A Sad Day For Companion Animals.

The congressional process failed to protect companion animals from being sold illegally for research. The Pet Safety and Protection (PSP) Act,which was designed to ensure that animals used in research are obtained legally, was placed into the House and Senate Farm Bills and passed both chambers in 2007. However, the Farm Bill entered the conference process and, this month, the conference committee removed the PSP Act language due to influence from opponents! Unfortunately, politics worked against our nation's companion animals.

Your voice is needed to express disappointment to your congressional member(s) who served on the conference committee to ensure that such unfair actions stop.The PSP Act language would have protected pets from unscrupulous dealers who often obtain animals from animal shelters, by exploiting"free to good home" ads or through illegal means for a quick profit. The bill would have restricted the use of stray animals and animals from shelters in experiments and would have imposed fines against violators.

Farm Bill Victories.

source: www.hsus.org

Puppy Imports – The Farm Bill includes provisions — championed by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) with key support by Reps. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), and Terry Everett (R-Ala.) — to curb the import of puppies for commercial sale from foreign puppy mills. A growing number of breeders in Eastern European countries, Mexico, China, and other foreign countries see the U.S. as a potential market, even though there is a strong domestic dog and cat breeding industry here and there are millions of pets available from U.S. breeders and animal shelters.

The provisions require that any dog imported into the U.S. for commercial sale be at least 6-months old, to ensure that young, unweaned and unvaccinated puppies are not forced to suffer from harsh, long-distance transport. They also ensure that any dog entering the U.S. be deemed healthy prior to entry. Exceptions are provided so as not to interfere with shelter and rescue work, veterinary treatment, or research purposes. Thanks to Sen. Durbin's extraordinary and unflagging leadership, similar language was first incorporated into the Senate Farm Bill in December.

Animal Fighting – The Farm Bill contains provisions — sought by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Reps. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) — to strengthen federal animal fighting law by making it a crime to knowingly possess or train animals for fighting, enhancing the penalty for animal fighting offenses from a potential three-year prison sentence to a maximum five-year prison sentence, and making any animal fighting affecting interstate or foreign commerce a federal crime.

The Senate Farm Bill contained many similar provisions in a dogfighting amendment successfully offered by Sen. Kerry, and the conference report language is even stronger, as it also applies to cockfighting.

Tips On How To Report Internet Animal Abuse.

It is hard to believe that people are stupid enough to video themselves doing something illegal, but harming a living being, both human and animal, is ludicrous. There are ways you can report this abuse and remain anonymous. Why is it so important to report this type of crime? You may save an animal's life, and possibly, a humans life, if the abuser doesn't just abuse the animals. There is a huge correlation between the two. I had a guest column in the Herald Dispatch about it.

If you see animal cruelty on the Internet, contact the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). This is a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center at:
http://www.ic3.gov/

Remember, this website handles ALL Internet crimes! Have detailed information to give them when you contact them. This makes their job easier and they can get the bad people quickly. You can also notify the Internet Service Provider, and they may pull the website. To determine who hosts the site, go to: http://www.domaintools.com/ and enter the website URL in the "Whois Lookup"search box and click search.. Scroll down until you find the numerical Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to that website.

Then go to: http://arin.net/ (American Registry for Internet Numbers), enter the IP address in the "Search WHOIS box and click search., you will then find the info about the ISP that hosts the website. If you do not get this, type: http://search.org/programs/hightech/isp .

Currently only a few federal laws address the issue directly. They are the Crush Act: Penalizes the acts of cruelty and sexual abuse of animals that is intended for interstate commerce. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act: Basically imposing federal charges on animal fighters. And, last but not least, Internet hunting: A pending federal bill called the Computer Assisted Remote Hunting Act. It seeks to prohibit knowingly making available a "computer-assisted remote hunt," (means using a computer or other device, equipment or software to control the aiming and discharge of a weapon to hunt)

Lethal Injection Most Humane.

A story caught my interest when I was watching one of the local news channels on 3/24/08. It was about animal shelters in the state of WV that use carbon monoxide poisoning (gas chamber) and firearms as a forms of euthanasia for cats and dogs. It seems so barbaric. Lethal injection should be the only way animals are euthanized.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) says that lethal injection is the absolute most humane. 11 states currently consider use of gas chambers illegal. 18 specifically say it is legal and 20 states, this includes WV, don't even mention it. Below you will find the link to take you to the amendment regarding laws.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2001_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/hb2555%20sub.htm

Humane Society of the United States:

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/policies_and_guidelines/virginia_carbon_monoxide_euthanasia.html

Support Legislation To Stop Dogfighting.

The last part of the Final Farm Bill.
In early 2007, after a six-year campaign by The Humane Society of the United States, Congress enacted a law to upgrade the penalties for interstate movement of animals for fighting, from a misdemeanor to a felony, and also to ban the interstate commerce in cockfighting weapons. In the wake of the high-profile indictment of NFL quarterback Michael Vick on federal dogfighting charges, and the national outrage over dogfighting crimes, new legislation has been proposed to further strengthen the nation’s laws to combat the cruel practice of dogfighting.


Three bills—S.1880, introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA); H.R. 3219, the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act, by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH); and H.R. 3327, the Federal Dog Protection Act, by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)—would make all participation in dogfighting, including being a spectator at a dogfight and possessing dogs for the purpose of fighting, a federal felony, and would increase the maximum penalty from three years to five years in prison. The Humane Society of the United States urges members of Congress to support S. 1880, H.R. 3219, and H.R. 3327.


Dogfighting is an inhumane and barbaric activity. In a typical fight, dogs are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting even after suffering broken legs, puncture wounds, dehydration, severe blood loss, and shock – all for the amusement and illegal wagering of handlers and spectators. Dogfighting is also associated with other criminal conduct, such as drug traffic, illegal firearms use, and violence toward people. Children are often present at these spectacles. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs; some allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public. A federal dogfighting ban is warranted. As demonstrated in the Vick indictment – and by the many law enforcement records, animal welfare reports, and economic studies – the dogfighting industry has become nationwide in scope, and Congress is well within its authority to address both the nationwide framework and localized branches that are a critical part of that extensive criminal venture.


In 2005, the Supreme Court made clear in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause extends to local activities that are an integral component of interstate criminal activities. The high-stakes gambling, sales of fighting dogs for as much as tens of thousands of dollars per animal, sale of “stud” privileges for mating with winning dogs, traffic in specialized equipment to train and house fighting dogs, handling, training, and courier services to transport dogs to matches are among the ways that dogfighting – an inherently commercial and economic activity – substantially affects interstate commerce. In addition, dogfighting burdens interstate commerce by increasing the risk of injury or disease to both animals and humans, including dog bites, rabies, heartworms, and harm to stolen pets used as bait, as well as the enormous financial burden that dogfighting puts on animal shelters as they struggle to care for abandoned fighting dogs.

Support the Animal Welfare Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193)

This is a continuation of the Final Farm Bill information.Representatives Steve Israel (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) have introduced the Animal Welfare Accountability Improvement Act (H.R. 2193) to prohibit the use of animals for sales/marketing of medical devices and products, increase maximum penalties for animal research facilities, and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to submit an annual report to Congress regarding enforcement activities.


Harming Animals in Sales Demonstrations:The recent death of a dog following a sales demonstration at an Ohio medical center highlighted the fact that the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not bar the use of live animals in sales demonstrations for products such as medical devices. The HSUS is calling on Congress to amend the AWA to prohibit the use of animals for mere sales pitches.


What happened at the Cleveland Clinic?An individual artificially created an aneurysm in the brain of an anesthetized dog in an attempt to demonstrate a medical device used to treat such aneurysms. The demonstration was for the benefit of salespeople from the device's manufacturer, about two-dozen of whom watched and at least some of whom participated in the hands-on exercise. According to news reports, the surgeon thought it would be “fun” for the sales representatives to use the device; the exercise had nothing to do with the advancement of medical science. The procedure was repeated several times on the dog, who was later killed. Why should the use of live animals in sales demonstrations be prohibited?


Many people have concerns about animal experimentation even when conducted for the most compelling medical purposes. However, in this case, a dog was operated on, manipulated repeatedly by non-medically trained salespeople, and later killed, all for marketing of a device and for the financial gain of a for-profit corporation. The Cleveland Clinic took swift action in the matter, and has stated that the exercise was not approved and it does not allow procedures with animals for the sole purpose of sales training. However, this is not a decision that should be left up to individual research facilities; this use of animals should be prohibited by law altogether. How many animals are used for sales demonstrations each year? While the exact number cannot be determined, the use of live animals in sales demonstrations is increasingly coming to light.


In the 1980’s, a company that sold surgical staples used over 1,000 dogs per year in sales demonstrations. The company eventually stopped but only after years of public pressure. How does H.R. 2193 solve the problem of the use of live animals in sales demonstrations? This legislation would specifically bar the use of live animals for demonstrations of medical devices or products for the purpose of marketing. This amendment will not prohibit the training of physicians as to how to use a device or product if the training is for purposes other than marketing a device or product.


Increased Penalties for Violations by Animal Research Facilities:The proposed amendments increase the current maximum penalty for research institutions under the AWA from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation. The maximum penalty has not changed since 1985. It would also require that penalties be calculated per animal affected per day per violation.

Durbin Puppy Imports 2007 Amendment.

This is a continuation of the Final Farm Bill to protect pets.
Background:
According to representatives of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a significant volume of imports of puppies from Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Columbia, Mexico, and several other source countries arrive in the United States each year. Unfortunately, many of these animals are shipped at 8 weeks of age or younger, before their immune systems are developed and before they can be safely vaccinated. Although definitive statistics are not available, large numbers of buyers and veterinarians report that imported puppies suffer from higher than normal incidences of pneumonia, parvovirus, and severe congenital defects. Because puppies under 3 months of age are too young to be vaccinated for rabies, they may be imported without the vaccination. The CDC requires importers to complete a confinement agreement (form CDC 75.37) agreeing to confine the animal until it is old enough to be vaccinated, and to confine the animal for 30 days after vaccination.


Under this regulation, most imported puppies would not be eligible for sale until at least 4 months of age, but complaints indicate that they are routinely imported and sold at a much younger age. The CDC has acknowledged a large volume of puppies are imported without their knowledge and that they do not have the staff or resources to properly handle this problem. The CDC does not have law enforcement powers and can’t screen every flight or shipment. When violations are found, the CDC can only issue warnings, except in extreme cases that require law enforcement assistance. A 2005 Border Puppy Task Force study estimated that 10,000 puppies enter San Diego County from Mexico annually. Many of them are smuggled in without health records or vaccinations. Many of the puppies carry contagious diseases, are infested with parasites, and are too young to be weaned. Common diseases included distemper, rabies, parvovirus and ringworm.


Amendment:
This language addresses the problem of unscrupulous commercial importers of live dogs by providing USDA APHIS with enforcement authority and tightening and clarifying minimum health requirements for commercial imports of live dogs destined for resale. At a minimum, this language will require that all dogs imported to the United States for resale be properly vaccinated and in good health. In addition, the amendment requires dogs entering the United States for resale to be at least 6 months of age. Exceptions are provided so as not to interfere with veterinary treatment or research purposes. Violations of these provisions are subject to the enforcement mechanisms in the Animal Welfare Act. The language has the support of The Humane Society of the United States, The American Kennel Club, and The American Veterinary Medical Association.

Protect Pets In The Final Farm Bill!

The House and Senate unanimously approved language in both their respective versions of the Farm Bill to prohibit the use of dogs and cats obtained from random source Class B dealers (who may steal pets or fraudulently obtain them through "free to good home" ads) in experimentation. The Senate also included measures to stop the import for commercial sale of very young puppies from foreign puppy mills, and to strengthen the federal law on dogfighting, and the House included provisions to increase the maximum fines for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations and require USDA to resume providing annual reports to Congress on its AWA enforcement efforts.

Research facilities generally obtain their animals from one of two sources: Class A (Permit Breeders) dealers who supply purpose-bred animals to laboratories, or Class B dealers who obtain the animals they supply to labs from “random sources.”


The Problem:Class B dealers obtain the animals they provide to research facilities through a variety of unseemly methods, such as responding to “free to good home” ads in local newspapers, adopting from local animal shelters, and stealing companion animals from their owners’ yards, cars, and farms. Too often, dogs and cats are subjected to abusive handling and exposure to the elements while kept at the premises of Class B dealers, as pet owners mourn the loss of their stolen pets.


The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly documented the failure of random source Class B dealers to comply with the minimum requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Because of the questionable reliability of random source animals, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a long history of using only purpose-bred dogs and cats for its intramural research. Robert A. Whitney, D.V.M., former Director of Research at NIH, said the following about random source Class B dealers: The continued existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care, and use of animals in the important research to better the health of both humans and animals. (Letter to Members of the U.S. Congress; June 12, 2006)


After hundreds of AWA violations, and an undercover investigation (by Last Chance for Animals), one of the most notorious Class B dealers in the U.S. - C.C. Baird of Martin Creek Kennels in Willifore, Arkansas - was finally shut down by the USDA. The undercover investigation, documenting extreme animal cruelty and the illegal acquisition of animals by the 15-year-old facility, was featured on HBO and called dramatic amount of attention to the issue. However, the remaining 10 Class B dealers who sell live, random source dogs and cats to research pose a terrible drain on USDA resources as the agency struggles to oversee these problematic operators.


The Solution:
To remedy this serious problem, Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Representatives Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Phil English (R-PA) introduced the Pet Safety and Protection Act, S. 714 and H.R. 1280. This legislation will ensure that dogs and cats used in research and education are neither stolen nor obtained through fraudulent practices and will also establish monetary penalties for related violations. Under this bill, purpose bred and random source, young and old, genetically uniform and genetically diverse dogs and cats will ALL still be available to research facilities from a variety of sources, such as Class A dealers, shelters, research facilities with breeding programs, individuals, etc. They just wouldn’t be able to use the Class B middlemen to obtain animals from the illegal sources – stolen pets, pets being offered through “free to good home” ads, and other fraudulently obtained animals.


S. 714 and H.R. 1280 will accomplish the following:•
Prohibit Class B dealers and unlicensed individuals from selling random source dogs and cats to laboratories.
• Prevent stray animals, who may be lost family pets, from being sold to laboratories.
• Provide pet owners peace of mind that their animals will not be sold to a laboratory, should their animal be stolen or become lost.

Animal Welfare Act Timeline.

1966: Congress passes the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act to regulate the care and handling of dogs, cats, non-human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits at licensed research institutions and animal dealer facilities.
1970: The act was, with certain exceptions, expanded to cover all warm-blooded animals in research as well as to cover animals in circuses, zoos, roadside shows, and commercial breeding operations. It was rechristened the Animal Welfare Act.
1976: Congress approved amendments to the act to cover animals in transportation as well as those forced to fight.
1985: Congress passed amendments requiring the use of pain killers and presurgical and postsurgical care; animal care training for personnel who work with animals; and euthanasia of an animal upon completion of an experiment. The amendments, among other things, also required exercise for dogs and a physical environment to promote the psychological well being of nonhuman primates.
1990: Congress passed amendments that imposed longer holding period requirements upon animal dealers.
2002: U.S. lawmakers, as part of the Farm Bill, passed an amendment that closed loopholes in the federal ban on the interstate shipment and foreign export of fighting animals. Congress also passed an amendment that codified into law the USDA’s long-standing exclusion of birds, mice, and rats from coverage as research animals.

What Is A Class B Dealer?

Class B dealers are licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to buy animals from "random sources"(meaning animals not bred or raised on the dealers' property) and sell them to animal research facilities for biomedical research, testing, and educational purposes. Such random sources for dogs and cats include auctions, flea markets, or animal shelters. Class B dealers also buy animals from "bunchers," another group of people who collect animals from random sources. Unlike dealers, bunchers are not regulated, which creates additional problems with enforcement. Class B dealers and bunchers have been known to acquire lost, stray, and "free to a good home," dogs and cats, and even pets from their owners' backyards. In addition to concerns about the sources of animals that enter the Class B dealer network, there are also questions about the treatment of the animals while they are being held at dealer facilities awaiting sale for research. Numerous documented cases of mistreatment and neglect, as well as animal welfare violations, have occurred at Class B facilities. However, many dealers with Animal Welfare Act violations have not lost their licenses or faced serious sanction. By its own admission, the USDA lacks the necessary resources to track the interstate activities of Class B dealers. As of 2006, only 15 Class B dealers sell dogs and cats to research institutions in the United States. The Humane Society of the United States would like to see the elimination of Class B Dealers altogether. This would not end the use of dogs and cats in research, but would at least ensure that animals slated for research would not suffer ill-treatment in the Class B dealer pipeline. The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) went undercover to a class B dealer called Martin Creek Kennels, and exposed the horrors that these dogs were put through. HBO showed it and it is called "Dealing Dogs." I watched this with tears streaming down my face, and finally, I actually became sick to my stomach, and threw up. The undercover investigator, "Brian", had to watch this day in and day out. But, by doing what he does, he uncovered the horrors and the kennel was finally shut down. So, when you see dogs at a flea market, step up and tell the people with the puppies that they are wrong. I have done so on many occasions at the Milton Flea Market. Although it is not illegal to sell dogs at a flea market, the people selling them are not reputable breeders. They just want to make a dollar.
Support "Buck's Bill" (the Pet Safety and Protection Act). There are 15 Class B dealers left who round up dogs and cats from various "random sources" and sell them to research facilities. The Humane Society of the United States firmly believes that it is time to stop funneling dogs and cats—often times stolen family pets—into research facilities. The Pet Safety and Protection Act, otherwise know as, "Buck's Bill," will prohibit the sale of "random source" (Random source animals are those dogs and cats that are either obtained from auction sales or from any person who did not breed and raise the dogs and cats) dogs and cats for experimentation, preventing the theft of pets for research and the abusive treatment of these animals in the hands of Class B dealers. The House and Senate both recently accepted amendments to their respective Farm Bills to prevent stolen pets from being sold into research. While this is a great step forward, we need to make sure this legislation becomes law. "Buck's Bill" is named in honor of Buck, a black hound dog seized in 2003 in Oklahoma from a Class B dealer. Buck, who had heartworm disease and other ailments, died months after his rescue, while in foster care. TAKE ACTION!
Make a brief polite phone call to your two U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to co-sponsor S. 714/H.R. 1280, the Pet Safety and Protection Act. You can reach your federal legislators through the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Here is all the info on both Senators and Representative Rahall:
Capitol Address: Rep. Nick RahallU.S. House of Representatives
2307 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 205150001
Ph: (202) 225-3452
District Address:301 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 258014515
Ph: (304) 252-5000
Capitol Address: Senator John (Jay) Rockefeller
U.S. Senate
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 205100001
Ph: (202) 224-6472
District Address:Martinsburg Federal Building
217 West King Street, Suite 307
Martinsburg, WV 254013286
Ph: (304) 262-9285
Capitol Address: Senator Robert Byrd
U.S. Senate
311 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 205100001
Ph: (202) 224-3954
District Address:300 Virginia Street East
Suite 2630
Charleston, WV 253012503
Ph: (304) 342-5855