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.

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

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.

This petition only has a little over 700 signatures, let’s see what we can do to get that to a respectable number.

One that will make the New York Senators stand up and take notice.

There is a petition here to ban the gassing of dogs, cats & wildlife in New York and also VERY important is that no animal can be sold to a research or any other facility by the shelter. This means that those people who collect dogs and cats from shelters and sell for research will have to pay the adoption fee to get them from and their profit will be gone.

This also means that dogs and cats that have to be killed will be done so with compassion and peacefulness. Not scared and afraid.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Support-Ban-of-Gas-Chambers-in-New-York-State-Animal-Shelters

PLEASE PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND WRITE TO THE LAZY SENATORS OF NY (WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THE LAST MONTH AND YET WE PAY THEM) AND TELL THEM THAT WE THE PEOPLE OF NY DEMAND THAT THEY PASS THIS BILL.

Thanks
Jennifer Fedele
Best Friends NY Ambassador
Pit Bull Rescuer and Advocate
Pitty Love Rescue

You do not need to reside in New York to sign the petition.

* Pic of Buddah from Pitty Love Rescue

A woman in Phoenix, AZ. has been fined $940 and sentenced to three years probation for her barking dogs.

Reness Maurer’s neighbors had filed a petition earlier in the year to have her prosecuted for allowing her dogs to bark non-stop over three years.

Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Certa told Maurer that she is not required to report to a probation officer, and the $940 will be reduced to $296 if the terms of her probation are completed successfully after the three years.

Other conditions of the probation included keeping Corky and Koo-Boosh, Maurer’s two dogs, inside when she leaves, and putting bark collars on the dogs if they are outside for longer than 15 minutes.

Maurer said she was disappointed about the sentencing and about her neighbors.

“I feel ostracized in my own community,” said Maurer, adding that neighborhood relations will now be “extremely awkward and uncomfortable.”

I realize how annoying incessant barking can be, it’s happened before in our neighborhood. After a while it can start to drive you a bit nutty. Maurer has two small dogs that are obviously not outside dogs, she should not be leaving them there for hours on end.  As a pet owner she needs to take responsibility for her dogs and deal with the problem.

However, the real reason I posted this wasn’t because of the barking issue but because of the penalty. The maximum sentence for violating the city’s barking-dog ordinance is six months in jail, a $2,500 fine and a misdemeanor charge.

Over the last few months I have posted numerous stories on animal abusers and time after time they  get a slap on the wrist.  If you do something that affects a person, like disturbing the peace, the penalty is actually harsher than for animal cruelty in some states. It sends a clear message that it’s alright to kill or torture an animal because it still isn’t taken seriously in our justice system.

It’s a sad statement on society when a barking dog disturbing a person takes precedence over someone killing a dog. There’s something wrong with this picture. Why is the penalty so harsh?  It is a law meant to protect people, their right to peace, not animals.  It just goes to show, once again, laws need to change if we are ever to see justice for animals.

* Windswept’s Diamond Royale CGC

In April we had a contest to win a copy of The Pet Plan and Pet Trust Guide.  It’s a “how to” legal plan for your pet’s future security incorporating the newest and latest laws to secure your pets future well being.

I was just reminded of the book when I came across an article about a pet trust fund bill being signed into law in Connecticut, making it the 41st state to pass a pet trust law.

ARTFORD, Conn., July 8 (UPI) — Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell has signed a bill to allow residents to set up living trusts with their pets as the beneficiaries.

The law, which was sponsored by state Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Ridgefield, state Rep. Russ Morin, D-Wethersfield, and state Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan and Wilton, requires the trust funds to be used solely for the care of the beneficiary pets and can be used to care for a pet before the death of its owner if the human is no longer able to care for the animal, The Connecticut Post reported Wednesday.

“(Creating a trust for pets) is a good thing to do, especially because many pets outlive their families,” Boucher said.

Morin said he was unaware of pet trusts until the matter was brought to his attention by constituents.

“If it helps people and makes them feel good, then it’s really a good piece” of legislation, Morin said.

Congrats to CT., let’s hope the states where it isn’t a law follow suit.

* Order a copy of the book on author Debby Carman’s site, Faux Paw Productions.

On Friday I posted the horrific story about Ella, the young German Shepherd who was left in a locked cage to starve to death after her owner moved out.

Christine Abrams, the woman responsible, was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to 12 months probation, a $5,000 fine, and 80 hours of community service. Out of the 12 months she was supposed to serve eight in jail, she only served about six.

Abrams who was just released  is currently appealing the case, post-conviction, on grounds that the police searched her house illegally. It is speculated she is appealing to get out of the imposed court fines and probation.

While it’s too late to do anything to save Ella it isn’t too late to change the outcome of future cases. We need to join together to help get Florida law changed, making animal cruelty a felony. Death by starvation is a horrible way to go, this should never have been allowed to happen and the person responsible got away with murder as far as I’m concerned.

In some states animal cruelty has been changed to a felony, but not all, which is a travesty of justice. Every Monday I post safety tips from Anna Nirva , the founder of Sunbear Squad, who started her organization because of a case very similar to Ella’s which happened in Virginia.  A dog named Sunbear was locked in a shed and left to die, no one came to her aid until it was too late. The owner was eventually tracked down, arrested, and charged with a misdemeanor. There was an outcry from the dog lovers in Virginia, they got together and helped get the law changed so now animal cruelty is a felony in that state.

I have a challenge for all the wonderful Dogsters out there, to join me in the fight for justice for Ella. When I posted the original article it wasn’t to make people sad, although it is very sad, but rather to make people angry. I wanted you to be angry enough to take action, to make sure this doesn’t happen again.  I want to get the ball rolling by bringing what happened to Ella to the attention of the legislators in charge, those who have the power to  help make this type of change a reality. We need our elected officials to help us make sure a law is passed in Ella’s name.

My problem, I’m not totally sure where to start. I’m looking for people with experience dealing in legislation, with legislators, and petitions. As well as anyone who is willing to help spread the word, get petitions signed, and support changing the law.

You can contact me through the ‘Bark Back To Dogster Blog’ form on the upper right hand corner, the message comes directly to me. C’mon Dogsters, let’s make this happen for Ella and all the other dogs that depend on us for a voice.

Please post and cross-post this message, we need as much help and support as possible.

* Photo of Abrams & Ella courtesy FLORIDA TODAY

Washington had no statewide laws to crack down on puppy mills, things are about to change. The impetus behind a new bill was the discovery of horrific conditions in local puppy mills that were raided in January.

State lawmakers corrected this oversight with a strong bill passed by the Legislature this week. The bill prohibits breeders from possessing more than 50 non-neutered dogs older than 6 months at one time. It sets standards for kennel size, exercise and sanitary conditions.

The bill’s language is a clarion call for basic humane treatment of dogs. Breeders will have to provide clean food and water, keep cages clean and allow dogs to leave their cages for at least an hour a day. Violators could be charged with a gross misdemeanor.

Commercial dog breeding requires standards and state oversight to monitor against unsanitary conditions and to protect consumers from the sale of sick and dying animals. There are environmental and public-health reasons to regulate these businesses, including the potential for soil and groundwater contamination and the spread of infectious diseases by poorly cared-for animals.

This is great news, but it’s sad there need to be laws so that these animals are humanely treated, you would hope that’s a given. The legislation now goes to the desk of Gov. Chris Gregoire, where it should be quickly signed into law.

*ADOPTABLE: Beautiful Lilly needs a home, she’s currently be fostered near Glen Ellyn, IL