LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for FARMCOLLIE Archives


FARMCOLLIE Archives

FARMCOLLIE Archives


FARMCOLLIE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FARMCOLLIE Home

FARMCOLLIE Home

FARMCOLLIE  January 2007

FARMCOLLIE January 2007

Subject:

Fw: Important article by Cindy Cooke

From:

Jill Erisman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jill Erisman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:43:49 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (233 lines)

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Important article by Cindy Cooke
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:25:10 -0500

This may be of interest to some of you on the list. This concerns the
restrictive dog legislation recent passed in Kentucky. Cindy Cook was a
former VP at UKC.

---------------
> No More Dogs in My Old Kentucky Home
> by Cindy Cooke, Legislative Specialist
> Published in "Bloodlines" magazine
>
> On Wednesday morning, December 20, 2006 at 3:45 a.m., the Louisville
> City Council passed the most controversial animal ordinance in the
> city's history. The ordinance is 91 pages long and was vigorously
> opposed by every dog organization in the region. How did this happen
> in a region known for its dedication to animal husbandry in the horse
> industry? It's a long, sad story.
>
> Like so many bad laws in recent times, it started with a dog attacking
> a child. In this case, the child was killed by her family's dog. This
> incident was followed almost immediately by a fatal attack on an
> elderly man by two dogs as he walked home from work. Since all of the
> dogs
> involved in these two attacks were alleged to have been "pit bulls,"
> the Louisville ordinance started as, you guessed it, a breed-specific
> dangerous dog law. This was certainly a bad solution to the problem
> of dog bites, but in the interim between the dog attacks and the
> passage of the bill, it morphed into one of the most restrictive dog
> ownership laws in the country -- without, however, any breed specific
> restrictions. How did this happen?
>
> To understand this story, we have to go back to 2005 when the city of
> Louisville decided that their Animal Services department needed a
> radical overhaul. To that end, they hired the first veterinarian in
> the department's history to serve as director of Animal Services. The
> man
> they hired was Dr. Gilles Meloche. And it was to Dr. Meloche that
> Councilwoman Cheri Bryan Hamilton turned to draft an ordinance to
> address what she perceived as a "pit bull" problem in her community.
>
> Dr. Meloche's first efforts immediately drew fire from the responsible
> dog owners of Louisville. For most of the year, dog breeders and owners
> tried to reason with Dr. Meloche and Councilwoman Hamilton, to no
> avail. The ordinance went through revision after revision, but without
> any real
> compromise from Dr. Meloche's camp. He and Councilwoman Hamilton
> ignored every effort by the dog community to help produce a pet- and
> breeder-friendly ordinance. Each revision (and there were at least 11
> of them) was as bad as the last.
>
> To understand Dr. Meloche's resistance to working with the dog
> community, it helps to know a little about his background. Meloche
> began his career as a teen-aged dairy farmer in Quebec, Canada, after
> he was forced to leave school when his father had an accident. In
> 1982, he
> entered Montreal University where he studied veterinary medicine. He
> graduated in 1986, and that July became director and owner of the De la
> Cité Veterinary Hospital in Quebec.
>
> In 1995, Meloche pleaded guilty to an administrative charge of failing
> to keep adequate records for a controlled substance and failure to
> write a suitable veterinary prescription. His veterinary license was
> revoked and he was fined.
>
> For the next four years, Meloche taught at College Lionel-Groulx in
> Sainte-Therese, Quebec, while he earned an MBA from Concordia
> University. He left his job and was out of work until March 2001,
> when he was hired as the animal control administrator for the city of
> Durham,
> NC. He was fired from that job after only ten months.
>
> According to the chair of the Durham County Animal Control Advisory
> Committee, Dr. Meloche had a controlling personality: "Part of the
> problem is that he would get, I don't want to say a loose cannon, he'd
> get an idea stuck in his brain and there was no way to shake it out of
> him."
>
> In February 2002, Dr. Meloche moved to Florida where he became
> director of the Tallahassee-Leon Community Animal Services Center. By
> this time, Dr. Meloche had an American veterinary license which,
> combined with his MBA, made him a desirable candidate for the job.
> Given a mandate to reduce euthanasia statistics, Dr. Meloche took this
> opportunity to impose his no-kill philosophy. The shelter soon filled
> up and eventually reached near double capacity. Shelter workers
> finally
> complained that animals were dying in their cages and that the
> facility reeked of urine and feces. As one worker put it, "We all
> thought he was going to be the breath of fresh air we were looking
> for. Gradually it became a nightmare."
>
> Even Dr. Meloche's supporters felt that his plan for Tallahassee was
> unrealistic. Dr. Meloche says of his time in Tallahassee: "I did a
> fantastic job." A July 2005 audit of that Tallahassee facility,
> however, found that overcrowding had led to inhumane conditions and
> that the overcrowding was a direct result of Meloche's no-kill policy.
>
> Meloche arrived in Louisville in 2005, and Councilwoman Hamilton's
> request for a new animal control ordinance was like manna from heaven.
> Here was a real opportunity for him to put the "CONTROL" in animal
> control. But why would he think that Louisville would provide a
> friendly environment for such a draconian bill?
>
> For starters, the Mayor has pledged to build a new shelter and added
> $100,000 to the city budget to train and hire new shelter employees.
> For another, the Kentucky Humane Society and the Shamrock Foundation,
> a Louisville-based charity devoted to reducing pet overpopulation, both
> supported him. So Meloche must have been surprised when his first
> draft was greeted with a howl of protest from every dog organization in
> Kentucky. As he had in the past, however, Dr. Meloche remained
> uncompromising in his determination to exert near total control over
> pet ownership in his dominion.
>
> By September 2005, the ordinance had been redrafted nine times. At
> that point, the American Veterinary Medical Association sent a letter
> opposing the breed-specific aspects of the ordinance. After yet
> another amendment, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife weighed
> in to explain how the proposed ordinance would harm hunters. Still, Dr.
> Meloche stood his ground. The ordinance continued to be revised right
> up until the start of the December 19 council meeting.
>
> The meeting lasted until 3:45 a.m., with opponents arguing that the
> council should not vote on a bill that none of them except its author
> had even read in its entirety. In the end, however, party loyalty
> trumped reason. All of the Democrats on the council voted for the
> ordinance and all of the Republicans opposed it. And that, as they
> say,
> was that.
>
> Remember, I told you that this bill started as a breed-specific
> dangerous dog law. In the end, however, the breed-specific language was
> deleted completely. Instead, dog limits, breeder licenses, and other
> onerous restrictions on dog ownership and breeding were introduced.
> According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, some of the key points of
> the bill are as follows:
>
> a.. Sets these annual license and permit fees: altered dog or cat, $9;
> unaltered dog or cat, $50 (but only $35 if the animal is currently
> licensed); potentially dangerous dog, $250; dangerous dog, $500.
> b.. Defines a "dangerous dog" as one that kills or harms someone in an
> unprovoked attack, maims a pet or livestock, is used in a crime, or is
> kept as a fighting dog.
> c.. Defines a "potentially dangerous dog" as any dog that bites,
> scratches or bruises someone "in an aggressive manner" or bites or
> injures a pet or livestock.
> d.. Requires that "dangerous" and "potentially dangerous" dogs be kept
> behind a 6-foot fence.
> e.. Requires "animal dealers" to buy $300 licenses. People who sell
> only one litter in a 12-month period do not need one.
> f.. Prohibits the sale of a "dangerous dog" or a "potentially
> dangerous dog" without permission from the Animal Services director.
> g.. Requires a dog or cat in heat to be confined, safe from contact
> with another dog or cat.
> h.. Requires veterinarians to provide copies of vaccination
> certificates to Metro Animal Services.
> i.. Prohibits using a buried-wire electronic fence to restrain an
> unaltered dog.
> j.. Requires unaltered dogs to be kept on a 4-foot leash while off
> their owner's property.
> k.. Requires unaltered dogs impounded by Animal Services to be spayed
> or neutered if owner wants to reclaim them.
> l.. Defines a nuisance animal as one that "irritates, perturbs or
> damages rights and privileges of others" -- and could include dogs that
> howl or bark, chase people or cars, or roam free.
> m.. Requires unaltered dogs to be microchipped.
> n.. Prohibits keeping more than three dogs outside on residential lots
> of a half-acre or less.
> o.. Prohibits keeping more than seven dogs outside on residential lots
> between one-half and two acres.
>
>
> If you're not too depressed after reading this list, you can read the
> entire 91 page ordinance on the web at HYPERLINK
> "http://www.louisville-pets.com/Chapter91Animals_Floor_Substitute_as_ame
> nded.pdf"http://www.louisville-pets.com/Chapter91Animals_Floor_Substitut e_as_amended.pdf.
>
> As you can see from reading the above list or the ordinance itself,
> the real purpose of this bill is to make it expensive, inconvenient, or
> impossible for most people to breed dogs. The supporters of this bill
> are willing to throw all of the city's responsible breeders and owners
> under a bus in order to prevent what they claim to be an epidemic of
> pet overpopulation. There are two big problems with this position.
> First, only 15% of Louisville's dogs are currently licensed. No
> reasonable person can infer that making licensing more expensive and
> complicated will cause an increase in dog licensing. Secondly, there
> is no evidence that Louisville even HAS a pet overpopulation problem.
>
> I did a quick check on the internet and found that in 2003, the
> population of Louisville, Kentucky was about 4.1 million. During that
> same year, Metro Animal Services took in 11, 253 dogs, of which 1189
> were reclaimed by their owners, 646 were adopted and 6985 were
> euthanized. If only half of the 4.1 million residents of Louisville
> owned a dog (most studies estimate about 64% of Americans are dog
> owners), that means that Animal Services euthanized about 3.5% of the
> dog population. Is that number too high? Maybe, but it's certainly
> not high enough to justify such a radical imposition on the property
> rights of American citizens.
>
> It's very clear that if we are going to stop our cities from falling
> like dominoes before the animal rights juggernaut, we are going to have
> play hardball. Like the big boys over at the NRA -- HARDball. What
> does that mean? It means we must:
>
> a.. Spend money on our cause. How about donating the price of one
> puppy or 10% of your puppy sales to the National Animal Interest
> Alliance in
> 2007?
> b.. Spend time on our issues. Start going to council meetings in your
> city. Introduce yourself as a dog expert. Offer to be available to
> help
> with dog-related issues.
> c.. Reward our friends, punish our enemies. Cheri Hamilton should be
> the first member of the Louisville City Council to be sent packing.
> Getting rid of an incumbent is not easy-you must find an electable
> candidate to oppose her, you must help fund him/her, you must make
> phone calls in the district, and you must reach out to the media at
> every opportunity.
> d.. Recruit the pet owners. Most pet owners know nothing about these
> issues. If they did, they would rise up in a huge angry wave of
> opposition. If they don't know about what's going on, whose fault is
> that?
>
> Let's face it. We expect nonsense like this in California. When a
> bill like this can pass in Kentucky, our house is not only on fire, the
> fire
> department isn't coming to save us. We'd better get the buckets out
> and save ourselves.
>


~Jill

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2021
November 2020
October 2020
March 2019
January 2019
October 2018
March 2018
April 2017
December 2016
November 2016
July 2016
December 2015
August 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager