Trailed By20hounds

Once there was a time

2012-01-16T13:42:00.000-08:00

When your down and feeling blue there's no better medicine than a smile. That's why I love the hounds - you can't be feeling sorry when their whimsical ways makes you laugh.

Keep looking forward, forget the past, it's up to me to make me laugh.

Once there was a time when things weren't quite so blue, we'll just keep looking forward to days anew.

An adaptation of Alvin Lee's song

"Once there was a time".

Once there was a time I'd rob my mama
For a good meal and a smoke
Once there was a time I'd sell my brother
For a dollar when I was broke

But I'd never sell my hound dogs
And things were always great
'Cause if I don't have a hound dog
I'll be strumming on some angels harp
And if I don't get to heaven
And I go down there below
Better be a hound dog when I get there
Or, I will refuse to go
Once there was a time I was hungry
And I'd find my food in some bin
But I'd never, never sell my hound dogs
'Cause that would, darling, be my sin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmlnx2KmjFE

Agnes surviving MDAS "Ten Years After"

2012-01-15T17:12:00.000-08:00

Strike Force prepares for mission "Save Agnes"

It was ten years ago that we loaded up the "Deadmobile" Emergency Strike Force for a journey to south Florida to extricate and rescue our girl Agnes from MDAS. Gilmour wasn't able to make the journey as he was still recovery from his injuries he sustained at MDAS.

For those who think MDAS kill rate is high now ten years ago over 80% of the animals that entered MDAS never emerged. Many were simply left in their cages until they died horribly slow deaths from the diseases in the West Wing.

Agnes and Gilmour both MDAS Survivors

We made it to the shelter early the following morning and I went swiftly to the counter and "adopted" Agnes, even though she looked deathly ill. With her safely on board we turned our transport vehicle around and started back to Atlanta> I soon became concerned that perhaps Agnes wasn't strong enough to make the ten hour journey so we pulled up in Punta Gorda so I clean an open pussy head wound she had and to check her out.

We left early in the morning heading for home. I remember passing through Tampa when an officer who identified himself with the Miami Dade Police Department called and informed me the address on my Florida's license was a warehouse and MDAS policy "forbade" to commercial addresses. I informed the officer that I lived in the Atlanta area and that was also going to be where Agnes would reside as well.

Agnes with her please let me kiss you eyes

He then informed me that adopting dogs out of state was also forbidden and then proceeded to order me to return Agnes to MDAS. I informed him that I had no intention of turning around and my next stop was to take Agnes to MY vet for treatment. I was then informed I would be banned from ever "adopting" from the shelter and cited for violating some law. I probably can’t repeat what my response to his comment was and proceeded on home.

The following day I took Agnes to my vet where she was observed to have a two inch head wound that was infected and was suffering from severe whipworms which my vet suggested would have killed her in a few short days. I told him about my conversation with Officer Killhappy and he said not to worry about it and that he would fax this guy his comments. I’m not entirely sure what was in that fax but I never received a citation in the mail.

We have been blessed with having Agnes as part of our crew for ten years now. Around here she’s also known as the "Mad Kisser" for her habit of planting wet sloppy kisses on whoever she meets. Here’s to Agnes "ten years after".

Cruise

2011-08-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

Cruise

Cruise you are making me sing

Now you have taken me under your wing
Cruise, we both know you're the best
How can they say you're like all the rest

Cruise, we're both travelling so far
Burning out fast like a shooting star
Cruise I feel sure that your song will be sung
And will ring in the ears of everyone

Saving our children, saving our land
Protecting us from things we can't understand
Power and Glory, Justice and Right
I'm sure that you'll help us to see the light

And the love that you radiate will keep us warm
And help us to weather the storm

Cruise, you have taken me in
And just when I've got you under my skin
You start ignoring the fears I have felt
'Cause you know you can always make my poor heart melt

Please don't take what I'm saying amiss
Or misunderstand at a time such as this
Because if such close friends should ever fall out
What would there be left worth fighting about

Power and glory, justice and right
I'm sure that you'll help them to see the light
Will you save our children, will you save our land
And protect us from all the things we can't understand?

Power and glory and justice for all
Who will we turn to when your hard rain falls?

David Gilmour - Cruise

A Georgia Tale - The Fallacy of "Fates worse then death"

2011-06-21T09:06:00.000-07:00

It's the memories of success that we will forever remember, it's the nightmares of failure we can never forget.

Once you've worn out pairs of rescue shoes it's easy to be jaded by all the horrible cases of rescue failures that you stumbled over along the road. It's easy to forget that dogs add so many cherished memories to our lives. It's easy to overlook the effect how these cherished moments have helped build and define our character. We've been exposed to the worst of what mankind has to offer with our experiences with shelter dogs. How could we expect anything different emotionally to evolve from that?

But have we lost the ability to step back and see the lighter side that dogs bring to our lives. Why do these same creatures who have endured this abuse not be symptomatic with the same emotional shortsightedness?

Could it be that dogs simply gravitate back to a true purpose in life - that purpose being to celebrate living rather then festering on dying? Dogs who have endured suffering far greater then we humans can tolerate quickly seek out healthy alternatives - dogs just want to run and play - they want to be able to sniff things - they treasure the soft touch human words of praise. For dogs life is about living, even if that living means moving on from the past. Dogs don't want us too feel sorry for them either - they want us too love them unconditionally in the same way they love us humans unconditionally.

When I was still green in rescue - still wearing those same shiny new shoes I didn't understand the significance in restoring not only a dogs trust with humans but more importantly restoring a dogs purpose in being a dog. That purpose is found in running in circles barking at squirrels, it's in finding new curiosity in chewing newly found shoes, it's in simply getting their little heads rubbed. If we humans can't restore those life values too our rescues then we truly have failed.

A Georgia Tale

Camilla - Elbert Animal Control "mug shot"

In January of 2007 I was asked to take in a beagle named Camilla from Northeast Georgia Animal Shelter. No one else wanted her. Her family who dumped her at a rural high kill shelter didn't want her. No one from the community wanted to adopt her. No one in the rescue community wanted her either. In fairness, Camilla was in horrible physical condition.

I looked at her picture for days. Kept telling myself "you can't save them all" but I don't think I did a very good job selling that argument. In the end it kept coming back to one person in the background caring enough to hold Camilla out with those eyes that screamed "why not me?"

Camilla was about five plus years old and was suffering from a severe skin condition. She was missing half her hair with huge raw red skin under her neck. One would assume that if rescue was about saving dogs from a "Fate Far Worse Than Death" the logical disposition for Camilla would be a humane ending to life as she knew it.

Still, I was haunted by those wide starring eyes. As my finger started zeroing in on the delete key I slowly paused. Rather then make this judgment call myself I decided to let Camilla make that choice. Instead my fingers quickly dialed the number of a rescue friend who sent me her story and I told her to "go pick her up".

Camilla's skin condition didn't seem to respond to the many treatments we tried. Her vet bills quickly climbed into four digits with little to show for our efforts. We tried skin specialists looking for allergies, we treated every parasite known to man - yet the only thing that seemed to blossom from it all was Camilla's amazing resilient spirit. Too a causal observer, Camilla seemed to be just another extremely curious and happy beagle.

She loved running through the yard sniffing everything along the way with her tail flipping side to side in the wind. I started taking Camilla to adoptions not to necessarily find someone too adopt her but too show people the horrible results of neglecting an animal. Camilla's special diet, special meds, vet visits ect made this sweet girl extremely "high maintenance" that virtually excluded most potential pet owners who weren't looking for a project but simply wanted a family pet.

Still, I fell for Camilla's "charms" realizing that quite possibly Camilla had found her forever home.

January 2007 marked another significant event for the hounds. It began what would be a highly contentious battle with our county government and animal control seeking to lower the number of hounds residing at my residence. While in it's original "plea offering" the county insisted on my surrendering all but three of my hounds which I refused, the county attempted to "sweeten the deal" by offering to "allow" me to keep the original fifteen hounds I had before I started doing rescue.

Once that offer was on the table I gave some consideration to the proposal. It's also interesting in the fact that I had been advised by an "unnamed source" who worked inside our county's "justice" circle that if my case went to trail I would be found guilty and have all my hounds removed.

Threats and intimidation never have worked with me. Having to choose just three of the hounds when I knew I had eight, writing about about the rest for years would have been an impossible choice to make. While this new offer would spare me those difficult choices of which hound was "good enough" to save and which I should just say "oh well", those considerations quickly became obscure when my thoughts went back to Camilla and the rest of our foster dogs. When our famed "animal rights attorney pressed me for a response too her "extremely generous offer" I replied with the following comment:

"Allison, what part of advocating for sentinel creatures allows me to take beagles who are sleeping around my bed and send them to our shelter where the county will kill them. The number of dogs I will agree to "dump" in order to save myself from your threats of twelve years in jail is ZERO. If the county wants an alley fight on this issue you will be surprised as too who ultimately gets bloodied up." With that statement I launched into an all out battle to save not just some of the hounds but all of them.

As our case made it's way through the media, bobbed it's way through the court system I made sure each step in the process was a painful embarrassment to the county. I may know little about spelling but what I do know is human nature. I knew the public would not support killing dogs simply because they were accused of violating a poorly written draconian dog barking law.

In the trial, we were found guilty - just like my source had predicted. But in her court ruling the judge refused too consider including putting a limit number on the number of hounds I was allowed to keep. While I was sentenced to 24 months in jail and allowed to serve that time on probation the hounds were finally safe.

Despite Camilla's suffering she could care less about the court ruling. Life returned to normal, her tail never seemed to stop wagging and she still ignored my every command. While we never gave up on finding a cure for her illness her treatment plan focused on preventing her condition from getting worse.

Camilla had good weeks and she had not so good weeks as well. Through it all I became tremendously attached to this little girl and by the summer of 2008 considered Camilla as one of my own.

Destiny sings a different song

A life Far Better then Death Georgia and her new mom

During an adoption event a little more then six weeks after our trial a woman approached the cages where the beagles were, asking "that beagle was still available." I looked over and saw little Camilla hopping on her back feet trying to get this woman to pet her raw skin. I started too explain all of Camilla's health issues and suggested some of the other beagles might be a better choice when she abruptly cut me off by saying "I'm not interested in the other beagles - this one is talking too me. I want to see THAT beagle"

Low and behold Camilla was speaking to her, wagging her tail and working real hard to get her attention. After a lengthy discussion about Camilla's health issues she was adopted.

From time to time over the next few months I would see Camilla on her trips to Petsmart. You really couldn't tell who was happier, Camilla or her new proud mom. But what you could see was a gradual improvement in Camilla's overall health. Six months and over $1,200 in vet bills later Camilla is no longer Camilla in name or body. Her new name is Georgia and she has completely recovered from her illness.

Georgia - Mission Accomplished

Georgia has a beautiful beagle coat, has added six pounds to her once skinny frame and serves as a perfect example why we shouldn't be so quick to judge whether there ever is a fate far better then death. Certainly you would have a difficult time convincing Georgia or her mom of this ridiculous assumption.

A Life Far Better then Death - Georgia and her new
mom

Walk into splintered sunlight

2011-06-18T06:11:00.000-07:00

Walk into splintered sunlight

Inch your way through dead dreams
to another land

Maybe you're tired and broken
Your tongue is twisted
with words half spoken
and thoughts unclear

What do you want me to do
to do for you to see you through

Just remember, a box of rain will ease the pain
and love will see you through

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JlnI1Xgn-o&feature=player_embedded

Casey's Special Day

2011-05-08T09:45:00.000-07:00

Casey - April 2011

Today's a special day for our Casey Boy. It was nine years ago that Casey was adopted from the Spalding Shelter. The old saying that "it was destiny which brought us together" applies to how Casey and I met.

I had made the long drive to Spalding's infamous "gassing" shelter after reading a post about a basset girl who "would only be available until May 9th - 4:30 PM. I always despised the shelters "signature line" because I knew what it meant was that at 4:31 PM the doors to the shelter would be locked and any of the pets left standing would be loaded up into the shelter's "home made" gas chamber and killed.

How could anyone not love such a sweet boy?

I arrived at the shelter about an hour early after learning my lesson when I adopted our beagle "Annie". Not knowing the shelter's policy on "promptness" I almost didn't make it after getting stuck in Atlanta's infamous traffic.

Upon arriving I was informed that the fine people at Basset Hound Rescue of Georgia has beat me there and snatched the girl basset. With a sigh of relief I did ask if they had any beagles who I could adopt instead, after all 150 mile round trip was along way to drive for nothing. Little Annie (who ultimately earned the nick-name Beagle) had so won my heart I thought well why not another beagle? As usual, the reply came back "go look for yourself".

Casey before his surgery

Wandering towards the back of the kennel I noticed a small chocolate looking beagle. Even though his card listed this as being his "last day" he wasn't on the urgent list I had brought so once again I headed back to the office to "get his story".

As I ask why the brown beagle wasn't on the "urgent list" the response of "well, nobody would want a one-eyed beagle" I snidely remarked back "well, I guess your wrong there, because that's just what I was looking for a good one-eyed beagle" to adopt. Here's your twenty bucks - what paperwork do i need to sign?"

After a quick ceremony where I named my new beagle "Casey Jones" he was leashed up and out of there we went. I hadn't really noticed his eye until I got him in the truck and we were headed for home. It was obvious that he had an eye injury that needed addressed so I quickly called the hounds vet (who somehow was on speed dial) to see if Dr Yeomans could squeeze us in.

Nurse Zoe keeps a close eye on Casey

Casey was diagnosed with a collapsed right eye probably caused by blunt force trauma. Dr Youmans suggested it was probably causing him considerable pain. Casey was scheduled for surgery the next morning to remove his eye.

His surgery was a complete success - so now I had that $500 one eyed beagle that I "was looking for".

Casey was probably only several months old when he somehow found himself in a gassing shelter. Since I can't imagine any responsible person not taking an obviously injured beagle to the vet for treatment I can only assume that Casey was the victim of domestic violence where after the "warring" humans make up he became a reminder of someones darker side. Doesn't matter - their loss and my gain.

Casey - October 2002

Casey's been a wonderfully sweet beagle boy. He was never made available for adoption - after all he was bestowed with a great "dead head" name that I certainly wouldn't "waste" on a beagle I was re homing. I did take Casey to adoptions quite frequently so that others could see what a "fine one eyed beagle" I had found.

It's hard to believe that nine years have gone by so quickly. Casey's close to ten years old now and over the years his name has shifted to Casey BOY - after all, he's still my boy.

Here's too you Casey Boy - on your special day!

Zoe Monster - Has anyone seen my momma?

2011-04-20T01:57:00.000-07:00

Zoe as a young puppy

It's hard to believe a year has passed since helping our Zoe Monster cross the bridge. Her, Maggie and Bam Bam are all together again along with the other hounds who have passed. Slowly the heartache of losing Zoe has been replaced with the thousands of memories of our time spent together.

Zoe was born at a puppy mill in Oklahoma. As a small puppy she was ripped from her mother's care and transported thousands of miles across country where she ended up in a south Florida pet store. A nice family bought Zoe as a puppy only to realize caring for four small children along with a rambuncious puppy was more then they bargained for. That's where Maggie and I found Zoe.

Meeting dem cows

With all these memories it would be impossible not to think about my Zoe. She touched my heart in so many ways that she will always be a part of me I will never forget. Slowly, the tears and sadness were replaced with a smile that reflects the love we shared.

I always knew I did good for Zoe but I still hope her last few hours weren't ones of suffering for her. Zoe truly deserved my love as she brought about an inner peace that I can never thank her enough for.

While we don't really know what happens to our pets after they pass from our hands it is my hope for Zoe that she is back with her momma as well.

Zoe had a blessed life living with the hounds and me. Our time spent traveling with Maggie and then Cleo where the happiest time of my life. While she always had a comfortable place to sleep, was surrounded with the love from the hounds and I, Zoe's momma was not so blessed. I've often thought about the contradictions of life that had Zoe sleeping on my warm bed while her mother slept in a small cage for probably her entire life.

Zoe overlooking the Klamath River

While Zoe loved the attention and the belly rubs that came with being a cherished pet, Zoe's mom only knew the role she played as someones breeding stock. Zoe enjoyed life to the fullest - Zoe's momma was deprived of the chance of simply being someones devoted pet - someones best friend. While Zoe slept on a warm blanket did Zoe's momma sleep on a wood floor or wire mess? While Zoe always had the best of food - the best of vet care - did Zoe's momma even know there were people who cared?

While Zoe's eyes would light up when she saw a small child did Zoe's momma ever get the chance to play with a child?

To many leaders in our No Kill movement the cruelty that puppy mills represent is taking a back seat as they stumble through excuses on how puppy mills don't contribute to the regional pet overpopulation issues that continue to haunt our public shelters.

Even more offensive is the posturing that these leaders are taking, willing to "compromise" with those groups like MoFed and the NAIA who have spent years defending irresponsible breeders like the one who "owned" Zoe's momma.

Maggie and Zoe - match made in heaven

I can't accept this rationalization with breeder interests I despise in order to hitch my wagon to this new fang led No Kill Nation movement. It is in Zoe's honor and the memory of Zoe's momma that I will recommit myself to opposing puppy mills and the cruelty and misery they breed by refocusing my efforts to educate others on the politics and political deal that brushes aside puppy mill cruelty in order to justify this new fang led movement.

Sweet dreams till we meet agian

Sacrificing my principles while chasing a No Kill dream that is full of smoke and mirrors is not a road I will travel.

Instead my voice will be reserved for speaking out against irresponsible breeders who want us to look the other way while they continue to use and abuse the innocent victims of puppy mill abuse that deny hope for Zoe's momma.

That's the least I can do for my Zoe Monster. Rest in peace my sweet girl.

Memory's from the vault - my love on the air

2011-04-18T17:36:00.000-07:00

Two of our treasured Miami Dade survivors - Sydney and Agnes

Sydney a few months out of MDAS

No one will hurt me again
No one will cause me to lie
No one will control me by pain
No one will cause me to cry

I was looking for love
In wandering eyes
Like a ship trying to fix on a beacon
I learned how to sigh

Sydney Barrett

On the ribbon and wires
It's a habit that's so hard to weaken

No one will ever manipulate
Make me promise to do or die
No one can make me hesitate
What can I lose if they try

I was looking for love
Like the very first time
Didn't realise love never left me
Contradicted - conspired

Agnes a few weeks out of MDAS

I connived and designed
Nothing on earth could arrest me.
Reception is hazy
When you put your love on the air

Our Agnes

Always knew it was crazy
To put my love on the air
But I only communicate
When I put my love on the air

You don't have to consummate
Love on the air

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/d/david_gilmour/love_on_the_air.html

All I see are dark eyes

2011-04-17T08:24:00.000-07:00

Oh, the gentlemen are talking and the midnight moon is on the riverside
They're drinking up and walking and it is time for me to slide
I live in another world where life and death are memorized
Where the earth is strung with lover's pearls and all I see are dark eyes.

A cock is crowing far away and another soldier's deep in prayer
Some mother's child has gone astray, she can't find him anywhere
But I can hear another drum beating for the dead that rise
Whom nature's beast fears as they come and all I see are dark eyes.

They tell me to be discreet for all intended purposes
They tell me revenge is sweet and from where they stand, I'm sure it is
But I feel nothing for their game, where beauty goes unrecognized
All I feel is heat and flame, and all I see are dark eyes.

Oh, the French girl, she's in paradise and a drunken man is at the wheel
Hunger pays a heavy prize to the falling gods of speed and steel
Oh, time is short and the days are sweet and passion rules the arrow that flies
A million faces at my feet but all I see are dark eyes.

Bob Dylan - Dark Eyes

Mulligan's journey's cross the bridge

2011-03-09T09:35:00.000-08:00

This morning I sat with Mulligan stroking his head as he passed on to the bridge. Over the past few days his condition went down hill as he once again lost the use of his hind legs. Making this decision is the hardest one a person can make, but ultimately giving Mulligan the gift of ending his suffering is what makes our bond so sacred.

I first saw Mulligan at the Walton County Shelter - he had no use of his hind legs and for all practical sense little chance of surviving his stay. I pulled him not to save him but to at least give him the dignity of being put to sleep with someone who cared. Despite being told by three vet's that euthanasia was our only option Mulligan proved an entirely different future was ahead of him.

While I wanted to give Mulligan every opportunity to fight on I was never going to allow him to suffer. While I will mourn his loss I will forever remember the feeling of great accomplishment when Mulligan took his first steps, the laughter he brought as he chased his poor beaten stuffed bunny around the room, the moans he used to let out when he didn't want to do his physical therapy and the look he would give me letting me know how much he appreciated everything we had been though.

In better days with his pal Toby

True to his couraqgeous nature Mulligan fought this illness with determination as well. Now he is free to prance and run - and join the other hounds who passed before him. Rest in peace dear friend.

Saving Simone

2011-01-14T13:59:00.000-08:00

Simone

The recent passing of Michael Ethier was a shock to the local beagle rescue community. Michael shared a passion for beagles and was avid at making sure none were killed "on his watch".

A few years back I adopted a sweet beagle named Simone to Michael after he fell for her sweet beagle charm. Now with Michael's passing it has come to my attention that Simone and four of Michael's other beagles have been being kenneled since his death.

I have always believed that once you commit to rescuing a shelter dog you make a lifetime commitment making sure that dog is safe. Tomorrow we go pick up Simone - she will come back here and join us as one of the pack.

Through the years Michael assisted - was responsible for saving hundreds and hundreds of death row beagles from Georgia shelters. It would be simply tragic and heartwrenching if ANY of his personal companions ended up in a shelter because he couldn't save them.

It's equally tragic that his hounds are probably desparately looking for their Michael - who will not return. Dogs don't know about separation - they don't understand death - all they understand and expect is their master being their to comfort them - feed them and keep them safe. His hounds must be suffering dearly with his loss.

WE, the rescue community need to save Michael's hounds. We need to do this not only as a tribute to Michael - but also because it is the right thing to do. Michael's hounds - Simone - Lani - Towne - Rosie and Freckles deserve better.

Here's the rest of Michael's hounds

Lani was rescued from Douglas County Animal Control about four years ago. Lani is up-to-date on vaccinations, HW negative, and will come with clean teeth, as the veterinarian who is boarding her will clean her teeth prior to adoption.

Two years ago Lani had become paralyzed in her rear end, unable to walk and unable to get around without pulling herself around by her front legs.

Throughout Lani's ordeal, Michael doted on her, carrying her around and even building her a cart so she could walk on her own. Little by little, Lani improved, but it was slow. Then, at about the six months mark, Michael took her to the Blessing of the Animals at his church, and it was right after that that Michael put the cart away; Lani had begun walking around as if she had never been disabled. Michael, being a spiritual person, always believed it was time and prayers that made Lani well. Other's might suggest God worked his miracles through Michael's hands and heart - we'll never know - but what is known is Lani must be missing her Michael just terrible.

Can someone please step up and take this girl in?

Townes - Call me handsome -

Michael rescued Towne's mother, Paisley, who was pregnant, from one of the local animal control facilities. Soon after her rescue, Paisley delivered Townes and his six brothers. Michael kept Townes, who is named after one of Michael's favorite musicians, and found homes for the other five puppies (one died shortly after birth). Paisley passed away a few years ago.

Sweet Rosie

Micael took in Rosie a couple of years back after she was found by a rescue group in the Dahlonega area and running down the road. Since then she's known nothing but Michael's love and care.
Rosie needs a warm place to rest her head. She is house trained, UTD on her shots, H/W negative and super sweet. Please help this girl out.

Not much is known about Freckles except that Michael loved him dearly too. He is neutered, UTD on all his shots, house trained and desparately needs
someone to fill the void Michael's passing has left.

Dr. Laura Alston, has physical custody of Michael's beagles, and has asked for help in finding homes for them. If you are interested or know of anyone who is interested in adopting one of the beagles, please contact Dr. Alston at vetdrlta@bellsouth.net. Dr. Alston has two veterinary clinics. One is South Hall Veterinary Hospital, 3640 Mundy Mill Rd, Suite 178 Gainesville GA. 30504 Tel: (770) 532-4449; Fax: (770) 535-2773; the other is Ark Veterinary Hospital in Buford. The beagles are going to be listed individually on Petfinder, and Dr. Alston and Nancy will be screening potential adopters.

Permission to share or crosspost

Closing my eyes with sweet memories of you

2011-01-05T07:06:00.000-08:00

Now it's the same as before
and I'm alone again

With no sorrow for myself

and blaming no one else

Closing my eyes
you standing there

Now it's the same as before
You've touched me with your love

Though you're in my heart
We're still a world apart

You call this a happy meal?

Back to the time
searching for a dream

No use to try anymore as before
someday I'll die, and maybe then I'll be with you

Closing my eyes
to hear people laugh
they're all alone
not knowing
where to go

Is it asking too much
When the question is what to do
with the life I have
It seems I know nothing now
except my love for you

With the strength in my hands

to go on feeling your smile

A hero's passing - rest in peace my dear friend

2010-12-18T06:36:00.000-08:00

It is with great sadness I learned of the passing of fellow animal advocate, rescuer and friend Marjorie Banks. Marj was a pillar of strength in the rescue community who will be sorely missed. True to her passion Marj's voice for homeless pets remained vocal right up to her last breathe. Rest in peace my dear friend - you are the best.

"God saw u getting tired and a cure was not to be. So he put his arms around u & whispered come with me. With tearful eyes, we watched and saw u pass away. Although we love u dearly, we could not make u stay. A golden heart stopped beating, hard working hands at rest.. God broke our hearts to prove to us, He only takes the best"

Hey you, can you help me carry the stone?

2010-12-16T17:22:00.000-08:00

Hey you, out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old
Can you feel me?
Hey you, standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles
Can you feel me?

Hey you, dont help them to bury the light
Don't give in without a fight.

Hey you, out there on your own
Sitting naked by the phone
Would you touch me?
Hey you, with you ear against the wall
Waiting for someone to call out
Would you touch me?

Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.

But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high,
As you can see.
No matter how he tried,
He could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.

Hey you, out there on the road
always doing what you're told,
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?

Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.

Join in our discussion
No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook

Whiter Shade of Pale

2010-12-13T19:43:00.000-08:00

Zoe Monster & Bam Bam

We skipped the light fandango
turned cartwheels cross the sky

I was feeling kinda seasick
but the crowd called out for more
the room was humming harder
as the ceiling flew away

Jethro

So it was said later
as the mirror told it's tale

That his face, at first just ghostly,
turned a whiter shade of pale

There is no reason
and the truth is plain to see
I wandered through my playing cards

Maggie Dawg

as the mirror told his tale
that her face, at first just ghostly,
turned a whiter shade of pale
and would not let her be

although my eyes were open
they might have just as well've been closed

Ellie Mae

And so it was that later
as the mirror told it's tale
that her face, at first just ghostly,
turned a whiter shade of pale

Rest in Peace my sweet friends - you left your mark deep inside my heart with a whiter shade of pale.

Http://by20hounds.blogspot.com/

Mulligan's Travels

2010-12-07T09:11:00.000-08:00

A very sad and painful Mulligan

Today is a day of celebration for our Mulligan. It was four years ago that we "adopted" Mulligan from the Walton County Shelter. Mulligan's determination to survive was a journey full of ruts and misery. His journey started as he dragged his crippled body down a lonely deserted road in rural county.

I stumbled on Mulligan when visiting the shelter to pick up a beagle. Since he was picked up as a stray the shelter was required to hold him the standard period. Otherwise, he would have been euthanized to end his suffering. Since the shelter wouldn't release him early in case "his owner showed up to reclaim him" all I could do was put a hold on him and wait.

Not everyone agreed that rescue was an option for this boy. Obviously, adopting out a crippled dog would be "complicated" but adoption was the furthest thing on my mind as I made that choice. My intention was to see if I could help this poor dog and if not at least offer him the dignity of being there while he drifted away.

I named him Mulligan because after all he had been through he deserved a "second shot". Once we got Mulligan home I took him to three vets for an evaluation. All three reached the same conclusion - he would never walk again, he was suffering and the only option was to end that suffering.

As I pondered my dwindling options I wrote a story about Mulligan's woeful story and an angel appeared. A complete stranger located thousands of miles away offered to pay for an examination and any treatment at the Universitry of Georgia to see what options we might still have.

With that Mulligan and I began our travels to seek out help. Everyone at the teaching hospital fell in love with Mulligan. Our options were limited with the only possible solution coming from performing an MRI and if the problem could be located to immediately operate to repair his damaged disk. During his exam Mulloiagn was non-ambulatory, had a body condition score of 1/5 (quite thin) with numerous open wounds resulting from dragging his hind-quarters. He had severe muscle atrophy on his rear muscles related to the paralysis. To add to his troubles Mulligan was also heartworm positive.

With little or no rear limbs and tail (which were present during his initail exam) the decision was made to proceed immediately with the MRI. Still, since there wasn't any medical information on how long Mulligan had been "down" his prognosis still remained guarded. Mulligan's MRI was done on December 20th, only a few short days before Christmas. I went home and prayed for a Christmas miracle.

Mulligan's myelogram revealed a compressed lesion to the spinal cord. Holes were drilled in his spinal cord to allow the swelling to decompress. With all the discouraging news I had recieved this seemed to be the glimmer of hope for Mulligan's recovery. After all, even if he couldn't walk if he wasn't in pain we could deal with that.

The numerous notes on Mulligan's prognosis and aftercare we marked with one final comment from staff - it read "Mulligan is a such a sweet dog. Thank you for entrusting us with his care. This sweet boy had one the hearts of everyone he met.

They told me Mulligan would be at the hospital for several days and we wouldn't really know much till then. I joined a support group called DisabledDogs on yahoo and started researching everything I needed to know about owning a crippled dog and I waited. Visiting Mulligan the next day raised my spirits. He came through the surgery and was happy to see a familar face. Now, all we had to do was wait.

I would drive that 50 mile trip to visit Mulligan every morning. On the third day - just two days before Christmas we got the greatest present ever - Mulligan was coming home.

I'll always remember that holiday season as being special. Our boy survived and his future was now in my hands. The doctor who tended Mulligan gave me instructions on doing a physical therapy session on Mulligan that involved moving both of Mulligan's rear legs in a bicycle motion. We had to do this twice a day for fifteen minutes. Mulligan hated his therapy - he would scoot his body away every time in an effort to escape.

Meanwhile, his life was started to be more normal as we outfitted him with a cart and his wagon. After initailly resisting his cart he quickly became a zoom racer which seemed to pick up his spirits. He was able to be a dog again even following the other hounds around the yard. The cart also returned his dignity in that he was no longer having to deficate on himself. With all the extra care Mulligan need we became REALLY close.

Mulligan in his wagon

Mulligan had stumbled on the one person he could finally trust. I found a hound with a huge heart who seemed willing to forget his horrible travels.

It would be several weeks and there was little change. Each morning I would wheel his cart up to his cage and ask him if he wanted to go out. He usually respnded by scooting over to his cart and off we would go. This morning would be different. Mulligan looked at me with agleam in his eye and walked right past me to the door. I looked, shocked by what I had seen and told him "well, I guess we don't need this anymore" - his miracle was complete.

Over the years, Mulligan has developed into a delightful hound. His favorite past time was "hunting down and killing" his stuffed bunny. He was so funny, he would drag his bunny everywhere only to drop it on the floor and start barking at it. It was a joy to see a dog who had suffered through so much sudden;y become so well adjusted.

Mulligan and his buddy Toby

Mulligan in fairly good health considering where he came from. He is about eight to ten years old now anbd has survived his surgery and heartworm treatment. Earlier this spring he went down a second time. Out came the cart as we tried once again to work through this issue. Since I had already decided to keep Mulligan whether he was able to walk or not this time his illness wasn't as devastating.

Mulligan was given steroid injections in an attempt to reduce this swelling on his spinal cord. A few days later he started walking again. He seemed to have dodged another bullet and went back to his normal activities. A few weeks ago I noticed he seemed to be more sensative on his hind quarters again raising more concerns. On Saturday his condition worsened once again, he stopped using one of his hind legs and was walking on only three legs. I gave his a cocktail of predisone, baby aspirin and pain killer in an attempt to slow down any infection he might have. Twenty four hours later he was back to walking on all fours again.

While the future for Mulligan is complicated by his poor geneitcs we have learned to take each day one at a time. I'll be taking him back to the U of G soon for a follow up exam to see what type of medications, diet or other supplements might provide us the bext possible outcome.

Life will give you trials that only make you stronger. Mulligan has provided me with an insight on never giving up even when facing tremendous hurdles. I wouldn't trade those experiences for all ther riches in the world - we have our miracle boy and today's his day.

Memories of a Friend

2010-11-25T21:02:00.000-08:00

As we look back on the year we are thankful most of the hounds lived through the abyss. This was supposed to be the opening of another holiday of good cheer.

I met Bam Bam on what was supposed to be a routine trip to Chattanooga to pick up a basset sitting on doggie death row. This would have been our eighth holiday season together. Instead of cherished time together we are left with nothing but the fond but distant memories of days past.

Bam Bam had been dumped at the shelter after surviving a litter of puppies where only one pup lived. That pup got snatched up by rescue but Bam Bam was left behind. Not that she was the picture of health - in her skinny weakened state with gobs of hair loss - she looked a mess.

Once knew a man
Been everywhere in the world
Gave me a tiny glass ball
Said it would do me good
Never believed it would until
We met in the dark and cold

Old man - he'd seen most everything
Gave me a piece of good advise
Said you would do me well
I couldn't really tell until
For years I've been loving you

Now it seems things were not so strange
I can see more clearly
Suddenly not killing I found my way
I know the old man would laugh
He spoke of life's sweeter days
And in his eloquent way
I think he was speaking of you
You were so loyal
You didn't have to say a thing

But I remember that old man
Telling me I had seen the light
Gave me a small paper book
Insisted he was right
I only heard him slightly
'til I heard you whisper
Took you in my arms

Dear old man
Wise old man
Fine old man, now

Sitting on the hillside
Watching all the dogs and cats die
I'll feel much better on the other side

Life goes on here day after day
Now that you are gone
Sometimes I don't know if this is
living the way I'm supposed to be
Sometimes life is so eerie

Been here once
Been here twice
Don't know if the third's the fourth or
The fifth's the fix
Sometimes I deal with numbers
But if you want to count me count me out.

I won't forget
All the times I've waited patiently for you
Yet tonight alone again I'll wait

I remember when you used to look so good
We did everything we possibly could
Riding all over town
You can go ahead if you want
Hateful people put you down for being around
We were just walking through life hand in hand
I was thinking of you but
They were thinking of another plan.

When I saw the way it was and where I was supposed to be
I was twitching so I turned and saw a vision to hard to learn

That everyone I saw just another part of the plan
But, you can go ahead if you want to
'cause nobody's got no papers on you.

Your parting sends shockwaves down my spine
When the iceman sees his ice is melting
Won't be there on time
Hope they find a rhyme
For their little minds

Served my time
Served it well
Your death rocked my world
Tore holes through my heart
Write the rules in the sky
But ask your leaders

Why?

Day after day, night after night
What is happening and have you been alright?
Got to go but will see you again.
Thankful memories of you
My dearly departed friend.

A special day for our special Beagle girl

2010-11-18T05:22:00.000-08:00

Beagle's Shelter Mug Shot

Today we celebrate our litlle "Beagle's" gotcha day. It was nine years ago that we raced time to hurry down to the Spalding GA "gassing" shelter to rescue a poor scared beagle that dozens of advocates had sent to me. At the time Spalding used to post the urgents with a troublesome line that included "this dog will be available until 4:30 PM......meaning at 4:31 the dog would be loaded into Spalding's "Gas Chamber" and killed.

We almost didn't make it - a traffic wreck on the interstate could have easily lead to "Beagle's" demise. After pulling in with only minutes to spare I paid the twenty dollar adoption fee and headed back to find my dog. What I saw was a terrified little beagle girl who drove her nails into the cement as I hoioked up her lead. Her kennel cage was within seeing distance of "Ole Smokey" and I do believe that Beagle thought I was there to drag her into the chamber like so many that went before and never came out.

Beagle in 2001

Beagles have that highly sensitive nose which could sense the smell of death that drifts through the air every night at killing time. After struggling with a determined girl who wasn't going down without a fight I finally was able to load her into my truck - she threw up the whole way home.

I had never intended to keep Beagle - after all, she wasn't a basset. I started calling her "Beagle" so as not to get attached. Beagle had other ideas - after all, she's still here. Through the years she has always been a bit on the skittish side with strangers - even been known to take a nip at someone's ankle if they got too close but she has also developed into the sweetest friend one could ever have.

Beagle has her routines but the funniest is her bedtime routine. Every night she insists on crawling into bed to get her neck scratched - give her daddy a kiss and wander off to the end of the bed to sleep. Her world is safe. Since Beagle really didn't do well when I wasn't around I started taking her with me everywhere I went. This extra attentionj has paid off with a very well rounded personaility she has developed. While she now tolerates other people she still loves her daddy best.

Home at Last - Home for good

It's hard to imagine my little beagle girl is now approaching ten years of age. She is the one who got me started in beagle rescue. It was her survival that gave me reason to oppose the use of gassing for any shelter animal as cruel and unusual punishment for dogs who were guilty of nothing except the misfortune of having an irresponsible owner who dumped them in a gassing shelter.

Not to say that Beagle's "rescue" wasn't without challenges. All of life's true rewards come through our tenacity to struggle and overcome. It would take six months before little Beagle figured out the housetraining thing. For years she's been an "ankle biter" whenever faced with strangers she didn't trust. Patience has paid off through the years and Beagle has adjusted to all the confident beagle thjat she was supposed to be. Today's her day = Happy Gotcha Day my little Beagle friend.

Am I Too Young at Heart

2010-09-01T21:57:00.000-07:00

Now you wanna know the reason
Why I’m finished with you?
Well I had to be a hunter again.
To make life feel new again.

'Cause there's just a few things, honey

I'm not old enough to do for you.
And they're the things, momma
You never care to do.

So this flim-flam clown
Found him a flim flam town.
And his flamingo
Showed him how to tango.
And when they tangoed
It'd send his heart's a ‘flutter.

Teased him 'till he'd stutter.
Sweet to surrender
And so sweet surrender?

In sweet surrender.

Ahh, sweet surrender to life.

But now you're gonna go out
And get yourself
A reputation.

But I'm gonna have to show you
Where to start.

And then you're gonna bring back
Your little reputation

And prove to me
What I could not prove to you.

'Cause I was just too young at heart.
I'm just too cold,
Just too hard to care.
Just too hard, 'right?

To surrender?

If you could
Just surrender
Love would heal the mess we've made.

So give it up,
It 'aint gonna be no good
It keeps goin' 'round and 'round.
You hurt me.
Then I hurt you again and again and again?

All that's left to do, ah.
Is give it up, Ahhhhhh?

No, no, give it up
And surrender,

Sweet surrender.
Surrender for love?

Visit Trailed by 20 Hounds on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Trailedby20hounds/152777331415649?v=wall

Chains of Memories Left Behind

2010-09-01T20:00:00.000-07:00

To my dear sweet Zoe - gone too soon

Moonshine time
Thoughts of you
Spinning round
As thoughts do
I just wondered if
your eyes still shined
As they did
When you were mine

I can see
in a dream
Thoughts so clear
and jewels that gleam
Would your eyes
Still sparkle then
If we were, once again

Jewel eyed girl please come home
Jewel eyed girl don't leave me alone

Lovely girl
Can you see
Where it is
You're meant to be
Where you lay
Your head tonight
May the stars
Find you light
So am I
Sitting here
Moonlight glistens
On my tears
Is this all
That we could find
Chains of memories
Left behind

Jewel eyed girl please come home
Jewel eyed girl don't leave me behind

Fleetwood Mac

Do you come from Bury Town?

2010-08-28T18:04:00.000-07:00

For all my stalker friends a song adaptation from Pretzel Logic - enjoy - if the shoe fits.

I'm not one to look behind; I know that times must change

But over there in Bury Town they do things very strange
And though you're not my enemy
I like things like they used to be
And though you'd like some company
I'm standing by myself
Go play with someone else
I can see by what you carry that you come from Bury Town

Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard
I just read the Daily News and read between every word
And don't think that I'm out of line
For speaking out for what is mine
I'd like to see you do just fine
But look at what you wear
And the way you cut your hair
I can see by what you carry that you come from Bury Town
In the beginning we recall that the word was hurled
Bury Town people got to be from another world

Leave me or I'll be just like the others you will meet
They won't act as kindly if they see you on the street
And don't you scream or make a shout
It's nothing you can do about

It was there where you came out
It's a special lack of grace
I can see it in your face
I can see by what you carry that you come from Bury Town

With eyes that just stared

2010-08-01T18:50:00.000-07:00

Ellie Mae with eyes that just stared

Some of them standing, some were waiting in the line
As if there was something that they thought they might find
Taking some strength from the feelings that always were shared
And in the background, the eyes that just stared

Casey a victim of abuse

What was it brought you out here in the dark?
Was it your only way of making your mark
Did you get rid of all the voices in your head?
Do you now miss them and the things that they said?

On your own admission you raised up the knife
And you brought it down ending another life
When it was done you just threw down the blade
While the red blood spread wider like the anger you made

Bam Bam - Rest in Peace

I don't want this anger that's burning in me
It's something from which it's so hard to be free
But none of the tears that we cry in sorrow or rage
Can make any difference, or turn back the page

"Murder" - David Gilmour

Broke-Down Palace

2010-07-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite places to take Maggie and Zoe to was our frequent visits to the Klamath River. Maggie loved the water's edge. Of course, no trip was complete without playing our favorite song "Broke-Down Palace". This one's in memory of maggie and her sister Zoe Monster. Even though their departure left a huge void in my life, they will always remain close in my heart with all the memories we shared.

Broke-Down Palace
Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia
Copyright Ice Nine Publishing; used by permission.

Fare you well my honey
Fare you well my only true one
All the birds that were singing
Have flown except you alone

Goin to leave this Broke-down Palace
On my hands and my knees I will roll roll roll
Make myself a bed by the waterside
In my time - in my time - I will roll roll roll

In a bed, in a bed
by the waterside I will lay my head
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

River gonna take me
Sing me sweet and sleepy
Sing me sweet and sleepy
all the way back back home
It's a far gone lullaby
sung many years ago
Mama, Mama, many worlds I've come
since I first left home

Goin home, goin home
by the waterside I will rest my bones
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

Goin to plant a weeping willow
On the banks green edge it will grow grow grow
Sing a lullaby beside the water
Lovers come and go - the river roll roll roll

Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

When you entered my life we began a journey. Together we traveled through good times and you were there to help me through the bad days.
You taught me to slow down and take in life.

You taught me the value of compassion. For your love had no boundaries.
You taught me things about life, about myself that I might never have known.

Along the way, you will learn much about savoring life's simple pleasures — sharing a sandwich on the side of the road, smelling each and every blade of grass along the way and of course, the importance of keeping up with our naps.

Your pace was much slower, except when it was time to eat but we never missed a beautiful flower, a sinking sun or a morning's brillance.
Once you've walked as a hound does, you discover a whole new world. We stop; we browse, we kick over leaves, peek in tree holes, look up, down, all around. And we learn what any dog knows — that nature has created a marvelously complex world that is full of surprises, that each cycle of the seasons bring ever changing wonders, each day an essence all its own, each day a gift from God.
You too, were my gift from God. I honestly believe you were sent to save me from myself.

together, we learned the true measure of love. The steadfast, undying kind that says, "It doesn't matter where we are or what we do, or how life treats us as long as we are together."

Respect this always. It is the most precious gift any living soul can give another. You will not find it often among the human race. And you will learn humility. The look in your eyes often made me feel ashamed. Such joy and love at my presence.
You saw me complete with flaws, a person who could be cross and angry, stubborn, moody or rude, and yet dismissed them all the same. You choose to love me despite my human flaws.

I am a better person because of the time and memories we spent together.
While your time here was much too short I will be left with a life time of memories that we shared togather.

Like all paths of true love, the pain is part of loving. For as surely as the sun sets, one day I will follow you down the trail you paved with your love. I will find the strength to let you go, knowing your life's mission is complete.

Your time was much too short but I knew that the day would come where we would have to part. I would be left alone with only the life's treasure and lessons you left me with.

I borrowed your spirit, just for a short while, and during these brief years you generously left enough love, every inch of your spirit and heart, until one day there was nothing left.

You taught me the ultimate gift of helping you pass when you needed me most. I'll always remember you as the young playful pup who made me laugh., not the tired girl who's pain brought me tears and great sorrow.

Deep down I always knew that this grand journey would end. I knew that if I gave you my heart it would be broken into a million pieces. But I gave you my heart because that was all you ask of me.

When the time comes, and the road curves ahead to a place I could not foresee, I gave you both one final gift as I whispered how much I loved you and let you run free, young and whole once more.

"God speed, my dear sweet girls," until our journey comes full circle and our paths cross again.
I will think of you always, always in my heart.
God bless your souls for sharing your life with me . . . and adding so much to my existence.

It's Just A Box of Rain

2010-07-30T07:16:00.001-07:00

Little Bella, our twelve year old senior who joined us last month must think she died and went to hound dog heaven. Not only does she spend her day in the company of a whole lot of equally lazyold hounds but here crazy daddy makes her listen to American Beauty every morning.

This bed sure beats the concrete floor at the shelter her last owners dumped her in. It probably is much better then exiled to living outdoors as well.

Words by Robert Hunter; music by Phil Lesh
Copyright Ice Nine Publishing; used by permission.

Look out of any window
any morning, any evening, any day
Maybe the sun is shining
birds are winging or
rain is falling from a heavy sky -
What do you want me to do,
to do for you to see you through?
this is all a dream we dreamed
one afternoon long ago

Old sleepy eyes Agnes prefers the comfort of the couch while watching the morning news.

Walk out of any doorway
feel your way, feel your way
like the day before
Maybe you'll find direction
around some corner
where it's been waiting to meet you -
What do you want me to do,
to watch for you while you're sleeping?
Well please don't be surprised
when you find me dreaming too

Then, there's Sydney who always knows how to make himself comfortable.

Look into any eyes
you find by you, you can see
clear through to another day
I know it's been seen before
through other eyes on other days
while going home --

What do you want me to do,
to do for you to see you through?
It's all a dream we dreamed
one afternoon long ago

Obviously, not impressed with the morning's music selection.

Walk into splintered sunlight
Inch your way through dead dreams
to another land
maybe your tired and broken
Your tongue twisted
with words spoken
and thoughts unclear

Our other "ole gal" Belle

What do you want me to do
to do for you to see you through
A a box of rain will ease the pain
and love will see you through

When the floor doesn't work, it's time to go back to bed
Just a box of rain -
wind and water -
Believe it if you need it,
if you don't just pass it on
Sun and shower -
Wind and rain -
in and out the window
like a moth before a flame

An idea that has legs....happiness is sharing a warm bed with friends

It's just a box of rain
I don't know who put it there
Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare
But it's just a box of rain
or a ribbon for your hair
Such a long long time to be gone
and a short time to be there

Uno the beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

2009-03-28T16:29:00.000-07:00

Uno the Beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

America loves a hero. For many dog loving American's Uno the beagle, who won Best in Show last year, is that hero. Uno captured the hearts of America during his celebrity tour that included the first-ever White House visit by a Westminster winner. When his victory was announced Uno's howls of joy were only drowned out by the passionate response from the crowd who cheered his victory.

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/515830/beagle_is_numero_uno_at_westminster

Uno's year started the day after he won, when he went to Sardi's for the winner's traditional plate of strip steak. He also made the rounds on a host of television shows delighting audiences with his cheerful personality.

Since then he's spent an hour with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He rode with Snoopy, America's other most famous beagle, in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. He threw out the first pitch at Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Cardinals baseball games. Well, okay, he fetched the first pitch.

Uno rang the bell to open the NASDAQ stock exchange and spent his third birthday visiting the commander and chief, President George Bush in the White House. Laura Bush gave Uno a red-white-and-blue collar and lead as a birthday present. The famous hound also got a chance to play with 270 school kids and Girl Scouts. Later, he visited injured GIs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Now retired, Uno is a certified therapy dog who visits Ronald McDonald Houses around the country. "Uno has a wonderful personality and temperament," said Westminster Director of Communications David Frei and TV host for USA and CNBC, who added, "I've been doing this for 20 years and have never seen a dog that the public responded to like Uno."

According to a November 26, 2008 article in the International Herald Tribune Americas, the Global Edition of the New York Times, Uno has had a busy year.
Uno had a day declared in his honor in his home state of Illinois

Uno met the family of Peanuts comic strip creator, Charles Schultz. The comic character, Snoopy, was Uno’s ink-on-paper beagle forebear.

Uno appears to love the applause and the attention heaped on him and people seem to relate to him as a type of underdog champion.

While Uno was welcomed by the White House for his accomplishments it is ironic is that his howls of joy and excitement would be in violation of this county's ordinance on nuisance barking.

If Uno or any of his champion "brood" ever decided to visit Gwinnett our county's ordinance would consider any barking exuberance of more then five times for thirty seconds would be a violation of county code. One is left to wonder whether laws written to condemn dogs like Uno are written to make prosecuting and convicting dogs like Uno rather then written advocating to assure their safety in the community.

The owner of the property Uno was visiting could be cited, pay up to a thousand dollars in fine, face six months in jail and if the animal rights attorney was inclined have Uno seized and become the property of the county governments animal shelter.

While the issue of dog's barking more then five times for thirty seconds is what a vast majority of dogs do - after all they are dogs, an ordinance of this nature will be viewed as a first of it's kind that specifically criminalize owning beagles.

Here's what the Humane Society of the United States says about traits common in beagles.

Shelters
Surrender: “During my years in rescue work, the most common reason for surrender I heard was that the beagle’s barking was causing trouble with the neighbors.”
Adoption: “If a potential adopter is considering a beagle, they need to accept that beagles bark. Beagles love to bark so much that I am convinced they soon forget why they started barking and just continue to bark for the sheer enjoyment of it. A potential adopter should know that their prospective new family member will be a vocal one.

As a long time owner and advocate for beagles in our community I'm convinced too that beagles bark simply because they can. Anyone who has had the pleasure of being owned by a beagle knows that they are fiercely stubborn in their ways, have an attention span of a gnat, and follow their nose to wherever and whatever direction it takes them.

Of all the real crime issues in Gwinnett, an explosive growth in drug trafficking, illegal immigration and gang violence, the beagles are the only criminal element which have successfully visited the white house - doesn't that say something about the county's mixed up priorities?

Nathan's Blog - Why more laws don't work... without shelter reform

2009-03-25T06:14:00.000-07:00

L.A. City Council Sheds Crocodile Tears
March 24, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

I believe in spay/neuter. I encourage spay/neuter. I promote incentives for spay/neuter. It is a key component of the No Kill Equation. But I am against mandatory spay/neuter laws. That is not a contradiction. It is an understanding that if one is goal oriented, and if the goal is reducing shelter intakes and shelter deaths, one does not necessarily follow the other.

As my colleague Brent Toellner at kcdogblog.com indicated in an interview I did of him last year,

In 2006, Kansas City passed mandatory spay/neuter of all “Pit Bull”-type dogs. Since the ordinance was passed, Kansas City has seen an 80% increase in the number of “Pit Bulls” killed in their city shelter. Many of these dogs are getting confiscated from homes because they were not in compliance with the spay/neuter ordinance. Young puppies are being killed because they look too “Pit Bull” and are not altered by the time they reach eight weeks of age. They’re killed only because they have not been spayed or neutered.

Many other cities have seen similar results with their mandatory spay/neuter ordinances—of both “Pit Bulls” and of all types of dogs. Los Angeles passed their mandatory spay/neuter in February of 2008, and has seen their kill numbers go up 31% this year, after more than five years of steady decline in shelter killings.

Similarly, other cities have struggled with their mandatory spay/neuter ordinances. Problems range from decreased licensing (pushing these people underground and making them harder to reach with low cost services), significant increases in animal control costs, and an increase in shelter killing rates due to the ordinances. Simply put, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have never led to No Kill success anywhere, ever.

Giving shelters the power to impound and kill even more animals is no way to lower the death rate. Giving animal control the power to divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets, to no avail, is no way to lower the death rate.

Time and time again, studies show that people who do not spay/neuter belong to those at near, at, and below the poverty line. And Los Angeles should know, it was on the vanguard of this understanding some three decades ago, and put in place a very effective response to overcome it. As I wrote in Redemption,

On February 17, 1971, it opened the first low-cost spay/neuter clinic in the country, with the City of Los Angeles paying for the veterinary staff. By 1973, two more clinics opened and the first was expanded. In 1979, a fourth clinic became operational. The program was so successful, that within the first decade of the program Los Angeles shelters were killing half the number of animals they had been prior to the clinics. Every dollar invested in the program was saving taxpayers ten dollars in animal control costs, due to the reduced numbers of animals these shelters were handling. And despite outcry from private veterinarians and their associations when the program first began, there was no discernible loss of business over time. With four clinics operating, private veterinarians were still performing 87 percent of all neutering within Los Angeles, because the clinics were being used by poor people who would not otherwise have had their pets altered. While national “leaders” were trying to appease private veterinarians, Los Angeles had begun the march to save the animals.

Unfortunately, the clinics were closed in a round of budget cuts, and Los Angeles began following the model of punitive legislation being advanced by those national leaders. Now, it is left scrambling to try to save a badly flawed, unworkable program. And that is why the latest furor over the elimination of subsidized spay/neuter vouchers sadly misses the point.

While some activists simply do not know better and mean well, others obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. They will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care.

While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something much more powerful driving them: the desire to punish. An activist truly focused on lifesaving, who subsequently learns that punitive legislation is not only a dismal failure, but that it has the opposite results (more impounds, more killing), would end their support of such methods and begin to push for regime change at animal control or the programs and services of the No Kill Equation.

By contrast, those who are intent on punishing the public are being driven by other imperatives. In the end, they so want to punish the public for not taking care of their pets as much as they think they should, they are willing to ignore all the evidence about legislation’s true results or about how to truly save lives, and instead empower animal control to kill animals in the process. Unfortunately, animal control is generally more than willing to oblige and do just that. In the end, these activists become that which they claim to most despise—people whose actions result in the impound and killing of animals. They become the “irresponsible public.”

It is clear that these individuals are not truly motivated by saving animals because they spend no effort on shelter reform legislation, and don’t even stop to think about how horrible and abusive the pounds are that the animals get taken to because of their punitive laws. In fact, they stand side by side with the perpetrators—in speeches and legislative hearings. They are the champions of continued killing, the defenders of draconian animal shelters, and the purveyors of punishment through misguided legislative efforts such as pet limit laws, leash laws, feeding bans, and mandatory spay/neuter even when community after community has shown that animals are killed because of it.

The ones that, as another colleague described,

have heard—and repeated—the mantra of “irresponsible pet ownership” as the root of all evil in the animal world. This resonates with them doubly because they tend to dislike/distrust people, and are exposed to animals that are often the result of abandonment, neglect, ignorance, or at least believe this to be true which further reinforces their dislike for people as a whole. When a local Pit Bull advocate loudly proclaimed that Pit Bulls would be better off with a “humane death” than to be adopted to the “wrong family,” the last piece finally fell into place for me. So many animal welfare people have assumed a position of moral/ethical superiority over the “masses” by virtue of their work with the animals. Only they and an elite few can properly know and care for animals. Most animals in the hands of the unwashed masses, in their estimation, would be better off dead at the hands of “caring” professionals than to be subjected to the horror of the POSSIBILITY of being in the clutches of the dreaded “irresponsible pet owner.” Many of these people are truly distraught at the idea of drastically increasing adoptions, knowing that it will be bad for the animals. In their minds, shelters MUST kill animals to protect the animals.

When you’re exposed to ugliness or just thoughtlessness toward animals, it’s very easy to fall into the mindset I describe above. I think this is why getting animal welfare folks to truly embrace No Kill as a reality (rather than just a nice idea) can be such a hit-or-miss affair and I have not yet come up with a strategy to really “reach” the people who so desperately need the killing to continue. They’re not willing to embrace the No Kill Equation because it depends on the public being a key component to solving the problem…and they will simply not accept that the cause of the problem can in any way be the solution to the problem. Only by pummeling and imposing legislative controls on people … do they see the problem being solved. All the while, they sit atop the shining throne of the animal advocate and know they are “doing good.”

They aren’t motivated by saving lives, they are about setting themselves up as “better” because they are in opposition to everyone else, the uncaring masses. They are, as my colleague noted above, “atop the shining throne of the animal advocate,” whose rule is threatened by the emerging success of the No Kill movement which says, yes some people are irresponsible, but most people do care. Most people find killing abhorrent. Most people pass on their own needs during difficult economic times in order not to have to cut back on what their animals need. Most people would do the right thing if given the information they need to make good choices, if we can cut through the fog of deceit that HSUS has been peddling for fifty years. Most people are not only part of the solution; they are the key to it. And that, according to these Naysayers, can’t be allowed to happen. Because guess what? When everyone is special, no one is special. Not only are most people as committed to animals as they are masquerading to be, but they are more so, because they oppose killing, too. So they can’t accept that. And they block it out, because what else do they have? Who else are they? They lose their identity as “saviors”—these addicts of being special at the expense of the animals.

And so they will champion Cardenas. And they will line up at the podium to thank him. And he will get his lackluster voucher program. And he will get a report that says the mandatory spay/neuter law works but its success is being obscured by rising impounds and deaths due to the economy (ignoring the fact that other communities that have been harder hit by the recession are still increasing rates of lifesaving, despite these troubled economic times). And the activists will applaud their “good work” and go back to feeling special. Meanwhile, the animals will continue to be killed.

To read more....

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=885

Tax Woes for Lilburn City Councilman Eddie Price

2009-02-27T11:15:00.000-08:00

When you think of property taxes and elected officials it never dawns on you that those with the power to tax your home don't think they have to pay taxes on the property they own.

An investigation into property held by Lilburn City Councilman's Eddie Price has resulted in a tax bill off over $1,700 being issued to Councilman Price for illegally claiming a homestead exemption on rental property he owns.

Councilman Price has owned and operated his business, Eddie's Automotive (located on Webb Parkway), in the City of Lilburn since June of 1990. He lives in Lilburn with his family and is a deeply committed member of the community. However, he's not as committed to pay his property taxes.

Price involved himself in my dog barking case in Gwinnett's Recorders Court last August when he testified that he was caretaker for his wife's rental property located two doors down.

Property records confirmed the house is deeded to Price's wife "Wanda Moaveni" with the tax bills being sent to Price's luxury home located at 230 Flowers Cove Lane in Liburn. Price now rents that property out to a family who owns two outdoor dogs whose barking apparently isn't an issue.

What is unclear is why Price had such an issue with my dogs since he lives several miles away - or was he interested in forcing me out of my home so he could purchase it in a distress sale? Regardless, his ethics and capacity to represent citizens should be questioned.

One is left to wonder what role Price played in the county solicitor's position that "my" neighborhood would be better served if I surrendered upwards of ten of my dogs or MOVED to resolve my barking dog issue. Was Price interested in justice and tranquility or merely seeking the opportunity to purchase my property in a distress sale?

The integrity of any political figure who seeks to kill old lazy hounds should be an issue for all of us who cherish our family pets. Those elected to government positions must serve as a role model in paying ALL the taxes that they are required to pay. It is disingenuous for a person of Price's political stature to run on a "deep commitment" to the community keeping property owners taxes low while in fact he is claiming exemptions he is not entitled to.

Councilman Price chose to involve himself in my dog barking case which ultimately opened up his involvement of the skimming off of tax revenue he was participating in. Those who cast stones should not live in glass houses.

This issue will certainly surface during future discussions with the city of Lilburn's attempt at annexing a large part of un incorporated Gwinnett.

I certainly don't want a person who places personal greed over citizens rights to own pets making decisions for me or my hounds.

AJC - Gwinnett ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs

2009-02-04T12:26:00.001-08:00

Saturday, January 31, 2009

AJC - Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs
Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is encouraging pet owners to submit comments on these proposals before the draft is submitted to the county commissioners.

http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/01/30/gwinnett_barking_dogs.html

GWINNETT COUNTY

Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs
By PATRICK FOX

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, January 30, 2009

Gwinnett dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.

The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark. It also expands the description for tethering of animals.

The biggest change is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent, but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.

The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal. The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.

The proposal has generated some chatter on local blogs, but county officials dismiss some of the criticism as preposterous.

Karen Thomas, director of the county attorney’s office, which is helping draft the ordinance, said the advisory council is addressing the issue because of concerns raised in the community.

“It’s the whole balancing thing of if you have an animal, then you should care for the animal,” she said. “It’s to help make sure there is no mistreatment of animals.”

Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission any time soon.

Advisory council chairperson Gail LaBerge would not comment on the specifics of the ordinance, saying only that its under review.

Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.

“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd. You don’t put people in jail because their dogs bark.”

DeCarlo added that the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more animals being put down.

“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.

The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors — not one — to swear out a barking complaint.

“People don’t say ‘I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”

County Attorney's seek to tighten the noose on barking dogs

2009-01-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

County attorney's are recommended changes in the wording of Gwinnett's controversial dog barking ordinance which will all but doom that barks in Gwinnett County.

Gwinnett's County Attorney's office has taken a new approach in trying to sell it's latest version of the county's "get tough" approach on dog barking. The new ordinance proposal has moved "nuisance barking" out of section 10-33 Public Nuisance Animals and created an new

section 10-51 "Duty of animal owners to be responsible owners.

It reads:

Sec 10-51 Duty of animal owners to be responsible owners.

a) It shall be the duty of every owner or custodian of any animal to exercise reasonable care and take all the necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property, and animals from injuries or damage which might result from their animals's behavior.

Similar to the current ordinance the county defines ordinance violations as "ANY vocalizations which are plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on same property as the animal or animals making such vocalizations for more then fifteen minutes without interruption" or "more then thirty minutes if the vocalization is intermittent."

The new twist is the county solicitor Allison Cauthon's explanation that the county defines intermittent barking to be any "vocalization of any animal or animals for a continuing period of thirty seconds or more on five or more occasions in any thirty minute period."

What this means for a typical owner of three dogs is if those three dogs barked for thirty seconds, stopped and then resumed barking for another thirty seconds the pet owner would be in violation of the ordinance, even if that barking was only dogs playfully chasing down local squirrels. The pet owner could face up to three terms of six months jail time, up to $3,000 in fines and court ordered disposal of all three family dogs even for an innocuous first offense.

There is nothing in this ordinance that would prohibit people from provoking dogs into barking by either making deliberate bursts of noise, rattling a fence or pointing a video camera or cell phone at one's property and filming that outburst as evidence of barking violation. Nor does the ordinance allow dogs to bark or communicate with other animals in near proximity to your property.

Unethical realtors or property owners who hate dogs could simply choose to stalk your property and film a dog's natural defensive tendency of warning of an impending breach of the domain. If your dog stands in the way of making a quick sale in this housing market your pets could simply become collateral damage in a down market.

It was clear as county solicitor who prosecutes these misdemeanor animal cases, Allison Cauthen argued over the concepts of a dog genetically inclined to bark at any person, animal or thing it would view as an intruder. This would include complaintants armed with video camera's seeking to "manufacture" evidence of barking violations to be used in criminal prosecutions.

An unknown person holding and pointing a video camera aimed at a dog should be a reasonable defense that a dog determines a threat is present, yet, our solicitor routinely uses this as evidence to convict.

While Allison claims to have been involved with animal protection issues since she was a small child and that it was this passion of protecting animals formed the very reason she attended law school she fails to understand that dogs use barking as their primary method of communication.

It would be inhumane and cruel to force pet owners, who have fenced yards, to confine their pets in cages for over 23 hours a day in order to be in compliance with the county's barking ordinance.

In an even more disturbing twist the county has thrown out to current law which states "the vocalization does not apply if the vocalization(s) are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder".

That language has been changed to "these time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property where the animal or animals are located."

In effect, if enacted a pet owner would be in violation if a neighborhood thug menaced or threatened the property was located as long as that thug didn't enter or trespass on the pet owners property.

Since anyone living in a near proximity of the barking dog CAN file a complaint that leads to a citation, criminals will be rejoicing in being able to remove an animal who's tirelessly protects the property and lives of their "family".

Home owners will lose a valuable tool in preventing criminals from launching home invasions. Criminals will be protected with the use of video camera's that can remove obstacles to their criminal future criminal behavior - your dogs.

Once the dogs are gone they are free to replace the video camera with masks and weapons - this law does nothing to prevent home invasions, burglaries or other acts of violence against otherwise law abiding citizens.

The only real winners will be the criminals who prey on our neighborhoods. Once a criminal has gained access to your home often times it is too late. Dogs act as a deterrent to neighborhood crime - something that our county attorney's office seem to overlook in their quest in increasing the conviction rate on dog barking cases. Will our elected officials be equally negligent and over look thr role dogs play in protecting our homes as well?

Under these revised changes community watch programs will change dramatically. The ever vigilant canine would be disposed of, sent to our community kill shelter and disposed of as a reward for protecting the family home. Our new pet free neighborhoods might be silenced by our new found fears.

Barking is a mode of communication that is common in dogs, it may even be the result of human encouragement. Certain breeds have been bred to bark as part of their watchdog or herding duties.

Barking is used to alert or warn others and defend a territory, to seek attention or play, to identify oneself to another dog, and as a response to boredom, excitement, being startled, lonely, anxious, or teased.

Dog owners learn to understand this as a communication between them and their pets. We learn to understand when our dogs want attention or want to play. We also learn to understand when our dogs are warning us of impending threats or fear. A true animal advocate and protector cherishes and respects this as an unconditional bond between humans and their canine friends.

Barking laws in Gwinnett are the only ordinance violation that relies solely on citizen driven complaints that are typically never verified. It remains unclear what role animal control holds in investigating these violations or if an investigation is even required. Even though these charges carry potential jail time jury trials are not allowed under recorder's court rules. Animal owners are denied the same due process rights that are routinely provided thugs and criminals.

The law doesn't allow ANY barking - even if that barking is the result of an effort to train your pet. If enacted, pet owners would face serious obstacles with training a playful pup or a poorly socialized shelter or rescue dog. What effect will these laws have on anyone considering adding a dog from our shelter who might need training or a period of time to adjust. Since the law also allows ALL your dogs to be cited, even if only one or a few are actually barking, pet owners will and should be concerned about adding any dogs in the future.

Also excluded would be pet owners or their children who might want to exercise or play with their dogs in THEIR fenced yards if that play activity included playful barking with five intermittent bursts of thirty seconds or more.

This law is easily manipulated by neighbors who have issues or squabbles that have absolutely nothing to do with the dogs involved. Rather then drawing our neighborhoods together squabbles that lead to the loss of our family pets will instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart.

Long time residents who have chosen their homes BECAUSE of the right to responsibly have family pets can easily be manipulated and forced out by unethical realtors and home owners who don't share those values.

Over 60,000 citizens in the un incorporated parts of Gwinnett have a love affair with their family pets. The image of having Fluffy or Fido ripped from the family home is one that will serious damage an already depressed market for the homes we own.

No one wants to live in a community where a family lives in fear - that fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance". Our community will be judged on how we treat our elderly, our children and our family pets. That is the core values of family values.

Dog barking offenses should be treated like every other noise ordinance on the books. It is disingenuous that a property owner has the right to unlimited access to noise emitting devices not limited to power mowers, leaf blowers and an assortment of other devices while pet owners are forced to all but silence their pets to protect them from court ordered seizure, huge fines and potential jail time simply because they choose to live in and own a dog in Gwinnett.

As pet owners, we are responsible for providing the same protection to our pets as they provide our families, even if our county attorney's office does not share those same values. Pets are not disposable, you do not replace them like some worn out lawnmower an d you do speak out loudly against any government attempt that endangers them.

Advocating for animals involves fairness in our laws that protect our pets from being abused - even if that abuse comes from our judicial system that places unfair expectations on dogs who behave simply as they are supposed to behave.

Contact information for the county attorney's office who are drafting these changes:

thersea.cox@gwinnettcounty.com) and

allison.cauthen@gwinnettcounty.com)

Please forward your comments to our elected officials and remind them that your vote includes protecting our family pets. Any vote in support of these changes will be cause not only to lose that vote but our respect as well.

Polite but firm phone calls please.

Gwinnett Board of Commssioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com

Commission Chairman:

Charles Bannister770.822.7010

Shirley.Lassiter@gwinnettcounty.com

District 1 Commissioner: Shirley Lassiter 770.822.7001

Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti 770.822.7002

Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau 770.822.7003

Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council

Gail Laberge Chairperson - Lawrenceville Kennel Club
outland@laberge.org

Dennis Kronenfeld - Feline Issues
DK1011@aol.com

Dr.Timothy Montgomery - Gwinnett Municipal Association
Dawgdoc@mindspring.com

Tricia Smith - Gwinnett Extension Service
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com

Gloria Kennedy - Gwinnett Humane Society
calicoglk@netzero.com

Carla Brown - Member at Large

carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com

Clara Seals - Shetland Sheepdog Club of Georgia, Inc. Member at Large

CPSeals@aol.com

Mary Lou Repress - Gwinnett Animal Shelter Director
Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com

Yes we can change our animal welfare culture

2009-01-20T11:03:00.000-08:00

Studies show that over 66,000 households in un incorporated Gwinnett own on the average 1.2 dogs as family pets. Over 53,000 households own on the average 1.7 cats and an even more astounding number of families in pet rich Gwinnett own both. The needs and wishes of this large voting and taxpaying block has all but been ignored for years in helping to shape the county's animal welfare policies.

One of the agenda issues for tonight's animal advisory council meeting in Gwinnett is a discussion on what the focus of the county's animal advisory council should be. Should this group be beholden to those who own and fund our county's pets OR should it simply be a special interest group that isolates county animal control and leadership with policies that control rather then serve the county's animal needs.

The Board of Commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council (AAC) in 1993 to study animal-related issues in Gwinnett, to provide a channel for dialogue, and to offer advice and recommendations to Animal Control and the Board.

It was created under the auspices that the CITIZENS of Gwinnett were desirous of establishing an animal council to study, make recommendations, and to offer professional advise to the Board of Commissioners regarding animal welfare issues. More importantly, this AAC was created to provide a channel for dialog between the citizens of Gwinnett and the Board of Commissioners they have elected. Only though this open dialog could the community's pet owners maximize the coordination of resources towards resolving the county's animal welfare issues.

Unfortunately, through the years the original inclusive membership of the AAC has morphed into a group that effectively excludes that same open and honest dialog with it's citizens. While many of the county's other "advisory committee's" include members appointed by individual commissioner's representing their district's interest - the AAC does not.

Groups like the County Transit System, Historical Restoration and Preservation, Merit Board, Planning Commission, Recreational Authority, Springfield Golf Course Commission, Tree Advisory Committee and Water & Sewerage Authority (to name a few) all include nominating processes with members from each district and one at large appointed by the county chair. The Animal Advisory Council instead relies solely on members appointed by and only with the approval of animal control.

With the dramatic increases in dogs and cats being killed at the new Gwinnett's Animal Shelter, the focus has shifted to the role the county's animal advisory council should have moving forward. Obviously, the AAC is hesitant about making any professional recommendations that might suggest changes in animal welfare policies that effect the same group that is solely responsible for approving their membership.

Commissioner Mike Beaudreau has recommended a dialog be opened with local animal advocates and pet owners on alternatives that would open up county animal welfare policies and solutions to those who feel disenfranchised in the process.

Proposals that are being raised that include term limits on how long volunteers can serve on the AAC and a process of having each of the four elected commissioners nominate one dog owner and/or one cat owner to the council therefore giving pet owners a voice in developing animal welfare policies in the county. This would be a stark contrast to the current makeup of the council which is and has been controlled by special interests if that special interest is merely appeasing the animal control interest that control their appointments..

Changing the stagnation of ideas coming out of the current AAC is only the first process in turning the tide in our shared animal welfare policies. Many local animal advocates feel that wholesale changes in the makeup of the AAC are in order to bring about fresh ideas that would save hundreds of pets that otherwise are being euthanized. This stagnation in having a voice in developing alternatives to catch, hold and kill policies is a major influence in the dramatic drop in rescue participation at the new shelter - which has seen a drop in the last year of over 30% in the number of animals moved into rescue.

While the problems associated with numbers of pets increasing in the new shelter makes finding solutions more tenuous the issue of a dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to rescue groups is more problematic. There is clear evidence that the rescue community feels not only disenfranchised in the process but fears the intimidation issues as well. The new AAC must be able to rebuild these fears with a new partnership of shared respect between the two factions.

The problems of functionality of the current makeup of the AAC runs deeper then just the process of who and how members get appointed to this exclusive group. The bylaws that created this group all but stifle off any creative thinking that might bring about improvement in operational aspects of the shelter.

Section 4 of the bylaws quite clearly states "The AAC has no independent authority to act on any of it's own recommendations" and in fact under Section 6 of the same bylaws it states "The AAC shall only submit recommendations which have been approved by a majority vote. All recommendations for action MUST be submitted in writing to the Chief of Police and Animal Control Manager. Any recommendations to the Board of Commissioners MUST be authorized by and coordianted through the Chief of Police and County Administrator.

With stringent rules like this is there any wonder that no ideas of merit ever surface upwards to our elected commissioners relaying the wants and concerns of the very citizens this group is suppose to provide dialog for? Is it any wonder that the only ideas that have come out of this group of late was the recent passage of the draconian revisions in our county's animal ordinance which not only criminalized many aspects of normal pet behavior but relieved animal control of any responsibility in investigation violations of many aspects of those ordinances?

Those entrusted with the decision making in setting animal shelter policy try to create order by closing off and isolating themselves from those and that which does not fit. They become bureaucratic with an obscured vision to the community's wants and needs while lacking the clarity needed to truly implement successful no kill policies.

Killing and control simply becomes a means to the end.

Over the next few years Gwinnett is in serious need of major changes in nor only our poorly written animal ordinances but more importantly how the county handles it's animal control issues.

We need a serious cultural shift from controlling our animal issues to providing animal services that enhance responsibly owning pets in our county.

Common sense dictates that pet owners/taxpayers are relied on to fund animal control and therefore should be entitled to help direct the county's animal policies in a "no kill" or "less kill" direction.

In an era of recessionary times animal welfare issues face the same budgetary struggles as other critical community service programs and are best served by seeking alternatives that not only point a community in a "less kill" direction but drastically reduce the costs of animal control as well.

Judges rule on proper value of a dog's life

2009-01-19T10:29:00.000-08:00

What is the proper value of a "dog's" life? That is a question debated in legal circles for decades.

The law in Georgia still views pets as nothing more then a person's property. Yet, many county's have implemented new animal ordinances which seem to ignore both the premise that the state is not entitled to seize property without "due cause" and without upholding the constitutional issues related to due process.

"Freedom just around the corner from you

But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?"

The truth is Gwinnett's revised animal ordnances, passed in January of 2007, grant huge discretionary power to the county attorney's office in seizing, impounding, or forcing citizens through threats and intimidation to get rid of pets even over such mundane violations of the county's public nuisance animal laws.

What is even more ironic is the law was drafted, passed and is now being enforced by the county solicitor who lauds herself as an animal advocate.

"Friend to the martyr, a friend to the woman of shame,

You look into the fiery furnace, see the rich man without any name."

There is an extreme disconnect between advocating for the safety and well being of animals while proposing laws that land these animals in high kill shelters for minor infractions.

Drafting and passing an ordinance which even allows fines of up to $1,000 and jail time for up to six months on pet owners is an unusual way for the county to advertise itself as a great place to raise your family especially if that quality of life includes owning pets.

If the county continues with it's policy of treating pet owners as criminals won't we morph into a community where only criminals will own pets?

Those of us who "own" pets know better. We do not place a "replacement' value on what we view as a priceless part of our lives. A true animal advocate understands that domesticated pets are far more then simply pieces of property we own but intrinsic parts of our family that are entitled to be kept safe and protected - even if that protection is against the county judicial system itself.

"Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame,

Preacherman seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain.

Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks,

Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain,

False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin,

Only a matter of time 'til night comes steppin' in."

Is the Gwinnett of the future nothing more then the mess we now call Atlanta? Will Gwinnett continue to push aside responsible citizens turning this county into a Clayton County quagmire? Affluent communities are nothing more then the sum product of those who choose to call it home. When that product is made up of negative influences Is it only a matter of time before night comes steppin in?

There has been an outpouring of opposition to the county's flagrant attacks on pet owners with demands that the animal ordinances once again be revisited in order that those laws represent the core values of our citizens concerning the role of our family pets. The county attorney's have once again missed the entire point in that the minor changes that have been proposed do not deal with the core issue that the county does not have the right to take property from it's citizens without equal due process being afforded to those charged with violating that same ordinance.

Just to be clear, pet owners are not entitled to a trial by jury in recorder's court. Further, there seems to be an air of arrogance with a county solicitor's animal advocating office that makes it it's own rules of discovery by lowering the bar of a defendant being guilty until and if they can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to a recognized standard that people are indeed innocent until the state proves their guilt.

This whole process makes a mockery of justice in our county court with an assumption that the court's primary function is to extract and generate revenue for the county as opposed to being a court room where justice is served. Maybe it's a little too much to expect our county courts to understand the role pet's play in a community's vibrant lifestyle but what excuse do our elected officials have?

Judges rule on the proper value of a dog's life

http://www.sj-r.com/homepage/x2094350144/Dave-Bakke-Judges-rule-on-the-proper-value-of-a-dog-s-life

Some families wouldn’t take a million dollars for their pet. But, to the law, a family pet may be nothing more than a piece of property.Molly is a dachshund and is part of the family as far as Mark and Mindy Leith and their boys, Corbin and Colby, are concerned.

At the end of April 2006, Molly, who was 7 years old then, was in the Leiths’ back yard in Lincoln. Another dog, allegedly their neighbor’s Siberian husky, Cosmo, got out of its yard, over or under two fences, and attacked Molly.When Mindy Leith got home, the attack was under way. She saw Molly being ripped apart by the bigger dog she recognized as Cosmo. Mindy got between the dogs, kicking the attacker, which growled and lunged at her while a bleeding Molly crawled under a table, her body torn open.

The Leiths rushed Molly to their veterinarian in Atlanta. They were told to take their dog to the animal hospital at the University of Illinois immediately if they wanted to save her. There was no hesitation.Molly spent three days in intensive care in Urbana.

The Leiths visited every day. Their dog had four broken ribs, muscle damage, a punctured lung and cracked vertebrae, but she lived. The cost of keeping Molly alive was $4,784.72.

The Leiths took out a loan to pay the bill.In 2007, the Leiths sued Cosmo’s owner, Andrew Frost of Lincoln, for their medical and travel costs.

On Sept. 26, 2007, in Lincoln, 11th Circuit Court Judge Paul Lawrence found Frost negligent and that Cosmo had indeed attacked Molly. However, the judge awarded the Leiths just $200 despite the fact that they were out more than $4,700 in vet bills.

The judge based the damages on testimony from an area kennel owner and dachshund breeder. She testified that a dog Molly’s age and breed is worth $200, tops. The judge found that, according to Illinois law, the damages awarded by the court could not be more than the dog — their property — is worth.Illinois law can treat a pet as if it were a car. If a car is worth $5,000 and the owner pays a repair bill twice that amount, then goes to court to recover the $10,000 from the driver who hit him, the court would probably rule that the owner cannot be awarded more than the value of the car.

The only time intangibles come into play is if the monetary value of the car, pet or family picture of Aunt Matilda is negligible, perhaps having only emotional value to the owner.

Both sides appealed Lawrence’s ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Springfield. The Leiths argued that the damages should be higher. Frost said there is no proof that it was his dog that attacked Molly so he shouldn’t have to pay anything. Attorney Nick Burgrabe of Lincoln represented the Leiths, and Andres Padua of Bloomington argued on behalf of Frost.

The Leiths testified that Molly is like a member of their family. She goes with them on vacation. She sleeps with the boys. Anyone who has ever had a beloved pet knows you can’t put a price tag on that. But if you could, it would be more than $200.On New Year’s Eve, appellate court Justices Thomas Appleton, Sue Myerscough and Robert Steigmann agreed. Appleton wrote the decision.

The crux of it is that Molly’s market value at the time of the attack was negligible. The judges questioned whether anyone would pay $200 for a 7-year-old dachshund that was not a show dog.But, Appleton wrote, the Leiths “demonstrated how much Molly is worth to them by paying $4,784 for the dog’s veterinary care.”

The family, said the court, should be awarded the full amount.Padua said it is too early to say whether Frost will ask for a rehearing or take this to the Illinois Supreme Court.Molly had no comment other than a wag of her tail.

Dave Bakke can be reached at 788-1541 or dave.bakke@sj-r.com.

The Death of Animal Welfare Politics

2009-01-19T09:28:00.000-08:00

There will be a meeting of the Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council tomorrow evening (January 20th (2009) at 7:00 PM) at the county shelter. There are a number of issues on the agenda including a follow up on proposed changes in the county's dog barking and tethering laws.
In addition the council will begin discussing the role that the animal advisory council has in serving the needs of pet owners in the community. The agenda is posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/police/pdf/GAACAgendaJan20_2009.pdf

The shelter has released it's annual shelter report for years 2007 and 2008. Those figures are posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/animal_welfare/pdf/ANNUAL_Shelter_2008.pdf
The figures just released show many disturbing trends since the new shelter was opened. For the 5600 dogs that found themselves in our brand new shelter facility over half - 2966 - would die in that facility. Only 924 of these beloved dogs would be reunited with their owners.

The numbers were even more disastrous for cats. Of the 4823 cats that went through the county shelter, 80% - 4025 were killed.

One would assume that Gwinnett didn't need to spend several million dollars if the sole purpose was to find new and more innovative ways to kill our way to animal control. Yet, under the current policies and advise of our leadership in animal welfare issues the number of dogs and cats being killed in our new facility are staggering - in two short years the kill numbers have gone from 5400 dogs and cats to 8000.

While the problems with the economy have been frequently used as excuses for the an increased amount of killing in our new shelter the figures compiled by animal control don't support that claim. In 2008 animal control did have an increase of about 500 canines (15%) and 700 felines that were picked up on the road but it is unclear whether this increase is the result of an increased occurrence of dogs not being properly restrained or owner abandonment.

More discouraging is the 50% increase in the number of stray cats picked up by animal control. The number of stray cats picked up has grown from 1700 a year in 2006 to close to 2500 in 2008. This would appear to be a shift in focus on ridding the county of feral or yard cats by animal control. Cats dropped off at the shelter as owner surrenders increased by 300 during the time period of 2007 to 2008 from around 2000 to 2300 and yet this number is down from the number posted in 2005 of over 2600. There does not appear to be a correlation of an increased number of pets being surrendered at the shelter by pet owners effected by our current economic turmoil.

Sadly, the number of pets being killed that the new shelter has risen as well. Dogs being killed at the shelter has increased from 2100 in 2005 to close to 2700 in 2007 to close to 3000 in year end 2008. This represents an increase of over 33% over the past three years. If we do nothing at all this number will continue to escalate.

While the number of cats being killed remained constant during the years of 2005 through 2007 with 3000 cats being killed that number rose dramatically in 2008 to over 4000 cats dying in our new shelter - again an increase of over 33 percent.

Despite a claim on the shelter's web site of an increased number of pets being adopted or placed in rescue adoptions have dropped off from a high of over 2300 in 2005 to 1982 in 2007 and 1906 in 2008. Despite all the promises of providing the community access to a new facility it would appear that the new shelter is not showing any increase in the number of pets adopted out of our new shelter.

By far the most disturbing number in the 2008 annual report is the drop in number of animals going to rescue. Those numbers show 1770 animals rescued in 2007 as opposed to only 1200 on all of 2008. One is left to wonder why our new shelter is having such a problem with placing dogs and cats into rescue despite having access to a brand new facility supported by the rescue community.

The only area of animal control that seems to be trending upwards is in the number of citations being issued. Perhaps thanks to the changes in our county's poorly advertised animal ordinance in January of 2007 the total number of citations issued has increased from 1400 in 2005 to close to 2300 in 2008.

Has the county's animal welfare focus shifted from saving and rescuing pets to cracking down with criminal enforcement of our new ordinance? Citations issued for "nuisance" animals has rose 20% in 2007 while the number of pet owners issued citations for "restraint" almost doubled. Citing rather then educating pet owners appears to be the focus of Gwinnett's current pet enforcement trends.

Pet owners throughout the county are outraged with the direction our pet friendly community has taken. Impounding dogs that bark, threatening responsible pet owners with jail and the total disregard with seeking real solutions for the thousands of innocent pets that end up in our new "state of the art" shelter needs a leadership voice that has been lacking with our animal advisory council. Please plan on attending and giving your voice and support for those voiceless victims who cry out.

Permission to cross post

What Happened To Michael Vick's Dogs?

2008-12-24T09:01:00.000-08:00

While most of the public has been inundated with stories about the "fall from grace" of Michael Vick and the emerging success of Atlanta's football team under star quarterback Matt Ryan little has been written about the true victim's in Vick's crime -

In a remarkably poignant article of the fate of Vick's dogs Sports Illustrated writer Jim Gorant writes "The Humane Society of the U.S., agreeing with PETA, took the position that Michael Vick's pit bulls, like all dogs saved from fight rings, were beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them was a misappropriation of time and money."

"The cruelty they've suffered is such that they can't lead what anyone who loves dogs would consider a normal life," says PETA spokesman Dan Shannon. "We feel it's better that they have their suffering ended once and for all."

"Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim,
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him.
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back,
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac." - Neighborhood Bully

So, "they" (PETA & HSUS) feel it's better that the dogs suffering is ended once and for all...? Maybe, "they" should have not used have exploited the victims of this heinous crime by soliciting donations in the name of helping provide humane treatment for Vick's dogs while lobbying to have them killed.

What is wrong with an animal rights movement so far removed to lose focus over lobbying for compassion for the very rights of the victims whose rights they are defending?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/index.html

Gorant's story is not only heart warming but paints a different picture on a breed that has come under attack by communities seeking to ban this breed out of existence (BSL) to a collaborated effort on the part of the large animal rights groups and law enforcement who views death of the breed as the only viable option.

Dogs debunk the theory that aggression is the product of combined genetics and social upbringing with a startling story of dogs responding to love and kindness with an unconditional love of their own. Unlike their human counterparts dogs don't live in the past refusing to forgive but instead live in the world of today.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in. - Bob Dylan

It is this premise that raises the question on whether dogs should be judged by "canned" extreme temperament tests that ignore a dog's future when condition of abuse and torture are replaced by an existence based on love and respect.

Is canine temperament a product of the past or can dogs be taught to trust simply by removing the fear that drives the demons of mistrust? Should dogs who are victimized by gamers who fight have their rights victimized again by paying with their lives?

How many shelters, fueled by merciless prosecutor's who claim to advocate for animals place unrelenting restrictions on this breed which all but seal it's doom?

BSL makes no sense.........

A Gift of Death to an Extreme Animal Rights Movement

2008-12-17T12:02:00.001-08:00

Nathan Winograd once wrote in his personal opinion that PETA's Ingrid Newkirk was suffering from Munchausen by proxy. he drew this analogy based on PETA's animal rights philosophy that tends to encourage "humane euthanasia" as a viable option to end an animal's suffering.

Based on their own reporting PETA has a mind boggling 97% rate of killing animals in their care. Much of this Munchausen illness translates into PETA's "animal rights" policy that defends being opposed to No Kill philosophy's, killing and dumping the bodies of "saved" animals in dumpsters, identifying those who rescue as demented hoarders, rigid opposition to TNR for feral cats, and a morality that shelter animals are better served by being humanely euthanized all while holding a moralistic approach that killing animals is reprehensible.

This philosophy of defending policies of humane euthanasia while professing to protect animal rights is a contradiction that can not be explained. One would assume that at the point an animal is killed any right or lack of it the animal might be entitled to becomes a mute point.

A few years back I made the choice to distance myself to such "extreme" thinking that included a vision of the future that domesticated pets be returned "to the wild". A philosophy that does not represent my core values. After all, if PETA has an issue with those of us who "own" our pets then am I too a villain and therefore a target of their extremist thinking?

Owning and enjoying pets should be about choice and responsibility. The nucleus for moderate animal advocate philosophy must include legal opposition to pet limit laws, BSL, mandatory spay/neuter and nuisance animal laws that include provisions that allow for impounding and killing as a sentencing guideline.

Those of us who include ourselves as part of an animal advocate movement must speak out and oppose positions of killing with kindness that the extreme animal rights movement like PETA promote.

"In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and 1 was a chicken. Of these, they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” PETA found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals."

To understand why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill we must understand the vast differences in political philosophy those of us who advocate for owning and rescuing animals have as opposed to those who seek to destroy that human/animal bond.

By PETA's own admission they have a 97% kill rate. This is based on PETA's own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires "record keeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody... for purposes of adoption." It does not include those animals taken into "rescue" that are not for adoption but instead end up being humanely euthanized and deposited in a convenient dumpster.

Despite $30 million in revenues, PETA found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to "another agency" (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put to death. Arguing "animal rights" for animals that are just been killed seems to be an exercise in disingenuous thinking.

There is also something far more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history. Newkirk has been a long time opponent with "No Kill" sheltering. Groups like PETA, ASPCA and HSUS have historically supported sheltering policies like extreme temperament testing and the twisted practices of self proclaimed "temperament goddess" Sue Sternberg.

Sternberg's claim to fame was "inventing" that often maligned "Assess A Pet" shelter extreme temperament testing system. With her views on killing frightened but innocent shelter animals who fail her unscientific tests, she herself should be classified as a sociopathic animal killer.

Yet, the "Big Three" in the animal rights movement embrace the very theology used to justify killing shelter dogs. Extreme temperament testing that lacks any scientific clarity has proven to be the tool utilized in killing shelter animals where otherwise justification does not exist.

Animal advocates can describe the theories behind this extreme thinking but they can not explain how killing a confused shelter animal protects that animals rights. If we really care about supporting animal rights as opposed to the rights to humanely kill without reason then there is no alternative then to oppose such negative thinking.

This is not just a disagreement in philosophy between No Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. With the Humane Society of the United States the philosophy of manipulation and over regulation of animal ordinances which take away choice and responsibility have come in question. HSUS can not explain the humane choices they support that allow for impounding and killing the very pets they claim to advocate for. Advocating to kill is simply not humane.

HSUS is the nation's largest and wealthiest humane advocacy organization in the nation. It has assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it has a budget in excess of one hundred million dollars annually. It claims the support of twelve million members and it has a powerful media presence.

More importantly, their magazine, Animal Sheltering, is sent to over 3000 shelters nationwide. Their animal sheltering conference, HSUS Expo, is the nation's largest of it's kind, drawing sheltering staff from across the country. In fact, HSUS Expo invites Newkirk to give presentations at their national animal sheltering conference.

Two years ago Newkirk gave a video presentation on why "Pit Bulls should be killed" to unwitting shelter directors who swallow this garbage philosophy and transform it into policies that all but eliminate even the meekest of pits. Armed with PETA's "kill all pits" rantings and the twisted temperament testing theology of Sue Sternberg is it any wonder that pit bulls have become the target of every shelter maniac with a message and license to kill?

The ASPCA has distributed Sternberg's video "Temperament Testing for Dogs in Shelters" to over 3,000 shelters as well. That the APSCA continues to sponsor Sternberg's seminars that teach shelter directors "how to" select dogs to kill speaks volumes on the real agenda of an animal rights movement gone mad.

Not to be outdone, Sternberg is a frequent contributor to The HSUS Animal Sheltering Magazine as well. There seems to be a competition in the animal rights movement on who can wrestle the support of shelters by providing the most up to date methods for justifying the business as usual practice of killing what they do not understand.

Sternberg continues to cash in and be "awarded" for her contributions to a shelter killing crusade lead by the generals of HSUS/ASPCA while animal rights followers worship at Ingrid's sacrificial altar as well. While the leaders of the animal rights movement can continue to look the other way in seeking life saving alternatives do those who truly support humane treatment for all companion animals do the same with an undying support?

PETA’s strategy for engaging in “damage control” and “public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by those seeking an alternative to systematic killing of shelter animals only undermines their other platforms. After all, how can an animal rights proponent so opposed to the killing of chickens lobby, promote and support theology that kills pit bulls and feral cats? Chickens and livestock deserve the right to live but feral cats and pit bulls do not?

With animal rights friends like these, animals truly do not need enemies.

Animal shelters nationwide look to the leaders of PETA, HSUS and the ASPCA for guidance and direction. Many have blindly followed the slick spin of huge advertising budgets that allows them to "drink the kool aid spiked with killing philosophy that run rampant with this "gift of euthanasia" philosophy. In all my years of doing rescue and advocating for shelter animals I have yet to encounter one who wants to die. In fact, animals are remarkably resilient and only understand a genetic disposition to survive.

When activists in communities working for reform pressure local government to embrace the alternatives to killing, HSUS responds by defending shelter policies, their failures and refusal to change, calling advocates for change "impossible", "unreasonable," and even professing "hoarder tendency" - after all "we can't save them all from this miserable world in which we live". By sowing seeds of doubt among public officials, including our county leaders in government, our county attorney's and animal control we are now inundated with extreme animal ordinances which mystify the constitutional legal community.

It is time that the "Big Three" of an extremist animal rights movement be held accountable. It is no longer acceptable that animal advocates swallow every attempt to tighten the noose on those who lack the knowledge of how to be a responsible pet owner with a huge net that also ensnares those who are responsible pet owners.

No kill does not support hoarding. Yet, the insinuations of hoarding have been used to justify pet limit laws, total bans of tethering, nuisance dog barking ordinances and veterinary care laws that counter a philosophy of education as opposed to persecution in the new wave of animal ordinances being promoted throughout the country.

Those who support total bans on tethering have theorized that tethering causes social issues in dogs that leads to aggressive canine behavior. There is no scientific data or studies that support these claims. In fact, as long as a dog is trained, socialized, and given proper attention the containment method used is not a factor in it’s behavior, or temperament. Dogs left in fenced enclosure who are not socialized or given proper attention will display the same behavioral characteristics as dogs who are constantly tethered.

An unsocialized dog, regardless of containment method with be genetically disposed to try and escape. Dogs lacking socialization will display "guarding" tendencies regardless of the method when forced to survive in an unsocialized environment. Dog behavior, including running at large and aggressive behavior only becomes problematic when a dog is not properly trained, not properly socialized, and not given proper attention, to think otherwise is simply Orwellian double-speak.

Yet, animal rights groups continue to support legislation that allow tethered animals to be impounded to enforce what in effect are total tethering bans. This thinking is not to be confused as supporting chaining or tethering any animal 24/7, in fact, those who advocate for animals would not support fencing to contain an animal 24/7 as being more humane. Pet owners need to be taught and offered other alternative on teaching their pets to be part of the family as opposed to part of the landscaping that surrounds one's home.

Ingrid Newkirk once said “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”. The uncaring world she is describing is the ignorance of thinking that an animal would prefer death as the only alternative to survive. That has always been the disconnect the hard core animal rights movement cannot defend. You can not espouse "rights" on an animal you want to see killed - well, unless those are "last rights".

Those who truly advocate for an animals "rights" to existence should vehemently reject this point of view and actively campaign against it. Not only for the dogs and cats that HSUS and PETA propose to kill in the future but whose interests in theory they exist to protect.

Moreover, HSUS/ASPCA/PETA’s position that animals in shelters, pit bulls, feral cats, confused dogs, do not have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which animal advocates claim to support. Once you understand that philosophy then it becomes apparent why supporting animal advocating attorney's who include impounding and killing tethered animals, dogs genetically predisposed to bark or dogs and cats that simply need medical attention contradicts the universally accepted fundamental right advocating for shelter animals to live.

In any truly humane movement enjoyment of the "right to life" is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented and ignore this fundamental right to live. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights cease to exist, the rest of this theology become irrelevant.

We can not reject nor refuse to acknowledge the right to life as it relates to dogs and cats while supporting those same rights for other animals including chickens and pigs. It is condescending for PETA to claim one can not "eat a hamburger" while wanting to kill my dog. We can not advocate against "fur" while wanting to kill off feral cats.

Nathan Winograd wrote "The relationship between Americans and their animal companions can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In our daily interactions with dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere."

Teaching compassion and responsibility towards animals as opposed to this blatant attempt to criminalize far too many aspects of owning pets will not only support a true movement of those who understand rights for animals, but more importantly the rights of people to continue to own animals as pets.

I am not my dogs "guardian" - I am their keeper with ownership rights recognized by our legal system. It is a folly to think we will have more protective rights to "keep" our pets if we simply follow the twisted thinking of an animal rights movement that quite frankly doesn't appear to understand the relationship domestic companion animals have in our lives. As a guardian of my pets am I therefore subjected to more governmental bureaucracy on the choices I make in caring for and raising my pets?

Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or not; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, PETA’s position of "killing for kindness" is not only insane but irresponsible as well. Giving money to support irresponsible political posturing of the Big Three simply supports the very killing animal advocates oppose.

The best gift we can give is the gift of death to a truly inhumane animal rights movement.

Fallacy of Change - NO on Gwinnett's Proposed Barking Dog Revisions

2008-10-17T14:03:00.000-07:00

Gwinnett County has rolled out the proposed changes in the now controversial "Public Nuisance" dog barking provisions. These changes are in "draft" form as submitted by the county attorney's office.

While there are a few "cosmetic" changes to the ordinance nothing at all was changed under the penalty provisions which allow the county solicitor's office to recommend six month jail terms, up to $1,000 in fines and potential loss of any family pet cited under the ordinance.

Since these sentencing guidelines can be stacked for owners of multiple pets there is nothing in the proposed changes that would prevent pet owners from facing life altering jail sentences, financial ruin through extremely large fines and more importantly the loss of a families pets. In other words, those who own four pets still face up to two years jail and $4,000 in fines while those who own eight pets could see those penalties doubled.

The revised law still fails to address the county's practice of charging barking violations based on the number of dogs owned as opposed to only citing dogs accused of actual violation of the barking ordinance. You could still face jail time - pay fines and even have impounded dogs who aren't even involved in a complaint.

The ordinance also fails to address the costs associated with enforcing laws that still don't include involving animal control in investigating any allegations of ordinance violations. These costs will include the additional expenses occurred trying to enforce another poorly written ordinance in Gwinnett's Recorder's Court.

The county attorney's office failed to take heed to the costs being run up in my failed prosecution on violating the existing dog barking ordinance. Do the citizens of Gwinnett really want to see huge increases in our county court budget that already faces an overloaded case load on crimes that seriously do impact our community?

Are we going to see recommendations further down the road for courts set up exclusively to prosecute dog barking cases and jails to house pet owners convicted of owning a "barking dog"?

As written in this draft these changes are totally not acceptable.

Absent the issue of ignoring the major problem of common sense sentencing guidelines here are the proposed changes. I will address a number of legal and constitutional issues this draft still fails to address.

Instead of seeking new solutions towards laws that encourage and reward responsible pet ownership our leaders in "animal law" issues continue to draft and pass draconian animal ordinances which provide for the impounding of family pets for even minor first time violations.
Instead of seeking ways to prevent pets from becoming "shelter fodder" our leadership creates new categories and excuses for impounding and adding to the number of pets killed. In effect, our laws discourage and punish those who might choose to adopt a pet that otherwise is killed.

10-33. Public nuisance animal.

(a) A public nuisance animal shall mean and include any animal that:

(1) Is repeatedly found at-large; or
(2) Damages the property of anyone other than the owner; or
(3) Is vicious; or
(4) Attacks without provocation; or
(5) Makes any vocalizations for more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent. These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder. Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter. Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given written warning indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance, so long as the complainant provides the officer with the address of the owner. If the disturbance is not resolved within two days or a subsequent compliant is made for such animal by a different individual, who resides at a different location from the first complainant, a court summons shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this articles; or(5)

(a) animal that makes any vocalizations or more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent shall be defined as a public nuisance animal.

(1) These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder.
(2) Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter.
(3) Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance. The complainant must provide the officer the address of the owner and a physical description of the offending animal before any written notice shall be sent. The owner shall have three (3) days to resolve the disturbance.
(4) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives a second complaint from the original complainant, he or she will be asked to provide a sworn statement regarding the disturbance. The original complainant will also be required to obtain a sworn statement from another individual regarding the disturbance. The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation will be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(5) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives another complaint from another individual in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance, both complainants will be asked to provide a sworn statement. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(6) The original barking complaint will remain on file and active for a period of thirty (30) days following the three (3) day resolution period. If no further complaints are made during the thirty (30) day period, the complaint shall expire and the process begin again.

(c) Any such public nuisance animal may be impounded and the owner or possessor charged for a violation of this article.

What follows are the pitfalls and legal issues this draft fails to address. They are:

!) While section (1) addresses an exclusion for "intruders" the law fails to identify what the court's interpretation of intruder is. In my case the judge ruled that intruders DID NOT include what most pet owners view as customary issues they would EXPECT their dogs to bark at including cars parked in front of your house with people who could be stalking your property, strangers walking your neighbors back yard, strangers attempting to access your neighbors property or parked in their driveway thieves breaking into your neighbors, pedophiles watching and filming neighborhood children playing.

This law is written to interpret an intruder to be "someone who physically enters your property".

In fact, our county solicitors office has pointed out that under the current law dogs left outside even in fenced and secure yards for more then the allotted thirty minute timeframe the law allows for "intermittent" barking would be an admission of violating the ordinance even if the only evidence was based on a complaint statement.

2) Section (2) not only doesn't require animal control to measure the noise levels but fails to require any type of investigation to verify that the pet owner is in violation of the ordinance. In fact, these complaints can be filed AT animal control with animal control issuing citations without even verifying that any of the facts stated on complainant's sworn statement are true. Animal control is not required to investigate or even visit the location were the dogs are being cited.

In my case the sworn statement filled out that resulted in my citations being issued included several obvious false statements INCLUDING the fact the complaining party claimed to reside at the house located next to me when in fact she lived several miles away. Animal control not only failed to investigate this issue but did NOT require her to furnish any PROOF of residence including displaying a driver's license. Obviously someone who doesn't even reside in "close proximity" of where the alleged barking dog violation occurs CAN NOT swear to facts such as the "dogs bark day and night".

This law allows for abusive manipulation by real estate speculators and those who might seek some sort of vindictive retribution on issues that have nothing to do with the dogs being cited.

In fact, the sentencing guidelines encourage those who simply don't like dogs, don't want dogs living in their neighborhood to have these dogs removed by exploiting this poorly written ordinance. Those of us who have responsibly owned dogs for years are at the mercy of any unethical predatory realtor only interested in selling a property nearby with no long term commitments to our neighborhoods.

No where in our county codes do we grant private citizens the power to not only bring about criminal charges but in fact manufacture evidence to support those changes WITHOUT any policing investigation except for barking dogs. We would not allow a citizen to go to their local police station and swear out a statement that they witnessed someone driving under the influence or committing road rage WITHOUT assigning an investigating to verify if these changes were even remotely true - yet dog owners do not have the same DUE PROCESS rights?

Further it is an embarrassment when our county attorney's office who writes these drafts and laws fail miserably in addressing truth and credibility issues with their own witnesses. This is the same attorney's office that threatens lengthy jail terms while denying trials by jury, that completely fails to understand what compliance to discovery motions are all about. Only in dog barking cases would the solicitor be allowed to introduce manufactured video's at the trial while ignoring any filed discovery motions in the process.

I would suggest that Gwinnett County Attorney's office spend a little more time brushing up on a document called the U.S. Constitution - especially the first year law school sections that address due process and cruel and unusual punishments. That would be a change we as citizens are all entitled to. We don;t ask for much as citizens on this fine community but we do ask for fairness.

3) Section three is equally confusing - while it suggests that the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance - it doesn't address HOW the owner is going to be advised on possible solutions if animal control is not required to investigate any of the accusations involved. I would suggest that this issue of investigating allegations prior to bringing about citations is seriously needed in any ordinance change being proposed.

It is ironic that dog barking appears to be the ONLY animal violations that lacks this step in the process. All of the other issues addressed including dogs running at large, no tags, damage to property require investigations and citations being written based on this investigation.

4) Section (4) addresses the requirements of requiring sworn statements but what are the penalties involved for those who file false and frivolous charges? Is the county going to continue a practice of accepting at face value that all citizens are being honest with their allegations or are pet owners entitled to an accepted "innocent until proven guilty" concept that seems to get lost in these cases.

Simply because a citizen "owns" a dog is not evidence that the dog violated the statute absent of any investigation into the claims on the sworn statement. Going back to my case in addition to being falsely accused of "harboring" dogs that barked day and night I was also accused of breeding dogs, kicking and beating my dogs, keeping my dogs in horrible conditions and that in fact all of the dogs I owned were guilty of violating the ordinance. Despite their being NO evidence that any of these allegations were even remotely accurate animal control focused on the allegation that there might have been a violation of the barking dog ordinance. I say might because even knowing all the facts they still failed to verify any of the claims and accusations on this "sworn" statement so why should pet owners feel any more protected under the revisions being proposed?

The statement " The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. " would require definition as well. This change would have eliminated one, two or all three of the witnesses used in my case who did not "live" in close proximity to the animals doing the barking. The fact is the old law allowed two witnesses who lived several miles away and a third witness who lived over a football field away and admitted to being hard of hearing at the trial. Arguably he couldn't possibly hear "disturbing" dog barking coming from my address. Even IF barking could be heard coming from the direction of my house it would be impossible to determine IF those dogs were mine or IF an intruder was responsible for causing the dogs to bark.

It is ironic that our county attorney's office used a witness with those hearing limitations who testified that while he was hard of hearing and required a hearing aid he could still hear my dogs from his bedroom which prevented him from being able to sleep. I guess the thought of turning down the volume on his hearing aid never crossed his mind? Does the law address these issues? No......it does not but instead uses these weak excuses in obtaining convictions.

5) Section (5) has the same problems as section (4).

6) Section (6) is the only provision that makes any sense. It would have also prevented my case from ending up in court and ending up costing local taxpayers thousands of dollars in court costs that could have been spent elsewhere. Under the existing ordinance it is unclear as to if a pet owner makes substantial changes to correct a problem whether or not those changes were effective or whether there might be a different issue involved.

There are a number of common sense issues that the county attorney's omitted from the proposed changes. I often wonder if the people who draft these laws even own a dog let alone more then one.

News flash for the county attorney's office - DOGS BARK 0 but typically they have a very good reason for doing so. While I fully understand that neighbor's are entitled to privacy and I too would be upset if my dogs or my neighbors dogs barked well into the night the fact is under this law it is also virtually impossible to allow your dog out in your yard for more then thirty minutes without risking being cited if a neighbor feels so inclined.

A much simpler approach would be to address the issue of barking dogs under the county noise ordinance. It is ironic that if a pet owner chooses to allow their dog(s) out in the yard while they are mowing the lawn and that process takes more then thirty minutes they can be cited if there dogs bark intermittently for noise but the much louder noise coming from the lawn mower is legal. It's also concerning that a pet owner who simply takes their dog(s) out in the yard to play at lunch time could be cited if that activity includes playful intermittent barking that lasts for more then thirty minutes - YET property owners who enjoy "playing" with their leaf blowers are completely legal. While can understand the outrage if a property owner pulled out their lawnmower or leaf blower at 3:00 AM it defies logic why the close to 40% of Gwinnett families who own pets are denied access to their own yards during daytime activity. My "offense" occurred in the middle of a Sunday afternoon when many of my fellow neighbors were tending to their chores including possibly mowing their lawns.

I'm still waiting for one of our county legal scholars to explain to me why three minutes of dogs allegedly behaving like dogs on a sunny afternoon is such a danger to the community that twelve year jail terms are in order?

Wouldn't it be much to eliminate all the large government ineffective bureaucracy by simply developing a mediation process to settle these "neighborly" disputes? While that doesn't support case loads for the legal community in arguing when and if the dog barked it does act as a guardian to the county's funds.

A mediation group of enlightened adults (who stop acting like adolescent's) which could include someone representing animal control and the county solicitors office and who could mediate any disagreements without tying our courts on such frivolous nonsense?

This law can be easily manipulated by neighbors who have issues or squabbles that have absolutely nothing to do with the dogs involved. Rather than drawing our neighborhoods together, squabbles that lead to the loss of our family pets will instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart. Many citizens who choose Gwinnett as their home also have a love affair with their family pets. The image of having Fluffy or Fido ripped from the family home is one that will seriously damage an already depressed market for the homes we own.No one wants to live in a community where a family lives in fear---even that fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance." Our community will be judged on how we treat our elderly, our children and our family pets. That is the community's core of family values.

Please forward your comments to:

Our commissioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010

District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
Current Animal Advisory Board

allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association

carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith Gwinnett Extension Service

DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfeld Feline Issues

calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy Gwinnett Humane Society

outland@laberge.org Gail Laberge Chairperson - Lawrenceville Kennel Club

CPSeals@aol.com Clara Seals - Member at Large

Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director

Meeting Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council

2008-10-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

There will be a meeting of Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council's at the Gwinnett Shelter this Thursday evening (October 16th) at 7:00 PM.

While it is unclear what the agenda of issues to be discussed there are early a number of animal welfare issues that need clarification. With the dramatic increases in dogs and cats being killed at the new Gwinnett's Animal Shelter the focus has shifted to the role the county's animal advisory council should have moving forward.

Commissioner Mike Beaudreau has recommended a dialog be opened with local animal advocates and pet owners on alternatives that would open up county animal welfare policies and solutions to those who feel disenfranchised in the process.

Proposals that are being raised which include replacing four council members up for reappointment, term limits on how long volunteers can serve on the AAC and a process of having each of the four elected commissioners nominate one dog owner and one cat owner to the council thus expanding the makeup of the AAC.

Changing the stagnation of ideas coming out of the current AAC is only the first process in turning the tide in our shared animal welfare policies. We must rebuild the current "bridge to nowhere" between the shelter and the local animal rescue community in order to accomplish our community goals.

This recent article in the Gwinnett Daily Post addresses many of the challenges the new shelter faces.

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=50301&SectionID=23&SubSectionID=37&S=1

Just because you build a larger, newer shelter does not mean you'll have more adoptions - especially if you leave everything else the same. Comparing numbers from June of 2007 from the old shelter and June of 2008 in the new shelter adoptions are down by 20%. There is an even more dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to local rescue groups with those numbers down by close to 60%.

In June of 2007 there were 124 animals sent to rescue out of the old shelter on Hi Hope Road while that number dropped to 54 in June of 2008. While the problems associated with numbers of pets increasing in the new shelter makes finding solutions more tenuous the issue of a dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to rescue groups is more problematic. There is clear evidence that the rescue community feels not only disenfranchised in the process but fears the intimidation issues as well.

Despite repeated requests animal shelter reports for all of 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008 are not available through the county's web site.

A huge market for second hand pets has flourished when instead people are exposed to wonderful dogs and cats while shopping at local pet supply stores. Shelters finding their numbers of pets being killed increasing have turned instead to building solid working relationships with local rescue groups and by seeking out community volunteers to participate in off site adoptions.

Common sense dictates that pet owners/taxpayers are relied on to fund animal control and therefore should be entitled to help with oversight on county's animal policies. Taxpayers have the right to choose between funding "kill as you go" shelter policies as opposed to implementing cost saving no kill or low kill policies.

This would be a stark contrast to the current makeup of the council which is and has been controlled by special interests.

The last several years has been a turning point for many animal welfare programs seeking to find solutions to rising euthanasia rates when they discovered that pets sell themselves if you simply get them in front of people who are most likely to adopt. No matter how much you dress up any kill shelter there is still going to be the issue that many pet owners simply don't want to have to face the guilt associated with picking out the next family pet in that type of environment.

For shelters that partner with local pet supply stores opportunities are many. Throughout the Atlanta metropolitan area there are dozens of pet supply stores like Petsmart that have formalized adoption centers on weekends and catered the programs to meet the community's needs.

The advantage of marketing pets through rescue groups and pet supply stores also serves pet owners too. People adopting a fostered dog or fostered cat from a licensed rescue group have an abundant choice of pets who are more socialized, healthier and a better fit for their family. Many pet owners who would like to add a rescue pet as the next family pet are ill equipped for dealing with many of the issues that come with adopting straight out of a county kill shelter.

When you cut off that line of local discussion with pet owners and animal advocates as well you destroy all hope towards finding economical and compassionate solutions that no kill movements offer. To get to no-kill it involves developing the partnerships with rescue groups in the community AND with involving local volunteers as part of that solution.

True partnerships only flourish in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust not in one where condemnation and threats flourish instead. True partnerships grow through seeking out solutions rather then focusing on finding blame. A no-kill community learns how to harness the expertise of many of it's experts in those fields.

A true no-kill policy benefits all pets, mutts, pure breeds, cats by providing an example of responsible pet ownership. Responsible pet owners, responsible animal advocates and responsible shelter staff work as a team in helping to teach others the role they play in that no-kill community.

Over the next four years Gwinnett is in serious need of major changes in nor only our poorly written animal ordinances but more importantly how the county handles it's animal control issues. It is no longer acceptable to simply accept killing off excess dogs and cats as an acceptable solution financed by county funding. Revamping the animal advisory council in a manner that will encourage new ideas is a step in the right direction.

Please take the time to attend tomorrow evening's meeting and have your voice heard on these very important issues that serve all of our community's pets.

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Do

2008-09-01T15:32:00.000-07:00

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Dog Ordinance. I am thankful that Judge Muise chose not to punish my hounds and instead placed me on two years probation.

I am forever grateful for the excellent work of Attorney's Anna Sumner and Jennifer Miller of Alston & Bird for representing the hounds in this case. Anna and Jennifer took this case on pro bono and understood that my primary concern was and has always been to make sure ALL my hounds were safe. So tonight the only noise I hear is the sounds of hounds snuggling and snoring beneath my feet.

The hounds and I would also like to extend a warm thank you to all in the rescue community and fellow pet owners for your support over these last difficult months.

AJC - Lilburn man with 25 dogs gets 2 years’ probation for noise

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/08/29/hounds_noise_ordinance.html

Why Is Gwinnett Killing Our Feral Cats?

2008-07-20T06:01:00.000-07:00

With last weeks sad news that a local woman's house cat was mistakenly killed at Gwinnett's shelter after failing what appears to be the shelter's "feral cat" evaluation the question arises "why are we killing our feral cats?"

Even the wildest cat can learn to live around humans and may even exhibit pet like behavior to the person who feeds him. Those locally who care for cat colonies with feral cats witness cats who rub up against their legs and even perhaps purr, just like pet cats. Don't mistake their aloofness as being a symptom of a dangerous nuisance animal.

Contrary, even the most pampered house cat who escapes and runs loose in the wild can survive with the deftness of the most voracious raccoon, rabbit, squirrel or other wild animal. Wouldn't that cat deserve the same respect and rights of survival as any wild animal?

Behaviorally speaking the answer again appears to be that feral cats are wild animals and such should be treated by animal control as such. We have no more right to address feral cats through "trap and kill" policies as we do to the wholesale slaughter of our communities birds, rabbits, squirrels or raccoons.

If a pet cat is abandoned or runs off and gets lost in the woods, has kittens and the kittens that grow up wild because they have no contact with people, are they wild or domestic? Technically, they would be domestic because of domesticated parentage but don't all domesticated cats ultimately come from the wild?

Defining a feral cat as a "nuisance" in the absence of any nuisance behavior is simply wrong. Society goes to great length to protect "wild animals" with great efforts being placed on "allowing" man to live amongst them.

Regardless of whether the cat is the most beloved and pampered pet or the wildest outcast, shelter policies that claim to be based on humane policies view the feral cat as without a human home to protect them and therefore is better off taken to a shelter and killed. Does Gwinnett Animal Control view un-owned cat’s life as a series of brutal experiences? Is Gwinnett responsible for "protecting" these cats from continued andfuture suffering. Or is the ultimately suffering endured when these cats are rounded up and killed within hours of arriving at the shelter?

The reality is that all animals living in the wild face hardship—and feral cats are no exception. Since no animal groups support the trapping and killing of other wild animals—raccoons, rabbits, fox—why do we reserve this fate for feral cats? Wild animals would not choose to have their "suffering" to survive in the wild replaced with feline suicide so why is man so quick to make that choice instead?

If feral cats are genetically identical to wild animals, and they survive in the wild like wild animals, andthey are unsocial to humans like wild animals, and they share the same hardships as wild animals, and if they can and do live in the wild like wild animals, shouldn’t we treat them as we do wild animals—by advocating on their behalf, pushing for their right to life, and respecting and protecting their habitats?

In a humane community why should we condemn feral cats simply because of mistaken logic that some may face hardship while a vast majority peacefully co-exist in nature? I have to say I am not a "cat person" but do respect all animals rights to co-exist in our community. Wholesale rounding up of any animal must be condemned especially in light of other communities that have set up programs for feral colonies implementing trap, neuter, release in controlling the population of the colonies.

Please contact your commissioner and animal control and express your displeasure with Gwinnett's policy of killing feral cats. Slaughtering animals is not part of any animal control policy our community should support.

Foreclosure Market Killing Our Pets

2008-07-05T05:29:00.000-07:00

The AJC ran an interesting article that only confirms what those of us in the rescue community have suspected for many months.

The housing slump and high number of homes going into foreclosure have caused shelter intake numbers to dramatically increase.

Families throughout the Atlanta area are having to make the heartbreaking decision of surrendering their family pets when they lose the family home.

Even neighborhoods like my own are not immune to this slumping housing market. A glut of older homes for sale and an over development of new homes which have caused many property owners watch the value of their homes drop. The house next door went unsold for a number of months before it too went into foreclosure last summer.

While those of us who own homes riddled with empty foreclosed homes nearby which causes concerns over decreased housing values and potential crime magnets.

While the housing market has caused a crisis for families and their pets it has also spawned a market for real estate speculators looking to cash in on the glut of foreclosed homes throughout the Atlanta area. Many of these speculators view the pets living in these homes and surrounding neighborhoods as a hindrance in cashing in on this market.

Susie Porter, a local Solid Source realtor, bought the run down home located next to the hounds and I last summer. My initial relief in watching the house being repaired would soon turn to a nightmare when Porter decided that my hounds stood in the way of her attaining her own windfall profit by quickly selling the property.

In the AJC, Susie Porter, a real estate agent from Snellville was quoted as saying "I bought the house next door out of foreclosure last year with plans to fix it up and live in it."

http://community.myfoxatlanta.com/blogs/By20hounds/2008/05/28/Lilburn_man_wont_give_up_dogs_despite_jail_threat

While honesty and ethics seem to get lost in Porter's real desire to make a quick $65,000 cashing in on her new investment property, what doesn't get lost was her obsessive hatred for "hound dogs". While moving her family in was never an option - moving my hounds out was.

Porter's claim that the dogs barked might have been confused with what she really meant "DEAD DOG'S - DON'T BARK..........". After placing her extensively remodeled "must see inside" home on the market for only ten days Porter pounced on the opportunity to have the dogs impounded under Gwinnett's radical barking dog ordinance.

According to her comments in the AJC she didn't want to see me jailed "I just want him to be reasonable." There's nothing reasonable in trying to get my hounds impounded and sent to our new county shelter where they would become simply a blip on a statistic sheet. A brand new shelter already killing for space even though it had only been open for a few short months.

While Cobb County appears to have had a 15% increase in the number of pets killed during the first five months of 2008 Gwinnett's numbers had soared 50% higher. How many of these numbers are from people who simply dump their pets? How many are from people who are encouraged to dump their pets from unethical realtors like Porter who view the family pet as "disposable". How many of the pets being killed could of and should have been offered alternatives that would have kept them out of the shelter in the first place? These are the sorry questions we all need answers to.

Sadly, Porter is not alone in taking socially irresponsible policies on marketing houses that include family pets. Are these corporate positions part of a training program to deal with dogs and cats in marketing theior listings? One of her colleagues offers this advise on "leashing the family dog" in the backyard in order to show the house. Another suggests that "pet odors" are an important consideration when trying to sell your house.

One can only guess how many family dogs and cats end up in our shelters simply because home owners act irresponsibly and follow Solid Source's "professional" advise. Of course, tying the family pet out in the back yard would be a violation of Gwinnett's anti-tethering ordinance but this seems to be inconsequential in making that sale.

http://www.billwagnerhomes.com/SolidSource4.aspx?page=19&content=Getting%20Started%20Selling%20Your%20Home

Those who advocate for our community's companion animals need to speak out against "corporate" policies that put any pet at risk. Realtors who work for Solid Source who don't share these same "sorry" irresponsible opinions on selling homes with pets need to speak out as well.

Marketing of houses must take into consideration the safety of all of our family pets and not become fall out that drives the escalating shelter intake that costs far too many pets their lives.

"Through May, the Gwinnett Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center has put down 2,570 dogs and cats. Last year, during the same five-month period, it euthanized 1,720."

"I don't know if it's [foreclosures], or if it's just sorry people," says Gwinnett Police Lt. Mary Lou Respess, who oversees the center. "But we have noticed an increase" in unwanted animals.

Maybe it's the "sorry" overzealous enforcement of Gwinnett's revised animal ordinance that has animal control recommending impounding pets on fixable offenses that are contributing to this crisis.

The numbers being reported by the AJC directly contradicts the information being posted on Gwinnett's Animal Shelter web site which states: "With pet overpopulation on the rise, we're proud to report a decrease in incoming animals and an increase in animals placed to individuals and rescue groups through our shelter."

The AJC should be commended for seeking out the truth about Gwinnett's shelter numbers especially since that information IS NOT being shared with local residents. It is deplorable that OUR county animal control refuses to post updated records on the number of pets that enter and die in our shelter. Nothing has been posted since year end 2006.

Despite our shelter director's opinion it's not just the "sorry people" causing the increases in "unwanted" pets turning up in our shelter. It's the small number of "sorry" realtors like the state's witness against my hounds that drive these increases as well. It's the new direction of sorry shelter management policies that help drive this huge increase in killing by not investigations allegations before recommending impounding family pets.

Instead of developing programs to help pet owners keep their pets out of our shelter we are witnesses a wave of prosecutorial sentencing that adds to the shelter numbers.

There appears to be a disconnect with our shelter's management still convinced on blaming the "sorry people" in the community for skyrocketing intake numbers. These intake numbers include an equally disturbing number of "wanted" pets that are being forced into our shelter over minor violations of our revised animal ordinance. Correctable ordinance violations that result in forcing pets into an overcrowded shelter is simply irresponsible.

This "sorry" policy comes right out of our county leadership in animal control and the courts that should be protecting the sentinel interests of our community's pets. Our pets are not the problem - it's the owners who should face the burden of penalties under the law.

This disturbing transgression is also shared in our local court system as well. Solicitor Joe Randazzo was quoted as offering me a deal to avoid trial and jail: "give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation." While that was an improvement over animal control's recommendation of surrendering over 20 of my hounds in order to avoid a twelve year and $24,000 fine sentence any sentencing arrangement for barking dogs that leads to even one death is simply irresponsible. Are our courts so ill advised as to how irresponsible those sentencing arrangement would be?

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/06/27/petsg.html

Gwinnett Revised Animal Ordinance

2008-06-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

Last night after a very lengthy board meeting I was able to give comments to the commissioners which addressed many of the issues surrounding Gwinnett's new revised animal ordinance.

There are several points that I addressed. They include issues of sentencing and killing dogs on ordinance violations. I also discussed more precisely the way that the animal advisory board drafted and passed this law. In a packet that was given to each of the commissioners I included the open records copies of the animal advisory board meeting from 2006 onward.

Additionally, copies of the animal advisory bylaws, copies of the Georgia Canine Coalition board of directors and copies of all the donors who contribute to Gail's political action coalition that serves to protect the interest of many of Georgia's kennel clubs.

The entire draft of my presentation (which I condensed in my comments to the board) was also included. What follows are my prepared comments that clearly ask to have the revised animal ordinance retracted with public hearings being scheduled to help draft a RESPONSIBLE animal ordinance in Gwinnett that serves not only the public that owns pets but more importantly a law that serves the best interests of the pets themselves. Any such responsible law should include:

To support and promote laws, regulations and court decisions which positively benefit the lives of wild, exotic, farm and companion animals in the State of Georgia, and to oppose existing or proposed legislation negatively impacting animal welfare;

To advocate for the effective enforcement and prosecution of Georgia laws designed to protect wild, exotic, farm and companion animals, and in particular, to advocate felony prosecutions when applicable and appropriate, and to facilitate educational opportunities for those involved with such enforcement and prosecution; and

To support the strengthening of spay/neuter initiatives designed to address companion animal overpopulation in the State of Georgia.

Those last three comments come from the mission statement for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals web site. One would question how the current law addresses these concerns especially in light of the fact that both the President and Vice President of GLPA were provided input in drafting this revised law.

It is one thing for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals, Inc. to espouse an ethical and moral precept which maintains that animals are sentient beings, with a capacity for pain and suffering and an intrinsic right to their own lives. It is an entirely different concept to understand the rationale of forcing impound on those same pets who already enjoy living safely in responsible homes.

The concept of protecting and serving the needs of ALL of my pets from a cruel and inhumane sentence of ending up in our county's shelter is what I will continue to advocate for.

Board of Commissioner’s Meeting June 24th, 2008

I am here to discuss the revised animal ordinance passed by this Board of Commissioners in January of 2007. This ordinance was passed without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or even more importantly – asking local pet owners for their comments on the new law.

Thousands of pet owners are now discovering that even being a responsible pet owner can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.

Instead of focusing our animal resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners, our resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding pets with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 million dollar shelter.

Gwinnett has historically been a pet friendly place to raise our families – including our family of pets. Funding for pet friendly projects, be that new dog parks or more recently our new shelter have met with overwhelmingly approval of these expenditures. This revised law allows for sentencing our family pets into impound situations that will fill this shelter with barking dogs.

It is the outrageous penalties that the ordinance authorizes that have the pet owners outraged. I am facing twelve years in jail and up to $24,000 fines for what is a first time citation for alleged dog barking. That threat has been clearly presented during the negotiation process trying to force me to surrender my family of hounds.

We are outraged with the board of commissioners for authorizing a law that would seize and dispose of property by ending the lives of our pets in sentencing. Those who support such draconian punishment not only lose our respect but our future votes as well. You do not force responsible pet ownership with irresponsible punishment that leads to killing our family pets.

The Nuisance Animal "dog barking" statute does nothing towards drawing our neighborhoods together but instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart.

This revised ordinance allows for any entity to persecute and manipulate the court systems to rid neighborhoods of our family pets. This includes “predatory” realtors and speculators who purchase properties in our neighborhoods merely to make a quick profit. Selling these homes at all cost, including the lives of our family of pets, only to move on once that sale is completed.

With this developer’s mantra of “dead dogs don’t bark”, anyone who allows their pets outdoors where barking may occur can now be cited. Even if the dog is barking at a squirrel it is in violation of the ordinance if the complaining party hears the barking.

Since the law YOU passed doesn’t require any investigation by animal control – doesn’t require that any noise level requirements be met or proved – it makes defending this law virtually impossible. This law leaves open for interpretation under what guidelines how even the word intruder comes into play.

Witnesses who live miles away can still file complaints under this ordinance.

Even though I am facing twelve years in jail, huge financial fines if convicted, recorder’s court has denied me a jury trial because ordinances citations don’t qualify under county rules.

Recorders Court apparently isn’t familiar or doesn’t follow a document called the U.S. Constitution that entitles all citizens the right to be heard by a jury of our peers.

No one wants to live in a community where and live in fear - fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance". This law doesn’t support responsible pet ownership but instead criminalizes the ownership of pets.

As disturbing as the revised animal ordinances are what is more disturbing is the blatant way that this law was created.

In March of 1993 a resolution of the board of commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council. The purpose of this group to provide a CLEAR CHANNEL for communication and dialog with citizens who responsibly own and cherish their families pets and the Board of Commissioners.

I don't think I need to clarify that transparent government is essential in allowing all citizens voices to be heard on important issues in our community. To those of us who own and cherish our pets there would be nothing MORE important then the passage of revisions to our animal ordinances.

How the Animal Advisory Council drafted and agreed on the new revised law remains a mystery. Those revisions were passed on "staff recommendations" in a total elapsed time of SIXTEEN SECONDS. No public reading of the amendments were posted nor was citizen comments allowed prior to this becoming the new animal ordinance.

The real problem with the passage of this law is HOW it became law in the first place. Despite several attempts at trying to determine when, why and how this bill morphed into the nightmare that it is - there is NO DOCUMENTATION on how the revised bill was even created. It appears to have grown like a mushroom in the dark of night.

During the process of drafting this revised ordinance in 2006, AAC meetings were routinely moved from location to location, scheduled meetings appear to have only minimal information available or minutes have been misplaced. Minutes approved by the council don’t even exist.

In an even more flagrant abuse of the open meetings act the last meeting was held in a Lawrenceville Restaurant where COUNTY business was discussed. I would hope that NO ONE on this board is going to suggest that having to purchase a meal to attend an animal advisory meeting even remotely complies with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.

The current Animal Advisory Council has become a special interest advisory group as opposed to providing locals pet owners with a say in our county’s animal policies. NO ONE on that group represents your average pet owner yet there are TWO members who represent the breeders and kennel clubs.

These two members, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals also serve as board members for the Georgia Canine Coalition – a political action group that takes money from breed clubs in Georgia. Having the Georgia Canine Coalition involved in setting animal welfare policy in Gwinnett is as offensive as allowing a coalition of developers with their special interests run the county’s planning council.

One needs to question whether the needs of pet owners and rescue groups are being circumvented to the special interest needs of local breed clubs instead?

Why should issues of saving shelter pets become a priority when the kennel clubs are competing for the very same pet homes in our community?

Officers chosen for the Animal Advisory Council, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals are expected to do their jobs – they hold key positions on the board being the chairperson and secretary that controls and approves vital meeting functions including scheduling, meeting agenda’s and keeping of council’s records.

These are standard procedures clearly spelled out in the Animal Advisory Council’s bylaws. These standard procedures once enacted should have lead to proper ordinances being proposed instead of this controversial ordinance that was recommended for passage.

As officers who should be following parliamentary procedures it appears from open records requests that this council has failed miserably in that responsibility.

It bewilders the average citizen that meetings that were held two years ago still have records being stored and kept under Ms.Laberge’s control. This is NOT open government but a governmental entity that drafts laws for approval under a veil of secrecy and EXCLUDES the local citizens from that process.

My question for all of you is what are YOU going to do about this? Obviously those of us who own pets and vote are totally outraged at these abuses in open government.

Nothing short of removing both Laberge and Seals will restore confidence in the Animal Advisory Council. They need to be replaced by an open process that includes members of the community who own and rescue pets. Otherwise, if THIS Board of Commissioner’s cannot or will not provide the oversight the law requires then this council needs to be disbanded.

Citizens are simply tired of the same old worn out promises of our elected officials who promise to watch out for our interest up until they are elected, only to have the same officials serve the special interests groups once elected.

There are several coalitions of pet interest groups being formed now that these issues are in the public’s eye. The worst-case scenario of a “perfect storm of outrage” will be a joining of all these groups to form ONE voice in making sure our voices are heard. If we can’t get our voices heard through the current Board of Commissioners then rest assured we can and will have our voices heard in the election booths in November.

Randy DeCarlo
Lilburn

Finally, Jock Connell mentions that the new shelter has increased the number of hours the shelter is open for the public to adopt pets. That information is NOT currently on the county's shelter web page. I might also suggest if serving the needs of our community's pet owners is a priority then maintaining accuracy on the shelter's petfinder's site should be important as well.

Those who agree that we need to completely reevaluate our animal ordinances through public hearings should please email the county commissioners with that request.

Current Animal Advisory Board

Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith

DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfield - Feline Issues

calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy = Gwinnett Humane Society

outland@laberge.org Gail Leberge Chairperson and Lawrenceville Kennel Club

allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association

CPSeals@aol.com Clara P. Seals Member at Large

carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large

Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director

County Commissioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010

District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com

Crosspost freely

Speaking out for Gwinnett's pets....

2008-06-22T04:55:00.001-07:00

A now controversial revised animal ordinance passed in Gwinnett by our Board of Commissioners in January of 2007. This ordinance was passed in all of SIXTEEN seconds without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or even more importantly – asking Gwinnett’s County of pet owners and rescuers for their comments on the new law.

Now, thousands of pet owners throughout the county are discovering that even being a responsible pet owner in Gwinnett can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time, no tags, and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.

Even issues of veterinarian care which should be a decision made between a pet owner and their family vet now comes under scrutiny of animal control's discretion. All of these offenses should be "fix it" citations but instead the new revised ordinance allows the county to impound your pet. Pet owners sentenced to jail for not complying with judicial sentencing are being threatened with jail terms only further endangering their ability to care for their family pets.

Instead of focusing our animal control resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners our animal control resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding dogs with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 millon dollar shelter.

How this revised ordinance became "law" is even more disturbing. This revision of animal issues in Gwinnett was passed solely on the recommendations of the county attorney's with the blessing of Gwinnett's dysfunctional and highly secretive Animal Advisory Council.

Gail Laberge, the long time or should I say "life long" chair of AAC claims this group has "no power" but only acts as an advisory for the Board of Commissioners. To be clear, Gail represents the interest of local kennel clubs and not the interest of those pet owners and rescue volunteers with a vested interest in preventing pets from entering our animal shelter.

This law needs to be retracted and a dialog with the community's pet owners and rescue volunteers needs to be heard before any changes in our ordinances are passed into law.

More importantly the makeup of the Animal Advisory Board is in serious need of new blood which will include active participation by local pet owners and private volunteer rescuers who have for too long now been silenced from this process. While Laberge may be powerless to do anything but protect her own special interests WE do have the power of electing our commissioners to protect our family interests INCLUDING our families of pets.

There will be an evening session with the Board of Commissioner's on Tuesday June 24th at Gwinnett's Judicial Center. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM and the public is permitted to speak at the end. With the entire Board running for re-election it is imperative that the voices of our community's pets be represented as well as Gwinnett's other "important issues. Those of you who have something to add to this dialog are encouraged to write out your thoughts which can also be presented to the commissioners for public consideration.

WE all have strong feelings on making Gwinnett a more humane community and for moving towards a direction of building a no kill community. Aren't we tired of all the dire excuses of blame that changes nothing and allows the killing as usual become our standard animal control policy?

I look forward to seeing you there.

Permission to cross post

AJC - Man won't take probation, give up dogs to avoid jail

2008-06-18T15:44:00.000-07:00

The following article has been printed in the AJC. I have prepared comments to present to our county commissioners which will address the serious problems with Gwinnett's revised animal ordinances.

It is one thing to complain about the problems these laws cause especially the resulting impact of pet owners forced to surrender their family pets or who simply dump the family pet to prevent facing being cited under the new ordinances.

Gail Laberge can claim that the animal advisory council acts only as an advisory group but it is in that capacity that this group has failed to protect responsible pet owners and more importantly the very lives of pets now at risk. Gail Laberge does not represent the interests of thousand of Gwinnett pet owners who are responsible for their family pets. She doesn't represent the rescue community either.

Holding animal advisory meetings at local resteraunts and having AAC records in disarray does not come close to complying with the laws concerning open records or open meetings.

Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is in need of new leadership which understands how to reach out to pet owners in the community instead of simply providing meaningless lip service instead.

http://www.ajc.com/food/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/06/18/gwinnett_dog_lover.html

Man won't take probation, give up dogs to avoid jail
Randy DeCarlo intends to complain to Gwinnett commission
By GEORGE CHIDI
The Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionPublished on: 06/18/08

A Lilburn man accused of violating the county's noise ordinance with his pack of two dozen hound dogs plans to bark at the county commission Tuesday.

Randy DeCarlo said Wednesday that he wants the commission to address his concerns about Gwinnett County's new animal ordinance and the policies — including those governing euthanizing cats and dogs — of Gwinnett's animal control department, and the county's animal advisory council.

Georgie Chidi/AJC
(ENLARGE)
Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered Randy DeCarlo, seen here with a few of his dogs, a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.

"Obviously, the first thing we're going to discuss is the animal ordinance and how it effect responsible pet owners," DeCarlo said.

Police issued DeCarlo 24 citations for violating Gwinnett County's nuisance noise ordinance last year. DeCarlo potentially faces 12 years in jail — six months for each of the 24 charges. Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered DeCarlo a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.

DeCarlo's case, originally scheduled for trial this month, has been pushed back to August 26 in Gwinnett County Recorder's Court. DeCarlo has replaced his attorney and is seeking a dismissal, he said. He has also made open records requests of the county's animal advisory council for meeting minutes, seeking information to bolster his claim that the county's policy-making process on animal issues hasn't been open to public scrutiny.

Gail Leberge, chairwoman of the council, said her group has been in compliance with the state's open meetings laws and is open to the public. "We're strictly an advisory group," she said. "We have no powers."

Georgia Canine Coalition Opposes Banning Gas in Shelters

2008-06-18T09:16:00.000-07:00

While the rescue community has worked long and hard trying to change the inhumane practice of ending a pet's life with the use of gas - the same kennel clubs who support GCC oppose these changes as well.

Gail Laberge, however, through her Georgia Canine Coalition OPPOSES HB 1060. Laberge wear several hats in lobbying for laws that concern our family pets. She is the longtime chairperson for Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council which helped draft and passed one of the most repressive animal ordinances in Georgia.

Apparently the Gwinnett bill's wording which allows sentencing of six months in jail, up to $1,000 in fines and impounding of the family pet for such minor first time offenses such as dog barking, fifteen minute tethering violations, no tags on collar ect doesn't bother Gail as much as the wording on a law that outlaws the use of gas in Georgia's shelters.

Gail is also the AKC's Board Member for legislative liaison meaning she claims the knowledge and determination to protect pet owners from abusive regulations that threaten our family of pets - well, that is everyone except those who live in Gail's home county of Gwinnett.

Here's Gail's position on supporting the current laws that allow gassing in our shelters.

Georgia Canine Coalition's policy position on "HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers." OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs."

House Bill 1060 was introduced on January 31, 2008 and is in the House Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee. This bill deals with euthanasia in shelters, training and certification of certain persons authorized to euthanize animals, and the record keeping and public reporting of certain information by all rescue groups and those designated as a “public shelter agency”. It defines a “public shelter agency” as “any facility operated by or under contract with the state or any political subdivision of the state for the purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals. Such term shall include any veterinarian or veterinary clinic which operates for such purpose n addition to its customary practice”. The GCC has serious concerns with this bill as it is written and therefore opposes it.

(G.C.C. Item 9.) HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers. OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/house/Committees/agriculture/agIndex.htm Write (faxes are best) and urge a public hearing on this bill; tell committee members to vote NO on H.B. 1060.

Here is HB 1060 which would ban the use of gas in euthanasia of shelter animals. It always amazes me that Gail would have a problem with the wording of bills like HB 1060 but seems completely oblivious to the wording in Gwinnett's Revised Animal Ordinance.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1060.htm

Can we really trust Gal Laberge to protect our pets in Gwinnett?