[ICKC] FW: ADOA NEWS

[big4dogs at comcast.net]

-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- 
From: ADOA ADMIN <> 
To: big4dogs at comcast.net 
Subject: ADOA NEWS 
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:48:32 +0000 



ADOA NEWS

Dear Members,
Pleaase read the tesimony of Representative Charles W. Stenholm, it is very important~
Testimony of
 
Congressman Charles W. Stenholm
 
to the
 
House Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
 
May 8, 2007


Congressman Charles W. Stenholm
Ericksdahl, Texas
 
 
 
Chairman Boswell, Ranking Member Hayes, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on behalf of all animal agriculture.  There is an old saying that there are two things you should not see being made: laws and sausages.  This Committee has the job of making laws about sausages – laws that help animal agriculture in protecting animal welfare.
 
If you eat or wear clothes, you are affected by agriculture.  The industry remains an important part of the United States economy, and according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), animal products account for the majority (51 percent) of the value of U.S. agricultural products, exceeding $100 billion per year.  As a farmer and rancher, I believe in the significance of the agriculture industry and in the value animal agriculture producers put on the safety and welfare of their livestock.
 
The Kentucky Derby was this past weekend, and I’m sure many of you watched it.  With over 130 years of racing history at Churchill Downs, it is clear that the owners, trainers, and riders of the Derby care about the welfare of their animals.  I’m sure many of you went to zoos as a child or will bring your children and grandchildren to one this summer.  In fact, more people attend zoos every year than all sporting events combined, and the caregivers at zoos nationwide care about the welfare of their animals.  Many of you probably remember the first time you saw the circus and may attend when it comes here.  The Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation has one of the most successful breeding programs for endangered Asian elephants outside of Southeast Asia.  They care about the welfare of their animals.  Just like these groups of animal owners, production agriculture has not been given the credit it is due by animal “rights” activists, and we, too, care 
about the welfare of our animals.  There is one thing that everyone agrees on: all animals should be treated humanely from birth to death.
 
Background
 
You will hear testimony today from several livestock producer associations, and they all care about the same thing: ensuring the health and well-being of their animals is their number one priority.  The livestock industry has worked hard both from a legislative standpoint and through industry guidelines to improve animal welfare conditions.  Animal agriculture constantly works to accept new technologies and science and apply them to the industry, investing millions of dollars every year to ensure the wellness of their livestock.  Producers recognize the need to maintain animal welfare regulations for the safety and nutrition of their livestock, for the conservation of the environment, and for the profitability of their operations.  But those regulations should be based on sound science from veterinary professionals that best understand animals, working together with legitimate animal use industries.
 
Many of the livestock groups have quality assurance programs in place.  For example, the New Jersey Legislature and Department of Agriculture commissioned Rutgers in 2003 to perform a study on veal calf production, and experts at the land grant university concluded that the Veal Quality Assurance program and the principles behind it were scientifically sound.  The poultry industry also continues to work on a united front to maintain a high level of oversight on animal welfare issues that ensures all employees practice the industry guidelines that were adopted.  The animal agriculture industry continues to strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, educational outreach, advocacy, legislation, and regulations.  
 
Society of Untruths
 
While the livestock industry has a long history of supporting animal welfare, many activist groups such as PETA, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and Farm Sanctuary have used falsehoods and scare tactics to push their hidden agendas of fundraising and systematically abolishing all use of animals, including production agriculture, zoos, circuses, and sporting events.  These groups campaign for animal “rights,” which is not synonymous with animal welfare, using half-truths or complete deception.  For example, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), Farm Sanctuary charged veal farmers in New Jersey of malnutrition practices because of the absence of fiber in their calves’ diets.  However, a coalition of dairy farmers, animal nutrition specialists, and dairy extension specialists at Rutgers University testified that it is typical to not give calves fiber because it is not healthy for a calf’s developing digestive system. 
 
These groups also fail to mention the millions of dollars in fundraising and assets that drive their misguided goals.  HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets; has a budget three times the size of PETA’s; and according to the ActivistCash website, has more than enough funding to finance animal shelters in all fifty states, yet only operates one animal sanctuary, Black Beauty Ranch in Texas, which is at full capacity.  According to the Wall Street Journal, two offshoots of HSUS spent $3.4 million on Congressional elections and ballot initiatives, which is more than Exxon Mobil Corp.  And there is an ongoing investigation by the Louisiana attorney general to determine if the $30 million in HSUS fundraising during the Hurricane Katrina crisis has been handled appropriately.
 
These activist groups use the platform of animal “rights” to advocate for regulations so strict that they will put animal agriculture out of business (which is their real goal).  A video recently circulated to Members of Congress and a video produced by HSUS make numerous false claims against the livestock industry.  For example, the videos suggest that horses are inhumanely transported on double-decker trailers.  However, a law exists that has banned the use of double-decker trailers for transporting horses on their way to slaughter, and if a horse does arrive on one of these trailers, the processing facilities will not accept it.  In addition, numerous truck drivers invested in new trailers that comply with the law, and animal agriculture stepped up once again to improve animal welfare conditions.
 
Another example of the misleading rhetoric by animal “rights” activists involves the process of “captive bolt” euthanasia.  The previously mentioned videos claim that captive bolt is not humane.  However, the 2000 report of the AVMA’s Panel on Euthanasia specifically approves the use of captive bolt as a humane technique of euthanasia for horses.  It is also an approved method of euthanasia for pork, cattle, and lamb.  The captive bolt method meets specific humane requirements set forth by AVMA's Panel on Euthanasia, USDA and the HSUS Statement on Euthanasia because it results in instantaneous brain death, and it is generally agreed to be the most humane method of euthanasia for livestock.
 
Watching the end of life for any living creature is not a pleasant experience, even when performed in the most humane manner.  However, these groups continue to use human emotion and sensationalism to pry on the public’s sensitivity in order to reach their goal of abolishing animal agriculture.
 
Protect America’s Farmers and Ranchers
 
Unfortunately, we all know mistakes happen and laws are broken.  I will not try to convince you otherwise.  But when these unfortunate incidents occur, appropriate actions should be taken.  We should not get in the habit of creating arbitrary, uninformed, and emotionally based regulations on an industry who’s livelihood depends on the health and well-being of its animals.  We should not tie the hands of researchers and investors that continually seek improvements in animal welfare practices, and we should not tie the hands of producers who work night and day to ensure the quality of life of their livestock so they can provide this country and others with the most abundant, safest, and most affordable food supply in the world.
 
Professional experts such as the AVMA, AAEP, and USDA continue to have their expertise questioned by animal “rights” activists who line their own pockets with donations secured by exploiting and distorting the issues.  These groups throw sensationalistic and often staged photos in the faces of those who do not understand it and ask them to give money to save the animals.  But what they do not do is use their millions of dollars in fundraising to build animal shelters, provide research for new technologies and procedures or provide truthful information to consumers about the animal agriculture industry. Emotions run high, and with continued antics by activist groups the ultimate outcome will be devastating.  If animal “rights” activist groups continue to be successful like we have seen in recent months with the closing of U.S. horse processing facilities, abandonment of animals will increase, animal welfare will decline, honest and legal businesses will close, America’s trade balanc
e will worsen, jobs will disappear, family heritage and livelihood will be stolen, and the best interest in the welfare of animals will be lost.
 
As the Agriculture Committee, it is your job to keep science and best management practices at the forefront of your decisions when developing legislation.  Emotional, feel good policy is not reasonable for the agriculture industry.  As a Committee, you are tasked with providing the type of environment for your agriculture constituents that allows them to have a manageable, profitable, and healthy livestock industry. 

KENTUCKY
 
 
Respectfully forwarded with permission to cross post. 

Kathy Garcia, Louisville, KY 

Letter from The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. 

Currently, we in the dog fancy are in a nationwide
fight for our very 
survival. In city after city, state after state
dog-unfriendly, anti 
breeding, anti-performance, anti-sportsman and breed
specific laws 
are being passed every day. From California to New
York, from Florida 
to New Mexico, every day brings news of another hot
spot where the 
Animal Rights Movement has taken away our right to
own, breed, show, 
perform with 
and just enjoy our dogs. 

As your may know, in Louisville, our own Metro Council
passed what 
many regard as the worst anti-dog legislation in the
entire country 
late last year. 
Worse yet, in a failed effort to force us to dismiss
our Open 
Meetings lawsuit, they recently re-enacted the whole
90 page 
behemoth. Side by side with the Kentucky Veterinary
Medical 
Association, the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, the
performance 
community, boarding kennels, grooming shops, 
multiple cat clubs and many others, we worked
diligently for over 14 
months to educate the Metro Council. Our input was
disregarded. At 
the end of the day, only the testimony of the Humane
Society of the 
United States (HSUS) and input from 
Dr. Gilles Meloche (the disgraced Director of
Louisville Metro Animal 
Services) was considered. Unfortunately, the Metro 
Council believed that the HSUS was a legitimate
organization and did 
not understand its true agenda. They also failed to
understand the 
lack of expertise or experience of Dr. Gilles Meloche
in the area of 
Animal Services. 

We can only wonder what was so enticing about these
experts who were 
heeded when all others were ignored. The HSUS is a
national Animal 
Rights organization with a stated goal of eliminating
domestic pets, 
per it's president, Wayne Pacelle: We have no ethical
obligation to 
preserve the different 
breeds of livestock produced through selective
breeding one 
generation and out. We have no problem with the
extinction of 
domestic animals. They are creations of human
selective breeding. 
(Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993). The other expert
was an Animal 
Control Director disgraced in Canada for pleading
guilty to multiple 
counts of selling anabolic steroids without
prescriptions or 
documentation. Moreover, Dr. Meloche was fired after
10 months from 
his position as Director of Animal Services in Durham,
N.C. and 
forced to resign after 18 months as Shelter Director
in Leon 
County/Tallahassee, FL. 

We have currently filed two law suits to overturn this
ordinance. The 
first suit was filed in conjunction with the League of
Kentucky 
Sportsmen over violations of Kentucky's Open Meetings
Act, ignored by 
the Council Democrats 
when they chose to make substantial changes to the
proposed law in 
secret, immediately before pushing the changed law
through. The 
second suit, with a dozen 
plaintiffs, challenges the substance of the law. We
are hopeful that 
we will prevail, thus setting a national precedent. 

We are fortunate to have Mr. Jon Fleischaker as our
attorney and we 
are hopeful that these cases will set a
constitutionally driven 
precedent. Mr. Fleischaker is a nationally recognized
and multiple 
award winning constitutional and individual rights
attorney. We are 
challenging the ordinance under the 
multiple violations of the United States and Kentucky
Constitutions, 
the federal Civil Rights Act, as well as many
conflicts with state 
laws. Both the ordinance and the lawsuit can be read
at 
__http://www._ ( http://www./) louisvillepetlov
ers.com/_ 
(_ http://www.louisvil _ (http://www.louisvil /)
lepetlovers. com/) by 
clicking on the Download link. 

Pet owners in Louisville are suffering tremendously
under this law, 
which grants unfettered discretion to animal control
officers to 
seize any animal (particularly, any unaltered animal)
for any reason. 
Worse, the fees and fines that our animal control
personnel are 
empowered to charge for pet 
redemption amount to government sanctioned extortion.
Most pet owners 
must come up with $500 to $600 to retrieve their pets
- even if those 
pets wound up at the shelter as a result of theft (as
did happen in 
at least one case). A second citation can result in
the forfeiture of 
all animals and a prohibition 
against owning any animals for 2 years, as well as
jail time up to 12 
months. 
These severe penalties apply to the most minor of
crimes, including 
walking an unaltered dog on a leash longer than 4
feet! It is 
interesting that the law touted as the panacea for
public safety has 
not prevented any attacks by dangerous dogs. 

It is our firm belief that we owe a duty not just to
the citizens of 
Louisville, but to the entire Dog Fancy nationwide to
win these. Our 
success will set a precedent that will not only allow
others to 
overturn bad laws in their cities, but will chill the
efforts of 
other cities to pass similar bad laws. 

However, to win this fight, we need the dog fancy to
help us. To 
date, our club has spent an exorbitant amount in legal
fees. We have 
received generous donations from many breed and
all-breed clubs from 
around the country. 
However, the loss in entries we suffered at our spring
cluster has 
had a significant financial impact on our resources.
We're asking 
your club to join with us and offer a donation to
assist us in this 
effort which will benefit every club in the country
and allow our 
sport to continue. 

Thank you for considering our request. If you have any
questions, 
please feel free to contact me by phone 
(502-339-7062) or e-mail at donnaherzig@ hotmail.com.
Please send all 
donations to: 
LKC Legislative Fund 
c/o Ellen Kapen, LKC Treasurer 
8620 Bardstown Road 
Louisville, KY 40291 

Kathy G
 
 
MISSISSIPPI
 
City leaders request law for vicious dogs
By KAREN NELSON
Klnelson at sunherald.com
PASCAGOULA --
Jackson County leaders have asked the county legal department to draft a law on vicious dogs in order to better protect people who live outside the county's four cities from the possibility of attacks by breeds like pit bulls. 
Supervisor John McKay introduced the idea Monday, but said he had already been told by a county attorney that the law can not single out one specific breed of dog.
"I'd like to see us, before somebody gets hurt, have a vicious dog ordinance," McKay said while making his pitch to the rest of the board. "We need to let people know they can't have vicious dogs, and if they do, they can't be running the street."
Supervisor Manly Barton asked if it would be a law governing a criminal or civil action, and McKay said he didn't care how it was handled.
Supervisor Frank Leach said that enforcement is the key to success.
Supervisor Robert Norvel said the solution is to have an ordinance banning dogs altogether, the way cities ban farm animals, but other supervisors said that wouldn't fly.
McKay said that if there is any way, he'd like to ban pit bulls specifically, because they are often the breed responsible for vicious dog attacks.
"If we can do it, I'll make a motion: No pit bulls in Jackson County," McKay said. He also said he hoped that if the county drafts a proper ordinance, the cities may adopt it as well.
McKay
  
BALTIMORE , MARYLAND
 
Gardina proposes pit bull task force 
 
Breeds not tracked on licenses, bite reports 
 
05/09/07
by Bryan P. Sears 

Email this story to a friend
In the wake of a pit bull attack that sent a 10-year-old boy to the hospital with severe injuries, Councilman Vince Gardina is calling for a task force to find out if the breed is a problem in the county. 
  
But that could be a hard task, because no department tracks the breeds of dogs licensed in the county or the breeds of dogs involved in biting incidents. 
  
Gardina proposed the task force last week after 10-year-old Dominic Solesky was attacked by a pit bull on April 28 while playing in a Towson Manor Village alley. The boy suffered severe injuries, including a severed femoral artery, and continues to be treated at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center. 
  
It was the second attack by a pit bull in the county in a month. In Woodlawn, two pit bulls entered a yard and killed a smaller dog. 
  
"We need to do something to address this problem," Gardina told Health Officer Pierre Vigilance during a May 1 County Council work session. "There needs to be something to constrain these animals better." 
  
Gardina, a Democrat, represents the 5th District, which includes Perry Hall, part of Parkville and Towson. 
  
In a May 6 phone interview, Gardina said he hoped the task force would look at creating a more restrictive license. Owners of what he referred to as "dangerous breeds" would be required to keep the dogs in enclosed kennels or have higher fences. 
  
Vigilance urged caution. 
  
"We want to be careful not to stigmatize any one breed of dog or sanction a particular type of dog," he said. 
  
He added that the attacks Gardina talked about were rare and the worst he knew of in the 18 months since he took over the Health Department. 
  
Vigilance said he was not sure what such a task force would accomplish. 
  
Baltimore County issues about 18,000 pet licenses annually. It is generally believed there are many more dogs in the county that are not licensed. 
  
A database of dogs licensed in the county does not track their breeds, according to Tim Kotroco, director of the county Department of Permits and Development Management, which issues the licenses. 
  
>From 2002 to 2006, the county has averaged about 1,000 reported dog bites a year, according to Animal Control records. 
  
The county Animal Control Board does not track breeds of dogs reported to be involved in dog bite incidents in the county despite the fact that there is a space for such information on the report forms. 
  
The space is typically left blank because breeds are often difficult to determine, according to Monique Lyle, a spokeswoman for the county Health Department. 
  
Gardina said the county agencies should look to see if there are ways to track breeds that are licensed or involved in biting incidents. 
  
Indeed, a Centers for Disease Control study of dog bites shows investigators ran into the same problem. 
  
A 2000 study of dog-bite-related fatalities found that "pit bull-type" dogs and Rottweilers were responsible for more than 50 percent of the 238 dog-bite related fatalities from 1979 to 1998. 
Authors of the study wrote, however, that the statistics should be used cautiously. First, they believed that related fatalities were underreported. They also believed that description of a breed, especially a cross-bred dog, may be subjective and "even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog." 
  
Pit bulls, more formally known as American Staffordshire terriers, have been the target of bans in several jurisdictions around the country, including Prince George's County. 
  
Tony Solesky, Dominic's father, said irresponsible owners are as much at fault as "bad dogs." 
  
"I don't think all pit bulls are this way or all pit bull owners are this way," Solesky said. "There's no debate, though, that these are the dogs that can do the worst damage." 
  
Still, Solesky cautioned against knee-jerk reactions to any particular breed of dog.   
"I'd rather see responsible pit bull owners," Solesky said. "I don't want to alienate people. I don't want to see (responsible owners) lose their dogs or have to take up the side of idiots just so they can protect their own rights." 
  
E-mail political editor Bryan P. Sears at political editor Bryan P. Sears at patuxent.com 

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=659&NewsID=805064&CategoryID=1840&show=localnews&om=1
 
 


To be removed from our mailing list, click here



This e-mail was generated automatically by ADOA





  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://inghamcountykc.org/pipermail/members_inghamcountykc.org/attachments/20070511/33433048/attachment.htm>