 0053.10

Washington, D.C., February 5, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Vilsack announced today that USDA will develop a new, flexible framework for animal disease traceability in the United States, and undertake several other actions to further strengthen its disease prevention and response capabilities.

"After concluding our listening tour on the National Animal Identification System in 15 cities across the country, receiving thousands of comments from the public and input from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, and representatives for small and organic farmers, it is apparent that a new strategy for animal disease traceability is needed," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "I've decided to revise the prior policy and offer a new approach to animal disease traceability with changes that respond directly to the feedback we heard."

The framework, announced today at the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) Mid-Year meeting, provides the basic tenets of an improved animal disease traceability capability in the United States. USDA's efforts will:

Only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce;

Be administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility;

Encourage the use of lower-cost technology; and

Be implemented transparently through federal regulations and the full rulemaking process.

"One of my main goals for this new approach is to build a collaborative process for shaping and implementing our framework for animal disease traceability," said Vilsack. "We are committed to working in partnership with States, Tribal Nations and industry in the coming months to address many of the details of this framework, and giving ample opportunity for farmers and ranchers and the public to provide us with continued input through this process."

One of USDA's first steps will be to convene a forum with animal health leaders for the States and Tribal Nations to initiate a dialogue about the possible ways of achieving the flexible, coordinated approach to animal disease traceability we envision. Additionally, USDA will be revamping the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health to address specific issues, such as confidentiality and liability.

Although USDA has a robust system in place to protect U.S. agriculture, with today's announcement, the Department will also be taking several additional actions to further strengthen protections against the entry and spread of disease. These steps will include accelerating actions to lessen the risk from diseases -- such as tuberculosis -- posed by imported animals, initiating and updating analyses on how animal diseases travel into the country, improving response capabilities, and focusing on greater collaboration and analyses with States and industry on potential disease risk overall.

More information on USDA's new direction on animal traceability and the steps to improve disease prevention and control is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability (Note: Pasted below this news release.)

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2010%2F02%2F0053.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

~~~~~

Animal Disease Traceability

On February 5, 2010, USDA announced a new, flexible framework for animal disease traceability in the United States.

The framework will provide the basic tenets of an improved animal disease traceability capability in the United States. USDA’s efforts will:

Only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce;

Be administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility;

Encourage the use of lower-cost technology; and

Be implemented transparently through federal regulations and the full rulemaking process.

USDA is committed to working in partnership with States, Tribal Nations and industry in the coming months to address many of the details of this framework, and is establishing a Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health to address specific issues, such as confidentiality and liability.

For more information about the new framework, please read the following documents:

USDA Announces New Framework for Animal Disease Traceability(En Espa?ol)

Questions and Answers: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/

~~~~~

Questions and Answers: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf (7 pages; 56.12 KB)

APHIS Veterinary Services Factsheet - February 2010 - Questions and Answers: New Animal Disease Traceability Framework

Excerpts: "Considering the significant investment of taxpayer money, it would be irresponsible to completely disregard all elements of NAIS. We must be fiscally responsible and use and adapt as much of the investment from NAIS as is practical. ... USDA will also re-establish a Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health with representatives from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, local farms, organic farmers, and underserved communities to assist us in evaluating commodity-based animal disease traceability approaches, as well as State-by-State and Tribe-by-Tribe animal disease traceability efforts. ... The system will not be mandatory in the sense that all producers are required to participate or that all States and Tribal Nations must implement one approach. ... The new approach also places producers who do not move their animals in interstate commerce outside the scope of the Federal animal disease traceability system. ... USDA will still require the use of official identification and location identifiers from the national allocator for program diseases. The 840 radio frequency (electronic) tag will be considered as a first choice, due to ease of testing and recording/reporting information. ... USDA understands that the confidentiality of producer information is a foremost concern. USDA believes that producer information gathered through animal disease traceability efforts is exempt from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. USDA also intends to continue to work with stakeholders and Congress to thoroughly consider this issue."

Q. What kind of comments did you receive during the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) listening tour and submitted online?

A. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received a wide variety of comments during the listening tour. Some people were in favor of NAIS, but the vast majority of participants were highly critical of the program. Some of the concerns and criticisms raised included confidentiality, liability, cost, privacy, and religion. There were also concerns about NAIS being the wrong priority for USDA, that the system benefits only large-scale producers, and that NAIS is unnecessary because existing animal identifi cation systems are sufficient.

During the feedback process, USDA also received input from Tribal Nations and industry groups, as well as representatives for small and organic farmers.

USDA seriously considered and reviewed all the comments and feedback we received before deciding how to address animal disease traceability.

Q. What has USDA decided to do about NAIS?

A. USDA announced on February 5, 2010, that it will revise the prior animal identification policy and offer a new approach to achieving animal disease traceability.

We need an adaptable system that will help us find disease, quickly address it, and minimize harm to producers. USDA will move forward using a flexible yet coordinated approach that embraces the strengths and expertise of States, Tribal Nations, and producers.

Q. Why did you make this decision?

A. Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture.

The United States needs a fl exible system that will allow us to find disease, quickly address it and minimize harm to producers.

Under the previous Administration, USDA tried to implement NAIS. USDA spent more than $120 million, but only 36 percent of producers participated. It is no secret that there are concerns about and opposition to NAIS.

While USDA appreciates the more than 500,000 producers who took part in our animal disease traceability efforts, it’s time that we do more to make these efforts more workable, feasible and common sense for all of America’s producers -- especially small producers.

This new approach honors the very legitimate concerns of the American public and those in Rural America, as well as those who have supported our past animal disease traceability efforts. USDA is moving forward with an approach to animal disease traceability that is flexible and lets the States, Tribal Nations, and producers use their expertise to find and use the animal disease traceabilty approaches that work best for them.

Q. Do we really need animal disease traceability? Why?

A. Animal disease traceability, or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when, is very important to make sure that there can be a rapid response when animal disease events take place.

Animal disease traceability does not prevent disease. But knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are is indispensable during an emergency response and for ongoing disease programs. It helps to reduce the number of animal deaths and preserve animal health when outbreaks occur in certain parts of the country. It can also limit the number of animal owners impacted by an outbreak and reduce the economic strain on owners and affected communities.

Animal Disease Traceability Framework

Q. What exactly is the new animal disease traceability framework ?

A. The benefit of Secretary Vilsack’s decision to move forward with a new approach to animal disease traceability is that USDA will not be creating the framework alone. USDA will partner with States and Tribal Nations to create the framework for the new approach. USDA also plans to re-establish a Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health with representatives from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, local farms, organic farmers, and underserved communities to assist us in evaluating commodity-based animal disease traceability approaches, along with State-by-State and Tribe-by-Tribe animal disease traceability efforts. This Committee will also advise USDA on other issues that need addressing, such as confi dentiality and liability.

A few other aspects are clear. The intent of the new approach is to:

Achieve basic, effective animal disease traceability and response to animal disease outbreaks without overly burdening producers;

ONLY apply to animals moving in interstate commerce;

Be owned, led, and administered by the States and Tribal Nations with Federal support focused entirely on animal disease traceability;

Allow for maximum fl exibility for States, Tribal Nations, and producers to work together to find identification solutions that meet their local needs;

Encourage the use of lower-cost technology;

Ensure that animal disease traceability data is owned and maintained at the discretion of the States and Tribal Nations;

Be less Federally intrusive and support producers’ request to operate on principles of personal accountability; and

Help overcome some of the mistrust caused by NAIS.

Q. How is this different from the old system?

A. This new approach will be focused entirely on animal disease traceability. It will be led and administered by the States and Tribal Nations. USDA’s role will be to provide support to the States and Tribal Nations, and to work cooperatively with them to ensure animal disease traceability standards are defined, measurable, and well documented. Once the standards are defined, States, Tribal Nations, and producers will determine what methods will work best for them to achieve animal disease traceability.

The new framework focuses only on animals that move in interstate commerce. So, small producers who raise animals and move them within a State, Tribal Nation, or to local markets, as well as to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors are not a part of the framework’s scope and focus.

Q. What roles will the States, Federal government, Tribal Nations, industry, and producers all play in the new framework?

A. Everyone will need to play an important role in developing the animal disease traceability framework. USDA will take the initial steps to create a basic framework and publish a new animal disease traceability section in the Code of Federal Regulations that includes clear criteria and performance measures.

However, the framework ultimately will be led and administered by the States and Tribal Nations, with Federal support. Each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine the specific approaches and solutions it will use to meet basic animal disease traceability performance measures based on the needs of their local producers.

USDA will also re-establish a Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health with representatives from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, local farms, organic farmers, and underserved communities to assist us in evaluating commodity-based animal disease traceability approaches, as well as State-by-State and Tribe-by-Tribe animal disease traceability efforts.

Q. Is the new framework mandatory for all owners of animals?

A. No. USDA will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach to animal disease traceability. The system will not be mandatory in the sense that all producers are required to participate or that all States and Tribal Nations must implement one approach.

What is certain is that animal disease traceability will be required for animals moving in interstate commerce. However, each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine the specific approaches and solutions it wants to use to achieve the minimum animal disease traceability performance measures. Animals not moved out of state, as well as small producers who raise animals to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors, are not a part of the framework’s scope and focus.

Q. Will the new system be less burdensome for producers?

A. The new framework will allow States, Tribal nations and producers maximum flexibility -- and therefore reduce the burden on producers. They can work together to determine what identification methods meet their local needs, while still meeting the national standards and performance measures.

The new approach also places producers who do not move their animals in interstate commerce outside the scope of the Federal animal disease traceability system.

Q. Will the size of my herd have any relation to the standards I must meet?

A. Producers who raise animals and move them within a State, Tribal Nation, or to local markets, as well as to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors are not part of USDA’s framework’s scope and focus.

Animals moving in interstate commerce into normal marketing channels are those that will fall under USDA’s new animal disease traceability approach.

Q. Are local producers required to participate?

A. No. Only producers whose animals move in interstate commerce will be covered by the Federal animal disease traceability framework. USDA purposefully chose a new direction for animal disease traceability that supports the concerns of America’s local farmers.

Official Identification

Q. Will animals participating in the new system need to be officially identified?

A. Under the new framework, it will be important for animals moving in interstate commerce to be part of the traceability system. The details of the new system will be developed in a transparent and collaborative process. USDA will maintain a list of official identification devices, which can be updated or expanded, based on the needs of the States and Tribal Nations.

There are many official identification options available, such as branding, metal tags, RFID, just to name a few.

Q. What forms of ID will be used in the new framework? Will this be decided at the Federal or State level? Who will have input on this decision?

A. Under the new framework, it will be important for animals moving in interstate commerce to be part of the traceability system. The details of the new system will be developed in a transparent and collaborative process. Each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine the specific approaches and solutions it will use to achieve basic animal disease traceability performance measures based on the needs of their local producers. USDA will be flexible in supporting States and Tribal Nations as they use technologies that suit the needs of their producers. For example, in some States and Tribal Nations, branding might be a way to meet animal disease traceability goals.

The new framework will also work with existing USDA disease programs, incorporating the identification requirements for those programs. Additionally, USDA will review and revise if needed the current species-specific identification requirements.

Finally, several species groups already have animal disease traceability methods in place, and the specific animal disease traceability needs of each species will be considered by the Secretary’s Advisory Committee.

Q. How will this new animal disease traceability approach support lower-cost technology?

A. States and Tribal Nations will have the flexibility to adopt the specific methods that best enable them to meet animal disease traceability performance measures. They will also have flexibility to determine what technology they choose to use to support their efforts.

In some States or Tribal Nations, animal disease traceability goals could be achieved through branding; in other States or Tribal Nations, metal ear tags may be suitable. To ensure interstate compatibility and connectivity, APHIS will work with States and Tribal Nations in establishing standards and guidelines, where free or low-cost tags will be incorporated as options.

Q. Will there be additional burdens for states who choose to implement a more technology-based system (electronic ID as opposed to visual ID or brands)? How will cost differences be handled? Will there be subsidies available?

A. The goal of this new animal disease traceability approach is to impose the least burden on producers as possible, while still making sure that we have effective animal disease traceability in the United States.

USDA will work with States, Tribal Nations, and industry to provide free or low-cost visual tags as an option.

USDA will also make the information technology (IT) systems it developed through NAIS available to States and Tribal Nations, should they want to use them.

Once States and Tribal Nations decide on acceptable methods of identification, it will be up to the producer to choose the method they want to use, if multiple options are available.

Animals Moving in Interstate Commerce

Q. How will having different systems in different States and Tribal Nations affect interstate commerce?

A. Under the new framework, USDA will work with States and Tribal Nations to develop systems that achieve basic animal disease traceability performance measures based on the needs of their local producers.

USDA will work cooperatively with the States, Tribal Nations, industry, and the public to set the minimum requirements for animal disease traceability that allow for the efficient movement of animals

Q. Who will decide what systems are acceptable for interstate commerce?

A. USDA will work cooperatively with the States, Tribal Nations, industry, and the public to set the minimum requirements for animal disease traceability that allow for the efficient movement of animals.

Q. If I buy animals from one State or Tribal Nation and then later need to sell them to another State or Tribal Nation with different ID requirements, will I need to re-ID them?

A. USDA will work with State and Tribal Nations to establish minimum standards for animal disease traceability, as well as when these officials work together to develop individual animal identifi cation requirements.

Our goal is to ensure that animals continue to move efficiently in interstate commerce.

Q. Who will hold the information needed to conduct traces? How will USDA gain access to this information when a disease event occurs?

A. Under the new framework, the States and Tribal Nations will hold animal disease traceability information. USDA will stand ready to assist States and Tribal Nations as requested.

USDA will have access to necessary animal disease traceability information when an animal health event arises. In developing the details of the new animal disease traceability approach, USDA will work with States, Tribal Nations, and industry to provide options and support for information systems.

Q. Will my animals’ information or my information be entered into any government database?

A. Under the new framework, animal disease traceability information will be held by the States and Tribal Nations, unless a State or Tribal Nation requests that USDA hold their information. USDA will have access to necessary animal disease traceability information only when an animal health event arises.

Costs of the New Approach to Animal Disease Traceability

Q. Who’s going to pay for this? How much is it going to cost? How will it be funded?

A. While the total cost of the new framework is not known at this time as the details still need to be decided, it is USDA’s intent to be a cooperative partner in terms of both technical and financial assistance with States and Tribal Nations.

U.S. taxpayers have already made a significant investment in USDA’s past animal disease traceability efforts, and it is vitally important that funding for this initiative not go to waste. USDA will be fiscally responsible and use some elements from NAIS in the new approach. Elements, such as IT infrastructure and tags, will be changed or updated to work with the new approach -- and made available to the States and Tribal Nations to use as they see fit for their producers.

Finally, the cost of the animal disease traceability framework will be less than the $228 million per year that the NAIS Benefit-Cost Analysis outlined for a full animal disease traceability system. It will cost less for two reasons:

The framework covers only animals moving in interstate commerce and offers flexibility in the identification devices and tracing methods used.

The Benefit-Cost Analysis was based, among other things, on identifying and tracing livestock animals, as well as using electronic identification devices for cattle (the largest segment of the livestock population).

Q. Will the new approach be an unfunded mandate on States and Tribal Nations or expensive for producers?

A. No. It is USDA’s intent to provide funding to the States and Tribal Nations to develop animal disease traceability approaches for their producers. USDA also intends to work with States, Tribal Nations, and producers to facilitate access to tags and to help offset other costs, just as USDA does for other animal disease programs.

Q. Will any of USDA funds received to implement NAIS be used for this new approach?

A. Yes. USDA funds previously allocated to NAIS will be used for the new animal disease traceability approach.

Investments in NAIS

Q. What will happen to the people who signed up for the original NAIS?

A. Producers who registered their locations as part of NAIS and currently use 840 numbers may continue to do so. Information collected as part of USDA’s animal disease programs will remain in place to be used as needed for tracebacks and trace forwards during disease situations.

The new animal disease traceability framework does not roll back any identification gains made in commodities such as sheep, swine, and poultry that often exceed the basic level of animal disease traceability.

Finally, USDA working with the States and Tribal Nations, will determine the components of NAIS that can or should be salvaged and overhauled and what can’t, and to leverage our investment to support the new approach. USDA will also replace NAIS guidance and other NAIS materials with information about this new direction on animal disease traceability.

Q. Is there going to be any sort of benefit/compensation to the original NAIS participants (voluntary)?

A. USDA values the more than 500,000 people who decided to participate in USDA animal disease traceability efforts to date. It’s also important to recognize that States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, and thousands of American producers have invested heavily in NAIS and have worked hard to make it succeed. It is their input and feedback that has led us to develop an approach that offers more flexibility, lower cost options, and is less burdensome.

In fact, the goal of Secretary Vilsack’s new animal disease traceability approach is to impose the least burden on producers as possible, while still ensuring effective animal disease traceability. USDA will be working with States, Tribal Nations, and industry to facilitate access to visual tags as an option as well as provide access to information technology systems that support animal disease traceability efforts.

Q. More than $120 million was spent on the old NAIS system. Are there elements that you are keeping?

A. The money invested in NAIS will not go to waste. Many elements of the NAIS system can be used in this new animal disease traceability framework, should States and Tribal Nations elect to use them. These elements include:

a strong IT infrastructure;

an allocator to provide unique location identifiers; and

840 tags.

Q. Why are you reusing NAIS components?

A. Considering the significant investment of taxpayer money, it would be irresponsible to completely disregard all elements of NAIS. We must be fiscally responsible and use and adapt as much of the investment from NAIS as is practical. This can be done with IT systems and tags. These elements will remain available; however, it will be up to the States and Tribal Nations to decide how they want to use them, if at all.

Q. What about States that legislated that they would not participate in NAIS?

A. It’s important to remember that the new animal disease traceability framework the USDA is announcing is not NAIS. This framework will set forth criteria that States and Tribal Nations must meet for their animals to be able to move interstate. States and Tribal Nations will have the flexibility to decide what methods they will use.

Q. Are the PINs provided through NAIS being maintained or is all the information being deleted?

A. States and Tribal Nations will have the flexibility to determine the specific approaches and solutions they will use to achieve basic animal disease traceability performance measures. And, each State and Tribal Nation’s decisions will be based on the needs of their local producers.

However, producers who registered their locations as part of NAIS and use 840 numbers may continue to do so.

Other information will remain in place to be used as needed for tracebacks and trace forwards during disease situations.

Q. Some fairs and packers require PINs. If these requirements continue, how should producers obtain a PIN?

A. Until the new animal disease traceability framework is established and States and Tribal Nations decide the specific approaches and solutions they will use, producers may continue to use 840 numbers and PINs, if they already have them.

If a producer does not have a PIN and needs one, he/she can contact their State animal health officials to acquire one. If the State or Tribal Nation does not provide the location identifiers, a local USDA representative can provide the location identification number.

Q. Will my 840 tags still be valid? Will I need to retag my animals?

A. Producers that wish to use 840 tags may continue to do so. Retagging will not be necessary.

Confidentiality

Q. What will USDA do to keep my information confidential?

A. USDA understands that the confidentiality of producer information is a foremost concern. USDA believes that producer information gathered through animal disease traceability efforts is exempt from provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. USDA also intends to continue to work with stakeholders and Congress to thoroughly consider this issue.

Domestic Disease Programs

Q. How does this new framework work with existing USDA disease programs, for example TB and brucellosis?

A. In a new section of the Code of Federal Regulations, USDA intends to compile, in cooperation with States, Tribal Nations, and the Advisory Committee, species-specific identification requirements and revise them as necessary to be consistent with our new direction. The revisions will recognize the different animal disease traceability needs of various animal species and will build on the animal disease traceability successes in a number of commodity groups.

These revisions will also clarify how our new framework for animal disease animal disease traceability works with existing disease control programs. Successful species-specific identification programs will continue.

Q. What about 840 tags for disease programs?

A. USDA will still require the use of official identification and location identifiers from the national allocator for program diseases. The 840 radio frequency (electronic) tag will be considered as a first choice, due to ease of testing and recording/reporting information.

However, other options will be available.

Imported Animals

Q. One of the concerns raised during the listening sessions is the entry of foreign animals with diseases. How does the new framework help this situation? What steps is USDA taking to address it?

A. We know that the best defense against animal disease is to prevent it from reaching the United States.

While [the] USDA already has procedures and regulations in place to protect U.S. livestock from diseased animals entering the United States, we will take several steps to strengthen our first line of defense as part of the animal disease traceability announcement.

The steps include:

taking actions to lessen the risk from disease introduction, such as developing a highly pathogenic avian influenza rule to prevent the introduction of this disease into the United States;

initiating and updating analyses on how animal diseases travel into the country, including conducting a risk assessment on the introduction of new world screwworm into the United States, Mexico, and Central America from the Caribbean;

improving response capabilities, and

focusing on greater collaboration and analyses with States and industry on potential disease risk overall.

Q. Will international animals imported into the United States have to meet individual State or Tribal Nation requirements?

A. Since this new approach to animal disease traceability is only just underway, States and Tribal Nations have not yet outlined their animal identification requirements.

Food Safety

Q. How does animal disease traceability relate to the President’s food safety initiative?

A. USDA’s animal disease traceability announcement only focuses on animal health and aims to assist USDA in quickly finding out where diseased animals have been and what other animals they may have come in contact with. Animal disease traceability isn’t a food safety program.

Q. Will animal disease traceability allow USDA to trace down to a package of meat?

A. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the lead Federal agency for animal disease traceability. This type of traceability is focused on animal health and allows for the tracing of an animal’s movements during its lifespan. Currently, animal disease traceability ends when an animal is slaughtered.

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the lead agency dealing with food safety in meat and poultry. They have a wide range of programs designed to ensure food safety. One of their responsibilities is being able to trace packaged meat back to a processing facility or slaughter house.

While these are currently two separate systems, animal disease traceability can serve as an important animal health resource by tracing animals that arrive at slaughter facilities showing signs of disease to their original herd and other animals that may have been exposed to the same disease.

Q. Will animal disease traceability prevent people from getting food borne illnesses?

A. Animal disease traceability focuses on animal health and allows for the tracing of an animal’s movements during its lifespan. This allows animal health officials to determine what animals may have been exposed to a disease, and where they are located. These potentially exposed animals are quarantined, or kept from moving in commerce, until they can be tested for disease.

Only healthy animals are eligible for slaughter. Once slaughtered, FSIS has a variety of methods for ensuring that meat stays fresh and free from contamination throughout the processing, packaging and distribution process.

It is also important that consumers follow USDA cooking temperature recommendations to help prevent foodborne illness.

Q. How will animal disease traceability protect consumers?

A. Should there be an animal disease event, animal disease traceability would allow for efficient traceback of infected animals and the rapid quarantine of potentially exposed animals. This ensures that healthy animals can continue to move freely to slaughter facilities, which protects producer’s livelihoods and keeps costs down at the grocery store. At that point, FSIS’ methods for traceability take over and continue to make sure that the food supply is safe.

Q. Can certain aspects of animal disease traceability be used to ensure safe food and prevent foodborne illnesses?

A. Animal disease traceability is focused on animal health. However, there are some aspects of disease traceability that can help promote a safe, healthy food supply:

1. When animals arrive at slaughter facilities, before they are slaughtered, FSIS conducts a wholesomeness evaluation. At this time, if FSIS sees any potential signs of disease, the animal is removed from the food chain and evaluated. If the animal is diseased, the animal disease traceability system would make the traceback of that animal much more effective and timely than if the animal did not have identification.

2. If animal disease is found, either at a pre-slaughter inspection or on the farm, animal disease traceability allows animal health officials to better determine what animals may have been exposed to the disease, as well as where they are located. This allows animal health officials to test potentially exposed animals for a disease, while leaving unexposed animals free to move in commerce.

3. Animal disease traceability will also ensure that the United States can manage zoonotic diseases, or those diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans.

Next Steps

Q. What are the next steps?

A. USDA wants to be fully open and transparent in any actions taken in support of animal disease traceability and wants to engage and collaborate with those impacted by this new system as much as possible.

The fi rst step is to reach out to the States, Tribal Nations, and industry, and other stakeholders to begin the process of working together to develop the animal disease traceability framework, minimum standards, and regulations. In March 2010, USDA will convene a meeting with States and Tribal Nations, who will work together with their producers to provide us with guidance and input on what they feel should be a part of the animal disease traceability framework and eventual regulations.

USDA will also issue a call for nominations for a re-established Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health that will provide feedback on the animal disease traceability regulations, as well as other issues like confidentially and liability. It is the goal for this subgroup to meet and begin work in summer of 2010.

Finally, USDA will convene a regulatory working group of Federal, State, and Tribal Nations animal health officials to assess options for the animal disease traceability framework, provide input to the agency, and review the feedback received from the public and other partners.

Q. When will a proposed rule be published?

A . It is our goal that by the fall of this year, USDA, supported by the regulatory working group, will have reviewed the feedback from the public, along with input from States, Tribal Nations, and the animal disease traceability subgroup in order to develop a proposed rule.

By next winter, we hope to publish the proposed rule for animal disease traceability’s minimum standards and system performance in straightforward, understandable language. We will offer a comment period of 90 days to allow ample time for comments and feedback from all interested parties.

Q. When will the animal disease traceability framework be finalized?

A: Rulemaking can be a complicated process, so it is difficult to predict when a final rule may be issued. However, USDA is committed to transparency and openly working with States, Tribal Nations, and producers throughout the rulemaking process and providing them with ample time to comply with the final performance standards.

How can you participate?

Q. If I have concerns about the new animal disease traceability system, how can I raise them? Who do I need to talk to/write?

A. Because establishing the new animal disease traceability framework will be a joint State/TribalNation/USDA effort, your input and feedback are welcome and very important. You can either contact your USDA area veterinarian in charge (AVIC), your State veterinarian, or Tribal animal health officials with comments. To fi nd contact information for your State veterinarian, please visit USDA’s animal disease traceability web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability In the “Quick Links” menu, click on “State Veterinarian Directory.”

During the rulemaking process, a public comment period will also offer an opportunity for sharing your views.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf (7 pages; 56.12 KB)

Additional related news articles:

USDA Scraps Plans for National Animal ID System
Ozarks First - ?1 hour ago?
The USDA will be scrapping its national animal identification system for livestock. It was planned during the first mad-cow scare in 2003, but its price tag ...
USDA to ask states, tribes to run animal ID system Capital Press (subscription)
USDA Ends National Animal ID Program AgWeb
USDA announces plans for new program to trace animals, to be administered by ... Los Angeles Times
Feedstuffs - Agriculture Online
all 196 news articles »

New York Times
National Animal Identification System scrapped
Homeland Stupidity - ?17 hours ago?
The National Animal Identification System began as a voluntary program in which each animal on a farm would be tracked with a unique identification number ...
USA - Questions about cattle identification Meattradenewsdaily (blog)
USDA Plans to Drop Program to Trace Livestock New York Times
all 3 news articles »

2nd decade providing skillfully researched information. propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com & http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com Also: http://ourcommunitynewspaper.com

To Animal Control Officers & Dog Wardens, From Those You Serve

2010-01-17T11:46:00.000-08:00

To Animal Control Officers & Dog Wardens, From Those You Serve

Thank you for loving your job, which means loving the animal that cannot defend themselves against abuse, neglect, etc. We understand that yours is often a thankless job, but we appreciate you more than you will ever know!

Thank you for looking past our shivering, frightened, lost, injured, aged, abused, abandoned, or ill countenances, to the one-of-a-kind animal soul within that was NOT born dangerous or contagious to others.

Thank you for harboring no ill will toward us if we, out of terror from our past experiences with some people, growl or snap at you. You know we don't mean to hurt you. You know we are out of our minds with the baggage that has been heaped upon us by the thoughtless, ignorant, uncaring people we've had as "owners." You do your best to seek justice for us, though you are hampered at what seems like almost every turn by toothless laws and an overwhelmed, understaffed judicical system. We understand, kind sir or ma'am. We love you because of all this, and more. We just cannot say so in words, but we are so grateful, just the same!

Thank you for being there for those dog lovers who trust you to try to help them when unforeseen things happen to their pets and doing your best to reunite us with our people.
Thank you for the professional way in which you do your job, yet for still having the kindness and maturity not to judge things by what they may appear at first glance.

Thank you for all you do that no one will ever know -- from those like the poor, expectant dog abandoned in a rural roadside ditch, who owes her life and the lives of her puppies, in no small measure to your solicitous actions -- to the abandoned litter of newborn kittens left alongside a rural road. Each of us animals that you help, adores you and thanks you from the bottom of our grateful animal hearts!

Thank you for having heart, soul, manners, and the indefinable "something" that makes you shine at your work and truly love it.

Thank you on behalf of all those dogs you've yet to meet, who will trust you to do your best for them.

Thank you from each of us that have been helped in some way by your kind actions -- even if it meant helping us over the Rainbow Bridge to a place where there is no pain, aging, illness, injury, or suffering. We understand and we love you, even though we cannot tell you in words. It is not your fault, the circumstances that brought our paths together at that place that was at the end of our earthly lives.

Please know that, when you visit us one day at Rainbow Bridge, we will cover your face and hands with kisses, romp with you in heavenly meadows of the most beautiful flowers and soft grass, and tell God that you're the angel we met on earth!

Puppy's story stresses need for responsible pet ownership

2009-12-17T01:00:00.000-08:00

Puppy's story stresses need for responsible pet ownership

“People portray Animal Control as being the bad guys, but in reality the bad guys are irresponsible pet owners.”

"The U.S. Humane Society discourages people from giving pets as gifts this Christmas, because the recipient may not be ready for the commitment. The Humane Society encourages adoption from a local animal shelter, where the recipient can be involved in the selection process."

December 16, 2009

By Jay Jones jay.jones@rockdalecitizen.com or 770-483-7108 Ext. 249

The Rockdale Citizen

969 South Main Street

Conyers, Georgia 30012

770-483-7108 (Editorial: Ext 226 or 252)

Fax: 770-483-5797

http://www.rockdalecitizen.com and http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/contact and http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/editorialcontacts

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@rockdalecitizen.com (400-word limit) or http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/editorialforms/misc/63775667.html (website form) or alice.queen@rockdalecitizen.com or julie.wells@rockdalecitizen.com

Conyers, Georgia - In biblical origins, “Gabriel” was an archangel known as the messenger of God, and that seemed to fit a little stray puppy being nursed by Lori Todd.

“He really is a miracle puppy, and it was a blessing that he survived,” said Todd, who is a teacher at Young Americans Christian School.

Gabriel, along with two siblings, was found when just a few days old by Rockdale Animal Care and Control. The puppies were stuck under a tool shed on wooded property in north Rockdale County.

Gabriel’s siblings did not survive, and there was not much chance of Gabriel making it, either, without his mother or finding someone who would bottle feed him.

Animal Control Shelter Manager Ciji Baker contacted Todd, who is a co-founder Hometown Animal Rescue Inc., a local rescue organization.

Todd said the puppy had not yet opened his eyes when she took him in. She did around-the-clock feedings in the beginning and took the puppy to school to make sure he was well fed.

Her students took to the little puppy and named him Gabriel Susej. “The last name is Jesus spelled backward, because dog is God spelled backward,” Todd explained.

Gabriel is now 4 weeks old and full of energy, just like any other puppy.

And as the Gabriel in the Bible was God’s messenger, Todd said the little puppy also has a message to tell.

“I hope his story helps to educate people to think before they get a pet and about the obligation that is involved,” she said.

Gabriel’s mother is a stray dog that the property owner discovered several years ago, but never could capture her to bring her to Animal Control.

“It turned into a nightmare of having puppies, and the ones he was able to catch, he would get rid of, but he could never get all of them at once,” Baker said. “So the female would get older, get pregnant and have another litter.”

Gabriel’s mother remains elusive, as Animal Control officers and the property owner are still attempting to capture her, Baker said.

Todd said her fear is that pets will be given as gifts this Christmas without much consideration of the responsibility of pet ownership. Consequently, the pets will either be abandoned or dropped off at Animal Control.

“Within the week after Christmas, Ciji is going to get tons [of them] back in the shelter. Then about the June time frame, people will have a 6-month-old puppy that nobody has taken the time to train, and those will show up in the pound, too,” Todd said.

“People portray Animal Control as being the bad guys, but in reality the bad guys are irresponsible pet owners.”

The U.S. Humane Society discourages people from giving pets as gifts this Christmas, because the recipient may not be ready for the commitment. The Humane Society encourages adoption from a local animal shelter, where the recipient can be involved in the selection process.

Both Animal Control shelters in Rockdale and Newton counties offer pet adoption.

Rockdale County lists animals available on its Web page at http://www.rockdalecounty.org under the Emergency Services Department section.

Information on pet adoptions at Newton County [Georgia] Animal Control can be found at http://www.co.newton.ga.us or by calling the shelter at 770-786-9514.

Copyright 2009, The Rockdale Citizen.

http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/news/headlines/79463782.html

Traveling by plane with dogs or cats

2009-12-03T16:15:00.000-08:00

Traveling by plane with dogs or cats: Southwest Airlines Travel Policies - Animals and Pets

(Important Note: This posting at Tips2UsSaveThem is not to be construed as an advertisement or testimonial for Southwest Airlines. It is posted in order to help readers learn "what is out there" in the way of information regarding airline travel with pets.)

"P.A.W.S. - Pets Are Welcome on Southwest"

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/animals.html

Pet Policy

For a list of key topics please visit our Frequently Asked Questions for Pets!

[Note: One of the Questions / Answers: Does Southwest Airlines accept pet crates/strollers as checked baggage? Answer: Customers traveling with a pet will be allowed to check a pet stroller/crate without charge (this is in addition to the regular free baggage allowance).]

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/animals_faq.html

Official Southwest pet carriers now on sale. Get one for your furry friend today!

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/animals.html#petCarrier

General information on traveling with pets:

Southwest Airlines accepts small vaccinated domestic cats and dogs.

All in-cabin pets must be carried in an appropriate carrier, as indicated below and are subject to a $75 Pet Fare each way per pet carrier.

The pet carrier counts as the Customer’s carry-on bag.

Reservations for small cats or dogs can only be booked by calling Southwest Airlines at 1-800-I-FLY-SWA (1-800-435-9792).

Pets will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis until capacity is reached.

The Pet Fare must be collected at the ticket counter and is nonrefundable and may not be applied toward future-date travel if unused.

Customers traveling with a cat or dog must check in pet at the airport ticket counter and pay the Pet Fare before going to the departure gate.

Customers can still secure their boarding pass online, at curbside check-in, the airport kiosk, or the ticket counter.

We maintain the right to refuse acceptance of a cat or dog exhibiting aggressive behavior or any other characteristics that appear incompatible with air travel.

The following guidelines apply to Customers bringing a cat or dog:

Southwest Airlines does not accept pets (cats or dogs) traveling without a Customer.

Pets are not permitted to travel with Unaccompanied Minors.

Please note: These requirements do not apply to assistance animals or emotional support animals accompanying a person with a disability.

For more information about assistance animals or emotional support animals, please visit http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/disability.html

All pet carriers are subject to being searched by the Transportation Security Administration, other airport security authorities, as well as searches by Airline personnel.

Note: When passing through security, Customers will be asked to hold the pet and walk through the screening device while the carrier is x-rayed.

In-cabin Pet Kennels:

Southwest Pet Carriers for Sale: Available for purchase at all Southwest airports, or online through our Freedom Shop: http://www.swafreedomshop.com/

Soft-sided and hard-sided carriers specifically designed as pet carriers are acceptable. The carriers must be leak-proof and well ventilated. The pet carrier must be small enough to fit under the seat in front of the Customer and be stowed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Southwest Airlines allows only one pet carrier per ticketed Customer.

The carrier may contain two (2) cats or dogs and must be of the same species per carrier.

The cat or dog must be completely inside the pet carrier and be able to stand up and move around the carrier with ease.

Pets must be secured in the pet carrier at all times while in the gate area, during boarding / deplaning and they must remain in the carrier for the entire duration of the flight. Failure to follow this requirement may result in denial of transportation of the pet onboard Southwest Airlines.

The under-seat dimensions are as follows:

Window Seat: 19"L x 14"W x 8.25"H

Middle Seat: 19"L x 19"W x 8.25"H

Aisle Seat: 19"L x 14"W x 8.25"H

However, please keep in mind that some seats might be slightly smaller in width.

In-cabin Pet Restrictions:

Customers traveling with a pet may not occupy an Exit Seat or a seat with no forward under-seat stowage.

Southwest Airlines will only carry pets in the cabin; pet carriers are not permitted as checked baggage.

Advanced pet arrangements must be made by calling Southwest Airlines Customer Support and Services at 1-800-I-FLY-SWA (1-800-435-9792).

There will be no more than five (5) scheduled pet carriers per scheduled flight. However, from time to time, circumstances may allow for more (or fewer) than five (5) pet carriers per scheduled flight.

Cats and dogs must be at least eight (8) weeks old for travel.

The animals must be harmless, inoffensive, odorless, and require no attention during flight.

Cats and dogs must remain in the carrier (including head and tail) and the carrier must be stowed under the seat in front of the Customer (Owner) during the entire duration of the flight.

Southwest Airlines will not be responsible if a Customer misses a flight due to the need to take the cat or dog to an outside relief area. Flight departures will not be delayed or held in order for connecting Customers to take a pet to an animal relief area.

If the pet becomes ill during the flight, oxygen or other first aid procedures will not be administered.

In the event of an emergency, an oxygen mask may not be available for the cat or dog.

Southwest Airlines assumes no liability for the health or wellbeing of carry-on pets.

Southwest Airlines will not accept pet remains in the cabin of the aircraft.

http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/animals.html

Large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (definition)

2009-11-30T16:57:00.000-08:00

Large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (Large CAFO) – An AFO (Animal Feeding Operation) is defined as a Large CAFO if it stables or confines as many or more than the numbers of animals specified in any of the following categories:

700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry;

1,000 veal calves;

1,000 cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.

Cattle includes, but is not limited to, heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs;

2,500 swine, each weighing 55 pounds or more;

10,000 swine, each weighing less than 55 pounds;

500 horses;

10,000 sheep or lambs;

55,000 turkeys; 30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system;

125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system;

82,000 laying hens, if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system;

30,000 ducks (if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system);

or 5,000 ducks (if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system)

[40 CFR 122.23(b)(4)] – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Glossary http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/glossary.cfm?program_id=0

(Note: There is currently no definition for "Factory Farm" within the parameters of .gov.)

the dog - poem

2009-11-29T10:40:00.000-08:00

the dog

they promised me they'd take care of everything

feed her & care for her I said I didn't want one

as though we ever know what it is we want

in two years they were gone

& I had Simba all alone though really Simba had me

on the end of a leash almost every afternoon or evening

in a right-hand tug-of-war with the untamed feminine

more than once even knocked down

& in my left sometimes at night the jiggledy hodge-podge

curiosity of a hand-held light purposefully searching

for a way into darkness at the gravel edge of the world

the wind scowling stars blotted out

in the black hole heart of an incoming storm

walking the dog that's when I too grip

how strong's the bond between fetch & toss

bark & song

- art goodtimes, san miguel county, colorado

gourds@paleohippie.com

2009-10-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

Cold Weather Tips for Pet Owners

It's that time of year again when water bowls left outside can fill with autumn leaves or freeze. Doghouses need "winterizing," cleaning and replacing bedding to stave off the chill of autumn and winter. Doghouses should be up off the ground with at least a pallet/skid between the floor of the doghouse and the cold/damp/frozen ground.

Everyone wants a warm place to sleep in wintertime, a place that's cozy, comfy and not drafty

Shorthaired dogs may need extra calories if they spend much time outdoors, because they do not have the thick winter coats of Siberian huskies or Alaskan Malamutes.

Water should be clean, available and in liquid form

Water bowls, unless heated, need to be monitored regularly. When temperatures dip below freezing -- and when they stay that way more often than not -- your outside pets need water that is not rimmed with ice or frozen solid. Eating snow lowers your pet's core temperature. Yes, animals with hair can and do freeze to death.

When snow and ice become a factor, check things like doggie paws (for ice and/or snow that can pack in between the pads and make your dog sore and/or lame). Older and/or less active dogs should receive correspondingly more warm bedding and "care checks."

For those with outside cats -- even though some cats tend to be more self-sufficient than most dogs -- kittens and elderly cats need more groceries and a supply of non-frozen water. A place 'out of the weather' that's kept just for them -- a box with nice, warm bedding -- is appreciated.

Care Checks

For those great-hearted folks that check on and care for homeless dogs and/or cats, a huge thank you! This is the time of year when unplanned, unwanted litters of puppies and kittens suffer most from the elements -- and why spaying/neutering is a lifesaver. Eartips can get frostbitten; a minor summer cold can spell death in the winter months.

Help make this winter an enjoyable, healthy one for the dogs and cats that look to you for their needs!

List of Dog Wardens, by County (Alphabetical)

2009-10-15T12:41:00.000-07:00

List of Dog Wardens, by County (Alphabetical)

(Most recent update: January 6, 2010, to reflect the Columbiana County dog warden's new last name and new email address dcroft@ccclerk.org and Pickaway County's new email address dogshelter@pickaway.org)

Ohio County Dog Wardens / Dog Wardens in Ohio, by County / List of Ohio Dog Wardens, by County

Adams County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Paul Hughes, 110 West Main Street, West Union, Ohio 45693. Phone: 937-544-2431. Fax: 937-544-6201. Email: pbhugh68@yahoo.com Kennel Manager: ericka_rb@yahoo.com Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/adams.html

Allen County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Julie Shellhammer, 1165 Seriff Road, Lima, Ohio 45805. Phone: 419-223-8528 Fax: 419-224-2954 Email: shellhammer@acso-oh.us Website: http://www.co.allen.oh.us/dog_ser.php http://www.co.allen.oh.us/dog.php

Ashland County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Tom Kosht, 1710 Garfield Avenue, Ashland, Ohio 44805. Phone: 419-289-1455 Fax: 419-281-6840 Email: dogwarden@ohio.net http://www.ashlandcounty.org/auditor/dog.htm Website: http://www.ashlandcounty.org/animalshelter/

Ashtabula County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Tabitha Hazeltine, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, Ohio 44047. Phone: 440-576-6538 Fax: 440-576-2344 Email: tdhazeltine@ashtabulacounty.us Website: http://www.ashtabulacountyauditor.org/

Athens County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Jeff Koons, P.O. Box 114, Chauncey, Ohio 45719. Phone: 740-593-5415 Fax: 740-797-8379 Email: acds@athenscountygovernment.com Website: http://66.194.132.27/dog_license.asp and http://www.athenscountygovernment.com/acds/

Auglaize County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Russ Bailey, 209 South Blackhoof Street, Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895. Phone: 419-302-8303 Fax: 419-739-6711 Email: dogwarden@auglaizecounty.org Websites: http://www.auglaizecounty.org/resources/dog-warden and Current Dog Listings: http://www2.auglaizecounty.org/current-listings (must allow pop-ups to click on photos to enlarge) and Dog Adoption: http://www2.auglaizecounty.org/adoptions and Missing A Dog? http://www2.auglaizecounty.org/missing-a-dog and More Dog Tag Information (outstanding questions and answers relating to dog tags and licensing!): http://www2.auglaizecounty.org/elected-officials/Auditor/dog_tags

Belmont County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Verna Painter 45244 National Road West, St. Clairsville, Ohio 45121. Phone: 740-695-4708 Fax: 740-695-6017 Email: bcarl@1st.net Website: http://www.belmontcountyohio.org/license.htm and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH216.html

Brown County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Reggie McKenzie, 800 Mt. Orab Pike, Suite 101, Georgetown, Ohio 45121. Phone: 937-378-3457 Fax: 937-378-2687 Email: bcas@bright.net Website: http://www.bright.net/~bcas/

Butler County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Julie Holmes, 123 North 3rd Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011. Phone: 513-785-6542 Fax: 513-785-6545 Email: holmesja@butlercountyohio.org Website: http://www.butlercountyohio.org/animalControl and http://www.butlercountyauditor.org/pdf/dl_application.pdf

Carroll County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Kenneth Ohler, 119 Public Square, Carrolton, Ohio 44615. Phone: 330-627-4244 Fax: 330-627-6656 Email: sleggett@carrollcountyohio.us Website: http://auditor.carrollcountyohio.net/dogtag.htm

Champaign County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mandy Randall, 1512 U.S. Route 68 South, Urbana, Ohio 43078. Phone: 937-484-1613 Fax: 937-484-1609 Email: randajr@hotmail.com Website:A message from Champaign County Auditor Bonnie Warman: "Dear Dog Owner, It is up to you to keep your dog healthy, happy, and safe. Take your dog to a veterinarian. Protect your pet from deadly contagious diseases by simple inoculations and regular checkups. Consider spaying and neutering to prevent the tragedy of unwanted puppies and to protect your pet from health problems. Give your dog regular exercise. A daily brisk walk on a leash can prevent many behavioral problems like chewing, barking, and digging. Help your dog burn up calories and energy in a healthy way. Feed your dog a balanced diet of good food and fresh water. Your dog can't just go fix a snack. You are his chef and server. License your dog. Not only is it the law, but also a Champaign County dog license automatically registers your dog for a free trip home if he gets lost. Remember, call 937-484-1600 if you find a lost dog!" http://co.champaign.oh.us/auditor/html/dog_license.html

Clark County, Ohio, Dog Warden: James Straley, 5201 Urbana Road, Springfield, Ohio 45503. Phone: 937-399-2917 Fax: 937-399-2936 Email: jimmystraley@clarkhumane.org Website: http://www.clarkhumane.org/Staff.html and http://www.clarkhumane.org/Contact.html

Clermont County, Ohio, Dog Warden (Chief Animal Control Officer / Humane Agent): Debra L. Wood, Clermont County Humane Society, 4025 Filager Road, Batavia, Ohio 45103. Phone: 513-732-8854 Fax: 513-732-8855 Email: dwood1@fuse.net Websites: http://www.clermontcountyanimalshelter.com/ and http://www.clermontauditor.org/pdf/ApplicationfortheRegistrationofDogfortheYear.pdf “Save a life: Adopt a Shelter Pet”

Clinton County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Danny DeLawder, 1330 Fife Avenue, Wilmington, Ohio 45177. Phone: 937-382-8388 Fax: 937-382-5678 Email: N/A Website: http://clintonoh.ddti.net/auditor/dog_license.asp

Columbiana County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Dawn Croft, 8455 County Home Road, Lisbon, Ohio 44432. Phone: 330-424-6663 Fax: 330-424-5458 Email: dcroft@ccclerk.org Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH417.html

Coshocton County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Steve Cox and (Assistant Dog Warden) Russell “Rusty” Dreagr, 401 1/2 Main Street, Coshoction, Ohio 43812. Phone: 740-295-0026 Fax: 740-622-4917 Email: stevecox@coshoctoncounty.net and rustydreagr@coshoctoncounty.net Websites: http://www.coshoctoncounty.net/agency/dogwarden/

Crawford County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Linda Armour, 112 East Mansfield Street, Suite 304, Bucyrus, Ohio 44820. Phone: 419-562-4993 Fax 419-562-3491 Email: dogwarden@crawford-co.org Website: http://www.crawford-co.org/auditor/Dog_Tags/Dog_Application/dog_application.html and http://www.crawford-co.org/Commissioners/Dog_Warden/dog_warden.html "Dogs are housed at the Humane Society Serving Crawford County: 419-562-9149."

Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Dog Warden: (to be announced) business administrator Leslie DeSouza 216-525-4813 ldesouza@cuyahogacounty.us Middleburg Heights Dog Warden: Dennis Eck 216-401-5502 (email?) 9500 Sweet Valley, Valley View, Ohio 44125. Phone: 216-525-7877 Fax: 216-901-0169 Email: Website: https://auditor.cuyahogacounty.us/doglicense/dogfaq.htm and http://www.doglicense.com/counties/cuyahoga/index.html

Darke County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Duane Sanning, 5066 County Home Road, Greenville, Ohio 45331. Phone: 937-547-1645 Fax: 937-548-7946 Email: contact_us@darkecountyanimalshelter.com Website: http://www.darkecountyanimalshelter.com/index.php

Defiance County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Randy W. Vogel, 500 Court Street, Suite D, Defiance, Ohio 43512. Phone: 419-784-2335 Fax: 419-784-3268 Email: rvogel@defiance-county.com Website: http://www.defiance-county.com/auditor15.html and http://www.defiance-county.com/humaneagent.html

Delaware County, Ohio, Dog Warden: 10 Court Street, 2nd Floor, Delaware, Ohio 43015-1701. Phone: 740-368-1915 Fax: 740-368-1919 Email: dogwarden@co.delaware.oh.us Website: https://secure.co.delaware.oh.us/dogtagrenew.htm and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH482.html

Erie County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Barb Knapp, 2900 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, Ohio 44870. Phone: 419-627-7607 Fax: 419-624-6441 Email: dogwarden@erie-county-ohio.net or bknapp@erie-county-ohio.net Website: http://www.erie.iviewtaxmaps.com/dog_license.asp and http://www.erie-county-ohio.net/dogwarden/dogwarden.htm

Fairfield County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mike Miller, 1715 Granville Pike, Lancaster, Ohio 43130. Phone: 740-653-4582 Fax: 740-681-7457 Email: mikemiller@co.fairfield.oh.us Website: http://www.co.fairfield.oh.us/dog/index.htm

Fayette County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Bob Bushey and Savannah Poole, 1550 Robinson Road, Washington Court House, Ohio 43160. Phone: 740-335-6630 Email: fayette.dogwarden@sbcglobal.net Website: http://fayette-co-oh.com/Dogward/index.html

Franklin County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Don Winstel, Interim Director, and Joe C. Rock, Assistant Director, 1731 Alum Creek Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43207. Phone: 614-462-5606 or 614-462-4361 or 614-462-6699 Fax: 614-462-6658 Email: dpwinste@franklincountyohio.gov or jcrock@franklincountyohio.gov Websites: http://www.franklincountydogs.com/ and http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/Consumer/dogs/welcome.shtm and http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/commissioners/ancl/

Fulton County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Peter Skeldon and Brian Banister, 9200 County Road 14, Wauseon, Ohio 43567. Phone: 419-337-9219 Fax: 419-337-9619 Email: dogwarden@fultoncountyoh.com Website: http://www.fultoncountyoh.com/elected_officials/auditor/pdf_files/dog_letter_app.pdf Hours: Monday - Saturday: 8-10 AM

Gallia County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Jean Daniels, 186 Shawnee Lane, Gallipolis, Ohio 45631. Phone: 740-441-0207 or 740-339-2986 (cell) Fax: 740-441-0207 (call first so fax machine can be turned on) Email: dogwarden@gallianet.net or jdaniels@gallianet.net Cat shelter in Gallia County: The Perennial Cat 740-645-7275 (cell; leave message)

Geauga County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Matthew M. Granito, 12513 Merritt Road, Chardon, Ohio 44024-1293. Phone: 440-279-2181 Fax: 440-286-8136 Email: mgranito@co.geauga.oh.us Websites: http://www.auditor.co.geauga.oh.us/dog/ and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH272.html

Greene County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Harold Brown, 641 Dayton-Xenia Road, Xenia, Ohio 45385. Phone: 937-562-7400 Fax: 937-562-7801 Email: hbrown@co.greene.oh.us Website: http://www.co.greene.oh.us/auditor/dogtag.htm and http://www.co.greene.oh.us/animal/adopt.htm

Guernsey County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Dave Robinson, 62824 Bennett Avenue, Cambridge, Ohio 43725-9490. Phone: 740-432-2219 Fax: 740-432-2219 (same as phone number; call first so they can switch on the fax machine) Email: swwpvw@yahoo.com

Hamilton County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Harold Dates, 3949 Colerain Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45223. Phone: 513-541-6100 and 513-946-3647 (24-hour hotline for found dogs only that are wearing Hamilton County tags) Fax: 513-542-7722. Email: dogman@spcacincinnati.org Websites: http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/pdf/dogform.pdf (4-page form); http://www.doglicense.com/counties/hamilton/index.html (Hamilton County Dog License Program) and http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/textonly/dogs.asp (much information; many questions answered)http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/pdf/dogform.pdf http://www.doglicense.com/counties/hamilton/index.html513-946-4106

Hancock County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Suzie Ryan and Assistant Dana Berger, 4550 Fostoria Avenue, Findlay, Ohio 45840. Phone: 419-423-1664 Fax: 419-423-9131 Email: webmaster@hancockhumanesociety.com Websites: http://auditor.co.hancock.oh.us/index2.htm and http://auditor.co.hancock.oh.us/dog.htm (dog license information and application) and http://auditor.co.hancock.oh.us/doglicenseapp.pdf (1-page printable dog license application) http://www.hancockhumanesociety.com and http://www.hancockhumanesociety.com/humane/about-us.htm

Hardin County, Ohio, Acting Dog Warden: Brian Woodard; Deputy Dog Warden Tammy Ervin, 49 Jones Road, Kenton, Ohio 43326. Phone: 419-674-2209 Fax: 419-673-8720 Email: hcdw@windstream.net Website: http://www.co.hardin.oh.us/Calendar/Dog_Tags/dog_tags.html and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH396.html Hours: 8-5 Monday through Friday; 8:30-10:30 AM Saturday; closed Sunday.

Harrison County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Carl Stewart, 100 West Market, Cadiz, Ohio 43907. Phone: 740-942-4080 Fax: 740-942-4090 Email: N/A Website: N/A

Henry County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Beth Spurgeon, 1853 Oakwood, Napoleon, Ohio 43545. Phone: 419-599-9233 Fax: 419-592-4016 Email: dogwarden-henry@bright.net Websites: http://www.henrycountyohio.com/dog.htm and http://www.co.henry.oh.us/Dog_Tags/dog_tags.html Hours: 8 AM - 4:30 PM Monday through Friday; closed weekends and legal holidays.

Highland County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Richard Fulkerson, 114 Governor Foraker Place, Hillsboro, Ohio 45133. Phone: 937-393-8191 Fax: 937-393-5850 Email: animalcontrol@highlandcoso.com

Hocking County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Don Kiger 120 Homer Avenue, Logan, Ohio 43138. Phone: 740-385-2319 Fax: 740-385-1105 Email: dkiger@co.hocking.oh.us (Note: This is a new email address as of August 25, 2009.) Website: http://www.co.hocking.oh.us/auditor/Calendar/Dog_Tags/dog_tags.html

Holmes County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Reagan Tetreault 2 Court Street, Suite 10, Millersburg, Ohio 44654. Phone: 330-674-6301 Fax: 330-674-1009 Email: dogwarden@co.holmes.oh.us

Huron County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Bill Duncan, 130 Shady Lane Drive, Building E, Norwalk, Ohio 44857. Phone: 419-668-9773 Fax: 419-663-4908. Email: hcdw@cros.net Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH718.html

Jackson County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Roy Williams, 248 Reservoir Road, Jackson, Ohio 45640 Phone: 740-286-7262 Fax: 740-286-4061 Email: commissioners@ohiohills.com Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH349.html

Jefferson County, Ohio, Dog Warden: William D. Bell, 3463 County Road 26, Wintersville, Ohio 43953. Phone: 740-264-6888 or 740-266-6476 Fax: 740-283-8599 Email: jc_pound@yahoo.com Website: http://www.doglicense.com/counties/jefferson/index.html

Knox County, Ohio, Dog Warden / Animal Shelter: Roger Reed, 285 Columbus Road, Mt. Vernon, Ohio 43050. Phone: 740-393-6713 Fax: 740-393-2967 Email: rogerreed@co.knox.oh.us Website: http://www.knoxcountyohio.org/offices/Auditor.htm and http://www.knoxhumanesociety.org/adoptdogs.shtml

Lake County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Rodney A. Shelton, 2600 North Ridge Road, Painesville, Ohio 44077. Phone: 440-350-2640 Fax: 440-340-2600 Email: lcdogs@lakecountyohio.gov or rshelton@lakecountyohio.gov Website: http://www.lakecountyohio.gov/Default.aspx?alias=www.lakecountyohio.gov/dogs

Lawrence County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Bill Click, 1302 Adams Lane, Ironton, Ohio 45638. Phone: 740-533-1736 Fax: 740-533-1736 Email: N/A Website: N/A “Our shelter takes in over 2,000 homeless, abandoned or unwanted dogs each year. We also accept kittens and cats. You can help stop the pet overpopulation tragedy. Please spay or neuter your pets. Here are some tips that will help enable dogs and humans to live together harmoniously: Always keep your dog on a leash when you are out for a walk. When you are walking your dog, keep him/her close to you and steer clear of people walking, running, skating, or biking. Stoop and scoop after your dog, and whatever you do, don’t let your dog relieve itself on the neighbor’s lawn. When you are on your own property, keep your dog in the house, in a fenced-in yard or tie him/her up if you can’t supervise it constantly. Never underestimate your dog’s potential for aggressiveness. Owners of dogs that growl and bare their teeth often say, "Don’t worry; he won’t bite." Be careful! An accident can happen very quickly, so guard against those ‘first-time dog bites.’ Bring your dog indoors if it has been left alone in the yard and is barking. Don’t leave your dog outdoors if you know that it is going to bark all day. Never leave your dog under the supervision of a young child, especially those who are not a part of the family. We reach out to all the tri-state area: Lawrence, Gallia, Jackson, and Scioto counties; the Ironton, Ohio, area, as well as Coal Grove, South Point, Chesapeake, Proctorville, and Portsmouth, Ohio. In Kentucky: Boyd and Greenup counties, as well as the Ashland, Kentucky, area, and Greenup, Russell, Flatwoods, and Cattletsburg. In West Virginia: Cabell and Wayne counties and the Huntington, West Virginia, area.” http://web.archive.org/web/20020608112139/http://www.ddrt.net/shelterindex.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/20020609025337/www.ddrt.net/shelterhealthcats.htm (great cat health tips!)

Licking County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Jon Luzio, 544 Dog Leg Road, Health, Ohio 43056. Phone: 740-349-6562 Fax: 740-323-0126 Email: jluzio@lcounty.com Website: N/A Within the Newark city limits: Newark city dog warden: Toby Wills: 740-670-7277.

Logan County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Benji Avila, 284 County Road 32, South Bellefontaine, Ohio 43311. Phone: 937-599-7231. If it is about a dog within the city limits of Bellfontaine, call: 937-593-4277 Fax: 937-592-5011. Email: bavila@co.logan.oh.us Websites: http://www.co.logan.oh.us/auditor/dog_lic.htm Printable Dog Tag Form: http://www.co.logan.oh.us/auditor/Dog_Tag_From.htm

Lorain County, Ohio, Dog Warden: John A. “Jack” Szlempa, Sr., 301 Hadaway Street Elyria, Ohio 44035. Phone: 440-326-5995 Fax: 440-326-5999 Email: jszlempa@loraincounty.us Website: http://www.loraincounty.com/auditor/dog-licenses/ and http://www.loraincounty.us/dogs

Lucas County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Thomas G. Skeldon, 410 South Erie Street, Toledo, Ohio 43609. Phone: 419-213-2800 Fax: 419-213-2803 or Fax: 419-255-6141 Email: tskeldon@co.lucas.oh.us Websites: http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/index.aspx?nid=944 "Overview: The Lucas County Dog Warden Department is a law enforcement agency enforcing Ohio laws that protect the public from canine-related problems. Our mission is, first and foremost, public safety. As a part of that mission, we endeavor to significantly reduce or eliminate the stray dog population and to make dog owners responsible for their pets." and http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/index.aspx?NID=951 Responsibilities: Overview: “The Lucas County Dog Warden Department will: Strive to license all dogs over three months of age in Lucas County and to see that licensed dogs always wear their current tags. Attempt to return all loose roaming dogs to responsible owners and educate those owners in their responsibilities and methods of compliance with their unique pets to prevent future problems. Treat people with whom we come in contact with respect and consideration; understanding that to some a pet is like a family member and its loss can be very painful and emotional. Treat all impounded animals humanely and kindly as it is their owners’ neglect, ignorance, or the product of a poor match of personalities that brought them to the pound. Be professional in our dealings with the public and be respectful of their rights and concerns. Strive to adopt all unclaimed adoptable dogs out to caring, committed, responsible families. For their protection, we will make every attempt to make available for adoption only dogs that are of stable temperament and safe around people and to match the owner to the dog to create a lasting friendship between owner and dog. In the event that an impounded dog is unsafe around people or unsound in health, or for some reason not adoptable, make a decision with wisdom, training, and compassion, to humanely euthanize the animal and accept the fact that this must happen to some.” and http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/index.aspx?nid=954 (licensing your dog) and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH31.html and “Do you take cats? No, the Lucas County Dog Warden does not accept cats, nor do we pick them up. Due to health concerns, we are not permitted to have cats here in our facility. If you have a stray cat, please call one of the animal shelters in the area. What should I do if my dog is missing? If you have a missing dog, please come to the Dog Warden’s office to walk through our kennel to see if your dog has been picked up. Due to the volume of dogs picked up and the variety of breeds, our office staff will not be able to tell you if your dog has been impounded. You may be required to show a valid driver’s license or state-issued picture ID in some cases. After-hours, we only respond to police calls, so if your dog were lost in the evening, it may still be at the pound. When does my dog have to have a dog license? In the State of Ohio, all dogs over three months of age are required to have a dog license.” http://www.co.lucas.oh.us/FAQ.ASPx?QID=151

Madison County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Gary Kronk, P.O. Box 558, London, Ohio. Phone: 740-845-1749. Fax: 740-852-7125. Email: dogwarden@madisonsheriff.org Websites: http://www.madisonsheriff.org/dog%20warden.htm and http://www.madisonsheriff.org/report_dog_abuse.htm (to report dog abuse; website form; may remain anonymous) and http://www.co.madison.oh.us/10901.html and http://madisonoh.ddti.net/dogtagsearch/ and the Humane Society of Madison County (HSMC), 1357 State Route 38 SE, London, Ohio 43140. Phone: 740-852-7387 Fax: N/A Email: betty@madisonhumane.org Website: http://www.hsmcohio.com Hours: Noon-5 PM Monday-Saturday; closed Sundays and holidays.

Mahoning County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mike Fox, 589 Industrial Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44509. Phone: 330-740-2205 Fax: 330-740-2499 Email: mfox@mahoningcountyoh.gov Website: http://www.doglicense.com/counties/mahoning/licenseappl.html and http://www.doglicense.com/counties/mahoning/index.html

Marion County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Jane Watts, 2252 Richland Road, Marion, Ohio 43302. Phone: 740-386-6150 Fax: 740-386-6619 Email: N/A Website: http://www.co.marion.oh.us/auditor/dogtags.htm and http://www.mariononline.com/dogs/index.htm

Medina County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Del Saffle, 6334 Deerview Lane, Medina, Ohio 44256. Phone: 330-725-9121 Fax: 330-723-9554 Email: dogscats@bright.net Website: http://www.co.medina.oh.us/animal/animal.htm and http://www.medinacountyauditor.org/dog_buytags.htm

Meigs County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Thomas Proffitt, 41790 Fairgrounds Road, Pomeroy, Ohio 45769. Phone: 740-992-3779 Email: meigscountydogshelter@yahoo.com Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/meigsdogs.html

Mercer County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Thomas Powell, 7009 State Route 49, Celina, Ohio 45822. Phone: 419-942-1550 Fax: N/A Email: N/A Website: http://www.mercercountyohio.org/dogpound/dog.htm

Miami County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Patricia Armstrong, 201 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373. Phone: 937-332-6919 Fax: 937-332-7060 Email: mcas6@verizon.net

Monroe County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Ronda Piatt, 47137 State Route 26, Woodsfield, Ohio 43793. Phone: 740-472-0300 Fax: 740-472-0300 Email: poundog@copper.net Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH283.html

Montgomery County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mark Kumpf, 6790 Webster Street, Dayton, Ohio 45414. Phone: 937-898-4457 Fax: 937-454-8139 Email: kumpfm@mcohio.org Website: http://www.mcohio.org/revize/montgomery/government/auditor/dog_licenses.html and http://www.mcohio.org/animalshelter/index.html

Morgan County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Becky Thompson, 155 East Main Street, Room 216, McConnellsville, Ohio 43756. Phone: 740-962-6424 or 740-962-3183 (Morgan County Commissioners) Fax: 740-962-2014 Email: highhillfarm1@embarqmail.com Website: N/A

Morrow County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Sarina Atwell, 80 North Walnut Street, Suite A, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338. Phone: 419-946-1747 Fax: 419-947-1860 Email: morrowdogwarden@redbird.net Website: http://co.morrow.oh.us/dog_license.asp and http://www.morrowcounty.info/DogWarden/website.htm

Muskingum County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Bryan Catlin, 1500 Newark Road, Zanesville, Ohio 43701. Phone: 740-453-0273 Fax: 740-455-3785 Email: commissioners@muskingumcounty.org Website: http://www.muskingumcountyauditor.org/location.asp and http://dogpound.muskingumcounty.org/

Noble County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Chuck Augenstein, 18259 County Road 40, Dudley Road, Caldwell, Ohio 43724. Phone: 740-732-7881 Fax: 740-732-5702 Email: N/A Website: N/A

Ottawa County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Jolynn Hetrick, 8400 West State Route 163, Oak Harber, Ohio 43449. Phone: 419-898-1368 Fax: 419-898-2056 Email: ocdw@co.ottawa.oh.us Website: http://www.petfinder.com/oh504.html

Paulding County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mandy Lichty, 115 North Williams Street, Paulding, Ohio 45879. Phone: 419-399-9728 Fax: 419-399-5263 Email: pcdogwarden@windstream.net Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH709.html Adoption Hours are from 3 to 5 PM Thursdays or by appointment.

Perry County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Dave F. Elekes and Matt Everett, 1650 Commerce Drive, New Lexington, Ohio 43764. Phone: 740-342-3795 Fax: 740-342-9052. Email: pcdswo@gmail.com Websites: http://www.adoptapet.com/adoption_rescue/19768.html and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH260.html

Pickaway County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Tammy Fee, 21253 Ringgold Southern Road, Circleville, Ohio 43113. Phone: 740-474-3741 Fax: 740-474-6322 Email: dogshelter@pickaway.org Website: N/A

Pike County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Randy Mustard, 2575 Alma Omega Road, Waverly, Ohio 45690. Phone: 740-947-5996 Fax: 740-947-5065. Email: pikecountydogpound@yahoo.com Website: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH397.html

Portage County, Ohio, Dog Warden: David McIntyre, 8120 Infirmary Road, Ravenna, Ohio 44266. Phone: 330-297-6924 Emergency/After Hours Phone (Portage County Sheriff: 330-296-5100) Fax: 330-298-2053 Email: dmcintyre@portageco.com Websites: http://www.co.portage.oh.us/dogwarden.htm and http://www.co.portage.oh.us/auditor_pdfs/Dog%20Registration%20Application.pdf and http://www.newleashonlife.petfinder.com/ "Provides dog licenses; responds to reports of stray dogs, unlicensed dogs, vicious dogs, and dog bites. Dogs are available for adoption."

Preble County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mr. Lee Richardson, 101 East Main Street: Courthouse, Eaton, Ohio 45320. Phone: 937-456-4818 Fax: 937-456-8114 Email: lrichardson6892A@embarqmail.com Website: http://www.prebco.org/Dog%20warden.htm

Putnam County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mike Schroth, 1035 Heritage Trail, Ottawa, Ohio 45875. Phone: 419-523-8617 Fax: 419-523-6598 Email: putcopound@bright.net

Richland County, Ohio, Dog Warden: David Jordan, 50 Park Avenue East, Mansfield, Ohio 44902. Phone: 419-774-5892 Fax: 419-774-1392 Email: richlandcountydogs@yahoo.com and / or djordanwarden@yahoo.com Website: http://www.richlandcountyoh.us/dog.htm

Ross County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Waneta J. Detty, 2308 Lick Run Road #B, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601. Phone: 740-772-5929 Fax: 740-779-0652 Email: rcdogwarden@horizonview.net Website (Ross County Auditor: dog licenses): http://66.194.132.52/auditor/dog_license.asp

Sandusky County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Fred Harris, 1950 Countryside Place, Fremont, Ohio 43420. Phone: 419-334-2372 Fax: 419-334-4290 Email: scdandk@glis.cc Website: http://www.sanduskycountydogkennel.com

Scioto County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: Donald Cummings and Tom Thacker, Pam Frowine, Shelter Administrator, 95 Arrowhead North Road Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 740-353-8802 Fax: 740-353-8802 (same as phone number; call first so they can switch on the fax machine) Email: scdogpound2@verizon.net Website: http://www.sciotocountyohio.com/audit.htm

Seneca County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Kelly Marker, 3140 South State Route 100 Tiffin, Ohio 44883. Phone: 419-448-5097 Fax: 419-448-4483 Email: scadw@bright.net Website: http://www.senecacountyauditor.org/dog_license.asp and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH582.html

Shelby County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Deputy Lew Warbington and Deputy Cami Frey, 1100 Clem Road, Sidney, Ohio 45365. Phone: 937-498-7201 Fax: 937-498-4591 Email: shelbycountyanimalshelter@yahoo.com Website: http://co.shelby.oh.us/Auditor/index.asp and http://www.co.shelby.oh.us/animalshelter.asp

Stark County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Evert Gibson, 1801 Mahoning Road N.E., Canton, Ohio 44705. Phone: 330-451-2343 Fax: 330-451-2350 Email: eigibson@co.stark.oh.us Website: http://www.co.stark.oh.us/dog_tag/ordertags.step0 and http://www.co.stark.oh.us/internet/HOME.DisplayPage?v_page=commissioners_dogWardenOffice

Summit County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Christine Fatheree, 460 East North Street, Akron, Ohio 44304. Phone: 330-643-8258 Fax: 330-643-8034 Email: cfatheree@summitoh.net Website: http://www.co.summit.oh.us/fiscaloffice/pdfs/dog%20registration_2006.pdf

Trumbull County, Ohio, Dog Wardens: James Keating, Acting Dog Warden, and Jim Shamrock, Assistant Chief Dog Warden, 7501 Anderson Avenue, Warren, Ohio 44484. Phone: 330-675-2787 Fax: 330-675-2788 Email: trumbullcountydogkennel@doglover.com Website: http://co.auditor.trumbull.oh.us/auditor_doglic.htm and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH650.html "The Trumbull County Dog Kennel hours of business are 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday. We now have NEW Saturday hours of 9 AM to 1 PM. We are closed on Sundays and holidays. We do not schedule evening or Sunday appointments (non-business hours). We are located off of Route 46 in Howland Township. Please contact us on our screen name, trumbullcountydogkennel@doglover.com for any additional information and updates regarding our beautiful dogs. I personally read all e-mails daily. PLEASE CONSIDER ADOPTING ONE OF OUR DOGS AND GIVE THEM A SECOND CHANCE. You must be 18 years of age or older to adopt. Please stop in and see if there is a dog that catches your heartstrings and give him/her a forever home." Source: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH650.html

Tuscarawas County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Karen Slough, 441 University Drive NE, New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663. Phone: 330-339-2616 Email: kslough@roadrunner.com

Union County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Mary Beth Hall, 233 West Sixth Street, Marysville, Ohio 43040. Phone: 937-645-3016 Fax: 937-645-3002 Email: mhall@co.union.oh.us Website: http://www.co.union.oh.us/Auditor/Auditor_Programs/body_auditor_programs.html#Licensing1 and http://www.co.union.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/UC/UCDetail.aspx?page=349

Van Wert County, Ohio, Dog Warden and Humane Agent: Richard “Rich” Strunkenburg, 309 Bonnewitz Avenue, Van Wert, Ohio 45891-1704. Phone: 419-238-5088 Fax: N/A Email: N/A Website: http://www.co.vanwert.oh.us/Dog_Tags/dog_tags.html Hours: Monday & Tuesday 8-4; Wednesday 8-Noon; Thursday & Friday 8-4; closed weekends.

Vinton County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Sheila Brooks, 31479 State Route 93 (by the fairgrounds), McArthur, Ohio 45651. Phone: 740-596-9285 Fax: N/A Email: dog.shelter@co.vinton.oh.us Website: http://www.vintoncounty.com/Dog_Warden.htm and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH400.html and http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/OH413.html

Warren County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Nathan Harper 230 Cook Road, Lebanon, Ohio 45036. Phone: 513-695-1352 Fax: 513-695-2988 Email: harpnd@co.warren.oh.us Website: http://www.co.warren.oh.us/auditor/licensing/dog/index.htm

Washington County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Stephan "Steve" Strahler, 205 Putnam Street, Marietta, Ohio 45750. Phone: 740-373-6623 Ext. 204 Fax: 740-373-2200 Email: dogwarden@wcgov.org Website: http://www.washingtongov.org/ps-dogwarden.htm

Wayne County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Pame Chastain, Deputy Denise Beall, 428 West Liberty Street, Wooster, Ohio 44691. Phone: 330-287-5410 Fax: 330-287-5407 Email: dogwarden@wayneohio.org Website: http://www.wayneohio.org/permits.html Hours: Monday through Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM

Williams County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Pam Stark, 09992 County Road 16, Bryan, Ohio 45306. Phone: 419-636-4659. Fax: N/A Email: N/A Websites: http://www.co.williams.oh.us/auditor/dog_license_2.htm (dog license information) and http://www.co.williams.oh.us/auditor/dog_app_06.pdf (dog tag application)

Wood County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Rodney Cook, 1912 East Gypsy Lane, Bowling Green, Ohio 43402. Phone: 419-354-9242 Fax: 419-354-9802 Email: wcdogshelter@co.wood.oh.us Website: http://www.co.wood.oh.us/dogshelter/

Wyandot County, Ohio, Dog Warden: Andy Niederkohr, 7790 State Route #199, Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351. Phone: 419-294-5408 Fax: 419-294-6427 Website: http://www.co.wyandot.oh.us/cgi-bin/db2www.pgm/dgq.mbr/main?nuser=11:57:22

Pack of raccoons mauls 74-year-old Florida woman

2009-10-09T12:11:00.000-07:00

Pack of raccoons mauls 74-year-old Florida woman

(Note: Although not often considered as such, raccoons and other smaller wildlife are, indeed, wild, and under certain circumstances, can and do defend themselves. Many dogs have learned the hard way that tangling with a raccoon in or near water will find the raccoon on the dog's head, and the dog usually drowns. Other luckier canines 'only' have wounds to show for their experience. Groundhogs, opossums, skunks, etc., can also be tough customers for the unwary who venture too close. Porcupines aren't the only ones that are 'not nice to be near!')

October 5, 2009

No author provided at originating website address / URL.

The Associated Press / The Columbus Dispatch 34 South Third Street

Columbus, Ohio 43215 http://www.dispatch.com and http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/services/stories/contact_us/staff.html

614-461-5000 Fax: 614-461-8793 To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@dispatch.com (200-word limit)

Lakeland, Florida - Animal control officers hope to trap a pack of raccoons that mauled a 74-year-old Florida woman who tried to chase them from her yard.

The sheriff in Polk County, east of Tampa, says Gretchen Whitted fell when five raccoons surrounded and attacked her Sunday. She was taken to a hospital with extensive cuts from her neck to her legs.

"We're not talking about a lot of little bites here," Sheriff Grady Judd said. "She was filleted."

A neighbor called for help after hearing the woman's cries and seeing her covered in blood.

Whitted was treated for rabies, though officials doubt the animals were infected.

Fire crews flooded nearby drains to drive the animals out, but none appeared. Animal control officers hope to catch them using cat food and sardines as bait.

Copyright 2009, Columbus Dispatch.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/05/apack.html?sid=101

Comments (currently 34 posted) (some are real gems!):

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/columbus-dispatch/T5O78H5TUBAKIR6SO?p=3650&s=PB&co=1

~~~~~ Update on this story ~~~~~

Woman attacked by raccoons out of hospital

October 9, 2009

No author provided at originating website address / URL

The Ledger

P.O. Box 408

Lakeland, Florida 33802

863-802-7000

Fax: 863-802-7826

http://www.theledger.com and http://www.theledger.com/article/99999999/MISC/958878871 and http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=EDIT06

To submit a Letter to the Editor: voice@theledger.com (300-word limit)

Photo of Gretchen Whitted:

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=LL&Date=20091009&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=910099997&Ref=AR&Profile=1134&MaxW=600&border=0

Lakeland, Florida - A Lakeland woman who was attacked by raccoons October 3 has been released from Lakeland Regional Medical Center and is resting at home, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said.

Gretchen Whitted, 74, was attacked about 5:30 p.m. Saturday at her South Lakeland home. Five raccoons bit Whitted's neck, chest, legs, head and back when she tried to shoo them away from her front porch and fell.

Animal Control officers trapped an opossum, a cat and one raccoon Monday. Two more raccoons were caught in the neighborhood Wednesday.

Wildlife experts speculated the attack was spurred by a mother raccoon that was defending her offspring. Whitted was given a rabies vaccine as a precaution.

Copyright 2009, The Ledger.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20091009/NEWS/910099997/1134?Title=Woman-Attacked-By-Raccoons-Out-of-Hospital

The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc., et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government

2009-10-08T15:03:00.000-07:00

The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc., et al v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government

(Note: A careful read will prove that this is a property rights issue, through and through. It's all in the definitions ... This one is well worth your time!)

Filed October 2, 2009

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/LKC_Metro_Govt_100509.pdf (26 pages; 1.08 MB)

Page 1

Case 3:07-cv-00230-CRS-JDM, Document 58

United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc., et al, Plaintiff v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-230-S

Order

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is hereby ordered and adjudged:

1. Section 91.022 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances is declared unconstitutional insofar as it requires owners of unaltered dogs to obtain written approval of their enclosures. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro's motion for summary judgment (DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing § 91.022's written approval requirement.

2. Section 91.101 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances is declared unconstitutional insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a finding of guilt. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro's motion for summary judgment (DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing § 91.101 in the manner just described.

3. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims regarding §§ 91.073(D), 91.094(A), and 91.101(A) are hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court is without authority to rule on the parties' motions for summary judgment as regards those claims.

4. With respect to all other claims presented in this case, Metro's motion for summary judgment (DN27) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (DN20) is DENIED.

October 1, 2009

Charles R. Simpson III, Judge, United States District Court

Page 2

Memorandum Opinion

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs (several pet-owners' groups, pet-related businesses, veterinarians, and individual pet owners) seek to overturn an amendment1 to Chapter 91 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances on numerous grounds. They argue that various sections of the Amended Code violate the federal Constitution and Kentucky law. Because of the pervasiveness of the alleged defects, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief voiding the ordinance in toto. Defendant, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government ("Metro"), of course, disputes these allegations.

The parties (and the Court) agree that the case is ripe for summary judgment. There are no disputed facts; the only question is which side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Plaintiff's objections to the ordinance in question may be grouped under five headings. First, plaintiffs argue that several sections of the ordinance are unconstitutionally vague. Others, they say, lack a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause and the "substantive" component of the Due Process Clause. One provision allegedly requires forfeiture of certain pets without adequate "procedural" Due Process. A fourth set of provisions, it is argued, authorize illegal warrantless searches and seizures of pet owners' homes and property. Finally, plaintiffs argue that various sections of this local ordinance stand in conflict with state law. The Court will address plaintiffs' arguments in turn.

1 - Ordinance No. 290, Series 2007, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 91 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances ("Code") Pertaining to Unaltered Dogs, the Waiver of Metro Animal Service Fees Due to Financial Hardship, and the Quarantine of Animals (Amended by Substitution)." The Court will refer to this legislation as "the ordinance."

I. Vagueness

A. Legal Standard

The "vagueness" doctrine stems from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and (here) Fourteenth Amendments. A vague law offends constitutional norms in that it fails both "(1) to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand prohibited conduct, and (2) to establish standards to permit police to enforce the law in a non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory manner." Belle Maer Harbor v. Charter Twp. of Harrison, 170 F.3d 553, 556 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). These standards are not to be "mechanistically applied," Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982), and the Sixth Circuit has concluded that it is the "second prong -- providing minimal guidelines to govern the conduct of law enforcement -- (that) constitutes the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine. Belle Maer Harbor, 170 F.3d at 556-57 (citing Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)).

The rejection of "mechanistic" application of the terms of the vagueness standard means that "[t]he degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates -- as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement -- depends in part on the nature of the enactment." Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498. A criminal statute or one that threatens constitutionally protected rights (particularly the First Amendment right to freedom of speech) is subject to more stringent review than an

Page 3

economic regulation or an enactment enforced only by civil sanctions. Specifically, "an enactment imposing criminal sanction or reaching a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may withstand facial constitutional scrutiny only if it incorporates a high level of definiteness." Belle Maer Harbor, 170 F.3d at 557 (citing Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494). The ordinance at issue imposes both civil and criminal penalties;2 a higher degree of clarity is therefore required if it is to be upheld.

Counterbalancing this demand for heightened clarity is the fact that the plaintiffs have raised a facial vagueness challenge to the ordinance. They have alleged no facts regarding the ordinance's enforcement; none of the plaintiffs has a specific "dog in this fight." Moreover, the ordinance does not reach constitutionally protected conduct such as speech. Consequently, to show that a section of the ordinance is unconstitutional, they "must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications." Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 497. "A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).

B. Application

Plaintiffs allege that the following provisions of the ordinance are unconstitutionally vague: its definitions of "dangerous dog" and "potentially dangerous dog," and the exemptions from these definitions; its requirement of "proper" enclosures for unaltered dogs (that is, dogs that have not been spayed or neutered); its definitions of "nuisance," "attack," "restraint," and "cruelty"; its impoundment provision; and its tethering requirements.

2 - See Louisville/Jefferson County Code of Ordinances § 91.999 (2007).

Page 4

1. "Dangerous" and "Potentially Dangerous" Dogs

(a) Section 91.001 of the ordinance defines as "dangerous" any dog that, inter alia, "maims or kills domestic pets or livestock when not under restraint."3 Plaintiffs argue that "[a]ny dog will 'maim or kill' any number of [domestic pets] -- rabbit, mouse, rat, etc. -- if presented with the opportunity." (Pl.'s Br. 20.) Consequently, they argue, every dog in the city falls under the statutory definition of "dangerous." On their view, this is problematic, because the ordinance's breadth necessarily gives enforcement officers undue discretion in how it is enforced.

As noted above, however, the plaintiffs have the burden of showing that there is no case in which the application of the ordinance is clear. There are some animals that plainly fall within the statutory definition -- one might think of an aggressive wolf-dog hybrid. Others -- a lame, aging, well-trained lapdog, perhaps -- obviously lack the propensity (or physical capability) to chase and kill small pets. Moreover, the wording of the ordinance (active, present-tense verbs) indicate that a past history of attacking pets or livestock, or a known propensity to do so, is required for a finding of dangerousness. Because there are at least some applications of the ordinance that are clear, plaintiffs' facial challenge to the ordinance's "maim or kill" definition fails.

(b) The ordinance alternatively defines "dangerous dog" as "[a]ny dog which is declared by the Director [of Metro Animal Services] to be a dangerous dog under the procedures set forth in this chapter."4 Plaintiffs place significant emphasis on their assertion that the referenced sections do not further define "dangerous dog." In their view, this renders the definition hopelessly circular, leaving it completely up to the unfettered discretion of a government agent. In support, they cite a superficially similar case, Folkers v. City of Waterloo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76101 (D. Iowa 2007). In Folkers, the statute in question defined "dangerous dog" as "[a]ny dog declared to be dangerous by the city council or an animal control officer." Id. at 28. The magistrate judge held (and the district judge adopted his reasoning) that "this circular definition does not provide any guidance to the public and is unconstitutionally vague." Id. at 29. The apparent similarity of that ordinance to the one sub judice suggests to the plaintiffs that this Court should follow suit.

3 - A dog otherwise fitting this description is considered "potentially dangerous" while it is properly restrained.

4 - An analogous definition applies to "potentially dangerous dogs."

Page 5

However, a careful reading of the ordinance rids us of this vagueness problem. The definition in question refers the reader to "the procedures set forth in this chapter," which are contained in § 91.151, and specifically in two subsections, (C) and (D). The first instructs the Director to determine whether a dog found "at risk"5 is "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous," "as defined in this chapter." Returning to the definitions section of the ordinance, one finds four definitions of "dangerous dog" and two definitions of "potentially dangerous dog" that the Director might use in determining whether a given animal is legally dangerous. This is not an endless circle between two code sections, or the kind of limitless grant of discretion to an animal control officer that the court confronted in Folkers.

Further, § 91.151(D) provides a definition of "dangerous dog" not seen in § 91.001: "If an at-risk dog under investigation has previously been classified as a potentially dangerous dog and exhibits escalating aggressive behaviors, which threaten public safety or welfare, that circumstance alone may be grounds for ... the Director to determine that the dog is a dangerous dog." This procedure for declaring a dog "dangerous" gives specific external content to § 91.001's reference to "procedures set forth in this chapter."

5 - I.e., one found off of its owner's premises, threatening or harming a person or animal, or walking free without restraint.

Page 6

It may be argued that the definitions in question are inordinately convoluted, or poorly drafted, but they do not constitute the sort of unbounded discretion that should be declared unconstitutionally vague on its face. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment for the defendants as to these sections of the ordinance.

(c) Plaintiffs further ask the Court to void certain exemptions from the definitions of "dangerous" and "potentially dangerous" dogs, as set forth in § 91.150(B). Subsection (B)(1) states that an animal is not to be deemed (potentially) dangerous solely because it bites "[a]nyone assaulting its owner," but not including a police officer attempting to subdue a suspect. Subsection (B)(4) exempts a dog from classification as dangerous if it attacks a person committing criminal trespass, but not if that person had committed merely a simple trespass.

Plaintiffs are surely correct to claim that these sections put impossible burdens on the cognitive ability of dogs. A dog, in all likelihood, cannot distinguish a police officer from anyone else subduing its owner, nor can it perceive the mental state of an individual entering onto its territory.

But that does not mean the law is vague. Plaintiffs claim that these exemptions set forth "incomprehensible standards," such that neither citizens nor enforcement officers can understand their meaning sufficiently well to act in accordance with the law. (Pl.'s Br. 22.) This claim is simply in error. The question is whether the law is vague, and it is not. A dog may be deemed "dangerous" if it attacks a police officer or a non-criminal trespasser. An owner may avoid a declaration of dangerousness by restraining his dog unless and until he knows that a trespasser is a criminal or that an assailant is not a policeman. This may have the effects of limiting some lawful activity (i.e., the use of dogs for protection), and of offering some security to criminals who might otherwise expect

Page 7

to be attacked more often by dogs. That policy choice, however, is for the Metro Council to make. It has not done so in an unconstitutional manner.

2. The Enclosure Requirement

Plaintiffs next argue that § 91.922(A) is vague. That section provides that unaltered dogs are to be maintained "[i]n a proper enclosure as defined in this chapter; and as approved by the Director in writing." Plaintiffs first contend that "because the Director cannot possibly enforce the provision against everyone to whom it applies, he must enforce it selectively." (Pl.'s Br. 26.) The same could be said for speed limits, jaywalking laws, and the prohibition on underage drinking. There are far too many laws in 21st-century America for law enforcement to enforce every one of them every time it is broken. Certainly this state of affairs does not render every law and regulation that is not scrupulously enforced, unconstitutionally vague.

Plaintiffs further claim that this enclosure requirement is illegally vague because it does not define what it means for an enclosure to be "proper." "Enclosure" itself is defined by § 91.001 of the ordinance as "a fence or structure of sufficient height and construction to prevent the animal from leaving the owner's property," and to include (with certain exclusions) electric fences. True, it does not define "proper," but the Court reads this adjective as a modifier, not as a word creating an entirely new term. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "proper" as "[s]uitable for a specified or implicit purpose or requirement; appropriate to the circumstances or conditions; of the requisite standard or type." Thus, "proper enclosure as defined in this chapter" simply means an enclosure meeting the specifications outlined in § 91.001. This section is not vague.

3. "Nuisance"

Page 8

Plaintiffs next argue that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in its definition of "nuisance." That definition (again, part of § 91.001) begins as follows:

Any act of an animal or its owner that irritates, perturbs or damages rights and privileges common to the public or enjoyment of private property or indirectly injures or threatens the safety of a member of the general public.

True, the bare words of the first paragraph of the definition bear some resemblance to a statute criminalizing assembly on the sidewalk "in a manner annoying to persons passing by." Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 611 & n.1 (1971). The Coates Court declared that ordinance unconstitutionally vague, id. at 614,6 but the enactment at bar differs from the Cincinnati law in a crucial respect: It contains a long list of forms of conduct that are, ipso facto, nuisances. These include allowing an animal to make so much noise as to "result in a serious annoyance or interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring premises"; permitting an animal to damage another's property; allowing an animal to chase or attack passers-by, vehicles, or other animals, and so forth.7

6 - The Court also found that it violated the constitutional rights of free assembly and association, 402 U.S. at 615, but those rights are not at issue here.

7 - The complete enumeration is as follows:

(a) Allowing or permitting an animal to habitually bark, whine, howl, mew, crow, or cackle in an excessive or continual fashion or make other noise in such a manner so as to result in a serious annoyance or interference with the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighboring premises.

(b) Allowing or permitting an animal to damage the property of any person other than its owner or caretaker, including but not limited to, getting into or turning garbage containers or damaging gardens, flowers, plants or other real or personal property or leaving fecal material on the property of another person.

(c) Allowing or permitting an animal to molest, chase, snap at, attack or attempt to attack passers-by, vehicles, domestic pets or livestock.

(d) Allowing or permitting an animal to habitually or continually roam or be found on property of other than its owners or caretakers, trespassing school grounds, parks or the property of any person. (continued...)

Page 9

"Where a statute lists specific things followed by a more general one, the canon of ejusdem generis provides guidance." United States v. Mabry, 518 F.3d. 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2008). This canon serves just as well when the specific items follow the general one. It instructs us to "attribute 'the same characteristic of discreteness shared by all the [following] items' to the term in question." Id. (quoting Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63 (2004)); see also Canton Police Benevolent Ass'n of Canton v. United States, 844 F.2d 1231, 1236 (6th Cir. 1988) (under the "time-honored rule of ejusdem generis, ... a general word in a statute takes its character from the specific words with which it appears").

Applying ejusdem generis to the ordinance at hand, the broad terms of the preamble paragraph are significantly narrowed. A "nuisance" is not just any act that irritates or perturbs another. Rather, it is an act having the same general characteristics as the acts enumerated in the rest of the section: allowing an animal to threaten or injure another's person or property, or his enjoyment thereof. The ordinance's definition of "nuisance" is sufficiently clear that it cannot be held unconstitutionally vague on its face.

4. "Attack"

7(...continued)(e) Allowing or permitting an animal to be housed or restrained at a distance, that, in the discretion of the animal control officer, poses a threat to the general safety, heath and welfare of the general public.

(f) Allowing or permitting an animal to be maintained in an unsanitary condition.

(g) Allowing or permitting an animal to habitually charge in an aggressive manner a fence separating from another property when the usual residents are taking pleasure in such property without provoking such animal.

Page 10

The ordinance (again, in § 91.001) defines "attack" (circularly) as :[a]n unprovoked attack in an aggressive manner on a human that causes a scratch, abrasion, or bruising, or on a domestic pet or livestock that causes death or injury." Plaintiffs claim this is unconstitutionally vague for two reasons.

First, they argue that "it sweeps into its limitless reach all dogs that would cause 'injury' to a 'domestic pet.'" (Pl.'s Br. 36.) This, they say, "results in a definition that effectively includes every dog in Louisville." (Id.) Plaintiff's suggestion is that, because a dog can be declared (potentially) dangerous if it has attacked another animal, and because any dog is likely to attack a rat or guinea pig, given the opportunity, the ordinance treats an irrationally large number of dogs as "dangerous."

This argument would bear some weight if a dog could be seized and declared dangerous because of the hypothetical possibility that it might commit an attack, but those consequences follow only on the occasion of an actual attack.8 There is nothing vague about the ordinance's definition of "attack" once we get past its circularity.9

Second, plaintiffs claim that the definition applied to human victims is vague. Any dog in Louisville, they say, could legally "attack" someone by causing a scratch or bruise in some "harmless situation[]." This argument ignores the first half of the sentence defining the word in question: "An unprovoked attack in an aggressive manner ...." (emphasis added). Plaintiffs fail to suggest even a hypothetical situation in which a dog could, without provocation, harmlessly (but in an aggressive manner) assault a human being and thereby cause a scratch, abrasion, or bruising.

Even if they had done so (the Court does not see how they could), the nature of their facial challenge

8 - See Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances § 91.150(A).

9 - Say, by substituting a common English understanding of the word "attack" into the statutory definition.

Page 11

would require that the definition be impermissibly vague in all applications, which it plainly is not.

The definition of "attack" is constitutionally sound on its face.

5. "Restraint"

Plaintiffs next challenge the ordinance's requirement that puppies and dogs, when off the premises of the owner and without permission otherwise, "must be restrained by a lead or leash and under the control of a responsible person physically able to control the dog." This is unconstitutional, they say, because it "provides no meaningful guidance" to citizens and animal control officers in determining whether a given person is capable of restraining a given dog. (Pl.'s Br. 37.) Again, this argument cannot prevail in the setting of a facial challenge to the ordinance.

There are innumerable cases in which the answer to the question "Can this person control that dog?" is patently obvious. Most anyone with the aid of a leash can successfully keep a handle on a Yorkshire terrier. Comparatively few people possess the physical strength to control a mastiff or other large breed. Because there are cases where the application of the ordinance is clear, this facial vagueness challenge fails.

6. The Impoundment Provision

Plaintiff's next assertion is that § 91.070(E) is unconstitutionally vague because it contains "an unrestricted delegation of power which leaves the definition of its terms to [the Director]." Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. City of Dearborn, 418 F.3d 600, 608-09 (6th Cir. 2005). The section in question provides that certain animals, once impounded, "shall not be released, except upon terms and conditions imposed by the Director that are in the interest of public safety and welfare." On the plaintiffs' view, this directive provides too little guidance to the officials implementing it.

Page 12

This argument is misplaced. The void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to laws that are prohibitive in nature. The purpose of the vagueness rule is to ensure that citizens know what conduct is permitted and what is proscribed, and to prevent arbitrary enforcement by law enforcement officials against conduct not clearly covered by the law. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972); Belle Maer Harbor, 170 F.3d at 556. Consequently, it has no application to § 91.070(E), which is not prohibitive in nature, but rather instructs the Director on how to handle certain classes of impounded animals. This section of the ordinance does not leave citizens without guidance as to what conduct is permitted and what is not, because in any individual case, the Director will have imposed specific conditions interpreting "the interest of public safety and welfare." Were the Director to impose restrictions that were themselves vague, they could be challenged as applied (because they would impose a standard of conduct for individual citizens). Such conditions are not before the Court, and the vagueness doctrine therefore has no application here.

7. Tethering Standards

Plaintiffs argue that the ordinance's tethering standards (§ 91.091(A)) are vague. Their arguments are without merit. The ordinance's plain language, though perhaps not a model of precision, is sufficiently clear to give dog owners notice of what is required of them. Subsection (A)(1)(a) prohibits use of a fixed-point tether between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Subsection (A)(1)(b) further prohibits use of a fixed-point tether for more than one hour in any eight-hour period. True, there is no conjunction between the two subsections -- an "or" is probably warranted -- but they can both be given effect without conflict: A fixed-point tether may not be used at all within the specified times, and outside of those hours its use is limited to one hour in eight.

Page 13

The remainder of this section is no less clear. Subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) cover distinct methods of restraint. Part (1) refers only to "fixed-point" tethers, which the Court reads to mean a tether attached to a single stationary point (e.g., a stake or tree) in an owner's yard. Part (2) describes a more complex system: a tether attached to a trolley, allowing for a greater range of movement than a fixed-point tether. Because the time restrictions described above appear only in subsection (1), they do not apply to subsection (2). A trolley-tether system may be used at any time, without restrictions. The tethering standards are sufficiently clear to avoid a facial challenge to their validity.

8. Revocation of License

Plaintiffs contend that § 91.024(B) is impermissibly vague. It provides that the Director may revoke or deny any pet license, providing the following guidance: "Grounds for such revocation or denial include, but are not limited to, conviction pursuant to any violation of this chapter or conviction pursuant to any related state or federal law." This section is more problematic than those discussed above, because it appears to allow the Director to impose a civil punishment for any reason at all, leaving citizens unaware of what actions might constitute grounds for license revocation. Ejusdem generis does not help, because the terms of subsection (B) negate the premise of that canon: Grounds for revocation "are not limited" to violations of the ordinance or related law.

Thus the text would apparently allow imposition of punishment for violation of unrelated law, or for any reason the Director might come up with. And while the ordinance provides for appeals to the Secretary of the Cabinet of Public Works and Services, it offers no standard of review or basis for deciding the appeal in a case where the grounds for revocation are questionable.

Despite some misgivings about § 91.024(B), however, the Court cannot hold it facially void. After all, it does include at least one category of cases, conviction pursuant to violations of Chapter

Page 14

91, in which there are clearly grounds for revocation. Moreover, the specific terms of the ordinance provide at least some guidance as to what sorts of behavior ought to constitute grounds for revocation. To hold an ordinance invalid on its face, a court must fine that it is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 497. Because we cannot do so, this challenge must fail.

9. "Cruelty"

Plaintiffs' final vagueness challenge is to the ordinance's definition of "cruelty" (§ 91.001) and its requirement that pet owners and kennels provide animals with certain necessities (§§ 91.090, 91.120, 91.121, 91.122). In support, however, plaintiffs can muster only a conclusory assertion that the standards in question provide "no level of definiteness," and an unsubstantiated fear that the word "wholesome" will be nefariously interpreted. (Pl.'s Br. 42-43.) We need not pause long over these arguments; the challenged language speaks for itself. Plaintiffs cannot show that the ordinance is vague in all its applications, and they therefore cannot prevail.

II. Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiffs claim that parts of the ordinance violate citizens' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. As plaintiffs recognize, this case involves neither discrimination against a suspect class nor the violation of fundamental rights. Consequently under either clause, the Court's analysis falls under the rubric of "rational basis" for review. See Doe v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 490 F.3d. 491, 505 (6th Cir. 2007) (equal protection); Berger v. City of Mayfield Heights, 154 F.3d 621, 624 (6th Cir. 1998) (due process). The essence of the analysis

Page 15

is the question whether a "rational relationship exists between the terms of the ordinance and a legitimate governmental purpose." Berger, 154 F.3d at 624.

B. Application

1. Approval of Enclosures in Writing

Plaintiffs argue that § 91.022(A)(1) fails rational review insofar as it treats owners of unaltered dogs differently from owners of altered dogs. The section requires that enclosures for unaltered dogs be approved by the Director in writing. Elsewhere (§§ 91.001 and 91.00s), the ordinance requires that all dogs be kept under restraint, defined so as to mirror the requirements of § 91.022(A)(1) with the exception of the written approval requirement. Thus it is the approval requirements that the Court must consider.

It is unclear whether defense counsel recognized the issue the plaintiffs sought to raise, as the defendant's brief asserts that "there is no possible application of this Section to any dog owner above or beyond the restraint provisions elsewhere in the ordinance." (Resp. 10.) Further, Metro concedes that the provision "is clearly a redundant nullity." (Id. at 11.) Having renounced the value of this section, defendant also makes no effort to justify it with any government interest. Indeed, as defendant notes, the remainder of the ordinance has been amended to remove additional requirements that had been placed on owners of unaltered dogs. This suggests that the persistence of additional requirements in § 91.022(A)(1) is indeed a "legislative oversight" with no evident purpose, as the defense speculates. (Id. at 10.) The Court will take the defense at its word. There being no apparent reason why the owners of unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of their neutered counterparts, the written requirement lacks a rational basis and is unconstitutional.

Page 16

2. Sale of Animals

Section 91.027(D) of the ordinance reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, or to advertise the sale of an animal, or for any person to purchase a dog, which has been classified by the Director as a dangerous dog, or a potentially dangerous dog, without the written permission of the Director.

Plaintiffs argue that this section is so irrational as to violate due process. They are surely correct that it is poorly drafted. The plain terms of the first clause appear to prohibit the sale of any animal anywhere in Louisville, while the plain terms of the second clause allow for the sale of (potentially) dangerous dogs with permission of the Director.

However, the Court declines to read the ordinance so literally as to rob it of rationality. The title of § 91.027 is "Certain Sales of Animals Prohibited" (emphasis added), which implies that not all such sales are illegal. Moreover, as plaintiffs point out, other subsections of § 81.027 contemplate the sale of animals under certain conditions. Bearing this in mind, it is better to read subsection (D) as Metro suggests (Resp. 14): It requires written permission from the Director for the sale or purchase of any animal that has been declared a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog, without otherwise restricting the sale of animals. Given this construction, there is nothing constitutionally suspect about § 91.027(D).

III. Procedural Due Process

Plaintiffs claim that § 91.101 of the ordinance threatens a citizen's right to a fair hearing before being deprived of property. Before delving into the governing jurisprudence, we think it wise to determine how the ordinance operates.

As with other sections of the ordinance in question, § 91.101 seems to be the victim of hasty drafting. Entitled "Confiscation of Victimized Animal," its purpose is to allow the authorities to take

Page 17

possession of an animal that has been the victim of any of several forms of inhumane treatment. These include (inter alia) failure to provide necessities, abandonment, mutilation, and "exhibition fighting." Section 91.101(A) provides that an animal found involved in a violation of any of these prohibitions may be confiscated by an animal control officer, evidently for its protection.

Once an animal has been confiscated, subsection (B) provides for a hearing before a judge. That judge is to determine whether probable cause existed for the confiscation. If so, the owner must post a $450 bond within 24 hours to cover the cost of 30 days' boarding and veterinary care for the animal, which remains in the city's possession. A new bond must be posted every 30 days, and failure to do so results in immediate forfeiture of the animal. The ordinance does not say what happens if no probable cause is found, but the implication of the bond and forfeiture provisions, coupled with general background notions of justice, must be that, absent probable cause, the animal is to be returned to its owner.

Section 91.101(B)(1) goes on to provide that, upon a plea or finding of guilt, the animal's owner becomes responsible for all costs created by the impoundment. (That is, any bond he has posted is not returned, and he must pay any outstanding amount due.) Further, the animal in question becomes property of the city. If the accused is found innocent, subsection (B)(2) provides that any posted bond is to be returned to the owner. The ordinance does not explicitly provide for return of a seized animal if its owner is found to be innocent. Again, however, context leads the Court to conclude that returning the animal on a finding of innocence must have been the Metro Council's intent. There is, first, the obvious fact that this is the just result of such an adjudication. In addition, it makes little sense for the government to return the posted bond -- leaving it on the hook for all the animal's expenses up to the acquittal -- and then to hold onto the animal at its own further expense.

Page 18

Finally, the last sentence of subsection (B)(1) states: "Upon conviction, all animals not forfeited pursuant to subsection (B) herein above shall become the property of the Metro Government." This implies that, prior to conviction, ownership of the animal does not change. After an acquittal, then, the original owner retains his rights, and the city has no further basis for holding the animal.

The construction offered above solves two problems § 91.101, allowing for the return of a confiscated animal upon a finding of either no probable cause or innocence (if the bond has been duly paid). But a third problem lingers. It is undoubtedly the case that the ordinance mandates permanent forfeiture of a seized animal if the judge finds probably cause and the owner fails to timely post the appropriate bond. This provision is evidently meant to ensure that the owner of a confiscated dog has an interest in posting the bond: If he could refuse to do so and then wait for an adjudication of guilt, he might never have to post before getting the dog back (if he is found innocent), or he might lose his ownership of the dog (if he is found guilty) and thus any incentive to pay the past-due boarding and veterinary costs. The result is that a person whose dog has been confiscated, and against whom there is probable cause that he violated one of the humane treatment requirements, will lose his dog permanently unless he posts bond, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. This possibility presents a legitimate due process claim.

Claims under the "procedural" arm of the Due Process Clause are governed by the balancing framework set up by Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). Determining how much process is due in a given case involves consideration of three factors: (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the official action:' (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards";

Page 19

and (3) "the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Id. at 335.

As plaintiffs argue, pet owners clearly have a property interest in their animals. See Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Ky. 2006) (recognizing that dogs are personal property). This interest is not absolute and is subject to regulation by state and municipal governments. Id. Nonetheless, the government is not permitted to deprive an animal owner of his property without due process of law. The question is not whether process is due, but rather how much is required.

We therefore inquire into the second prong of the Mathews test. As the procedure stands, the risk of erroneous deprivation of this property interest is significant. It is perfectly possible for a judge to find probable cause that a person has committed an offense, but for that person later to be found innocent. Under the scheme set up in § 91.101, if such a person was unable to put up $450 immediately upon the probable cause finding, his pet is forfeit[ed] and he has no apparent recourse for its recovery, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. There is thus a high risk of erroneous deprivation, which some sort of hearing, appeal, or late-payment process could remedy. Moreover, the government has little interest in keeping ownership of pets belonging to innocent citizens. Presumably, most of the animals kept under this ordinance have to be euthanized, lest the burden of boarding and caring for them grow too high. The government does not articulate any interest whatsoever in its brief -- it does not even cite Mathews -- and the Court is unwilling to fabricate one. Consequently, we must hold that the portion of § 91.101 that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional.

Page 20

It seems likely that § 91.101 is poorly drafted and does not properly represent the intent of its authors. However, this Court is not in the business of authoring or revising legislation. As a remedy for the constitutional failing just described, the Court will therefore enter an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance in the manner just described. Applications of § 91.101 that do not infringe the constitutional right to due process of law may continue.

IV. Fourth Amendment

Plaintiffs argue that four sections of the ordinance violate the Fourth Amendment by authorizing warrantless searches and/or seizures.

We reject out of hand the suggestion that § 91.022 is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs urge that it is invalid to the extent that it is interpreted to authorize warrantless searches. Its plain terms do no such thing. They merely require that unaltered dogs be kept either in an enclosure or under restraint. Nor has there been any authoritative interpretation of the section that would empower law enforcement officers to act in a manner contrary to the Constitution. Plaintiffs rely on the deposition testimony of the current Director, Dr. Gilles Meloche, to the effect that the adequacy of an enclosure is determined on a case-by-case basis. They seem to think this implies warrantless searches of property under the guise of "inspections." But nowhere in Dr. Meloche's testimony, which has no legally binding effect on pet owners, does he claim the right to search a home without permission or warrant. On this point, the plaintiffs are doing battle with a bogeyman of their own conjuring.

Three other sections appear more troubling. Each expressly authorizes seizure of a dog found in violation or suspected violation of the ordinance, without requiring a warrant. Section 91.073(d) provides:

Where an Animal Control Officer observes a dog being kept on a chain or tether, in potential violation of the restraint definition in this chapter, the officer may notify the

Page 21

owner of the violation in person or by means of a notice placed at the entry to the property. If the owner does not correct the situation or notify MAS (Metro Animal Services) within one hour of the placement of such notice, that the dog has been removed from the chain or tether, the dog may be removed and the owner issued a violation notice or uniform citation for violation of the restraint requirement.

Similarly, § 91.094(a) provides, in pertinent part:

In the event there is a reasonable cause to suspect that an animal is being beaten, cruelly ill-treated, neglected or tormented or involved in a dogfight, cockfight or other combat, custody of such animal may be taken by an Animal Control Officer or peace officer and impounded in the animal shelter. The animal shall be held as evidence and confined in such facility in a humane manner.

Finally, § 91.101(A) states that "Any animal found involved in a violation of any portion of this section may be confiscated by any Animal Control Officer or any peace officer and held in a humane manner.10 These provisions appear to contemplate the seizure and removal of animals from their owners without need for a warrant.

Notwithstanding the language of the ordinance, Metro vehemently disclaims that idea that it authorizes warrantless seizures. The Fourth Amendment, Metro acknowledges, acts as an independent check on animal control officers, who evidently know of the warrant requirement and its myriad exceptions and who are scrupulous in their observance of constitutional dictates. This is, of course, a wise position to take; to the extent that an ordinance authorizes searches or seizures of a sort not sanctioned by the Constitution, it must be unconstitutional. That is merely to state a truism, but as the Court has, in essence, been asked only to affirm that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches contemplated by the above-quoted sections, there is little else to say.

The parties and the Court are in agreement on this issue. Consequently, we are not presented with a "Case" or "Controversy" as Article III requires for the exercise of federal judicial power.

10 - "Section" in this context evidently refers to the collection of provisions gathered under the heading "Humane Treatment of Animals."

Page 22

Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment challenges, therefore, must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

V. Conflicts with Kentucky Law

Plaintiffs contend that various sections of the ordinance conflict with Kentucky law and are therefore illegal. States law provides:

Urban-county governments may enact and enforce within their territorial limits such tax, licensing, police, sanitary and other ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and general statutes of this state now or hereafter enacted, as they shall deem requisite for the health, education, safety, welfare and convenience of the inhabitants of the county and for the effective administration of the urban-county government.

Ky. Rev. Stat. (Kentucky Revised Statutes) § 67A.070(1)11 It goes on to provide that "ordinances shall be deemed to conflict with general statutes of this state ... [w]hen the ordinance authorizes that which is expressly prohibited by a general statute; or ... [w]hen there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same subject embodied in a general statute." Ky. Rev. Stat. § 67A.070(2). There is no allegation that any of the challenged sections are expressly prohibited by state law. The question is whether any of them has been preempted by a comprehensive scheme occupying the field they seek to regulate.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that:

The mere presence of the state in a particular area of the law or regulation will not automatically eliminate local authority to enact appropriate regulations. Local regulation is not always precluded simply because the legislature has taken some action in regard to the same subject. ... The true test of the concurrent authority of the state and local government to regulate a particular area is the absence of conflict. The simple fact that the state has made certain requirements does not prohibit local government from establishing additional requirements, so long as there is no conflict between them.

11 - Defendant is such an "urban-county government." A parallel statute, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 82.082, has much the same effect with regard to cities.

Page 23

Lexington-Fayette County Food & Bev. Ass'n v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 131 S.W.3d 745, 750 (Ky. 2004) (citations omitted). "In order to rise to the level of a comprehensive system or scheme, the General Assembly must establish a definite system that explicitly directs the actions of a city." Dannheiser v. City of Henderson, 4 S.W.3d 542, 548 (Ky. 1999) (citing Whitehead v. Estate of Bravard, 719 S.W.2d 720 (Ky. 1986)).

A. Regulation of Veterinary Medicine

Plaintiffs argue that Chapter 321 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes regulates veterinarians so comprehensively that Ky. Rev. Stat. § 82.082 bar municipalities from imposing additional regulations on the profession. Specifically, they object to the reporting and notification requirements imposed by the ordinance's sections 91.025(B) (vaccination reporting), 91.075 (bite reporting), and 91.020(F) (veterinarians must notify clients of licensing and permit requirements).

Given the authorities quoted above on the meaning of preemption in Kentucky, the Court finds that none of these provisions are in such conflict with Chapter 321 as to be prohibited. The state-level regulation of veterinarians covers licenses, permits, certifications, the Board of Veterinary Examiners, and so forth. Its stated purpose is to "protect the public from being misled by incompetent, unscrupulous, and unauthorized practitioners, and from unprofessional or illegal practices by persons licensed to practice veterinary medicine." Ky. Rev. Stat § 321.175. The statute does not go into specifics of veterinary practice. Neither do the sections of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations covering the Board of Veterinary Examiners. See 201 Ky. Admin. Regs. §§ 16:010 et seq. The parties do not cite, and Court has not found, any state-level statute or

Page 24

regulation dictating what veterinarians are, or are not, to report to the government or discuss with their clients.12

Furthermore, the ordinance does not regulate the practice of veterinary medicine in any serious way. The requirements it imposes are related to public health, safety, and awareness of the legal requirements for pet ownership.13 They are not in conflict with the regulatory regime established by state law. That regime does not "direct the actions of the city" as regards veterinarians, and it does not prevent enactment of the public health and welfare regulations at issue here.

B. Cruelty to Animals

Next, plaintiffs assert that the ordinance's regulation of cruelty to animals runs afoul of the preemption statute, because (in their view) Kentucky has already regulated animal cruelty by statute. See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 525.125.525.130.525.135. However, as the Kentucky Supreme Court has interpreted Ky. Rev. Stat. § 67A.070(2), the Court sees no problem with Metro's ordinance. Plaintiffs point us to no specific conflicts, and the cruelty statutes do not "establish a definite system that explicitly directs the actions of a city," Dannheiser, 4 S.W.3d at 548. Accordingly, plaintiffs' challenge to the cruelty sections of the ordinance fail.

C. Nuisance

Finally, plaintiffs claim that the definition of nuisance in § 91.001 of the ordinance violates Kentucky law. The Kentucky statutes permit a municipality to enact a nuisance code so long as it (inter alia) "(1) Establish[es] the acts, actions, behavior, or conditions which constitute violations," and (2) Establish[es] reasonable standards and procedures for enforcement of the nuisance code." Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 82.705.82.710. Plaintiffs complain that the nuisance provisions of the ordinance fail to meet these requirements and are therefore illegal. However, as discussed in section I.B.3, supra, the ordinance's definition of "nuisance" is perfectly comprehensible, laying out the acts in question by means of a series of examples that serve to guide interpretation of the definition's more general language. Nothing in this definition violates the guidelines set down by the Kentucky abatement of nuisances statute.

12 - Plaintiffs also claim that the state has occupied the field of "animal bite reporting," thereby preempting § 91.075. But the fact that the state requires some professionals to report a dog bite to local health authorities surely does not prevent a municipality from seeking that information from other sources.

13 - Plaintiffs contend that the vaccination reporting requirement pertains, not to health and safety, but to tax collection. Even supposing this to be true, collection of fees is surely a legitimate government purpose. Most importantly, the ordinance's reporting requirement is not in conflict with state law, regardless of its ultimate purpose.

Page 25

* * *

A separate order in conformity with this opinion will be entered this date.

Charles R. Simpson III, Judge, United States District Court

October 1, 2009
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/LKC_Metro_Govt_100509.pdf (26 pages; 1.08 MB)

Bosco the Zanesville Police Canine Officer Update!

2009-09-22T18:48:00.000-07:00

Bosco the Zanesville Police Canine Officer Updates! Latest Update: February 3, 2010

Bosco Brief (update on Bosco, the Dutch Shepherd Zanesville, Ohio, Canine Officer)

(Note: Bosco, a Dutch Shepherd Canine Officer in Zanesville, Ohio, was shot on Sunday, August 23, 2009, when Officer Mike Schiele attempted to arrest a Zanesville man on a misdemeanor warrant. Officer Schiele was shot in the leg and was treated and released from Grant Hospital. Bosco was shot through the neck and suffered multiple injuries, one of which caused temporary paralysis, which affected his front end most. This great dog and his owner are now recovered. Visit http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm to read all 15 updates and see other photos and videos. Keep your Kleenex handy; this is a story with courage in spades!)

February 3, 2010

Photo of Bosco taken on November 5, 2009:

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/assets/images/about/news/2009/boscoBrief/bosco110509.jpg
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

Since the holidays, Bosco has been coming in approximately twice a week to the Veterinary Hospital for standard rehabilitation therapy.

He walks on the water treadmill and performs other exercises to reinforce his balance and coordination and to strengthen his right leg, which is still experiencing some weakness.
Overall, he is doing great, and he has a tremendous amount of energy that is evident as he pulls vigorously on his leash upon entering our doors.

Everyone is extremely pleased with how far he has come since his injury last year.

~~~~~

The Zanesville K-9 Unit is paid for entirely by donations. People wishing to contribute to Bosco's care can send donations to the Zanesville Police Department, K-9 Unit, 332 South Street, Zanesville, OH 43701.
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

October 13, 2009: As seen in this video http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5577.htm Bosco walks comfortably on the underwater treadmill as part of his physical therapy. As opposed to a "dry" or "land" treadmill, the water in the treadmill tank, a soothing 94 degrees, supports his entire weight; thus it is less stressful on his joints. The only challenge is that Bosco likes drinking the water as he walks! After the walking exercise is over, we turn on the water jets so he receives an invigorating massage.

September 24, 2009 - We are happy to report that Bosco can get up and stand on his own. He is also walking short distances with no assistance. As seen in this video http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/2862.htm [Note: I've had trouble loading this 9-second video, so it may be that too many people are trying to view it.] he continues with his daily therapy which includes walking around cones and other obstacles, although sometimes he tries to cheat! After these exercises, he takes a well-deserved nap. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

September 18, 2009 - Bosco went home to Zanesville Thursday night for a fundraiser, and stayed the entire weekend with his family, which he truly enjoyed!

He is back in the hospital this week [September 21-25] to continue with daily therapy, but will be allowed to go home on weekends.

The main focus of his therapy is working on his balance.

Although his front legs buckle now and then, he is making progress walking on a leash and harness. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

Brave Dog Diaries: Police Dog Bosco & human partner recovering

August 29, 2009

http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com/2009/08/brave-dog-diaries-police-dog-bosco.html

Cats becoming prey to coyotes

2009-09-17T08:23:00.000-07:00

Cats becoming prey to coyotes

'“We try to encourage people to keep their cats inside,” says Dennis Tabella of Defenders of Animals, an animal advocacy group. “Too many people are letting their cats out at night. Some people just don’t get it.” ... Lund says studies show that indoor cats live an average of 17 years or so, while outdoor cats average just 3 to 4 years. Outdoor cats may also be harmed by dogs, cars, people and other cats, she said.'

September 8, 2009

By Peter B. Lord, Journal Environment Writer plord@projo.com or 401-277-8036

The Providence Journal

75 Fountain Street

Providence Rhode Island 02902

401-277-7433

Fax: Please do not fax letters.

http://www.projo.com and http://www.projo.com/aboutus/contact.htm

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@projo.com (250-word limit)

This summer, posters for missing cats have become nearly as common in some suburban neighborhoods as “For Sale” signs in front of houses.

Despite the news reports for several years now that coyotes -- and more recently, fisher cats -- have become commonplace in Rhode Island, people continue to let their cats out at night and wonder why they don’t return in the morning.

“We try to encourage people to keep their cats inside,” says Dennis Tabella of Defenders of Animals, an animal advocacy group. “Too many people are letting their cats out at night. Some people just don’t get it.”

Cathy Lund, owner of City Kitty Veterinary Care, a cat-only veterinary office, says she strongly encourages her pet owners to keep their cats inside. She estimates about 90 percent do.

She can recall only one cat in her practice surviving a coyote attack. “The mortality rate is pretty high,” she said. “Most cats are domesticated, overweight and a little sedentary.”

Charlie Brown, a wildlife biologist at the state Department of Environmental Management, says he fields several hundred calls annually from people who are concerned about coyotes, and often their concerns begin with their pets.

He tries to make it clear: coyotes are now in every community in Rhode Island, except for Block Island.

“The average adult coyote is 35 to 40 pounds. The cat is a perfect size for them to go after. If coyotes get ahold of cats, they are gone.”

The experts who work at the intersection of the cat-coyote interactions insist the problem has been commonplace for several years, but many people just don’t want to accept the facts, or feel they can’t control their cats. The result is that cats continue to disappear at a fairly consistent rate. This is the most active period for coyotes because many are feeding young that were born in the spring.

Brown says coyotes began showing up in New England in the 1930s as forests reclaimed abandoned farmland. Rhode Island was the last state in New England to confirm their presence in 1969. (Apparently, coyotes were never part of the New England fauna because wolves kept them away before Europeans arrived and killed the wolves.)

“For ten years, they were sparse,” Brown said. “Now they are ubiquitous.”

Coyotes make their homes in cemeteries, river corridors, parks and small patches of woods. They gather to sleep and venture out alone at dawn or dusk to hunt. The biggest part of their diets is small mammals such as mice and squirrels. But they’ll also eat berries, trash, roadkill, compost, pet food and pets.

“They are pretty resourceful,” says Brown. “That’s the reason for their success.”

Fisher cats, small, bulky predators that are bigger than minks and smaller than river otters, returned to Rhode Island a few years ago, and they take some cats, too, Brown said. Fishers are native to New England and were extirpated by European hunters. But more often than not, he said, if a cat is missing, it’s because of coyotes.

When people call with concerns about coyotes, Brown advises them that 9 times out of 10, they can keep coyotes away by eliminating possible food sources such as trash, pet foods left outdoors — and pets left outdoors.

Several years ago, Warwick residents became alarmed about frequent sightings of coyotes in Warwick Neck. Brown, an adviser to the city, recalls the problem boiled down to people putting food out for the coyotes.

After that stopped, he said, “Miraculously, the coyotes disappeared.”

A special Coyote Commission in Warwick concluded in 2005 that the best way to manage coyotes was not to shoot or trap them. It was to educate the public about their behavior and feeding patterns so that people would stop leaving food out for them.

In Newport, Brown said, two coyotes became a nuisance after the coyotes became acclimated to the handouts. They wouldn’t go away, so they were euthanized.

Three years ago, the DEM established a coyote management policy that allows people to hunt coyotes at any time of year. But it also concluded that public education was the best solution for “negative interactions between coyotes and humans.”

There is a regulated trapping season for fishers, too, and property owners may shoot them if they threaten livestock, pets or crops. The carcass must be turned over to the DEM. There have been no recent complaints about fishers, according to the DEM.

Lund says studies show that indoor cats live an average of 17 years or so, while outdoor cats average just 3 to 4 years. Outdoor cats may also be harmed by dogs, cars, people and other cats, she said.

It may take a month to convert an outdoor cat to living indoors, she said. The key is to never give in. And, try starting in the winter when cats are less eager to go outside.

Tabella, of Defenders of Animals, recalls a cat in his neighborhood that was out all the time. A neighbor took it in and kept it in.

“He’s adjusted very well,” said Tabella. “But it takes some time.”

For more information on coyotes go to:

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/coyotes.pdf

For state coyote management policies, go to:

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/pdf/coyotpol.pdf

People with concerns about coyotes are encouraged to call the DEM at 401-789-0281.

Related Links:

Your Turn: Despite the warnings of coyotes in neighborhoods, do you still let your pet out at night?

http://www.projo.com/perl/common/surveys/display_full.pl?poll_id=24224&site=projo&vaction=voting&thissite=projo

Copyright 2009, The Providence Journal.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/Missing_cats_09-08-09_4NFFJME_v16.3a6293e.html

What is Animal Hoarding?

2009-09-16T15:24:00.000-07:00

What is animal hoarding?

The following criteria are used to define animal hoarding:

More than the typical number of companion animals.

Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness and death.

Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household and human occupants of the dwelling.

For more information:

The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium:

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/index.html

Dogs get care: Psychologist says Newport case could be a matter of animal hoarding

2009-09-16T15:15:00.000-07:00

Dogs get care: Psychologist says Newport case could be a matter of animal hoarding

(Note: Many thanks to SS for the information on these two articles.)

September 15, 2009

By Evan Bevins, ebevins@mariettatimes.com or 740-376-5447

The Marietta Times

P.O. Box 635

Marietta, Ohio 45750

740-373-2121

Fax: 740-376-5475

http://www.mariettatimes.com or http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/category.detail/nav/5046/Employee_directory.html

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@mariettatimes.com or http://vnr.oweb.net/vnr/add_submission.asp?categoryID=657&publicationID=84 (website form)

Fact Box

What is animal hoarding?

The following criteria are used to define animal hoarding:

More than the typical number of companion animals.

Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness and death.

Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household and human occupants of the dwelling.

For more information: The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium:

http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/hoarding/index.html

~~~~~

The recent case of alleged animal cruelty in Newport has many of the characteristics of animal hoarding, according to a national expert on the subject.

"Although it may seem unusual in the community, it's the kind of story we see pretty regularly" at the national level, said Dr. Randall Lockwood, senior vice president for Anti-Cruelty Field Services with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Lockwood, a psychologist based with the ASPCA in Washington, D.C., is not involved in the local situation, but discussed animal hoarding cases in general.

"Several of these cases a day come across my desk," he said. "We estimate there probably are at least 5,000 new cases of this each year in the country."

An animal hoarder is someone who accumulates more animals than they can care for while remaining oblivious to the condition of the animals and the negative impact on the quality of life for the human beings involved, Lockwood said. It is not unusual for a hoarder's house to have animal feces in the eating or sleeping areas, he said.

"It is not just kind people who get in over their heads, which is often how this is characterized," Lockwood said.

Animal hoarders may hoard other things as well, and the condition can be linked to additional psychological disorders, Lockwood said. As in the Washington County case, there can be issues for Children or Adult Protective Services if the hoarder has children or a dependent adult living with them, he said.

Local humane officer Butch Morris said hoarding cases aren't frequent in Washington County, but authorities have seen their share of them. There are a couple of situations Morris said he is watching to make sure the individuals don't take in more animals and become a problem.

"If you go over seven or eight dogs, then I'm going to be looking hard," he said.

However, Morris noted there is no law in Ohio limiting the number of animals an individual can own. His office's concern is that the animals are properly cared for and licensed.

Lockwood said hoarders usually cannot be dealt with just by taking the animals away.

"Virtually all of them will begin again without close supervision," he said.

Lockwood said he does not necessarily advocate jail for hoarders but thinks probation conditions prohibiting them from owning more animals should be in place.

Copyright 2009, The Marietta Times.

http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/515729.html?nav=5002

Related reading:

Dogs get care: Newport man accused of animal cruelty - Humane Society helps animals found in squalor

September 15, 2009

By Evan Bevins, ebevins@mariettatimes.com or 740-376-5447

The Marietta Times

P.O. Box 635

Marietta, Ohio 45750

740-373-2121

Fax: 740-376-5475

http://www.mariettatimes.com or http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/category.detail/nav/5046/Employee_directory.html

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@mariettatimes.com or http://vnr.oweb.net/vnr/add_submission.asp?categoryID=657&publicationID=84 (website form)

Five charges of animal cruelty have been filed against a Newport man accused of keeping more than 50 animals -- and his mother -- in filthy, unsanitary conditions.

Washington County Dog Warden Greg Sturm said five second-degree misdemeanor charges of cruelty to animals were filed in Marietta Municipal Court Monday against Steven Sharp, 52, of 1815 Long Run Road, Newport. More charges are possible, Sturm said.

A week ago, Sturm, sheriff's deputies and humane officers found Sharp's 80-year-old mother, Dorothy Sharp, living in the Long Run Road house, where the floors and other surfaces were covered with nearly an inch of cat feces and urine. Lightheaded and disoriented, Dorothy Sharp was hospitalized and placed in the custody of Adult Protective Services.

More than a dozen cats were found in the house, and numerous others were located in a trailer on the property. Twenty-two dogs were taken from the property and placed in the Humane Society of the Ohio Valley's shelter.

Officials said the cats were euthanized because they had leukemia, which is contagious among felines. Other cats, that were not closed up, are still roaming the property, said Butch Morris, humane officer.

"There's probably still another 30 cats out there," he said.

Two more dogs that had been running loose were brought to the shelter by Sharp's brother, Craig, who owns the property. At least three more dogs there have not been caught yet, Morris said.

Most of the dogs taken by the Humane Society, however, were tied up, with no food or water available, authorities said.

Steven Sharp was previously charged with failure to care for an impaired individual, a misdemeanor.

There are no plans to charge Craig Sharp, Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks said Monday, because his brother lived at the residence at least part of the time and was the one responsible for Dorothy Sharp.

Craig Sharp has been cooperating with humane officers, Morris said.

Shelter manager Steve Herron said that when the dogs first arrived, they had to be housed in a garage due to crowded conditions at the shelter. However, a rescue operation took 22 other dogs from the shelter recently, and most of the dogs from the Newport property had been moved into regular cages in the shelter as of Monday.

"They've all been able to get cleaned up and taken care of," Herron said.

Most of the animals have overcome their initial fear and are warming up to shelter workers and volunteers, Herron said, but some are still "skittish."

People in the community donated puppy food, laundry detergent, bleach and blankets after the shelter took the dogs in, Herron said. The shelter will always accept more dog food and detergent (not to mention cat food and litter), he said.

"We appreciate what the public is doing for us," Herron said.

There are other ways people can get involved, the shelter manager said.

"I always look for volunteers in the afternoon to come and walk dogs," he said.

Copyright 2009, The Marietta Times.

http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/515728.html?nav=5002

(ESA / Animal Law) NY University Law School Student Wins Committee on Animals & the Law's Student Writing Competition

2009-09-16T15:05:00.000-07:00

New York University Law School Student Wins Committee on Animals and the Law's Student Writing Competition

"The Committee on Animals and the Law http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/ was established to provide an information resource for the Association's members and the public about non-human, animal-related humane issues which arise from and have an effect upon our legal system."

September 15, 2009

News from the New York State Bar Association http://www.nysba.org

For more information contact: Brandon J. Vogel, Media Writer bvogel@nysba.org or 518-487-5535

ReadMedia, Inc. http://www.readmedia.com

Albany, New York - The New York State Bar Association's Committee on Animals and the Law has awarded New York University Law School Student Allison L. Westfahl Kong with the first-place award in its second annual Student Writing Competition for her submission entitled "Improving the Protection of Species Endangered in the United States by Means of a Revision of the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Policy."

Kong's paper explores whether the DPS, a portion of a species' or subspecies' population or range, should be revised to permit the listings of species that are solely endangered within the United States, and whether such a change is consistent with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Kong received $1,000 for her winning submission.

The Committee awarded its second-place award to Andra Waniek, a recent graduate of Brooklyn Law School. Her paper, "Protecting Woman's Best Friend from Family Violence: Proposal for a Model Statute Including Animals in Protective Orders," discusses and reviews proposed and enacted legislation concerning inclusion of animals in protective orders. Waniek proposes a federal statute authorizing the inclusion of animals in protective orders that combines and modifies components of several proposed and enacted state statutes and adds a new provision to account for the housing of animals during their owners' stay at domestic violence shelters.

Waniek received $500 for her essay.

"As the number of entries increased this year, so did the quality of the competitors' essays. Ms. Kong and Ms. Waniek each exhibited an extraordinary command of the topics through the use of excellent technical writing and sound legal analysis," said Committee Chair James F. Gesualdi of Islip. "We are so pleased to see law students taking an active interest in animal law and recognizing it as a potential practice area. I congratulate both Ms. Kong and Ms. Waniek on winning this year's Student Writing Competition."

"Animal-related law encompasses a range of important, high-profile, and evolving topics," said Jessica Sonenshein, chair of the Student Writing Sub-Committee. "We are happy that we had so many high-quality submissions addressing these areas, and were extremely impressed with the level of thinking and analysis that went into each of them."

The Committee on Animals and the Law was established to provide an information resource for the Association's members and the public about non-human, animal-related humane issues which arise from, and have an effect upon, our legal system. The competition was intended to foster legal scholarship among law students in the area of animals and the law. In addition, the competition provides law students with an opportunity to prepare and submit articles to the committee for possible publication in one of the New York State Bar Association's newsletters.

The 76,000-member New York State Bar Association is the official statewide organization of lawyers in New York and the largest voluntary state bar association in the nation. Founded in 1876, State Bar programs and activities have continuously served the public and improved the justice system for more than 130 years.

Copyright 2009, ReadMedia, Inc.

http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/New-York-University-Law-School-Student-Wins-Committee-on-Animals-and-the-Laws-Student-Writing-Competition/953167

Original New York State Bar Association News website address / URL:

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=31833

Additional researched, related, recommended reading/information:

Committee on Animals and the Law: Sponsored by the Commitee on Animals and the Law of the New York State Bar Association

"The opinions expressed and statements made by the bloggers are those of the blogger alone and do not reflect the opinions of the NYSBA, its sections, committees, special committees or subcommittees or any employee or other member thereof. The NYSBA and all other entities mentioned above are not responsible for the accuracy of any information supplied by the bloggers, and the Committee on Animals and the Law retains the absolute right to edit or remove any blog entries that are deemed to be inappropriate." http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/

Homemade Cat Repellent / Dog Repellent

2009-09-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

Homemade Cat Repellent / Dog Repellent

Saw a recipe in newspaper. Vinegar, liquid soap and water. Equal parts. Spray on lawn. Recipe said use Dawn soap, but any seems to work.

Urine or ammonia not good, will have cats return.

In some climates citrate solutions (orange or lemon) attract bees. I've been trying the vinegar mix and getting good results no cats, or dogs. (10/01/2007) By D. H. B.

Other options

Other posted solutions include planting rosemary where you don't want cats, or using various citrus scrapings (lemons, oranges, etc.) mixed in a spray bottle with water and used on areas where cats / dogs are not encouraged. Citronella was also mentioned. None of these repellent formulas have been tested (yet!) by yours truly, so try on your own.

Internet Source: http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf78664537.tip.html

Skunk Smell Neutralizer, thanks to Paul Krebaum

2009-09-02T21:11:00.000-07:00

Yet Another Way to De-Skunk Your Pet, or, Skunk Smell Neutralizer, thanks to Paul Krebaum

By Stacy E. Smith, Paw Prints

The weather finally warmed up (thank goodness) and you and your pets are spending more and more time outdoors – at parks, on hikes and even camping. So, the odds of Fido getting into something smelly begin to increase exponentially.

Arguably, the smelliest thing anyone can encounter has got to be skunk spray. All of us have detected the distinct odor while driving on the highway or even wafting through the neighborhood at one time or another. There is no mistaking it. How many of you have actually had the pleasure of coming into contact with that smell only moments after it was sprayed – up close and personal? I am here to tell you that the odor you detect from the car is NOTHING compared to the freshly sprayed version. It is an assault on your olfactory system that really puts your gag reflex to the test.

Now, imagine that your dog comes happily bounding toward you smelling like he just tested every bottle of “eau de skunk” in the department store. It may very well officially be the single worst, gross thing that happens to you.

One of our regular writing contributors, Stu Tarlowe, published his favorite cure for eau de skunk several years ago in the pages of PAW PRINTS. Although it was a great remedy, it was not Stu’s own creation, but a cleanser he found that worked wonders for removing that very special odor.

You’d think, however, that if you had actually created, the hands-down, bar-none best way for dealing with a pet who has been skunked, you’d be able to sell your formula for a tidy sum and be set for life, right?

Wrong. At least, that’s not the way it worked for chemist Paul Krebaum, who created just such a magic formula in the 1990s — and hasn’t gained a single thing for his trouble except the gratitude of pet lovers everywhere.

First, I’ll give you the recipe…

1. In a plastic bucket using plastic utensils mix together 1 quart of 3% Hydrogen Peroxide (This is available from any drugstore. DO NOT USE ANY OTHER STRENGTH even if you happen to have it around the house for some reason – the result may be a trip to the emergency room), 1/4 cup of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate for you science types which is not the same as baking powder) and 1- 2 teaspoons of liquid soap. Notes: Krebaum suggests “Softsoap” or “Ivory Liquid” because they are less inert. Grease-cutting brands such as “Dawn” are less inert and hair shampoo is probably the worst. For very large pets you may add one quart of tepid tap water to enable complete coverage. The reason for using plastic containers and utensils is because metals will encourage auto-decomposition of the peroxide.

2. Immediately apply it to the stinky pet (the solution will get weaker with time and you’ll definitely want it to be at full strength). Wash thoroughly, working solution deep into the fur. Leave solution on for about 5 minutes or until the odor is gone. Let your nose guide you. Some heavily oiled or “skunked” areas may require repeat washing. Note: skunks usually aim for the face, but try to keep the solution out of your pet’s eyes – it stings! If you have any cuts on your hands you should consider wearing latex gloves for the same reason.

3. Rinse your pet thoroughly with tepid tap water.

4. Pour the any left over solution down the drain with running water.

The result is by all accounts astonishing! Unfortunately, so will the explosion if you make up the solution and then try to bottle it. In case that was confusing it means DO NOT BOTTLE IT (or put it into any other closed container) to save for another time!!!! This is an actual, real life warning. The merging of the hydrogen peroxide and baking soda creates lots of oxygen in a big hurry. This chemical reaction is actually the key to how the solution works, but it’s also fierce enough to [forcibly/violently escape] a closed container. Unfortunately, this is also the reason Krebaum hasn’t been able to capitalize on his discovery. There’s just no way to sell something you can’t put in a bottle.

And it’s a shame, too, because from what I hear the man deserves some kind of reward or at least an award. According to plenty of testimonials, the stuff really works.

Unlike tomato juice, which merely turns the odor down a notch but ultimately leaves you with a slightly less-stinky -- and often pink -- dog.

Commercial preparations can be bought at most pet supply stores and seem to fare a little better, but even when you use them it’s the passing of time as the smell gradually wears off that seems to finally do the trick.

With Krebaum’s mixture, the trick is the oxygen, which grabs the molecules that go into that horrid smell. Once those molecules are snagged, the smell is neutralized. Poof! It’s simple chemistry, really.

Since Krebaum’s findings were published in a trade journal in the early 1990’s (if anyone is interested it was the Chemical & Engineering News, K.M. Reese published it in the “Newscripts” section on Oct. 18, 1993), his magic formula has spread far and wide, offered up by agriculture officials and hunting magazines, and touted by folks on the Internet (which is where I found it). The Chicago Tribune even gave him a nice write-up in 1994 that got picked up by newspapers all over the country. In it, Krebaum himself called his potion a “free-gift-to-humanity type deal.”

I had a Siberian Husky, Dakota that seemed to attract a skunk into every backyard in every house in which I resided during my 10 years living in Los Angeles. This dog was carted to the vet or groomer every other month or so to get a double skunk bath. It was a nightmare and the de-skunking solution only seemed to get some of the smell out. If only I had known about this then. Fortunately, I have not had the need for it since moving to Kansas City, but I will keep this recipe handy because Murphy’s Law is very powerful and must be respected. Save this article somewhere because the minute you need it, you won’t be able to find it.

I suppose I can’t really suggest that everyone grateful to Paul Krebaum send him a few dollars to make up for the royalties he’ll never see from his miracle skunk concoction. Besides, I have no idea where one would send the money anyway. So maybe it would be nice if you save this article for some time in the future when you or someone you love might really need it, and when you do, say a few silent words of thanks to the man whose invention will get you out of one stinky predicament.

This de-skunking recipe was reprinted with permission from the inventor, Paul Krebaum.
A little about Paul Krebaum: Married, 3 children. Bachelor of Arts in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Bennington College. Also attended Rensselear Polytechnic Institute for 2 years. Worked in the cosmetics field for a few years, then joined Molex, Inc. Received 4 patents at Molex, U.S. 5,036,249; 5,456.616; 5,952,446; and 6,265,519. It was while working on the first patent that the skunk remedy was invented. He stayed 15 years with Molex before starting his own consulting business, The Adhesive Doctor.

Copyright 2009, Paw Prints.

http://www.pawprintsthemagazine.com/?p=3079

"Vicious" dog litigation outcome, Ohio Supreme Court: Youngstown v. Traylor

2009-09-02T10:03:00.000-07:00

Youngstown v. Traylor, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4184

[Submitted May 19, 2009. Decided August 26, 2009.]

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-4184.pdf (11 pages; 52.07 KB)

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Youngstown v. Traylor, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4184.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-4184

CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, APPELLANT, v. TRAYLOR , APPELLEE.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Youngstown v. Traylor, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4184.]

Criminal liability — Vicious dogs — Youngstown Codified Ordinances 505.19 is rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs and therefore is constitutional — Conviction reinstated.

(No. 2008-1460 — Submitted May 19, 2009 — Decided August 26, 2009.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 07 MA 102, 2008-Ohio- 2971.

SYLLABUS OF THE COURT

Youngstown Codified Ordinances 505.19 is rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs and therefore is constitutional.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.

{¶ 1} Today we must decide whether a Youngstown ordinance that requires vicious dogs to be confined and requires the state to prove at trial that the SUPREME COURT OF OHIO dog is vicious or dangerous as an element of the offense violates procedural due process. Because we hold that the ordinance does not violate due process, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the conviction.

Facts

{¶ 2} On April 18, 2007, at 8:00 a.m., David Roch was walking his 16-pound wire fox terrier in Mill Creek Park in Youngstown, Ohio, when he was approached by two unaccompanied Italian Mastiff/Cane Corso dogs, one male and one female. The Mahoning County dog warden estimated the male dog to be about 170 to 180 pounds, and the female was slightly smaller.

{¶ 3} Roch restrained his dog and attempted to calm the larger dogs, which were becoming increasingly agitated. One of the dogs attacked Roch’s dog, and when Roch attempted to rescue his dog from the skirmish, Roch was attacked, sustaining an injury to his hand. Roch’s dog required surgery and stitches for injuries to her ear and head.

{¶ 4} After the attack, Roch’s dog, who had been taken off her leash, fled, and Roch sought shelter in the garage of Maureen Cronin, a neighbor who witnessed the attack. Cronin called Mill Creek Park Police Officer Carolyn Grimaldi, who arrived to find two dogs standing in Cronin’s driveway. Officer Grimaldi shot and killed one of the dogs as it ran toward her. The other dog fled, and a few minutes later, Youngstown Police Officer Matthew Willis spotted it. Officer Willis testified that when the dog saw him, it looked agitated and aggressive. When the dog fast approached him, Officer Willis shot and killed it.

{¶ 5} After a joint investigation involving the Mill Creek Park Police Department, the Youngstown Police Department, and the Mahoning County dog warden’s office, investigators learned that the owner of the dogs was Jammie Traylor, defendant-appellee. Traylor confirmed that he had two dogs that were missing, but when shown the remains of the dogs, he admitted owning only the female. Witnesses testified that they had seen Traylor with both dogs several weeks before the attack. Traylor admitted at his sentencing hearing that he owned the female and that the male had been present at his home for breeding purposes.

{¶ 6} Traylor was charged with two first-degree misdemeanors, violations under Youngstown Codified Ordinances (“YCO”) 505.19(b), entitled “Vicious Dogs.” Traylor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that YCO 505.19 is unconstitutional. The trial court denied Traylor’s motion. A jury ultimately convicted Traylor on the lesser included offense to count one and of the offense as charged in count two. The trial court sentenced Traylor to 90 days in jail and ordered him to pay restitution to Roch, complete two years of intensive supervised probation upon his release, pay fines and costs, and own “nothing bigger than a Chihuahua” as a condition of his probation.

{¶ 7} The Mahoning County Court of Appeals vacated Traylor’s convictions and discharged him, holding that YCO 505.19 was unconstitutional. Youngstown v. Traylor, Mahoning App. No. 07MA102, 2008-Ohio-2971, 2008 WL 2441368. The city appealed, and this court accepted jurisdiction. Youngstown v. Traylor, 120 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2008-Ohio-6166, 897 N.E.2d 651.
Analysis

{¶ 8} The issue before this court is whether YCO 505.19 violates procedural due process by failing to give notice to a dog owner that his dog will be considered vicious for purposes of criminal prosecution and/or by failing to allow the owner a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his dog’s classification as vicious. The right to procedural due process is found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211, 2002-Ohio-4169, 773 N.E.2d 502, ¶ 6. “Although the concept is flexible, at its core, procedural due process under both the Ohio and United States Constitutions requires, at a minimum, an opportunity to be heard when the state seeks to infringe a protected liberty or property right.” State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 814 N.E.2d 846, ¶ 8, citing Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), 401 U.S. 371, 377, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113.

{¶ 9} Although dogs are “private property to a qualified extent, they are subject to the state police power, and ‘might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens. * * * [L]egislatures have broad police power to regulate all dogs so as to protect the public against the nuisance posed by a vicious dog.’ ” State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 170, 566 N.E.2d 1224, quoting Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton RR. Co. (1897), 166 U.S. 698, 701-704, 17 S.Ct. 693, 41 L.Ed. 1169. Thus, in this case, as in other animal control cases, we are balancing the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from vicious animals with the dog owner’s due process rights.

{¶ 10} The text of the ordinance at issue is as follows:

{¶ 11} “YCO 505.19 Vicious Dogs.

{¶ 12} “(a) No person owning or harboring or having the care of a vicious dog shall suffer or permit such animal to go unconfined on the premises of such person.

{¶ 13} “(b) No person owning or harboring or having the care of a vicious dog shall suffer or permit such dog to go beyond the premises of such person unless such dog is securely leashed or otherwise securely restrained.

{¶ 14} “(c) Definitions.

{¶ 15} “(1) A vicious dog is ‘unconfined’ as the term is used in this section, if such dog is not restrained by a secure fence, other secure enclosure or any other security device which effectively prevents such dog from going beyond the premises of the person described in subsection (a) hereof.

{¶ 16} “(2) ‘Vicious dog’ as used in this section means:

{¶ 17} “A. Any dog with a propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury to or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or other domestic animals; and

{¶ 18} “B. Any dog which attacks a human being or another domestic animal without provocation.

{¶ 19} “(d) Subsections (a) and (b) hereof are necessary controls on the unrestrained activity of vicious animals which threaten the safety and pleasantness of streets, parks, sidewalks, yards and all areas of the City and lack of knowledge or lack of intent is not a defense to a violation thereof.”

{¶ 20} In examining the constitutionality of an ordinance, we look to two recent vicious dog cases. In Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846, this court examined whether R.C. 955.22, a state statute requiring confinement of dangerous or vicious dogs, violated procedural due process. We held that the statute was unconstitutional because it failed to provide the dog owner with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the dog’s classification and labeled dogs dangerous or vicious because of their breed only. Id. at ¶ 13. Once the dog warden had made the unilateral decision to classify Cowan’s dogs as vicious, R.C. 955.22 placed restrictions and requirements on Cowan and her dogs, such as purchasing liability insurance, without the right to an appeal or an administrative hearing. Id.

{¶ 21} Traylor relied on Cowan to support his position that YCO 505.19 is unconstitutional. However, as the trial court held, Traylor was charged under the vicious dog ordinance not because of the breed of his dogs, but rather, because his dogs had allegedly attacked a human and/or another domestic animal without provocation, as prohibited by YCO 505.19(c)(2)B. Here, the trial court concluded that there was no presumption that the dogs were vicious; rather, their viciousness was an element of the crime that the state had the burden of proving — i.e., that the dogs had attacked a human being or another domestic animal without provocation. Thus, the trial court found that the facts in this case separated it from the analysis in Cowan.

{¶ 22} Between the trial court’s ruling and the court of appeals’ decision in this case, we decided Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724, 871 N.E.2d 1152, in which we considered a Toledo Municipal Code section as well as two state statutes, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22. The code section limited ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.C. 955.11, or dogs commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull mixed breeds, to one in each household, and the Revised Code required an owner of a pit bull to obtain liability insurance for damages, injuries, or death that might be caused by the dog. Id. at ¶ 2.

{¶ 23} In upholding the three provisions, this court concluded that the state and the city of Toledo possess the constitutional authority to exercise police powers that are rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. We determined that the evidence proved that pit bulls cause more damage than other dogs when they attack, cause more fatalities in Ohio than other dogs, and cause Toledo police officers to fire their weapons more often than do other breeds. Thus, we held that the state of Ohio and the city of Toledo had a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls and that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to that interest. Therefore, these provisions are constitutional. Id. at ¶ 35.

{¶ 24} The court of appeals held that Tellings was inapplicable to this case because the case at bar does not involve pit bulls and because YCO 505.19 does not contain a classification of this breed as a definition of “vicious.” Youngstown v. Traylor, 2008-Ohio-2971, ¶ 27. Rather, the court of appeals found the facts of Cowan to be “virtually identical” to those in this case. Id. at ¶ 14. Thus, the court of appeals held that YCO 505.19 violated procedural due process because of the “imposition of additional legal duties and restrictions on the dog owner.” Id. at ¶ 23. We disagree.

{¶ 25} In holding that R.C. 955.22 was not unconstitutional as applied to owners of pit bulls in Tellings, we clarified that in Cowan, it was the unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious by a state actor that trampled the defendant’s due process rights by failing to give him notice and opportunity to be heard. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724, 871 N.E.2d 1152, ¶ 32. YCO 505.19 simply shifts the risk of dog ownership to the dog owner in order to protect the public. 1

{¶ 26} As for the opportunity to be heard, YCO 505.19 does not permit any unilateral, unreviewable, precharge determination by a state actor, unlike the statute involved in Cowan. Moreover, YCO 505.19 does not create prehearing burdens on dog owners, such as requiring liability insurance for particular breeds. In Cowan, we rejected the owner’s inability to challenge the vicious label until trial. However, YCO 505.19 does not classify or label dogs as vicious. Dogs are rendered vicious under the ordinance by their propensity to attack or by their attack, and dog owners are merely required to keep such dogs confined.

{¶ 27} Traylor’s dogs were alleged to be vicious in his criminal complaint, and Traylor was given an opportunity for meaningful review in front of the trial court. Notably, Traylor did not present any evidence regarding the temperament or disposition of his unlicensed dogs at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. YCO 505.19 does not place any responsibilities on the dog owner until the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, YCO 505.19 simply requires dog owners to keep their dogs on their property.

1. Between 4.5 and 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs in the United States each year. American Veterinary Medical Association (“AVMA”), Dog Bite Prevention, http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/ ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dog Bite Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/biteprevention.html According to the AVMA, almost 900,000 people require medical attention for dog-bite-related injuries each year.

{¶ 28} The Tenth District Court of Appeals considered a similar case in which a German Shepherd had attacked a dog on a leash, and the owner was charged under a local ordinance. State v. Conte (Nov. 6, 2007), 10th Dist. No. 07AP-33, 2007-Ohio-5924. The court made two observations that are applicable in this case: first, the city ordinance in Conte did not involve an “unreviewable, unilateral determination that the animal was ‘vicious or dangerous.’ Rather, [the state] must prove at trial that appellee’s dog is vicious or dangerous as an element of the offense. [The owner] has the opportunity to contest that allegation.” Id. at ¶ 15. Second, the city ordinance “does not impose any additional obligations on a dog owner.” Id. at ¶ 17.

Conclusion

{¶ 29} Traylor’s dogs, unprovoked, attacked Roch and his dog while the dogs were off their property. Traylor argues that an owner cannot know that his dog is vicious until he is convicted under the ordinance. To hold otherwise, however, is to permit each dog “one free bite,” a result that would clearly leave society at risk. A responsibility of dog ownership is to maintain and control the animal. This ordinance requires no more and no less, and, therefore, it does not violate procedural due process.

{¶ 30} We hold that Youngstown Codified Ordinances 505.19 is rationally related to the city’s legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs and therefore is constitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the convictions. Judgment reversed.

MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent.

PFEIFER, J., dissenting.

{¶ 31} In State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846, at syllabus, we stated that R.C. 955.22, the statute addressing “vicious” dogs, “violates the constitutional right to procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is ‘vicious.’ ” This conclusion answers the issue before us. Traylor was charged with not restraining a “vicious” dog, but he had no notice that his dog was “vicious.” In Cowan, the dog owner was aware that her dogs had been labeled vicious; she had merely not been given an opportunity to challenge that determination. Id. at ¶ 15. This case is even more egregious because Traylor not only doesn’t have an opportunity to challenge the “vicious” label, he had no way to know that his dog is “vicious.”

{¶ 32} The outcome of this case is morally repugnant. The owner of a dog is being sent to jail for 90 days based on his failure to do something he could not know he was supposed to do. “Vicious” dogs must be restrained. Youngstown Codified Ordinances (“YCO”) 505.19. But Traylor’s dog was not “vicious” until the moment it bit a human, at which point it was too late for Traylor to restrain his dog. YCO 505.19 imposes obligations on dog owners that they do not know they need to comply with until they have no opportunity to comply. The most troubling part of this case isn’t that a municipality would pass such an ordinance; it’s that this court is sanctioning it. See State v. Price, 118 Ohio St.3d 144, 2008-Ohio-1974, 886 N.E.2d 852, at ¶ 38 (“[defendant] is owed what every criminal defendant is owed: notice that his conduct is illegal”).

{¶ 33} This court is turning a blind eye to basic tenets of fundamental fairness. See R.C. 2901.21(A)(1) (a “person’s [criminal] liability is based on conduct that includes either a voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing”). Traylor was not capable of restraining his “vicious” dog until he knew it was vicious. Allowing Youngstown to impose criminal liability based on a contemporaneous labeling of a dog as “vicious” is not different from imposing criminal liability on an “accident-prone” driver and defining “accident-prone” as anyone who gets in a car accident. It just doesn’t make sense. And it’s unconstitutional. See Papachristou v. Jacksonville (1972), 405 U.S. 156, 162, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110, quoting United States v. Harriss (1954), 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (an ordinance violates due process when it “ ‘fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by statute’ ”).

{¶ 34} Furthermore, Youngstown should not be able to define what constitutes a “vicious” dog because the General Assembly has already done so. R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a). The parties did not address this issue, and the record is not fully developed, so it is difficult to determine whether YCO 505.19 would survive a home-rule analysis. See Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605, 896 N.E.2d 967, ¶ 24. Based on what the record does reveal, it seems likely that YCO 505.19 would not survive. YCO 505.19 is an exercise of local self government. Id. at. ¶ 23. But Chapter 955 of the Revised Code appears to be a general law, and R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a) and YCO 505.19(c)(2) are clearly in conflict. See Clyde at ¶ 25. Pursuant to this, admittedly cursory, analysis, R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a) would prevail over YCO 505.19(c)(2).

{¶ 35} This court did not engage in a home-rule analysis, in large part because the parties did not argue the issue. By avoiding that issue, however, this court is sanctioning the imposition of criminal liability for something that the General Assembly has determined is not a crime. According to R.C. 955.22, the owner of a dog cannot be criminally liable for acts of that dog unless the dog has already been determined to be “vicious.” Unlike YCO 505.19, R.C. 955.22 and related statutes do not allow a dog to be labeled vicious and its owner to be criminally liable based on the same act.

Supreme Court of Ohio, January Term, 2009

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-4184.pdf (11 pages; 52.07 KB)

TWO Rabies Information Items

2009-08-31T18:38:00.000-07:00

[Two Rabies Information Items] Appalachian Ridge Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) Program – September 2009 – At-a-Glance AND Appalachian Ridge Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) Program – September 2009 – At-a-Glance

(Note: Both articles are current as of August/September 2009.)

Appalachian Ridge Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) Program – September 2009 – At-a-Glance

Background

Rabies is a viral disease that affects animals and people and is still virtually 100 percent fatal. Raccoon-rabies variant (RRV) is of particular public health concern, because it can infect domestic animals and people. Ohio's effort to keep RRV from spreading throughout Ohio began in 1997. A new vaccine that could be eaten by wild animals was used to create a barrier of immunized raccoons along Ohio's borders with Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This strategy was very successful, and in subsequent years many other states, including Pennsylvania and West Virginia, also began programs. This multi-state oral rabies vaccination (ORV) effort is coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA-APHIS). Other cooperators involved in the Ohio effort include the Ohio departments of Health and Natural Resources (ODNR), The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Dynamic Aviation and local health departments (LHDs).

Baiting Area

ORV baits will be distributed in 16 northeast Ohio counties including Ashtabula, Columbiana, Geauga, Jefferson, Lake, Mahoning and Trumbull, and parts of Belmont, Carroll, Cuyahoga, Harrison, Monroe, Noble, Portage, Summit and Washington. The immune barrier runs along Ohio's border with Pennsylvania and West Virginia; from Lake Erie south to the Ohio River. The western edge is Interstate 77 in Cuyahoga County.

Start Date

Baiting is slated to begin September 6. Aerial baiting in rural areas should take 10 days, weather permitting. Vehicle and ground distribution of ORV baits in urban and suburban neighborhoods is expected to take about 18 days, from September 8 through September 25, but may be extended depending on weather conditions. The base of operations is Youngstown-Elser Metro Airport in North Lima, Ohio.

Bait Distribution

Baits are delivered at a density of about 75 baits per km or about one bait per 3.3 acres. Most of the baits will be delivered by specially-equipped, white Beechcraft King Air planes. They will fly over rural areas along north-south flight lines that are about 0.5 miles apart at an altitude of about 500 feet. An ODNR helicopter will also be distributing baits in targeted urban and suburban areas such as parks and preserves. Ground teams, consisting of LHD personnel, will be delivering vaccine-laden baits in urban and suburban areas, mostly by vehicle. In all, about 877,680 vaccine-laden baits will be distributed via airplane, helicopter and vehicle, covering about 4,761.3 square miles in Ohio.

Program Partners

Ohio Departments of Health [ODH] and Natural Resources [ODNR]; USDA-APHIS [U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service]; Wildlife Services Program; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC].

For more information, please visit the ODH or USDA-APHIS web sites at:

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/dis/zoonoses/rabies/orv/orv1.aspx

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/oral_rabies/rabies_vaccine_info.shtml

~~~~~

2008 Annual Summary: Ohio Raccoon-rabies and Oral Rabies Vaccination Program, 2008 - Ohio Oral Rabies Vaccination Program Update, 2008

Background

Rabies is a viral disease that affects animals and people, and is almost always fatal. Since the mid-1970s, a rabies variant associated with raccoons has spread rapidly through the eastern United States and first threatened northeastern Ohio in 1997. This variant is of particular concern because it affects many other wild and domestic animals, especially cats. In 2003, Virginia reported the first human death due to raccoon-rabies variant (RRV). In newly infected areas, raccoon rabies results in a tenfold increase in human rabies exposures and treatments. For this reason, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) does not want this strain of rabies to become established in the state. In an effort to control the disease, ODH has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA APHIS WS) to conduct a program to distribute an oral rabies vaccine (ORV) to immunize wild raccoons along the Pennsylvania and West Virginia borders. This vaccine is delivered by airplanes and helicopters in rural areas and by local health department (LHD) vehicle-based ground teams in urban areas at an average rate of one vaccine-laden bait per 3.3 acres. Treatments have been conducted once or twice per year to create a 25-mile-wide immune barrier from Lake Erie to Monroe County. In 2004, there was a breach of the Ohio immune barrier. A raccoon with RRV was confirmed in Lake County, about seven miles west of the established barrier. All of Lake and Geauga counties, plus parts of Cuyahoga, Summit and Portage counties were subsequently added to the ORV treatment zone.

Although ORV has successfully suppressed infection in raccoons in the treated area and has controlled the spread of RRV through the rest of the state, the virus continues to persist in northeast Ohio. Since 2004, more than 95 percent of the RRV animal cases (117 out of 123) have been found within the outbreak/breach area of Cuyahoga, Geauga and Lake counties. In 2008, nine animals (five raccoons, three skunks and one coyote) were RRV positive, compared to 20 in 2007. Most positive animals were clustered in the western half of Lake County near Mentor; and in eastern Trumbull County near the Ohio/Pennsylvania state line (Figure 1).

Sixteen counties were involved in the three ORV operations in 2008. In May, vaccine-laden baits were distributed in Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Portage and Summit counties. In September, this area was baited again, along with the ORV barrier area along the Ohio border (Figure 2). Additional baits were distributed in Monroe, Noble and Washington counties by USDA APHIS WS, in September, during an operation in Wayne National Forest. A total of 1,352,422 vaccine-laden ORV baits were distributed in Ohio in 2008 covering 10,010 square kilometers (3,865 square miles).

Although persistence of RRV in Lake County is a concern, the good news is there has not been a significant spread of the virus into areas outside this new breach/outbreak ORV zone.

Continued ORV treatments; plus aggressive surveillance will be required to keep the raccoon-rabies epizootic from spreading.

Through continued efforts, control of RRV will hopefully return to pre-breach/outbreak levels, when RRV decreased from 62 positive animals in 1997 to just two positive animals in 2003 (Table 1).

In addition to the ORV program, USDA APHIS WS conducted a large-scale Trap-Vaccinate-Release project between April and October 2008 in the western half of Lake County. Using a new systematic technique, the area was broken down into quads consisting of six one square kilometer (0.39 square miles) cells. The goal was to vaccinate 65 percent of the raccoon population residing within each cell. To accomplish this, raccoons were captured and each animal’s sex, relative age and overall health were determined. Healthy animals were vaccinated via injection, ear-tagged and released. All healthy non-target animals were released. Any animal that showed signs of odd behavior, sickness or had puncture wounds was tested for rabies. A total of 4,196 raccoons were vaccinated. Additionally, 138 raccoons and 77 skunks that showed signs of odd behavior, sickness or had puncture wounds were tested for rabies. One of the 77 skunk tested positive for RRV; while all 138 raccoons tested negative.

Zoonotic Disease Program, Bureau of Disease Investigation and Surveillance, Ohio Department of Health

zoonoses@odh.ohio.gov or 614-752-1029 or 888-722-4371

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/dis/zoonoses/rabies/orv/orv1.aspx

Brave Dog Diaries: Police Dog Bosco & human partner recovering

2009-08-29T13:32:00.000-07:00

Brave Dog Diaries: Police Dog Bosco & human partner recovering

Brave Dog Diaries: Bosco, Dutch Shepherd Police Dog, recovering from life-threatening gunshot wounds suffered in the line of duty (Bosco's human partner is also recovering from a gunshot wound.)

(Note: Bosco suffered his injuries on August 23rd, so his progress is nothing short of miraculous!)

February 3, 2010, Bosco Update! Bosco Brief (update on Bosco, the Dutch Shepherd Zanesville, Ohio, Canine Officer)

(Note: Bosco, a Dutch Shepherd Canine Officer in Zanesville, Ohio, was shot on Sunday, August 23, 2009, when Officer Mike Schiele attempted to arrest a Zanesville man on a misdemeanor warrant. Officer Schiele was shot in the leg and was treated and released from Grant Hospital. Bosco was shot through the neck and suffered multiple injuries, one of which caused temporary paralysis, which affected his front end most. This great dog and his owner. Visit http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm to read all 15 updates and see other photos and videos. Keep your Kleenex handy; this is a story with courage in spades!)

February 3, 2010

Photo of Bosco taken on November 5, 2009:

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/assets/images/about/news/2009/boscoBrief/bosco110509.jpg

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

Since the holidays, Bosco has been coming in approximately twice a week to the Veterinary Hospital for standard rehabilitation therapy.

He walks on the water treadmill and performs other exercises to reinforce his balance and coordination and to strengthen his right leg, which is still experiencing some weakness.

Overall, he is doing great, and he has a tremendous amount of energy that is evident as he pulls vigorously on his leash upon entering our doors.

Everyone is extremely pleased with how far he has come since his injury last year.

~~~~~

The Zanesville K-9 Unit is paid for entirely by donations. People wishing to contribute to Bosco's care can send donations to the Zanesville Police Department, K-9 Unit, 332 South Street, Zanesville, OH 43701.

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

October 13, 2009, Bosco Update: As seen in this video http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5577.htm Bosco walks comfortably on the underwater treadmill as part of his physical therapy. As opposed to a "dry" or "land" treadmill, the water in the treadmill tank, a soothing 94 degrees, supports his entire weight; thus it is less stressful on his joints. The only challenge is that Bosco likes drinking the water as he walks! After the walking exercise is over, we turn on the water jets so he receives an invigorating massage.

October 9, 2009, Bosco Update: Today, Bosco completed his therapy for the week and headed home to relax. Tracy Marsh, certified canine rehabilitation technician, explained that he continues to gain strength and is only in rehabilitation three days per week. Check back on Tuesday, October 13 to watch video of Bosco in the water treadmill. Thank you for your continuing interest is Bosco's recovery. For more information about the Emergency and Critical Care service: http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/771.htm that cared for Bosco when he arrived at the Veterinary Hospital in August, you can read the article: Team Approach to Emergency and Critical Care Saves Lives: http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/2812.htm Website where all updates are located: http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

October 1, 2009, Bosco Update! On Thursday, October 1st, Bosco and Officer Schiele made a live appearance on Channel 10 news. Bosco walked into the TV studio confidently and did not seem to be fazed by the camera. View the video of the interview. No doubt Bosco won over more hearts after his appearance on the program. His therapists continue to focus on increasing his strength and balance in his front legs, since he still stumbles, but he is showing improvement every day. In the past week, Bosco has been featured in the Zanesville Times Recorder, WBNS-TV, plus a live appearance on WBNS-TV with Officer Schiele, the Lantern on September 28 and October 1, and WCMH-TV.

September 28, 2009, Bosco Update! Initially paralyzed from the neck down, Bosco can now stand on his own and take a few steps. Media are invited to see Bosco during his rehabilitation session on Wednesday, September 30, 2009, at 10 AM at the Veterinary Hospital, 601 Vernon Tharp Street, Columbus, Ohio. Veterinarians and rehabilitation technicians will be available to answer questions. In fair weather, his session will take place outside, on the Coffey Road side of the hospital, which is located on the corner of Vernon Tharp and Coffey Road. In case of rain, media will be escorted to the Canine Rehabilitation room. More information: Melissa Weber 614-292-3752, cell 614-327-6024 or Kristine McComis 614-688-3517

September 24, 2009, Bosco Update! We are happy to report that Bosco can get up and stand on his own. He is also walking short distances with no assistance. As seen in this video http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/2862.htm he continues with his daily therapy which includes walking around cones and other obstacles, although sometimes he tries to cheat! After these exercises, he takes a well-deserved nap. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

September 18th Bosco Update! Bosco went home to Zanesville Thursday night for a fundraiser and stayed the entire weekend with his family, which he truly enjoyed! He is back in the hospital this week [September 21-25] to continue with daily therapy, but will be allowed to go home on weekends. The main focus of his therapy is working on his balance. Although his front legs buckle now and then, he is making progress walking on a leash and harness. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

September 17th Bosco Update! Dr. Amy Butler reported that Bosco has been a little lazy the past two days, until he started chasing a squirrel while outside on Wednesday! As seen in this video http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/2815.htm he is starting to move his front limbs fairly well. He just needs a bit of support when he walks, but he is placing the forelimbs and starting to bear even more weight while walking. He also wagged his tail for the very first time! http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

September 14th Update: Bosco is getting stronger every day. He can easily get himself to a sternal position from both sides. As you can see from this video -- http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/2448.htm (15 seconds; please turn up your volume) -- once he is lifted up, he has been able to stand on his own, as well. Bosco's attitude remains superb, and we continue to see some forelimb movement. He enjoys his therapy sessions outside in the beautiful fall weather. He also spends a lot of time in the canine rehabilitation room with his therapists and other dogs, so he never lacks for company or attention. Bosco's official police portrait is displayed at the hospital's front desk and generates many well-wishes from clients and visitors. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

September 8th Update: "Bosco continues to make progress in his recovery. We are pleased to report that he has now been moved out of the Intensive Care Unit. He is able to prop himself up and is beginning to move his front limbs. His appetite and spirits remain very good. Bosco's daily rehabilitation therapy sessions clearly have made a positive impact. Bosco has been receiving many "get well" cards, and the entire patient care team appreciates the animal-loving public's interest and support during his stay here at the hospital." http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

Bosco Brief: Updated September 8, 2009 (See Photos posted here:
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm )

Bosco Brief: Updated September 3, 2009: Bosco continues his rehabilitation twice a day. His exercises include work on a large balancing ball. Tracy Marsh, RVT and Certified Canine Rehabilitation Practitioner demonstrates that like many dogs, Bosco can be motivated by food treats. Bosco's movement is assisted by Amanda Waln, RVT. The following video shows Bosco working in the water treadmill in the canine rehabilitation unit located in the Veterinary Hospital. http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

Bosco Brief: Updated September 1, 2009: Written by Kristine McComis, Assistant to the Director mccomis.2@osu.edu or 614-688-3517 (Posted by Michelle Fehribach)

Dr. Amy Butler, Assistant Professor of Small Animal Emergency and Critical Care, reported that Bosco continues to improve and is very pleased with his progress. Bosco has more strength and has shown a little movement in his front legs. He is taking steps with his back legs and can stand with sling support. Bosco undergoes rehabilitation sessions three times a day and his exercises are focusing on improving his strength, balance and confidence. He can now go to the bathroom on his own. "He is ahead of where we thought he would be at this point," Dr. Butler said. It is possible that Bosco may be moved out of the ICU by the end of the week. It is anticipated he will be in the hospital several more weeks as he continues with his daily therapy.
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

August 29, 2009

By Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net

Bosco is recovering from his injuries, slowly, but steadily.

To donate to help with the costs of his hospitalization and recovery:

Zanesville Police Department K-9 Unit

332 South Street

Zanesville, OH 43701

" ... as of today [Thursday, August 27] he's moving both of his back legs pretty well," said veterinarian Dr. Amy Butler. "He's starting to move his front legs and he's starting to bear more weight on them ... "

See articles below for more details, photos and video:

Bosco Brief: Wounded Police Dog continues slow recovery

Written by Kristine McComis, Assistant to the Director mccomis.2@osu.edu or 614-688-3517 (Posted by Michelle Fehribach)

The College of Veterinary Medicine at The Ohio State University

601 Vernon L. Tharp Street

Columbus, Ohio 43210

614-292-3551

August 26, 2009 - Bosco, a Zanesville, Ohio police K-9, remains in The Ohio State University Veterinary Hospital's critical care unit as he recovers from two gunshot wounds. Bosco was shot on Sunday, August 23, when Officer Mike Schiele attempted to arrest a Zanesville man on a misdemeanor warrant. Officer Schiele was shot in the leg and was treated and released from Grant Hospital. Bosco was shot through the neck and suffered multiple injuries. He is currently paralyzed, although he does have some movement in his back legs. After several days of supportive and medical care with pain management, Bosco has shown some slight improvement.

He has eaten a little on his own and has started daily rehabilitation sessions in hopes of regaining more movement as his body starts healing from its wounds. Monitored 24 hours a day, Bosco is surrounded by compassionate and dedicated caregivers and has received an outpouring of support from the Zanesville and local police departments as well as the concerned public.

The Zanesville K-9 Unit is paid for entirely by donations.

People wishing to contribute to Bosco's care can send donations to the Zanesville Police Department, K-9 Fund, 332 South St. Zanesville, OH 43701.

Continue to check back for updates about Bosco's recovery.

August 28, 2009

Bosco is continuing with several rehabilitation therapy sessions a day and has made some progress. Today's session went very well, as Bosco, while supported by a sling, took six steps using his back legs. He has also urinated on his own. He is still unable to move his front legs but he looks much brighter, is eating well, and is more alert.

Bosco's story has been featured on several local television news stations and newspapers. Watch the video posted on Channel 10 news.

Our thanks to everyone for their continued support and concern.
The Ohio State Veterinary Hospital is open 24 hours, seven days a week for emergencies and critical care.

Copyright 2009, The Ohio State University College of Veterinary Medicine.

http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/5971.htm

~~~~~

Wounded Police Dog Shows Improvement

August 27, 2009

No author provided at originating website address / URL.

WBNS 10 TV

770 Twin Rivers Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43215

614-460-3700 or News Tips: 614-460-3950

Fax: 614-460-3950

http://www.wbns10tv.com and http://www.wbns10tv.com/live/content/station/stories/help_center.html
viewerservices@10.tv.com

Columbus, Ohio - Veterinarians said Thursday that Bosco, the police dog shot in the line of duty, is showing signs of improvement, but they said it is still too early to tell whether he will walk again.

Bosco has been receiving care at the Ohio State University Veterinary Hospital since the shooting Sunday night, 10TV's Maureen Kocot reported.

The 3-year-old Dutch shepherd's human partner, Zanesville police Office Mike Schiele, was attempting to serve a warrant when gunfire erupted.

SLIDESHOW: Images Of Bosco

Schiele was hit in the leg while Bosco, who had been let loose to attack the gunman, was wounded in the neck.

Bosco's caregivers offered a grim outlook earlier this week, saying he appeared to be paralyzed, with no movement in his front legs and very limited movement in his hind legs.

On Thursday, there was better news regarding the dog's condition.

"On Monday, he could just barely move one of his legs, and as of today [Thursday, August 27] he's moving both of his back legs pretty well," said veterinarian Dr. Amy Butler. "He's starting to move his front legs and he's starting to bear more weight on them, so we're happy with his progress."

Veterinarians believe the dog's spinal cord is still bruised, and they stressed that it is still too early to predict whether or not Bosco will walk again.

Each day, three times a day, Bosco undergoes physical therapy for an hour-and-half. He also gets daily visits from Schiele.

Veterinarians said the dog's appetite is healthy. They even joked that he has been eating like a pig.

"Here we've been feeding him canned food and he loves it," Butler said. "And people are bringing him steak and salmon, all kinds of good treats. He's getting spoiled."

Veterinarians said the next three to six weeks will reveal if the dog will walk again.

Watch 10TV News and refresh http://www.10TV.com for continuing coverage.

Previous Stories:

August 27, 2009: $2M Bond For Officer, Police Dog Shooting Suspect
August 25, 2009: Man Accused In Officer, Police Dog Shooting Returns To Zanesville
August 24, 2009: Man Arrested In Officer, Police Dog Shooting
August 23, 2009: Officer, Police Dog Shot During Struggle

Copyright 2009, WBNS-10-TV.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2009/08/27/story_police_dog.html?sid=102

~~~~~

Contact reporter Maureen Kocot: maureen.kocot@10tv.com or 614-460-3950

~~~~~

Contact tips2ussavethem webmaster: propertyrights@earthlink.net Website: http://tips2ussavethem.blogspot.com

DOW officials give advice on keeping animals off property [wild animals]

2009-08-24T21:03:00.000-07:00

DOW officials give advice on keeping animals off property [wild animals, that is]

"The kennel had high enough walls to keep the dog in, but its placement below a block ledge would have made it easy for a mountain lion to jump in, kill the dog and jump back out. ... Most predators hunt at night and are most active at dawn and dusk. People should keep that in mind when letting pets outside. ... Wild animals can carry diseases easily transmitted to house pets. That’s a concern."

(Note: Although this article is from Colorado, and the state agency is the Colorado Department of Wildlife, there is much helpful information.)

August 24, 2009

By Melinda Mawdsley, The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel melinda.mawdsley@gjsentinel.com

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel "The Daily Sentinel is the largest paper on the Western Slope - distributing in 11 counties in western Colorado and eastern Utah."

P.O. Box 668

Grand Junction, Colorado 81502

970-242-5050

Fax: 970-241-6860

http://www.gjsentinel.com/

To submit a Letter to the Editor: letters@gjds.com (300-word limit)

Conflict between wild animals and humans may not be as big a problem in the Grand Valley as it is in neighboring, more mountainous communities, but problems still exist.

Some local confrontations draw attention, such as the June incident in which a Redlands dog was killed, presumably by a bobcat. Other issues, such as a bear rummaging through an Orchard Mesa neighborhood in July, don’t receive much publicity because they are handled quietly.

Regardless of the animal involved, or the seriousness of the confrontation, humans and wildlife have to coexist in western Colorado, said Randy Hampton, spokesman with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Learning how to protect personal property is important because it keeps people and animals safe, Hampton added.

On August 12, Hampton and DOW district wildlife manager Elissa Knox showed up unannounced at four properties near Grand Junction to point out the things — good or bad — property owners were doing to prevent unwanted encounters with wildlife.

During visits to the four homes, Knox gave suggestions about how to best avoid visits from skunks and raccoons or potentially fatal brushes with a bear or mountain lion.

The tour began on I Road near a drainage area commonly referred to as Hunter Wash. The DOW has received complaints about coyotes in the rural area between Grand Junction and Fruita.

Hunter Wash and other drainage basins in the area are access paths for wildlife — prey and predator — to move from the high country into the Grand Valley, Knox said. Drainage areas provide drinking water and sheltering vegetation.

Consequently, Knox and Hampton wanted to tour a property off 20 1/2 Road because it was near Hunter Wash. Matt Krueger allowed Knox on the land.

Pet food for the dog was outside in a bowl near the garage.

“If they leave it out all night, raccoons and skunks will take advantage,” Knox said.

Pet food — and pets — attract wild animals. Smaller animals such as skunks or raccoons won’t necessarily attack a dog or cat.

On the other hand, coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions — all of which live in the area — will.

Knox continued to walk around the property. A hummingbird feeder hung on wire under a patio overhang. Raccoons will climb on wires to get to bird feeders. And bears love to eat out of hummingbird feeders.

“It’s like candy for them,” Knox said.

A grill was below the hummingbird feeder. The grill was cleaned, and Krueger said the people who use the grill make sure they clean it because they know the smell attracts wildlife. But don’t forget to clean the drip pan, Knox advised.

Near the grill were live chickens. A wire fence kept the chickens inside, but it also will keep skunks, foxes and coyotes out.

“This is good fencing,” Knox said. “The mesh is small enough nothing can climb through. It’s strong with a good frame. The top is sharp, which is good.”

However, near the bottom was a hole with a heavy piece of lumber propped up against it, which would keep chickens in, but “if something is really determined to get in there, it will squeeze through,” Knox warned.

“I can walk out every night and smell a skunk,” Krueger said. “I hear the coyotes all the time over there.” He pointed toward Hunter Wash.

The property also had fruit trees, which “a family of raccoons will eat,” Knox said, and a large shed with horse feed. The feed is locked up in strong storage containers, Krueger said.

“This property is a good one (for potential wildlife encounters),” Knox said. “But it’s pretty well taken care of.”

The DOW tour moved from rural Fruita toward the Redlands, where the DOW has responded to animal calls of all sorts, Hampton said. The nearby Colorado River and Colorado National Monument are wildlife habitats.

Hampton and Knox stopped at Tony Miller’s house off South Rim Drive. Miller let Knox walk around the area, which overlooks the river.

His bird feeders were far from the house, and he typically does not feed birds in the summer. Both are good tips to follow if homeowners notice an increased wildlife presence, Knox said.

“I love wildlife, but I do everything to keep them wild,” Miller said.

He also had two fountains, which can attract thirsty animals, Knox said. Where thirsty animals such as deer roam, larger predators may follow, she added.

Knox and Hampton climbed back into the DOW Jeep and left the Redlands subdivision to tour another part of the Redlands that receives animal complaints: the Monument base.

“If you were a mountain lion and got to choose where you could live, this is the area you would choose,” Hampton said. The monument has a healthy deer population.

“Honestly, wherever you have a healthy deer population, there is the potential for a mountain lion presence,” Knox said.

Harry Hotimsky let Knox and Hampton walk around his property off Monument Road. Immediately, Hampton saw an open-top dog kennel placed below a ledge near the house.

“You don’t use that kennel, do you?” Hampton asked.

“Never,” Hotimsky answered back.

Chechu, a Labrador and Weimaraner mix, wasn’t a small dog, but it’s still prey trapped inside a kennel, Knox said.

The kennel had high enough walls to keep the dog in, but its placement below a block ledge would have made it easy for a mountain lion to jump in, kill the dog and jump back out. Mountain lions can jump 15 feet, Knox said.

Hotimsky said he hears coyotes “all the time” and frequently sees rabbits. When he first moved to the Monument area in 2001, he heard stories about homeowners losing cats or dogs.

Most predators hunt at night and are most active at dawn and dusk, Knox said. People should keep that in mind when letting pets outside, she added. Hampton heard a story years ago about how a coyote approached a home in the area and lured a dog away from a yard only to kill it with the help of other coyotes.

“It’s not only smart,” Hampton said. “It’s an adaptation. A rabbit will run from a coyote. A dog won’t.”

People who live in rural areas may be used to wildlife, and are well-versed about what they should or shouldn’t do to thwart encounters, but there are areas in the city where people might be surprised to learn wildlife and humans have made contact, and it didn’t always end well.

As recently as July 21, a bear was found rummaging through garbage off Edlun Road on Orchard Mesa near the Mesa County Fairgrounds. Because the Mesa County Fair was scheduled to start that week, the DOW had to locate the bear quickly to prevent a potential issue between the bear and 4-H animals at the fairgrounds, Hampton said.

Turns out, the bear in Orchard Mesa was the same bear found in early July inside the Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs. At that time, the DOW relocated the bear to the Uncompahgre Plateau.

“We pretty much put it in the middle of a berry patch,” Hampton said. “We want to give bears the opportunity to be bears.”

About one week later, the same bear, which had been tagged in Glenwood, was spotted in Gateway going through trash cans. It was never caught before it turned up in Grand Junction.

“It had become habituated to human sources of food,” Hampton said. “It had to be euthanized because it found human food over and over again.”

Don Sheffield, who lives near Edlun Road and has since 1977, said he didn’t see the bear in July, but he has seen a bear once. His property overlooks the Gunnison River. He let Knox and Hampton tour his property, which has a large garden. Animals have gotten into his grapevines and fruit trees, but it appeared as if the damage was done by birds, Knox said.

Electric fence will help keep skunks, raccoons and deer out of gardens, Knox said. Wrapping wire fencing around trunks of trees will help keep bucks from using the bark to rub the velvet off their antlers, she added.

Otherwise, she said, Sheffield seemed to have an understanding of how to live with wildlife.

“You are going to encounter people who are doing the right things,” Hampton said.

But Hampton said people don’t always do the right things when it comes to keeping wildlife away from their homes, and that can turn out badly for both animals and people.

Wild animals can carry diseases easily transmitted to house pets. That’s a concern. Wild animals will seek out human sources of food, which usually leads to euthanization of the animal, Hampton said.

But the DOW is not in the business of killing animals. It is in the business of managing wild game populations, he added.

“There is a need for people in Mesa County to understand that they live in wildlife habitat,” Hampton said.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife has a wealth of resources for homeowners wanting more information about what to do to better live with animals in western Colorado. Go to http://wildlife.state.co.us or stop by the DOW offices at 711 Independent Ave. for brochures and answers.

Copyright 2009, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/features/stories/2009/08/24/082309_ls_wildlife_www.html

Providing carefully researched information since 1999. propertyrights@earthlink.net Websites: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/ and http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com/

Ohio Dept. of Health: Rabies Results Update: 1-15-2010

2009-08-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

Rabies Results Update - January 15, 2010

(Note: For questions, contact Scott Odee at scott.odee@odh.ohio.gov.)

Thus far in 2010, there has been one rabid bat that tested positive for rabies, in Preble County, Ohio.

most emerging human diseases are “zoonotic” ... diseases can spread from people to animals, vice-versa

2009-08-04T13:44:00.000-07:00

New Ouchless Plague Vaccine, Shipwrecks Wrecking Coral Reefs, White-Nose Syndrome in Bats, and More at the Wildlife Disease Association Conference

"... increased realization that most emerging human diseases are “zoonotic,” that is, diseases that can spread from people to other animals or vice-versa. ... until very recently, wildlife disease was not an important focus for the wildlife conservation community....Now, though, a new wave of social environmentalism and public concerns about emerging zoonotic diseases are placing increased pressure on wildlife agencies to address disease ‘crises’ involving wildlife."

(Note: This conference began on August 2nd and runs through August 7th, but was not sent to listserve members until the evening of August 3rd.)

August 3, 2009

From: cpuckett@usgs.gov

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2268&from=rss_home

USGS News Release August 3, 2009

Catherine Puckett (call during WDA conference) cpuckett@usgs.gov or 352-264-3532

Note to reporters and editors: The 58th annual meeting of the Wildlife Disease Association (WDA) http://www.wildlifedisease.org will be August 2-7, 2009, in Blaine, Washington.

The theme is "Wildlife Health from Land to Sea: Impacts of a Changing World."

This release is based on USGS research being presented at the conference.

Also see a full press release on emerging diseases in fish at http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/

Get Your Shots! Eating Ouchless Vaccines Protects Prairie Dogs in the Lab Against Plague:

A new oral vaccine against sylvatic plague is showing significant promise in the laboratory as a way to protect prairie dogs and may eventually protect endangered black-footed ferrets who now get the disease by eating infected prairie dogs, according to results by a USGS researcher at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center.

Sylvatic plague is an infectious bacterial disease usually transmitted from animal to animal by fleas. This exotic disease is usually deadly for black-footed ferrets and their primary prey, prairie dogs, resulting in local extinctions or regional population reductions. Along with other wild rodents, prairie dogs are also considered a significant reservoir of plague for other wildlife, domestic animals, and people in the western U.S. Prevention of plague in wild rodents by immunization could reduce outbreaks of the disease in animals, thereby reducing the risk for human exposure to the disease.

USGS scientists offered plague vaccine in food for voluntary consumption by 16 black-tailed prairie dogs. They also injected a plague vaccine into 12 other prairie dogs and then studied how much protection against plague the two kinds of vaccines offered. USGS researcher Dr. Tonie Rocke, the lead researcher of the project, found that the prairie dogs that “ate” their vaccine were better protected from the disease than the ones who were injected with a vaccine. These results, said Rocke, demonstrate that oral immunization of prairie dogs against plague provides significant protection from the disease, at least in the laboratory.

Black-footed ferrets, of course, are one of the rarest mammals in North America.

An oral vaccine, said Rocke, could be put into bait and delivered into the field without having to handle any animals, a process that is time-consuming, costly, and sometimes stressful for the animals. The same bacterium that affects ferrets, prairie dogs, and other rodents, is also responsible for human cases of plague. For more information, contact Dr. Tonie Rocke at trocke@usgs.gov or 608-270-2451

Shipwrecks Wrecking Coral Reefs? A Case Study at Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge:
For the first time, researchers have definitively shown that shipwrecks and other man-made structures increase the potential for large invasions of unwanted species into coral reefs, even comparatively pristine ones. These unwanted species can completely overtake a reef and eliminate native corals, dramatically decreasing the diversity of marine organisms on the reef. Coral reefs can undergo fast changes in their dominant life forms, a phenomenon referred to as phase shift. Scientists have speculated on many possible causes of phase shift, but this study is the first one to clearly show that a rapid change in the dominant life forms on a coral reef is associated with man-made structures.

In September 2007, USGS researcher Dr. Thierry Work, Dr. Greta Aeby from the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, and Dr. James Maragos from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studied a 100-foot vessel that wrecked in 1991 on isolated Palmyra Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean. They found extremely high numbers of an invasive species related to anemones and corals, Rhodactis howesii, on and around the shipwreck site. The density of this species progressively decreased with distance from the ship, and it was rare or absent in other parts of the atoll. Likewise, the researchers confirmed high densities of R. howesii around several buoys installed on the atoll in 2001.

Even though phase shifts can have long-term negative effects for coral reefs, eliminating organisms responsible for phase shifts can be difficult, particularly if they cover a large area. The extensive R. howesii invasion and subsequent loss of coral reef habitat at Palmyra highlights the importance of rapid removal of shipwrecks on corals reefs to help prevent reefs from being overgrown by invasive species.

"Why this phenomenon is occurring remains a mystery," said Work, a scientist at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center's Honolulu Field Station. One possibility, he said, is that iron leaching from the ship and mooring buoy chains, accompanied with other environmental factors particular to Palmyra Atoll, are somehow promoting the growth of Rhodactis. For more information, contact Dr. Thierry Work at 808-72-9250 or thierry_work@usgs.gov

Society, Wildlife Disease and Wildlife Conservation: Oxymoron or Evolutionary Siblings?

Over the past 50 years, the field of wildlife disease as an issue for concern has exploded in significance, mostly because of the increased realization that most emerging human diseases are “zoonotic,” that is, diseases that can spread from people to other animals or vice-versa. USGS emeritus scientist Dr. Milt Friend, in an invited talk at the Wildlife Disease Association conference, will explore how and why the field of wildlife disease research has changed over the last 50 years.

One of the biggest differences, says Friend, is that until very recently, wildlife disease was not an important focus for the wildlife conservation community.

“Now, though, a new wave of social environmentalism and public concerns about emerging zoonotic diseases are placing increased pressure on wildlife agencies to address disease ‘crises’ involving wildlife,” Friend says.

He emphasizes, however, that emerging zoonotic diseases often result in double jeopardy for wildlife: not only do wildlife often suffer direct negative effects from a disease, they also endure indirect effects associated with actions taken to reduce human risks by suppressing wildlife populations.

In addition, says Friend, wildlife can also be jeopardized by actions taken if they happen to share diseases with domestic animals, even if those diseases do not pose a significant public health threat.

“Conversely, within the wildlife conservation community, the role of disease as a factor for species extinctions is receiving increased worldwide attention,” Friend noted. For more information, contact Dr. Milton Friend at 608-270-2488 or mfriend@usgs.gov

Disease Risks When Moving Wildlife to New Areas: Endangered Laysan Duck Cautionary Tale:
Laysan ducks, one of the world's most endangered waterfowl, are native to only the Hawaiian archipelago. For 150 years, Laysan ducks were restricted to an estimated 4 square kilometers of land on Laysan Island in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In 2004 and 2005, in an effort to rebuild thepopulation, biologists released 42 Laysan ducks on Midway Atoll, located one day's boat ride from Laysan. By 2007, a breeding population was well established on Midway, reaching 200 ducks. However, in August 2008, more than half of the Midway duck population (181 ducks) was lost to a disease epidemic lasting 30 days. Necropsies (the animal equivalent of autopsies) on dead birds revealed botulism type C as a cause of the die-off.

Disturbingly, said Work, 3 ducks were also infected with a worm suspected to be Echinuria uncinata; this worm has been responsible for mass die-offs of Laysan ducks on Laysan Island. Work notes that this worm was either moved to Midway during translocations of ducks from Laysan, despite preventive treatment of all founding birds, or it arrived with migratory waterfowl. Either way, says Work, this epizootic highlights the disease risk to birds restricted to small island populations and the challenges associated with managing newly translocated endangered species. Frequent population monitoring for early disease detection and comprehensive wetland monitoring and management will be needed to offset the potential effects of avian botulism and parasitism on endangered Laysan ducks, Work said. The bigger picture, though, is that disease risks need to be closely examined for translocations of all kinds, especially in light of translocations being proposed for dealing with habitat range changes that affect endangered species due to climate change. For more information, contact Dr. Thierry Work at 808-72-9250 or thierry_work@usgs.gov

Bat white-nose syndrome: An emerging fungal pathogen?

New research provides even more evidence that a previously undescribed, cold-loving fungus is associated with white-nose syndrome, a condition linked to the deaths of up to 1,000,000 cave-hibernating bats in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states. Since the winter of 2006-2007, bat populations plummeted from 80 to 97 percent at surveyed bat-hibernation caves, called hibernacula. USGS microbiologist Dr. David Blehert and his colleagues identified the fungus last year, and have followed up by trying to determine if the fungus may be responsible for the deaths or if it is simply a side effect of another underlying disease. The researchers found that 90 percent of all bats they examined from suspected WNS sites had a severe fungal skin infection that did not just occur on the skin, but below it as well. The growth temperature requirements of the fungus are consistent with the core temperatures of cave-hibernating bat species throughout temperate regions of the world. Given the hundreds of thousands of hibernating bats found throughout the WNS-affected region, as well as the potential for the spread of this disease to other parts of the United States and Canada, white-nose syndrome represents an unprecedented threat to bats of the northeastern United States and potentially beyond. For more information, contact Dr. David Blehert at 608-270-2466 or dblehert@usgs.gov

Sick Fish May Get Sicker: Climate Change and Other Stresses Expected to Affect Entire Populations of Fish

See full press release on this subject http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2267
Entire populations of North American fish already are being affected by several emerging diseases, a problem that threatens to increase in the future with climate change and other stresses on aquatic ecosystems, according to a noted U.S. Geological Survey researcher giving an invited talk on this subject today at the Wildlife Disease Association conference in Blaine, Wash.

“A generation ago, we couldn’t have imaged the explosive growth in disease issues facing many of our wild fish populations,” said Dr. Jim Winton, a fish disease specialist at the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center.

“Most fish health research at that time was directed toward diseases of farmed fish.”

In contrast, said Winton, recent studies in natural aquatic systems have revealed that, in addition to being a cause of natural death, infectious and parasitic fish diseases can produce significantly greater mortality in altered habitats leading to population fluctuations, extinction of endangered fish, reduced overall health and increased susceptibility to predation. For more information, contact Dr. Jim Winton at jwinton@usgs.gov or 206-526-6282 Ext. 328

Catherine Puckett, USGS Office of Communications cpuckett@usgs.gov or 352-264-3532; cell: 352-275-2639; Fax: 352-374-8080

2201 NW 40th Terrace

Gainesville, FL 32605-3574

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2268&from=rss_home

[Rabies in Ohio: What You Should Know] Zoonotic Disease Program: Rabies

2009-05-13T22:31:00.000-07:00

[Rabies in Ohio: What You Should Know] Zoonotic Disease Program: Rabies

"Local health departments reported they were aware of 56 people who were bitten or otherwise potentially exposed to rabid bats in Ohio during 2008. All 56 patients started rabies post-exposure treatment (PET). Eleven rabid bats also exposed 10 cats, nine dogs and a horse. Each animal was given a vaccine booster and/or quarantined. Bat rabies is sporadic throughout the state and pets frequently are the conduit to human exposures. The public must be continually reminded that even these small animals can be deadly."

(Note: Rabies is another reason pets should be supervised at all times and not be permitted to run loose. ORV -- Oral Rabies Vaccine) bait was put out in sixteen eastern Ohio counties: Ashtabula, Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Harrison, Jefferson, Lake, Mahoning, Monroe, Noble, Portage, Summit, Trumbull, and Washington. TVR -- Trap-Vaccinate-Release -- is also employed.)

Last updated: February 23, 2009

People are exposed to rabies when they are bitten by an infected animal, or less commonly, when saliva from an infected animal gets into an open wound or onto a mucous membrane.

Any bite wound should be thoroughly washed with soap and water as soon as possible.

Animal bite victims should consult with their doctor and promptly report the incident to the local health department.

Rabies is almost always fatal once clinical symptoms appear. To confirm the victim’s risk of being exposed to rabies, a decision must be made to either test or quarantine the biting animal, or to treat the victim. Treatment must be initiated soon after the exposure to be effective. Ohio’s local health departments investigate more than 24,000 animal bite incidents annually. Because of health department activities and medical treatment, human rabies is rare in the United States. Ohio’s last human rabies case was in 1970.

The Ohio Department of Health Rabies Program conducts rabies prevention activities to protect Ohio residents from the spread of wildlife rabies to people, pets, and other animals. Bat, raccoon, skunk, other wild animal and domestic animal rabies cases are reviewed to determine any necessary control initiatives.

The Rabies Program works to do the following:

Assist local health departments with rabies prevention programs and coordinate rabies control activities among local, state and federal agencies.

Develop educational materials for the public.

Provide consultation for public health workers, veterinarians, the medical community, and others who work with animals, and deal with animal bites and rabies exposures.

Collect and maintain data on rabies and animal bites in Ohio.

2008 Ohio Rabies Map

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/6DF229DD9EFB4436866D31FFDFD5EAEB/rabmap.pdf

2008 Rabies Summary (excerpted below)

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/3FD4AEC0392745B382CE5943DFB0818B/rabsum.pdf (4 pages)

In 2008, 4,405 animals from Ohio were tested for rabies. Testing was conducted by three laboratories:

The Ohio Department of Health Laboratories (ODHL) tested public health specimens (e.g. suspect animals that exposed humans or pets/domestic animals).

The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Service (USDA APHIS WS) targeted sick and dead wildlife collected for raccoon- rabies variant (RRV) surveillance in northeast Ohio.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) laboratories conducted variant typing on rabies-positive animal samples and confirmed USDA APHIS WS samples.

Sixty-four animals tested positive for rabies in 2008. Fifty-five of those animals were bats (85.9 percent), five were raccoons (7.8 percent), three were skunks (4.7 percent) and one was a coyote (1.6 percent). For comparison, 86 animals (66 bats, 11 raccoons and nine skunks) from Ohio tested positive for rabies in 2007. In Ohio, there are three rabies variants (or strains) circulating among wildlife and they include bat, skunk and raccoon rabies. The North Central skunk-rabies variant and the raccoon-rabies variant are terrestrial variants, and each tends to have a geographic focus. The third variant is bat rabies, which is sporadic and geographically disbursed. Each strain prefers a specific animal species, but any strain can infect humans and other mammals. For example, a skunk with RRV can cause rabies in a dog, cat, horse, etc.

No matter the variant, rabies is a viral disease of mammals that affects the nervous system. It is nearly 100 percent fatal and is transmitted when saliva from an infected animal gets into an open wound or on a mucous membrane. In humans, treatment is effective only if immunoglobulin and a series of five vaccine injections are administered within days after the exposure. This is the reason Ohio law requires all animal bites be reported to the local health department within 24 hours. Human disease can be prevented through prompt exposure evaluation and treatment. Because of the medical and public health infrastructure in the state, Ohio has not had a confirmed human case of rabies since 1970. Each year in the United States, an average of three people die from rabies, usually from bat-related variants. Worldwide, roughly 55,000 people die each year, most often from canine-rabies variant, which is not endemic to the United States.

Bat Rabies:

In 2008, the number of bats testing positive (55) was higher than the five-year average (47, range 30-66). The percent positive was 6 percent. Local health departments reported they were aware of 56 people who were bitten or otherwise potentially exposed to rabid bats in Ohio during 2008.

All 56 patients started rabies post-exposure treatment (PET). Eleven rabid bats also exposed 10 cats, nine dogs and a horse. Each animal was given a vaccine booster and/or quarantined. Bat rabies is sporadic throughout the state and pets frequently are the conduit to human exposures. The public must be continually reminded that even these small animals can be deadly.

Bats frequently inhabit attics and pose a rabies risk to residents if there is access into living areas. In July, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) Zoonotic Disease Program received a call about a bat found in a rental home. The bat tested positive for rabies through ODHL and the family received PET. The tenants moved shortly after completing the PET series. New tenants moved in and subsequently reported seeing bats in sleeping areas in the morning. Because no bats were available for testing, these tenants also started and completed PET. The landlord paid all the out-of-pocket expenses for each family which amounted to several thousand dollars. “Bat-proofing” the structure would probably have been less expensive than paying for PET.

Raccoon Rabies Variant:

All rabid raccoons and skunks, plus one coyote, identified in Ohio during 2008 were positive for RRV. All were found in northeast Ohio. The percentage of raccoons testing positive in 2008 (five of 1,009 or 0.5 percent) was similar to previous years. This year, most RRV-positive animals (five raccoons and two skunks) were detected by enhanced surveillance activities (odd behavior, sick, roadkill); not because they bit or otherwise exposed a person or pet. However, one skunk and one coyote were involved in human or pet/domestic animal exposures.

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/3FD4AEC0392745B382CE5943DFB0818B/rabsum.pdf (4 pages)

Source (original website address / URL):

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/dis/zoonoses/rabies/rab1.aspx

Cat Health Tips: Health Tips for Cat Owners

2009-05-07T07:38:00.000-07:00

Cat Health Tips: Health Tips for Cat Owners

(Disclaimer: Nothing contained herein should be interpreted as veterinary advice or a substitute for same. Please always consult your veterinarian, keeping in mind that describing symptoms over the phone is no substitute for the vet actually seeing the patient.)

Cats can get colds

Sneezing, nose and eye discharge may be associated with upper respiratory infections. These signs can also be due to allergies or foreign material stuck in the nose. Wheezing sounds can occur when there is marked irritation or partial obstruction in the nasal cavity, but true wheezing involves the lungs. In the latter case, there is bronchial constriction (narrowed airways) that leads to a whistling lung sound, in combination with increased respiration efforts. The most common scenario in cats leading to true wheezing is asthma, which is associated with airway irritation, or wheezing can occur when something foreign has been inhaled down the windpipe or a lung infection is present. Vomiting is not usually associated with cat "colds." There are numerous causes of vomiting. The irritation can then lead to secondary sneezing, and nasal discharge. Since the cause of these symptoms may be simple and easily controlled, the sick cat should see a veterinarian for a professional assessment.

Hairballs in cats

Nearly everyone who has ever owned a cat knows about hairballs. Hairballs are natural at very low frequency. Every day, a cat grooms the hair coat extensively and swallows large quantities of hair as a result. Normally, the hair mixes with the food, and passes out with the stool, mixed fairly evenly throughout the feces. Sometimes, though, hair remains in the stomach and balls up. When it grows large, it is vomited up because it irritates the stomach. Some cats have an abnormal tendency to accumulate hair and to form hairballs. They swallow large amounts on an ongoing basis and some degree of buildup is inevitable. Sometimes cats develop excessive hairballs when their stomach is irritated. Hair buildup in the digestive system can be a worrisome problem. It is not unusual for the stool of cats with chronic constipation problems to contain a significant amount of dry hair in the stool ball. It is important to effectively manage the constipation to prevent the risk of dry hair-based masses. Left unattended, the result can be permanent stretching of the gut wall around large impactions. Low-grade hairballs can be effectively managed using gentle hairball medication that helps to lubricate the hairs in the stomach to help prevent hair from tangling together and starting a hairball. These lubricants are usually formulated as a tasty paste administered once or twice weekly by mouth. They have added vitamins, and can be very effective if used regularly. Never give mineral oil to cats by mouth as a hairball remedy. There have been many cases where the cat does not taste the mineral oil and inhales it into the lungs. This is very dangerous and can lead to death. Always consult your veterinarian about the best choice for hairball management in your cat.

Even cats get gas

Sometimes the only sign of excess gas is a swollen abdomen. Sometimes there is just a gurgling sound. Cats do not belch as commonly as dogs, due to the structure of the upper digestive system. Cats are less gassy due to the nature of their diet and are also less inclined to wolf down their food, and so do not inhale as much air into their system as a typical dog. If they are prone to gas, cats may benefit from a commercial diet that uses a rice source of carbohydrate, because rice is less gas producing than other dietary carbohydrate sources. If disease is present, one or more of the following may be noted: diarrhea, vomiting, and weight loss. Feeding milk to cats will often produce excess gas. If your cat has a constant gas problem, veterinary evaluation should be made unless an easy explanation is evident such as milk or other poorly digestible foods being fed.

Reproduction in cats

If allowed to mate naturally, a female cat can have two or three litters annually, resulting in 50-150 offspring over the course of her lifetime! If you suspect your cat is pregnant, have your veterinarian check her health and confirm the pregnancy.

Male cats benefit from neutering

Most pet owners are aware that pets should be neutered, but few are aware of all the reasons why neutering is beneficial, particularly in male cats.

Male cats are neutered for many reasons. Intact male cats tend to fight one another in order to defend their territory and to secure the opportunity to mate with female cats in heat. Fighting can lead to scratch and bite wounds, which often become infected, leading to abscesses. Neutered cats do not have strong territorial instincts, thus making them better pets. Non-neutered male cats tend to roam great distances, coming home only to eat and sleep. This roaming increases the chances of being hit by a car or getting into fights. Neutering is effective in reducing fighting and roaming.

Non-neutered male cats mark their territory (inside or outside) by spraying strong-smelling urine on objects such as drapes, furniture and carpeting. Besides being unsanitary, the urine odor and stains are extremely difficult to remove. Neutering a male cat is effective in stopping urine spraying and also reduces the strong, unpleasant odor of male cat urine.

Intact male cats tend have poor grooming habits, causing them to become matted and scruffy-looking. Neutered male cats tend to pay more attention to keeping themselves clean.

These are some very humane reasons for neutering male cats. Allowing a tomcat to mate at will contributes to already epidemic cat overpopulation. Animal shelters must ultimately euthanize those cats for which no homes can be found.

Please discuss neutering your male cat with your veterinarian.

The benefits of spaying

Spaying is a safe and reliable method of birth control in both dogs and cats. With animal shelters overwhelmed with homeless and abandoned animals, spaying is an important way by which we can be responsible pet owners and not contribute to the problem of pet overpopulation.

In cats, the excessive vocalization and behavior associated with heat (estrus) cycles is avoided by spaying. Spaying will not make a cat fat or lazy. Obesity in pets is usually the result of overeating combined with lack of exercise. Spaying does not change a pet's personality or temperament, whether for good or for bad.

Spaying is a very safe surgical procedure. Please discuss spaying your female cat with your veterinarian.

First aid steps for poison control

Pets come in contact with potential toxins almost every day of their lives. There are many possible sources of poison: indoor and outdoor plants, household cleaners and chemicals, prescription medications, pesticides, herbicides, paints, and even foods. Poisonings are seen far more frequently in dogs than cats, because cats tend to be much fussier about what they ingest. Poisonings are often suspected rather than actually witnessed. For this reason, it is helpful for owners to be aware of the clinical signs associated with poisoning. Symptoms of poisoning depend on the type of poison encountered as well as the quantity.

Ingested poisons often cause intestinal upsets, leading to vomiting, diarrhea, drooling, and abdominal pain or cramps. Examples of poisons that can cause internal upsets are: antifreeze, weed killers, oils, cleaning solutions, paints and plants.

Inhaled poisons may lead to sneezing, coughing, bluish-tinged gums and lips, and labored breathing. Examples of these poisons include: fumes from paints, cleaning fluids, and smoke.

Contact poisons tend to irritate the skin and gums, causing irritation, redness, peeling skin, hair loss, swelling, and pain. Examples of these include: solvents, soaps, and insecticides.

When dealing with a poisoning, the first step should be to remove the source of the poison. Contact your veterinary and notify her/him that you are on your way. Let them know what kind of poison is involved and the condition of the pet.

For ingested toxins, this could include administering neutralizing or antidotal agents. For contact poisons, the contact area could be washed with large volumes of water.

For inhaled poisons, immediate access to fresh air should be the first step. Where applicable, check the label on the poison container for instructions on first-aid procedures and antidotes.

If the patient is unconscious, do not try to give it anything by mouth. Wrap the patient in a warm blanket and transport it to the veterinarian with the head lower than the body. This is done to prevent shock and also to permit drainage from the mouth if necessary. If the patient is very excited or is convulsing, keep it from hurting itself, wrap it in a blanket, and transport to your veterinarian as quickly as possible. Save the material vomited so that the veterinarian can evaluate it and analyze it if necessary. Also take along containers, boxes, bottles, labels, and anything else related to the poison, since this may provide important clues and helpful information. Induce vomiting only if you are sure that corrosive substances such as alkalines, acids, or petroleum products are not involved. If in doubt, contact your veterinarian for advice.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020609025337/www.ddrt.net/shelterhealthcats.htm

When No One Wants Them: Turning the Tide

2009-05-05T12:01:00.000-07:00

When No One Wants Them: Turning the Tide

Do you know a place where all puppies and kittens are planned, wanted, loved, and provided with lifelong, caring, responsible homes? Do you know a place where the owner of a pregnant dog or cat cares for that dog or cat and makes sure it has proper nutrition, vaccinations and deworming so the puppies or kittens are born healthy?

Do you know a place where every puppy and every kitten born to a breeding is born into an environment in which it is loved, handled gently, and receives proper worming and vaccinations?

Do you know a place where older, ill, or otherwise 'less than pristine' animals would never be dumped from vehicles like we would brush out leaves or gravel?

Now consider the 'other side of the coin.'

There are many places where dogs and cats are owned by people that -- for whatever reason or reasons -- don't intend to be breeders, but want 'a son or daughter' from the old dog, so they breed it, assuming that everything will be fine. Some people buy animals with the intention of making 'lots of money' by breeding and selling, with scarcely a care in the world about the impact such breedings will have on a world already overloaded with surplus animals.

'Puppy mills' churn out many puppies and kittens, the sole reason being 'the bottom line:' the almighty dollar. Certainly, profit is there to be made, but at what expense? Animal confinement should at the very least be humane, with care given to keep kennels clean, roomy enough for the animals to move around, etc.

While many breeders and kennels are astute and take great care of and pride in their efforts to breed quality puppies and kittens, the fact is that there are still countless breedings producing a staggering number of at-risk results.

Puppies and kittens are born at risk of being mistreated, dumped, getting sick and having no care, wanting for simple things that should be a given, if only they were wanted and loved.

There are places along roadsides -- some of those roadsides very busy with traffic -- where dogs and cats, puppies and kittens, are regularly dumped. Unceremoniously, with not even a kind word, animals are simply left behind. Sometimes animals are left behind when owners move. It falls to others to save the animals before they die of thirst, starvation, or succumb to heat or cold.

There are places where taking the responsibility of keeping pet dogs and cats from getting pregnant or fathering litters is not even a consideration. In those places, other things can be -- and often are -- options, things that should be requisite to owning a pet. Things like regular veterinary care (vaccinations, deworming, annual physical check-ups); good food; fresh water; flea & tick prevention; a dry, clean, comfortable place to sleep; enough training so the animal is not a hazard to itself or others via inappropriate behavior or aggression; the safety of a fenced yard or a home -- things that many people provide, but many do not.

Those places often help create unwanted animals, from unwanted litters to unwanted expectant females. Often the owners have no idea of the number of unwanted, unplanned puppies and kittens are already being born every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year. Many believe they 'can't afford' to have an animal spayed or neutered. Sometimes it's as simple as educating people about the availability and affordability of such services.

Do you know a place where all animals are safe, loved and wanted? Information is available free on the Internet, at animal shelters and dog pounds.

Learning is the first step to becoming a great pet owner.

Please help animals find good places to live their lives. Please provide good places for animals to live lives free from hunger, thirst, lack of medical care, and lack of love.

Let's turn the tide from 'no one wants them' to 'they are wanted.' We can do it!

I am your Animal Control Officer

2009-04-29T09:35:00.000-07:00

I am your Animal Control Officer

Undated

Author Unknown (but owed a great deal of gratitude)

I am your animal control officer. I am not the dreaded "Dog Catcher" or the "Murderer" you call me.

I'm not the one who allows your pet to roam the streets, to contract diseases from other free-roaming animals, to be hit by passing motorists or poisoned by rotting garbage. I am the one who must look into those sick, pain-glazed eyes, try to remove the animal without causing it further pain, and then humanely "put it to sleep" to end its suffering.

I'm not the one who allows your pet to breed, then dumps the unwanted puppies and kittens on the roadsides and in shelters. I'm the one who must find the tiny animals before they die of starvation, exposure or disease, and as an act of mercy, exterminate them.

It hurts me to be forced to kill hundreds of animals each year, but because of your irresponsibility, I have no choice.

I'm not the one who abandons unwanted animals on farm roads, telling myself that some friendlier farmer will surely take them in and give them a good home. But I am the one who picks up the frightened animal who waits in vain for its beloved master, wondering why it has been abandoned.

I am the one who must help that friendly farmer trap, tranquilize or kill that animal, because it has begun to roam in packs with other abandoned and hungry animals, killing livestock, fowl and game.

I am not the one who breeds and fights dogs in the name of "sport." But I am the one who fights the breeders and participants, and I pick up the dead and dying animals left behind.

I'm not the one who keeps a pet confined in an area too small -- without food, water, shelter, or exercise. But I must deal with the irresponsible owner that does.

I'm not the one who refuses to spend time and money to keep up with regular inoculations that all pets require. But I am the one who must pick up a sick animal that is dying from a preventable disease.

So remember -- the next time your child is bitten by a stray dog, your trash is dumped and scattered, your pet is lost, stolen, poisoned or hit by a car -- it is the Animal Control Officer you call, not the "dog catcher."

The next time your pet is picked up, or you are cited for neglecting or abusing it, remember that I am only trying to get you to fulfill your responsibility to your pet, your neighbor and yourself.

Do not scorn me. Respect me, for I am the product of your irresponsibility.

Latchkey Dog: A Definition

2009-04-28T23:01:00.000-07:00

Latchkey Dog - noun. A dog that is allowed to roam the streets on its own, particularly during the day when its owners are at work; a dog left alone in the house all day while its owners are at work. Also: latch-key dog, latch key dog.

http://www.wordspy.com/words/latchkeydog.asp