But they didn’t fool Mitzy.
The sniffer dog, one of many working for the British Border Force, located the three stowaways inside the truck at the Dunkirk port in northern France, BBC reported.
The coffins were aboard a Bulgarian-registered vehicle and were bound for a funeral home in west London.
The stowaways were handed over to French border police.
Posted by jwoestendiek November 1st, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, British Border Force, coffins, dog, dogs, europe, illegal, immigrants, k9, Mitzy, pets, smuggling, sniffer, sniffing, truck, uk
But it apparently concerns one state legislator enough that he has proposed making it illegal.
Dogs would be forbidden from sharing the driver’s seat with motorists under a bill introduced in the General Assembly by Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston.
The proposed fines are $85 for a first offense, $100 for the second and $125 for subsequent offenses, according to the Providence Journal.
Palumbo said he submitted the proposal on behalf of a constituent who told him of a near accident she said was almost caused by a driver sharing the front seat with a dog.
Early results of a reader poll on the issue showed more than 70 percent supporting such a law.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
(Photo: John Freidah / Providence Journal)
Posted by jwoestendiek April 10th, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, dog, dog on lap, dogs, drive, driver, driving, fines, front seat, illegal, lap, law, legislation, pets, proposed, rhode island, safety, tickets
Despite their plea of poverty, despite maintaining they’ve sidestepped the crisis, our verdict remains.
As does the evidence: a police memo that instructed officers, when it came to stray dogs, to serve as judge, jury and executioner for any that seemed sick or violent; and transport and dump the others elsewhere — all while assuring any concerned citizens they were going to “a nice farm in the country.”
In the fall of last year, the cash-strapped capital city found itself unable to keep up with the terms of its contract with the Humane Society of the Harrisburg Area, which operates the key animal shelter in the area.
About $6,300 in arrears, the city quietly waltzed out of the contract, with no announcement to the public, Amy Worden at the Philadelphia Inquirer’s dog blog, Philly Dawg, reports.
As a result of police having nowhere to take abandoned or stray dogs, Capt. Annette Books gave police supervisors the following instructions in a Dec. 5 memo:
If the animal is vicious and a danger to the public and/or officers, or if the animal is obviously sick, injured or suffering the animal may be destroyed in as safe a manner as possible. The animal will then be taken to the Agriculture Bldg. (near the loading dock area) on Cameron St. for disposal.
The memo went on to add:
If the animal is determined to be a “found” animal, the officer can ask the complainant if they want to keep the animal or if they know someone who will adopt the animal, or the officer can adopt the animal for himself/herself, or the officer can place the animal in a prisoner van and release it to an area where it will be safe for the animal.
If you choose to adopt the animal yourself or release it in a safe environment, DO NOT inform the complainant of your intentions.
Instead, the memo suggested that officers tell citizens the dog is “going to a nice farm in the country.”
Animal welfare advocates, rightfully, were enraged and called the policy both inhumane and illegal. Abandoning an animal is a crime in Pennsylvania, and here was a police official ordering that officers do exactly that, or worse, as a matter of policy.
“Police officers cannot play judge, jury and executioner in the case of a stray dog,” said Tom Hickey, a member of the governor’s Dog Law Advisory Board.
By the end of December, the city publicly declared the matter resolved, making the memo’s instructions a “moot” point, a spokesperson for the city’s mayor said.
We’d disagree with that. We’d say it’s not moot at all. And we’d suggest that the police captain who wrote the memo be driven somewhere out in the country, perhaps to a nice farm, where she would be safe.
It’s not entirely clear what, if any, definite terms have been agreed upon by the city and the humane society, but they are reportedly meeting and talking.
Worden reports that, according to animal rescuers, the shelter continues to turn away stray animals and that “police officers are telling the public they cannot help unless the dog is aggressive. In which case, according to the memo, they will be shot.”
Worden also reports that a Facebook petition drive has been started, called “Stop the Shooting of Dogs in Harrisburg.”
All that considered, Dusty Rose, the dog pictured at the top of this post, is lucky to have seen 2012.
A female pit bull, she was found outside a convenience store on New Year’s eve by a volunteer with Central Pennsylvania Animal Alliance (CPAA). The volunteer called 911, and a police officer arrived to tell her the only thing he was authorized to do was shoot the dog if it was aggressive.
Wadsworth told him she’d prefer to do without his services and called fellow CPAA volunteers to help round up the dog.
Dusty’ Rose is now receiving medical care at a veterinary hospital in York, where she is recovering from surgery to fix a prolapsed uterus. Donations to her care can be sent to CPAA or made through its website.
Posted by jwoestendiek January 4th, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: abandoned, abandonment, animal shelters, animal welfare, animals, budget, central pennsylvania animal alliance, contract, cpaa, crisis, destroy, disposal, dog law, dogs, dusty rose, email, finances, found, harrisburg, humane society, humane society of harrisburg, illegal, inhumane, memo, nice farm in the country, pennsylvania, petition, pets, philly dawg, pit bull, police, policy, release, rescues, shoot, stray dogs, strays
Baillieu outlined his tough new proposals at the Lost Dogs’ Home in North Melbourne last month, calling them “some of the strongest laws ever introduced to protect animals from abuse and neglect.”
They were submitted to the Victorian parliament the next week, and passed last week, according to a press release sent to ohmidog! from his office.
(If only American government entities could move so fast.)
“We are not going to tolerate cruelty to animals,” Baillieu said in October, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald. “As a dog owner, I am appalled by images I have seen of abused and helpless animals.”
The new legislation creates far heavier fines for illegally operating puppy farms — up to $20,000, $30,000 in some cases — and it allows the government to seize the assets of puppy mill operators. Money raised from the sale of confiscated assets would go towards an Animal Welfare Fund.
The law establishes a $1.6 million Animal Welfare Fund that will be used to care for animals, assist animal shelters and educate the community on responsible pet ownership.
Under the new legislation, 10-year bans on pet ownership can be imposed on anyone found guilty of animal cruelty.
The new law — proposed in response to grisly scenes discovered in some Victorian puppy farms where dogs were kept in cages and carcasses left to rot — also make it mandatory for dogs and cats sold in the state to be fitted with a microchip.
“The community has rallied for these changes to the law which will protect animals from abuse and neglect, while ensuring operators of illegal puppy farms are held accountable for the treatment and welfare of animals in their care.”
(Photo: Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu with puppies from the Lost Dogs’ Home. Courtesy of Baillieu’s office.)
Posted by jwoestendiek November 13th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animal welfare, animal welfare fund, animals, assets, bans, breeders, cats, crack down, dogs, fines, illegal, law, legislation, mandatory, microchips, ownership, parliament, pets, premier, protection, puppy farms, puppy mills, rspca, seize, ted baillieu, victorian
Pity the poor dogs of El Cerrito — at least those who go for walks.
It has long been illegal for dogs in the northern California city to have a bowel movement, unless they — and by that we mean both dog and bowel movement — were in their own yard.
At least it was until yesterday.
The city council was expected to approve last night a proposal to change the old law, amending it to allow dogs to “excrete” off the dog owner’s property — as long as the person in possession of the dog cleans it up.
The old law was never enforced, but city staff apparently thought it needed to be revamped to better fit modern times, according to Patch.com.
Under the city’s muncipal code, it was illegal for anyone in possession of a dog to allow it to engage in “excreting on property other than that of its owner.” Under the revised ordinance, scheduled for a vote last night, it would only be illegal if a dog’s owner failed to clean it up
We are assuming, by excretion, they mean what is more scientifically called No. 2. If not, and owners are now expected to clean up No. 1, or urine — and it too is excreted, at least according to my dictionary — that could be even more problematic than the old law.
Here’s how the old law read:
It is unlawful and shall constitute a nuisance per se for any person having possession of any dog to permit the same to disturb the public peace and welfare by barking, teasing other pets or animals, jumping fences, spilling garbage cans, excreting on property other than that of its owner, giving birth on the street, lying on the sidewalk so as to block it, burying objects of any sort on property other than that of its owner, or running loose on school property.
The new law still uses the term “excrete,” which, for clarity’s sake probably should have been updated as well. Perhaps an excess of discretion led to using “excretion.”
Posted by jwoestendiek November 8th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, city council, dogs, el cerrito, excrement, excrete, excreting, excretion, fecal matter, illegal, laws, ordinance, pee, pets, poop, property, revised, waste
Buying a wolf hybrid has become illegal in Maine, but it’s going to take a while for them to disappear from the state, if they do at all.
The law requires current owners to have the animals neutered and prohibits the purchase of dog-wolf mixes, except by those with special wildlife-in-captivity permits.
The law was passed after concerns arose about a wolf hybrid refuge in Bristol.
“Wolf hybrids are not pets,” said Sen. David Trahan, the bill’s sponsor. “Would people consider bringing a coyote or mountain lion into their home crossed with another cat or another dog?”
Jim Doughty, who operates the Wolf Ledge Refuge in Bristol, says the law is misguided and unfairly brands the animals.
“Any animal, no matter whether it’s a pure wolf or a Chihuahua or a pug or anything else, depends on the person and how they raise it,” he said. “It’s the same thing with your kids. If you’re abusive toward your kids, they’re not going to be so good. If you work with them, they’ll be great.”
According to an Associated Press article, forty states forbid the ownership, breeding and importation of wolf dogs, while others impose some form of regulation upon ownership.
The law doesn’t prevent Doughty from continuing to take in wolf hybrids from people who no longer want them.
Last month, one of Doughty’s animals, Luna, escaped and attacked a chicken next door.
Doughty doesn’t consider wolf hybrids to be dangerous, but said he wouldn’t recommend them for families with small children. He doesn’t think the law will eliminate wolf dogs from Maine.
“Owners are going to list it as another dog,” he said. “The vet might know it and everybody else might know it, but nobody’s going to say a word.”
(Photo: Jim Doughty and a wolf hybrid named Koda; by Kate Collins / Bangor Daily News)
Posted by jwoestendiek October 11th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, ban, bristol, david trahan, dog, dogs, hybrids, illegal, jim doughty, law, maine, ownership, pets, refuge, wolf, wolf dog, wolf hybrids, wolf ledge refuge, wolves
Start spreading the news. Dogs, despite the many drinking establishments in New York that let them in, are against the rules, and the city health department is making it a point to enforce them.
That means — even though everybody knows his name — dogs like Miles, a 9-year-old boxer-pug mix who has been going to Ace Bar in the East Village all his life, is no longer welcome there .
Citywide, it’s the end of a tradition — an illegal tradition, but a tradition all the same, the New York Times reports.
The crackdown applies indoors and out, and even to bars that don’t serve what you and I might consider food. “Beer, wine and spirits have always been classified as food,” a department spokeswoman wrote in an email to the Times.
As a result, Miles can only forlornly look in the door when he passes the Ace Bar on his daily walk, said manager Justin Saunders. “Every time Miles walks by, he tries to come in.”
“He’s a dog, but I swear he looks sad,” said Miles owner, Mike Israely.
While it has always been a violation of the city’s health code to allow a dog in a bar, the health department has decided to enforce the rule — clearly the work of buzzkilling bureaucrats who don’t really understand dogs, or bars.
“Bars are built around characters,” noted Andrew Templar, an owner of Floyd NY in Brooklyn Heights — an establishment that drew both the canine and human variety.
It recently received a violation notice after health inspectors twice observed dogs on the premises this summer. “Now it’s just people and their people problems,” Templar complained.
The health department issued 469 violations for live animals in food-service sites from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011.
The Times article recounts a long history of dog-friendly drinking holes in the city. At P.J. Clarke’s in Midtown, when a collie named Skippy died, patrons pitched in to have him stuffed. He sits atop a ledge above the entrance to the handicapped bathroom.
A few bars continue to allow dogs, but — unlike the New York Times — we’re not going to name them, lest health inspectors be trolling the Internet.
(Top Photo: By Christian Hansen for The New York Times)
Posted by jwoestendiek August 29th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: ace bar, atmosphere, ban, bar dogs, bars, beverage, characters, crackdown, dog friendly, dogs, dogs in bars, drink, enforcement, food, health department, illegal, inspectors, miles, new york city, rules, tradition, violations
History and research indicate it’s ill-advised, but Michigan is taking a look at giving prohibition another try, this time with pit bulls.
It would become illegal to keep a pit bull — and doing so could get you three months in prison — under a proposed bill in the state legislature.
Both frighteningly worded and frighteningly stupid, the bill was introduced Tuesday by Rep. Timothy Bledsoe.
House Bill 4714, aka the “Pit Bull Regulation and Prohibition Act,” would make breeding or selling a pit bull a crime one year after its passage. Four years after the bill’s passage, keeping an unsterilized pit bull would become a crime. Ten years after its passage, possessing a pit bull would be illegal.
Violating the pit bull law — either the restrictions or, in 10 years, the all out prohibition, would be a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days, community service for not more than 500 hours, or both. In addition, there would be a fine of $500 to $2,000.
The law doesn’t specify how authorities would relieve people of their pit bulls, or dispose of the dogs, but we’d assume — unless they have plans to establish concentration camps for them — it would be by lethal injection, or perhaps to be more cost-effective and efficient, a gas chamber.
(a) An American pit bull terrier
(b) An American Staffordshire bull terrier
(c) A Staffordshire bull terrier
(d) A dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any 1 or more of the breeds listed in subdivisions (a) to (c)
(e) A dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any 1 of the breeds listed in subdivisions (a) to (c)
We think that runs contrary to a civil society. We think that runs contrary to research on dangerous and vicious dogs. We think history proved prohibition doesn’t work.
Some jurisdictions that rushed to ban and restrict having pit bulls as pets are waking up to the error of their ways, Cleveland being one recent example.
Others keep outlawing, or trying to otherwise restrict them.
Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it won’t work with pit bulls, because it’s not the booze — or the breed — that’s the problem. It’s the humans who misuse, abuse and take them to dangerous extremes.
Posted by jwoestendiek June 9th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: american, animals, ban, breed, breed-specific, bull, characteristics, conform, government, illegal, law, legislature, michigan, outlaw, pets, pit bulls, pitbulls, pits, pitties, prohibition, proposal, representative, staffordshire, terrier, tim bledsoe, timothy bledsoe, traits
Traditionally frowned upon and grudgingly tolerated by Islamic leaders, having a dog would become a crime if the bill is passed by Parliament, punishable by fines and confiscation of dogs.
According to a Time magazine report, backers of the bill warn that dogs pose health hazards, and their increasing popularity as pets is “a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West.”
Those caught walking and keeping ”impure and dangerous animals” would have their dogs confiscated and face fines of $100 to $500.
What would become of confiscated dogs isn’t spelled out.
Dog ownership has become more popular in Iran with the rise of an urban middle class, and Time reports that “these days, lap dogs rival designer sunglasses as the upper-middle-class Iranian’s accessory of choice.”
A senior Iranian cleric last year decreed dogs are “unclean” and issued a fatwa ordering they not be kept as pets.
Posted by jwoestendiek April 20th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, bill, confiscate, confiscation, criminalize, dangerous, dirty, dog, dog ownership, dogs, fatwa, fines, illegal, impure, iran, islam, law, ownership, parliament, pet ownership, pets, tolerance, western culture
Cooling my heels in Phoenix, I’ve been trying to catch up with the latest on SB 1070, the new legislation that will turn Arizona’s police officers into immigration officials, requiring them to check the citizenship of anyone they confront in the course of their duties.
The law makes violating federal immigration laws a state crime, if that makes any sense, and some fear it will lead to large scale profiling and deportations as Arizona takes into its own hands matters it feels the federal government isn’t addressing.
Of course, the law applies to humans, and not dogs, but what if? What if the motivation for it — to keep undocumented foreigners from the shores of a country pretty much built by undocumented foreigners — was applied to the dog kingdom?
What if all the Irish setters –or at least those who lacked the proper paperwork — were sent back to Ireland; or if all the German shepherds were deported to Germany; or if Labrador retrievers, Tibetan Mastiffs, French poodles and Afghan hounds were all sent back to their place of origin?
The dog kingdom would be a much more boring place.
If all of them were required to live where they originated, we wouldn’t have anywhere near the magnificent diversity of dog breeds — not to mention hybrids and mutts — that we enjoy today. It would be so long, Welsh Corgi; seeya, Belgian Malinois; goodbye, Bo, and all other Portuguese water dogs.
Go back to Rhodesia, you Ridgebacks.
Probably, in our haste, we’d even deport Great Danes to Denmark, even though the breed didn’t originate there. (Once local law enforcement and state bureaucracies get involved, mistakes are bound to happen.) And, Siberian huskies, you don’t even want to think about where you’d be banished to.
A valid argument can be made that Siberian huskies shouldn’t be living in Arizona’s heat in the first place – but banishing them, or pestering them for their paperwork so often they decide to leave, obviously isn’t the solution.
If that were the case, I never would have met Sasha and Kodi, brother and sister huskies belonging to Sandy Fairall, who we hung out with yesterday at “Bark Place,” the dog park at Quail Run Park in Mesa.
No pedigree is required to enter, and dogs of all sizes, shapes, backgrounds and colors were playing together nicely. No one was asking anyone else to leave, no one was questioning anyone else’s pedigree, and everyone, dog and human, seemed happy to share the shady spots.
Sandy admits Phoenix is not an ideal locale for the cold weather dogs – something she’s reminded of whenever she heads to the mountains in winter to let them experience their more natural surroundings and play in the snow.
I say – paperwork or not — let them stay.
Posted by jwoestendiek June 23rd, 2010 under Muttsblog.
Tags: 1070, afghan, aliens, arizona, bark place, border, breeds, citizenship, deport, deportation, diversity, documentation, dogs, foreigners, french, german, heat, hounds, huskies, husky, illegal, immigrants, immigration, law, legislation, mastiffs, mesa, phoeniz, police, poodles, portuguese, profiling, quail run park, sb 1070, shepherds, siberian, state, tibetan, undocumented, water dog