Comment and Opinion

Impact of AB 1634 on Working Dogs

June 21st, 2007.

I have watched for years, the trend of Local Authorities and Government Departments here in Australia to adopt similar Animal Mangement systems that are imposed in the USA.
I urge everyone to read carefully what is happening in the USA today at - Impact of AB1634 - and to bear in mind that if the attempt to enforce the impending laws regarding dogs in the USA is successful,we may well be facing the same consequences here in Australia in the future.....Ed.

AB 1634 will be voted on in the full California State Senate sometime on or after Thursday, August 7, 2008. The deadline for legislation to pass is August 31. p>Please forward this email to your organization or club distribution lists and let them know that we need everyone's help to defeat AB 1634. We are close to having enough State Senators lined up to defeat it. But we are not there yet. We need an avalanche of phone calls, emails, and faxes to stop it.

Information about the current version of AB 1634 and how individuals can take action can be found on the Save Our Dogs website

The current version of AB 1634 differs significantly from last year's version, and is in some ways much worse. The "new" AB 1634 establishes owning an intact dog or intact cat as a "secondary offense" according to bill author Assemblyman Levine in his testimony before the Senate Local Govermentment Committee. Make no mistake about what this means. It means that owing an intact dog or intact cat will be illegal in California -- NO EXCEPTIONS. NO exceptions for law enforcement dogs. NO exceptions for working ranch dogs. NO exceptions for hunting or sporting dogs. NO exceptions for search-and-rescue dogs, guide dogs for the blind, or service dogs for the disabled. NO exceptions for purebred dogs or pedigreed cats. NO exceptions for dogs or cats owned by responsible breeders. NO opportunity to purchase an intact permit. All of that was deleted when the bill was gut amended. The "primary offense" that triggers the "secondary offense" that will lead to a forced sterilization order need not be valid or upheld... it can be a frivolous or malicious allegation that is dismissed.

A UK newspaper article on Crufts and the health/ genetics of the breeds being shown.
Should Crufts be banned?

HAWAII REPORTER: 02/08/2007

DAVID & GOLIATH: WHO WON?
By Kim Bloomer

"As I watch the number of common-sense animal lovers growing, and becoming stronger as they face new laws about their pets, I am reminded that love can't be stopped by laws, or by people who don't understand its power. Even the smallest mother dog fights with the force of a tiger when standing up for what she loves. Many a giant has discovered this as he is falling."Ron Hevener - Author, "High Stakes"

I've been thinking a lot lately about all the anti-pet legislation happening across the nation. Many people might think these new bills and ordinances are pro-animal, pro-pet but everything is not as it appears on the surface.

Ponder these things:

* Control the land and the animals then you control the people. * Determine ALL breeders to be puppy millers so no animals are bred. * Teach school children it's inhumane to eat meat (animals). * Teach college students they're "hip and educated" if they're vegan. * Kill babies - it's your choice and right; don't kill animals UNLESS you're "freeing" them from a life of tortuous enslavement by humans * Determine kind people to be animal guardians and cruel people to be pet owners.

The beat goes on...and on and on and on.

Bills and all kinds of legislation are before every senate in every state in the nation with a large majority having to do with animals. Such a big Goliath: animal rights groups, government, lobbyists, world power money brokers - lions, and tigers and bears, OH MY! But who won between David and Goliath? David did, because he understood the true Source of real power in the grand scheme of things.

For every Breed Specific Legislation, Mandatory Spay/Neuter, anti-pet owner, anti-breeder, anti-pet bill or ordinance we haggle, fight, and wear ourselves out over, there are twenty more to take their place to keep us so busy, tired, distracted and depleted that we don't notice the methodical takeover of: our pets, our land, our businesses, our freedoms. These distractions serve to keep us focused on the problem or what I refer to as the "darkness" rather than the solution which I refer to always as "the Light".

What comes to mind is the movie "The Matrix". No one knew they were in a Matrix run by machines soaking up their life force while they slept in ignorant oblivion as the Matrix used them until they died. Those who chose to wake up out of it and DO something were overwhelmed UNTIL they learned how to fight back. They learned to use the Matrix against itself. It's time for us to wake up out of the machine and realize just what is going on around us. Those of us who are awake and in the fight are reacting in fear rather than responding in faith and trust of our true Source of Power and Light. We're trying to fight Goliath all wrong.

David (to eventually become King David) was a small, young sheep herder with five rocks and a slingshot. Goliath was a giant of a man standing over 9 feet tall, big, strong, muscular wielding a huge sword - exactly how I see our fight to protect our freedoms to own our animals, our land, our businesses, our Americanism. Fighting the power of our modern day Goliath seems daunting and overwhelming at times but it's because we keep forgetting to turn on the Light.

David didn't kill Goliath with the rocks. He hit Goliath square in the head with ONE rock and knocked him out. THEN he walked over and took out Goliath's sword and cut off his head with his own sword. David ended that war but he did not trust in his own power, he had the Light on behind him the whole time so he saw the situation clearly. The magical thing is David never doubted that he would win. He never even gave it a second thought. He didn't focus on the problem but recognized and implemented the solution even as the armies on both sides and Goliath laughed at and ridiculed him. We're all so worried about being politically correct but our opposition has never been worried about that and neither should we.

There are a lot more pet owners, breeders, animal lovers out there who are just uninformed. Rather than engaging a group of bullies in a fight, we can turn and face the crowd and engage them in the battle. Allow them to know the truth of what is going on in the fight for our animals and our freedoms.

Shine up our rocks, grab our slingshots and let's take care of Goliath...but remember where the Source of ALL power really lies.

Kim Bloomer is a natural pet care educator, professional lecturer, host of the online radio show Animal Talk Naturally and a proficient blogger and writer on natural pet health. Kim is also co-author of the book Whole Health for Happy Dogs. She worked in the veterinary field for many years and continues to do extensive research into natural health care for dogs and cats. Kim is currently enrolled in the Clayton College of Natural Health studying for a Bachelor of Science in Holistic Nutrition/Doctor of Naturopathy. Kim is a member of the American Veterinary Naturopathic Association.



ANIMAL AMBASSADORS
Emerging To Shed Light On Anti-Pet Laws

In light of all the anti-pet legislation coursing through the country, many pet owners have decided that enough is enough!

"True animal lovers only want to live in peace and love their pets. They would never dream up such laws. Hurting pet lovers this way is heartless, crude and mean-spirited. Instead of preventing cruelty, this is the very license for it." (Ron Hevener - Author, "High Stakes")

January 10, 2007 - New animal ordinances are springing up all over the world and more recently sweeping the United States. Many responsible pet owners and pet lovers believe that these new ordinances will force irresponsible owners into proper and responsible care of their animals. If you listen to animal protection groups and the mainstream media, one is lead to believe that dangerous dogs, pet overpopulation and breeding kennel conditions are "the issues in question." But when we take a closer look, are those things "really" what drives all this legislation?

According to mayors and other officials of the cities passing these laws, most of the recent ordinances which have passed in the United States have been pushed through in the name of public safety. Such legislators have felt (most notably, the recent ordinance passed in Louisville, KY) that the first concern is public safety. The interests of constituents ...Concerns of constituents ... Public opinion ... These things ranked further down on their list of considerations.

Anti-pet laws passed in the name of public safety are more definitively directed at breeders and others who have animals for racing, show, and sporting events rather than protecting the public from so-called dangerous animals. More importantly, they are directed at eliminating the right to own animals; to merely be animal guardians -- with the city and state governments actually owning the animals -- and thereby making their own decisions for the animals as regards spaying, neutering, micro chipping, and euthanizing.

There is a hidden agenda with regard to all of these laws and it has nothing to do with public safety or concerns for good animal care. Rather, it is about eroding or removing American freedoms, the right to own as many animals as we can provide for, the end to all domestic animal ownership, and the end to the existence of domestic animals altogether. That is the true and hidden agenda.

In Louisville, KY, home of the Kentucky Derby and the largest and oldest dog and sporting shows in the country, it appears that this anti-animal ordinance was meant to send a loud and clear message to the rest of the country about the actual ownership of everything in this country. Eminent domain, political correctness and now anti-animal laws -- nothing is as it appears in America the "free and brave, by the people, for the people, OF the people". These laws are more guise than care, if read deeply and thoroughly. Protecting animals is not the true goal here.

However a light is beginning to dawn on the dark terrain of animal laws and civil rights.

ANIMAL AMBASSADORS - (a term coined by Pennsylvania author/artist, Ron Hevener - are now stepping forward to claim back their rights as free American citizens with the right to make their own decisions with regards to their animals, and Kim Bloomer, host of the online radio show, Animal Talk Naturally, is one of them.

"I have always been an animal lover, caring very much for their well-being and welfare. It's dismaying to me -- after all the years I've worked with animals in veterinary medicine, and now as a natural pet care educator -- to see the very core of who I am, being attacked through these nasty laws disguised as concern for me as a citizen. I am a voice for the animals and I am standing in the gap as a voice for them and their owners, knowing true animal lovers are joining together with me to sing in this choir. I know many are ready to do so as the real Ambassadors for the Animals."

To find out more about the laws and how you can take action, go to www.Louisville-Pets.com - www.pet-law.com or www.naiaonline.org. The Animal Talk Naturally website will soon have form letters people can use to contact politicians at every level, pet product manufacturers and city officials as a means of letting them know that we are retaining our rights to our animals and not passing them into the hands of government and extremist animal fringe groups.

Contact: Kim Bloomer
Phone: 505.217.1815
www.AnimalTalkNaturally.com

Submitted by Ron Hevener's Publicist



What You Should Know About Dogs That Bite!


Author:Abigail Franks

Some dogs are prone to bite. At least, that's what many in the media would have your believe. The top 3 breeds that seem to not only get bad publicity but also are involved in biting are the Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and German Shepherd Dogs.

Now on the surface, this may seem to many to suggest that these three dog breeds are dangerous. At least, this is what the media would like you to believe. While there's no denying that these breeds have been known to bite, the sensationalism and hype by the media has sometimes generated almost hysteria like fervor in the general public against these breeds.

While the media prefers to focus on the fact that a dog has bitten someone, they neglect to develop other important aspects of a dog biting story. For example:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document that a chained dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog.

Or how about this:

25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs

At issue here is the knee-jerk cry from the politicians and some of the public that these dogs are well secured in their own yard. As you can see by the two facts above, this demand actually can INCREASE the risk of a dog bite.

The problem here is that politicians need to be viewed as "doing something" especially on those issues where the media has whipped up public hysteria. This isn't to say that a dog bite shouldn't be taken seriously. But doing something and doing the right thing are often times two different things.

At issue here is not a specific dog breed the owner who has neglected to properly or adequately socialize the animal. Lack of socialization can make a dog, fearful of new situations and exhibit aggressive behavior. Dogs that aren't socialized with children, will often see them as a threat. This helps explain why 79% of all dog bite related fatalities are children under the age of 12. Use the link below to get a free report on how to effectively crate train your pet

The Rottweiler and German Shepherd are large dogs that are used in many working situations. There's a reason why the majority of police officer K-9 units use German shepherds. This fact alone should indicate that biting is not a breed specific problem. You would also feel extraordinarily secure in the presence of a Rottweiler trained to the schutzhund 3 level of protection training.

Let's not condemn a breed of dog for the lack of proper training and etiquette They received from their owners. While the media may continue their hype, and politicians overreact, let's remember that many of our large dog breeds are a benefit to their owners and society.

About The Author: Abigail Franks and her family love dogs of all sizes. For more information on a great way to train your puppy or dog visit her sites

Article URL
Please usethe HTML version of this article



Australian Canine Eye Scheme (ACES)

Dear Fellow Dog Breeder,

I am writing to you regarding the Australian Canine Eye Scheme (ACES). You may be well aware of the Scheme and the petition which is addressed to the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC), the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) and the members of the Australian Canine Eye Scheme (ACES), to have ACES abolished. If you are that is great. I hope, that if you have reservations about this Scheme, you sign the petition. If you already have, thank you and let's hope something good comes of it.

The petition, including the argument against ACES, can be found at http://www.dogwebs.net/baqilodge/ACESdocs.asp

If you are not aware of ACES or do not know the implication of ACES please take the time to make yourself familiar with the documentation - even if your breed is not predisposed to genetic eye conditions. (A quote from Information for Owners document - "Breeders of pedigree litters in any breed are advised to have the eyes of all pups checked by an ACES Panellist before sale, to protect their interests under Consumer Protection law in the event of a buyer dispute").

The Australian Canine Eye Scheme (ACES) has been presented to breeders as a tool to deal with eye health problems in recognized dog breeds. The sentiments of ACES are those that are held by all respectable breeders in Australia. However the way ACES has been implemented, the implications for and the opportunity for restrictions against our breeding programs is extraordinary. The lack of accountability of the ACES and the perceived lack of faith in the skills of their own ophthalmologists is untenable. This Scheme also robs us of our rights and responsibilities while giving us nothing further (for a higher cost) to what we can already access.

The two following documents are essential reading; Information for Owners and the Rules and Procedures papers, which are at the AVA website: http://www.ava.com.au . Click on the Veterinary Information button on the left hand side of the page, open the Australian Canine Eye Scheme page and go to the very bottom of the page to where it says: Download Information for Owners and download AVA-ANKC-ACES Rules.

In essence there are three arguments at http://www.gopetition.com/online/11286.html or at http://www.dogwebs.net/baqilodge/ACESdocs.asp supported by considerable research and reference to primary source documents:

1) The reason why all breeders (and not just those whose breeds suffer from genetic eye conditions) should read these documents and get involved.

Breeders were not asked if they wanted ACES, it has been forced on them, and it sets a precedence for other schemes. Hips/elbows, heart testing have already been mentioned in the documentation.

2) Why this scheme (ACES) is not a good scheme for breeders.

· ACES does not present anything of value not already existing.
· Even though ACES is promoted as voluntary, there are at least four coercive elements that push breeders into using ACES.
· ACES accepts no accountability.

· There are many anomalies in Schedules 1 and 2 of the ACES >documentation.

· The Open/Closed Registers will create an underground resistance.

3) Why we do not need any scheme.

· Strangulation by Regulation.

· Peer and Consumer Pressure are far better solutions.

· Breeders (that's us) Lead the Research, which will be stifled with ACES in place.

· Breeders Should Have Full Rights and Full Responsibilities.

· Genetic Diversity is thwarted by naïve efforts at eliminating genes.

· Proteomics suggests that there are potentially worse effects from eliminating genes with unknown mechanisms.

· Precedents in countries already using similar systems show there is no overall improvement to the breeds.


There are many other more important issues that have not been discussed in the petition arguments that should be noted when the AVA documents are read - such as:

· All breeds are encouraged to test - even if they do not have hereditary eye conditions.

· frequency of testing (every year - eye certificates are only valid for 12 months)

· recourse and procedures for disputes or second opinions

· availability of examining panellists, limitation of regional and rural services, etc.

· litter registrations and privacy issues

· independent accreditation and monitoring of ACES

ACES has been implement through the AVA and the ANKC with basically no consultation with the breeder. This is worrying and all back to front. It is the breeders, through their Breed Clubs, who should be implementing schemes and determining how or indeed if they should be related to the registrations of their breeds. Not the AVA or the ANKC.

A quote from the Chief Panelist: "ACES IS a voluntary scheme, as it has to be as a scientifically based service offered to breeders on an entirely ELECTIVE basis. Membership of the ACES Panel is also voluntary, but for what I would have thought were obvious quality control reasons, every qualified eye specialist who seeks to be on the ACES Panel is required under the Rules to issue certificates ONLY on official ACES Certificates". It has been discovered that all ophthalmologists registered to operate in Tasmania, Victoria, SA, and NSW are members of ACES. So if breeders in these particular States listed above (and it could be the same for other States - I just don't know all the ophthalmologists in those States) does not wish to participate in the supposed voluntary Scheme then they do not have access to a registered ophthalmologist. So that will mean their TRUE options are: Eye testing through the Scheme or no testing at all.

A better alternative would be for breeders to have voluntary access to testing that has no links with the pedigree registration of the dogs - for example the CERF scheme and OFA schemes in America see: http://www.vmdb.org/cerf.html or the OFA http://www.offa.org

Thank you for your time. In fairness to all Australian Dog Breeders I am trying to make sure every one has knowledge of this Scheme (and the petition). Could you please help by passing this message to your mates?

Thanks again.

Mim Bester(Collies - Rough and Smooth)

PS. I am ALL FOR genetic testing - just not though a Scheme that is riddled with problems.

15th March 2007