Month: October 2007

Editorial feature: Why animal charities need to learn to pass the hat

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:

 

Among the outcomes of sending ANIMAL
PEOPLE to nearly 11,000 animal protection
organizations worldwide, as often as we can
afford the postage, is that we receive constant
inquiries from people who hope we can help fund
proposed projects, or provide introductions to
others who might, or at least publicize a
proposed project in hopes of attracting funders,
even though more than 80% of our readers are
themselves trying to raise funds for their own
worthwhile pro-animal projects.
Probably every reader of ANIMAL PEOPLE
has at least one brilliant idea about things that
could and should be done to help animals, if
only the money was available.
Some of the ideas we hear about are
impractical, ill-conceived, or have already
been tried in other times and places with
disappointing results. Yet many other ideas
presented to us are eminently practical, and
could succeed with adequate investment. The only
obstacle is that the necessary funding is not
easily or immediately available. Someone needs
to go out and raise the funds, by persuading
donors to put their contributions into this
particular project, rather than any of the
myriad others that the typical donor will hear
about between now and the next time the person
has money to give.

Read more

Taking water from puppies?

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:
SACRAMENTO–California Governor Arnold Sc-warzenegger on
October 14, 2007 endorsed into law a new set of regulations for pet
stores.
As with other legislation adopted in the most populous U.S.
state, the new regulations may become the default standard for the
pet industry throughout the U.S. Whether that would be good remains
a subject of bitter debate among California animal advocates.
The new law, introduced as AB 1347 by Assembly member Anna
Caballero, somewhat parallels a bill promoted by the Animal
Protection Institute that Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2006.
Said the API victory announcement, “AB 1347 was brought forth
by Petco and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council as a result of
API’s sponsored legislation introduced in 2006. The original
language in AB 1347 would have protected the pet industry, but
failed to protect animals in custody of the industry. API and other
animal protection advocates invested considerable effort in helping
to transform AB 1347 into legislation that actually elevates the
standards of care for pet shop animals.”

Read more

Legal path clear for California communities to ban declawing

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:
SAN FRANCISCO–California cities and counties may ban
declawing cats, the California Supreme Court affirmed on October 10,
2007, refusing to hear an appeal filed by the California Veterinary
Medical Association against a West Hollywood ordinance adopted in
2003. The West Hollywood ordinance is the only local anti-declawing
law in California, but other communities are expected to adopt
similar legislation now that the legal path is clear.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, for instance,
passed a non-binding anti-declawing resolution in 2003, and filed a
brief in support of West Hollywood when the CVMA case reached the
appellate level. Matt Dorsey, spokesperson for San Francisco city
attorney Dennis Herrera, told San Francisco Chronicle staff writer
Bob Egalko that the state Supreme Court “preserved the right of San
Francisco to enact an ordinance like this if it chose to in the
future.”

Read more

Non-native species extermination bill clears U.S. House unopposed

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:

WASHINGTON, D.C.–HR 767, possibly the
most sweeping feral animal extermination mandate
ever put before Congress, unanimously cleared
the U.S. House of Representatives on October 23,
2007, completely eluding any visible notice from
national humane organizations.
No national humane organization issued a
legislative alert about HR 767. No national
humane organization even mentioned it in online
lists of animal-related bills under
consideration–not even Alley Cat Allies, whose
concerns are most directly targeted.
Introduced by Representative Ron Kind
(D-Wisconsin), HR 767 is officially titled the
Refuge Ecology Protection, Assistance, and
Immediate Response Act, or REPAIR Act.
Informally, it is called the Kind Act, but the
closest approach to kind language in it is a
passage requiring that funded extermination
programs must minimize “adverse impacts to the
structure and function of national wildlife
refuge ecosystems and adverse effects on
nontarget species.”
No restrictions are placed on the species
that may be targeted or the methods that may be
used to kill them.
An October 22 press release from Kind’s
office promoting HR 767 mentioned only purple
loosestrife, black locust, and zebra mussels as
examples of invasive species, but the bill
appears to have originated chiefly out of birder
antipathy toward feral cats.
“In response to the exploding threat that
invasive species pose to the health and abundance
of many birds,” said publicist Steve Holmer of
the American Bird Conservancy, an organization
built on fierce opposition to neuter/return feral
cat control, “Kind championed legislation which
provides grants to states to identify harmful
non-native species and establish priorities for
preserving native birds, fish, other wildlife,
and their habitats. The REPAIR Act now moves to
the Senate, where ABC hopes to see quick
passage.”
A native of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Kind
still has one of his two constituency offices in
LaCrosse–the same city where birder Mark Smith
in 2005 organized a campaign to authorize hunters
to shoot feral cats.

Read more

Canada takes seal product bans to WTO Canadian trade minister will not oppose dog & cat fur imports to avoid precedent

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2007:
GENEVA–Defying the court of world
opinion, Canadian international trade minister
David Emerson on September 26, 2007 appealed to
the World Trade Organiza-tion to try to stop
Belgium and the Netherlands from banning Atlantic
Canadian seal products.
Emerson asked the WTO to hold “formal
consultations” with the European Union on the
Belgian and Dutch actions, “which is the first
step in the organization’s dispute settlement
process,” explained James Keller of Canadian
Press.
Belgium banned seal product imports in
January 2007, allowing an exemption for Inuits
in the Far North who hunt seals by traditional
methods. The Netherlands published a similar ban
in July 2007, taking effect in September.
Both bans are symbolic, since neither
nation has recently imported seal products, but
Emerson “said Canada is worried the bans will
encourage other countries that have expressed
similar concerns, including Austria, Germany,
and Italy, to follow with their own bans,”
wrote Keller.
Dutch agriculture minister Gerda Verburg
responded that the Dutch law “fits within the
rules established by the WTO.”
European Union trade commissioner Peter
Mandelson said in a written statement that he is
“naturally disappointed by this move” on the part
of the Canadian government. Mandelson “said the
EU would defend its member states before the WTO,
while continuing to study whether a EU-wide ban
on seal products is justified,” summarized
Keller.

Read more

1 2 3 4