It’s not only a good idea, it’s the law.

I dare you, I double dog dare you.

Scratch and sniff.

Huh?

Beware of flying dogs.

It’s about Robert Stevens who was found guilty of violating  a statute by selling a commercial video that includes footage of dog fighting.

Here are the details of the case from The Washington Post.

United States v. Stevens

Robert J. Stevens produced videos he says were intended to show owners how to train their pit bulls to ward off predators, such as coyotes, or help in hunting expeditions involving wild boar. As part of his self-styled instructional videos, Stevens included footage — admittedly gruesome — of some of these endeavors gone terribly wrong, including one passage that showed a pit bull mauling a hog. The federal government charged Stevens with violating a statute that prohibits the sale or possession of material that depicts a live animal being maimed, tortured, injured or killed. The statute in question was passed during the Clinton administration, presumably to combat the proliferation of videos showing high-heeled women crushing small animals for the prurient enjoyment of viewers. Yet during the past decade, it has been invoked only three times in prosecutions involving those involved in some way with dog fighting.

Stevens was convicted of selling videos of dogs fighting each other and attacking other animals.  The law includes a provision stipulating that those who produce “serious” material with a journalistic or educational bent are exempt from prosecution. It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the law passes constitutional muster or whether it violates the First Amendment by prohibiting speech that may be offensive but perfectly legal.

There are supporters of Stevens who do not condone animal cruelty but are concerned about the conviction based on “freedom of speech.”  The American Humane believes this law is necessary and does not infringe on the true intent of the First Amendment.

“This is a case about animal cruelty, plain and simple,” said American Humane President and CEO Marie Belew Wheatley. “Every state has passed laws to protect animals from cruelty and neglect and has found this issue to be important in protecting communities. Animal cruelty should be a compelling government interest that overrides any attempt to intentionally harm animals under the guise of ‘right to free speech.’ While many parties may argue the technicalities and interpretations of the law, the real focus should be that it is immoral, it is inhumane and it should be illegal to exploit, torture and kill animals for someone’s twisted sense of ‘entertainment’ and someone else’s profit.”

I am obviously a proponent for ‘the right to free speech’ but I can’t possibly see a legitimate reason, or any redeeming value, to depict dog fighting in the video.  Subsection (a) of the law, U.S.C. Part I, Chapter 3, Section 48, states: “Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.” The exceptions are “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” The problem with the law is that it’s rather subjective, it’s up to the interpretation of the reader to determine if any of the above ‘exceptions’ pertain to Stevens’ video.

The final determination will come from the Supreme Court. Hopefully those reviewing the case will all conclude that dog fighting in Stevens’  video has no merit and is inhumane,  it is used for the sole purpose of financial gain.

* Add some Sparkle to your life, she’s up for adoption.

Have you ever wondered what the animal welfare laws are in your state?  The Michigan State University College of Law: Animal Legal & Historical Web Center has a great site where you can access this information.

On the left side of the page, find the “Select by State” menus, and choose your state in the “US Law” submenu. A new page will display. Read the “Statute Name” and to find “Consolidated Cruelty Statutes” and click on the “Citation” link, where you will find actual texts.

Watch Tip Week of Sept. 27

Watch for spring’s puppies and kittens now banished to the back yard—do they have shelter, food and water? Talk with the owners or the authorities.

This website is truly an invaluable source of information, it covers everything from assistance animal laws to veterinary practice laws. Thanks to our friends at Sunbear Squad for letting us know about the Animal Legal & Historical Web Center.

Dare thought he deserved Dexter because he was the one who bought him, while Houseman felt since she took care of him when he was sick and dressed him for holidays she should get custody. They both proclaimed their love for Dexter.

In 2007 the case was heard in court for the first time in front of Judge Tomasello, at that time Dexter was awarded to Dare. According to the judge it came down to simple possession, Dexter is considered an object, property.  Houseman was not alright with that and has spent at least $20,000 since then fighting to get Dexter back.

Dissatisfied with the outcome Houseman’s lawyer got the case to go before a  three-judge appeals panel for review of the decision.

Here are details of the appeals case from the Philly.com News.

“Dogs are chairs. They’re furniture,” Tomasello said, explaining that they are just one of many objects to be divided in a breakup.

But Houseman wanted Dexter, not cold cash. Her lawyer, Gina Colagero, took the case to a three-judge appeals panel that concluded Tomasello had failed to consider Dexter’s “subjective value.”

The panel said that he was like a family heirloom, or a piece of fine art, and that the judge should retry the matter, giving weight to what Dexter meant to Houseman and Dare.

Colagero said the Dexter decision might guide other courts wrestling with what to do about a pet when there’s a breakup. “It’s a landmark decision,” she said.

As you can see, the ruling was in Houseman’s favor and back to court they went. Once again appearing before the not so dog loving Judge Tomasello. He was none to happy to be wasting more court time battling over a dog, especially this one.  However, this time he ordered joint custody of the dog, carried out  in five-week rotations until Dexter goes to “the great kennel in the sky.” Warning to dog owners, you are not going to care for his attitude.

“He might be cute and furry, but he’s still property. He’s no more than that,” the judge said.

Tomasello also said that when the dog died, he hoped Dare and Houseman would amicably split the ashes and not bring the matter back to court.

“Hopefully I won’t be here at that point,” the judge said, just before he quickly left the bench, robe flying.

I hope he’s not there either. I’ve got to say, I’m not really liking this man’s attitude. I realize under the law dogs are considered property, but to dog lovers they are so much more. They are a part of the family.

Until laws get changed to reflect the ’subjective value’ nothing will change, but this decision is definitely a step in the right direction. Judges, like Tomasello, who are in positions of power most certainly don’t help our cause.

Remember, as voters we have the ability to determine which elected officials are in office. When the time comes, get out there and vote!

* Photo courtesy RON CORTES / Staff Photographer

There have been efforts over the last few years to try and get legislation but so far it has failed.  Due to concerns over cost along with opposition from groups who worry about unintended consequences and the effect on good breeders. Not sure exactly what they mean when they say unintended consequences, for who?

Here are the details from the Chicago Tribune.

State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection spokeswoman Donna Gilson says Wisconsin has become a magnet for breeders because it has no regulations.

The bill requires any person who sells more than 25 dogs in one year, from at least three litters, to be licensed. Unlike previous proposals, it only applies to dogs and not other animals.

Let’s hope because the bill has been changed so it only applies to dogs some of the opposition will be eliminated.  It’s not like this is some crazy bill asking for outrageous things, it simply talks about licensing, which all breeders should be. If they’re a good breeder they should not have any issues with this.

Over the last few years we’ve come so far, but we still have a very long way to go.

*IMAGECHEF.COM

A Sanitation Department agent saw that she didn’t pick up after her dog and slapped her with a summons. She told the agent that she had just been sitting on the front stoop for a minute before getting up to go get a tissue to clean it up.

Here are the details from the NY Daily News.

She was approached by the officer about 10:30 a.m., minutes after her black mutt, Kimmy, pooped on a grassy patch in front of her father’s house, where she lives. Fernbacker was waiting for a ride to school.

“I told [the agent] I was going inside to get a tissue,” she said. “And he told me it didn’t matter.”

The officer asked Fernbacker to get her ID as he wrote the ticket up. The summons states that she “made no attempt to remove dog feces in a legal manner.”

Alicia Fernbacker is only 19-years-old, a full-time student at Queensborough Community College, and her husband may soon be deployed to Afghanistan. The $250 fine is a major hardship. She is going to try and fight the ticket, a court date has been scheduled in October.

It’s very easy to feel sorry for Fernbacker, but legally she did leave the poo on the grass. I will take her on her word that she was just sitting a minute to catch her breath and that she was going to pick it up. However, it still comes down to the fact that it wasn’t done immediately, how was the sanitation agent supposed to know she would do it? Going to do something and actually doing it are two very different things.

Do you think she should have been given the chance to pick up the poo? Or, she broke the law and deserved the fine?  Give me a bark.

*Pic courtesy NY Daily News/ Joe Marino

Sadly, it’s official, California has cut the holding time of shelter dogs from six days to three.  In 1997 the Hayden Bill, otherwise known as the Animal Adoption Mandate, required shelters to hold  abandoned animals a minimum of four days and usually up to six.

The passing of the new budget has undone what this bill was meant to do, give owners time to find their lost pets. It’s not always easy to track down your pet when there are multiple shelters in the area.  Having extra time also gave kill shelters a chance to transfer some of the animals to rescue organizations or no-kill shelters. Now that the time has been cut in half not nearly as many animals are going to be saved.

“It makes a difference because for some animals every day counts,” said Cindy Machado of the Marin Humane Society, which does not euthanize animals that can be adopted. Instead, the society rescues thousands of animals facing death at other shelters.

“The new law will affect a lot of the shelters that we rescue animals from because, especially in this economy, they are bursting at the seams,” she said.

Most Bay Area animal shelters do not kill strays unless they have serious health or behavioral problems – for instance, viciousness – that would make them unsafe to adopt.

Yet many smaller, rural shelters in the Central Valley and in the northern part of the state do not have the space to keep animals longer than required by state law. These shelters are, in many cases, full of pets given up by people who have lost their jobs, seen their homes foreclosed upon, or been forced to move in search of work.

“The places that are overrun with animals don’t have many resources, and now the law will essentially allow them to euthanize animals more quickly,” said Scott Delucchi, vice president of the Peninsula Humane Society. “Probably those shelters were euthanizing animals anyway. It will just be earlier.”

According to this article, published in the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 400,000 dogs and cats were euthanized statewide in 2008.  I realize budget cuts needed to be made in California, but the passing of the new law shows exactly how little value is placed on the lives of dogs, it’s a sad statement about our society.

The one thing to take away from this article is the importance of making sure your dog is properly ID’ed, it could mean the difference between life and death. Microchips remain the most effective way to permanently identify your pet. Keep in mind it must be scanned with a special device, one not available to the public.

We have Dogster’s Together Tag, an innovative pet ID and recovery service.  The tag contains all the necessary information but it also has an ID number which links back to a website, anyone with an internet connection will be able to access it.  If you need to make any changes just go online and update the information.

Even if you don’t live in California it’s imperative to make sure your dog has ID, most lost pets don’t find their way back home. Don’t let your beloved pet become another statistic, part of the 9.6 million animals euthanized nationwide each year.

* Pictured above is Jazzy, she’s been at the Glendale Humane Society for six months and desperately wants a new family to love her. If you think Jazzy’s the girl for you stop by the GHS site to read all about her and get contact information.

Since PetSmart is a pet supermarket it’s one thing to allow dogs, what if you were walking in your local grocery store and you saw someone with their dog, not a service dog, would it bother you? What about if the dog went to the bathroom in the store?

In Portland’s Pearl District this is happening, it’s become dog owners versus non-dog owners. Dogs are now  frequently seen in grocery stores and in the last year the food safety division of Oregon’s Agriculture Department has received over 600 complaints about this issue.

The New York Times has the details on what’s happening in Portland.

“Usually they’ll hold off and not make a complaint until they’ve seen a dog urinate in the grocery store or jump up and try to swipe a pack of meat,” said Vance Bybee, the head of the food safety division. “Or they’ve seen dogs pooping in the aisle, that sort of thing.”

In response to the complaints, Oregon is about to begin an unusual campaign, distributing posters and pamphlets to about 4,500 retail stores that sell food. The message is this: Animals, except those trained to help the disabled, are not allowed.

The campaign, however, is not likely to make the problem go away, state officials and dog owners say, particularly in a neighborhood like the Pearl District, where many people who are not physically disabled consider the company of their pets therapeutic and insist on taking them just about everywhere. Some banks put water bowls by their front doors, and dog day-care facilities take time to serve pets the specially packed lunches their owners make for them.

The Pearl District, developed by Hoyt, was built on an old rail yard and is one of Portland’s downtown neighborhoods. It is an upscale newly developed area with condominiums, retail shops, parks, and dog-passionate residents. The project which began in the 1990’s didn’t start out trying to build a place for dog lovers to live, it just sort of happened.  Being dog friendly has now become central to its identity.  Tiffany Sweitzer, who is the president of Hoyt, even has her dog Scout featured prominently in their advertising.

Do you think non-service dogs should be allowed in stores?  What about food stores?  Does that cross a line? Give me a bark, let me know what you think.

* Pic courtesy Leah Nash for The New York Times

Good news coming out of Pennsylvania,  a new dog law was passed. The budget may still not be agreed upon but House Bill 39 was.

Angelique Gonzalez from  Your4State.com reports on the passing of the new bill.

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) signed legislation making it illegal for anyone but a licensed veterinarian to perform certain medical procedures — like cropping a dogs ears or docking their tail.

House Bill 39 also makes it a third degree felony to steal an animal for the purpose of using it in dog fights.

“Until now these cruel practices could be carried out by dog owners without proper training and without the supervision of a licensed vet causing long term injury, pain, suffering and in some cases even death,” said Gov. Rendell.

Pennsylvania has a notorious reputation as being the “puppy mill capital of the east.”  In October 2008 a law to make puppy mills more humane was passed, but there is still a long way to go.

On September 19th Puppy Mill Awareness Day takes place to celebrate rescue, increase awareness to the cruelty within the mills, and provide a day of fun. The event takes place in Lancaster, PA. at Intercourse Park. To find out all about this wonderful event go to the Puppy Mill Awareness Day website.

Visit  Dog Law Action to learn more about Pennsylvania’s Dog Law legislation that has passed as well as other state related dog news.

(L.A. Times) Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, wrote today that Kennedy was “a stalwart ally over the years on a wide range of legislation to protect companion animals, farm animals, animals in research and wildlife,” adding that the senator from Massachusetts was instrumental in the passage of animal welfare legislation including laws that cracked down on dogfighting and cockfighting, protected horses and other farm animals, and sent chimpanzees once used in medical research to sanctuaries.

The two pups closest to his heart were his own Portuguese water dogs, Sunny and Splash. His dogs were the impetus behind his book “My Senator and Me: A Dog’s Eye View of Washington, D.C.,” which introduces young kids to the political process. The book is told through Splash’s viewpoint, making it both a fun and informative read for children.

Even if Sen. Kennedy’s political viewpoint differed from your own, and you didn’t respect him as either a man or politician,  he diligently fought for the rights of animals.  For that, we should be grateful.

*Pic courtesy Steven Senne / Associated Press