Two teen hunters in Alaska were proud of “bagging a wolf” — even though the wolf was wearing a collar and turned out to be a sled dog.
Either way, they did no wrong, at least under Alaska’s animal cruelty laws, which permit the killing of dogs on public property.
Some people around Fairbanks are saying it’s time to change those laws after what was at least the second fatal shooting of a dog this year in the same community.
Back in July, an eight-month old puppy, a lab mix named Lucy, was found with a bullet through her head after wandering away from her home in the community of Goldstream Valley in Fairbanks.
When the owner called state troopers, he was told they wouldn’t even respond.
A spokeswoman told the Fairbanks News-Miner then that no crime had taken place: “Just shooting a dog and killing it is technically not against the animal cruelty statute,” she said.
In the more recent case, a 14-month-old sled dog named Padouk was killed on public land by two brothers, age 12 and 13, who were hunting together with a .22-caliber rifle.
He was shot through the heart about 30 minutes after he had escaped his owner’s yard, and the teens took his body to their great-grandfather, a taxidermist, to be mounted as a hunting trophy.
Padouk’s co-owners said they found out what happened to their dog when they were contacted by an ATVer who told them he’d come across two teenagers who were proud of themselves for bagging a “wolf” and asked for his help transporting the carcass to their grandmother’s home.
The ATVer refused to give the boys a ride, but he let them use his cellphone to call their grandmother.
“These two kids have been rabbit hunting in the area and they are continuing, people have been reporting. If you drive the road at 6 p.m., you have a good chance of meeting them,” said Helene Genet, one of Padouk’s co-owners.
“They haven’t apologized at all and they don’t have the feeling that they’ve done something wrong … and rightfully so, the law doesn’t provide for dogs not to be shot in public areas,” Genet said at a Friday meeting called to address concerns among dog owners about the shootings.
More than 50 people attended the meeting spurred by the shooting of Padouk, the Fairbanks News-Miner reported.
The two boys will face no charges because under Alaska animal cruelty laws it must be proven that a suspect was intentionally trying to cause pain and suffering.
And, as many in Alaska — and elsewhere — believe, hunters never do that.
In Alaska, hunters, as well as those who perform do-it-yourself euthanizations, are pretty much exempted from animal cruelty laws.
Padouk’s owners said they called state troopers after they got the phone number for the boys’ grandmother from the ATVer. Genet said the grandmother hung up on her three times when she requested permission to come and see if the dead “wolf” was their dog.
Padouk was co-owned by Genet, a recreational musher, and tourism kennel operator Nita Rae, of Sirius Sled Dogs.
At Friday’s meeting, participants discussed ways to stop future dog shootings, such as a rule against shooting guns on Goldstream Valley trails, or building a database of dogs killed in the valley to show leaders the extent of the problem.
Fairbanks Borough Assemblywoman Katheryn Dodge said she plans to re-introduce a borough animal cruelty law that existed until a 2013 reorganization of borough code.
Alaska Legislator David Guttenberg told the crowd they shouldn’t expect any changes in state laws.
Padouk’s owners say they doubt the boys really believed Padouk was a wolf. He only weighed 60 to 70 pounds and was wearing a blue collar.
While state troopers told the owners no charges would be filed, they did assist them in reclaiming Padouk’s body. The boys’ great grandfather, after being contacted by troopers, agreed to call off the taxidermy and let Rae and Genet have the body of their dog back.
(Photo: Fairbanks News-Miner)
Posted by John Woestendiek December 6th, 2016 under Muttsblog.
Tags: alaska, animal cruelty, animals, brothers, deaths, dog, dogs, fairbanks, goldstream valley, hunt, hunters, hunting, killed, laws, lucy, meeting, no charges, padouk, pets, puppy, shot, sirius sled dogs, sled dog, state law, teens, wildlife, wolf
I try not to think about my own death too much, but I do have a general plan for the hereafter.
I want my cremated remains to spend eternity with my dog’s cremated remains — or at least those remains of him that remain after I, earlier this year, spread some of his ashes in his favorite ocean and some in his favorite creek.
I still have about half his ashes left (he was a big dog), and, if I revisit another place that was dear to us, I may spread a little more of him there.
But I’ll keep the rest so that they may join my own. As I see it, that should be my right as a dead man.
But it’s not always — at least when it comes to the rules of individual cemeteries, and the many local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that govern how we dispose of our remains and those of our pets.
In most cases, state laws prohibits burying pets in human cemeteries, even just their ashes, but they are unenforceable laws — to be honest, needless laws — and they’re generally overlooked by funeral directors.
Most funeral directors go along with it when the family of the deceased requests their pet’s ashes be placed with the deceased — even when it’s technically against the rules.
Sometimes cemetery rules prohibit it; often state laws do. In recent years, though, some states have reexamined those laws.
Virginia passed a law in 2014 permitting cemeteries to have clearly marked sections where pets and humans may be buried alongside one another — as long as the animal has its own casket.
In New York, Gov. Cuomo signed legislation last month making it legal for the cremated remains of pets to be interred with their owners at any of the approximately 1,900 not-for-profit cemeteries regulated by the state.
“For many New Yorkers, their pets are members of the family,” Cuomo said. “This legislation will roll back this unnecessary regulation and give cemeteries the option to honor the last wishes of pet lovers across New York.”
The new law does not apply to cemeteries owned or operated by religious associations or societies, and any cemetery still has the right to say no.
But it’s a step closer to reasonable, and better than an interim measure passed three years ago, when New York made it permissible to bury the cremated remains of humans and their dogs together — but only in pet cemeteries.
State lawmakers approved the new bill during the final days of the legislature’s session June, according to The New York Daily News
“For years now, New Yorkers have desired to have their pets interred in their grave, and cemeteries will now be able to offer this burial option as a result of this new law,” said Sen. Michael Ranzenhofer (R-Erie County), who sponsored the law in the Senate.
One of those New Yorkers was Leona Helmsley, the hotel magnate who died in 2007 and specified in her will that she wanted her dog, Trouble, interred with her in the family mausoleum in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery in Westchester County.
Trouble died and was cremated in 2011, but could not be buried with her owner because of the state law prohibiting it.
Call me crazy (just don’t call me as crazy as her), but I want my ashes with Ace’s ashes, and not just in adjacent airtight containers.
I want them mixed, or at least — should I opt for my own to be spread — spread in the same location.
That could violate a law or two — because there are thousands of them governing how and where dogs and humans can be buried, cremation procedures, after-death mingling of species and where ashes can be spread.
According to Time.com scattering human ashes at sea must be done from a boat or plane three nautical miles from shore. That’s an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule.
The EPA says scattering a pet’s ashes in the sea is prohibited.
Woops, I already violated that rule.
Before it’s all over, or, more accurately, once it’s all over, I might violate some more. Blame my rebellious streak.
My advice is to check your city, county, state and federal laws, and then break them — at least as much as you, being dead, can.
Burying an entire dog or human body is one thing, and there should, for public health reasons, be some rules regulating that.
But ashes have no germs, no odor, no dangerous implications. What pet owners might have spread in rivers and streams over the centuries is non-toxic and only a drop in the bucket compared to, say, the coal ash Duke Energy unleashed in a day.
My plan to combine the ashes of myself and my dog still has some details in need of being worked out.
For one, I’ll need an accomplice to carry out my wishes and do the mixing, assuming the crematorium balks at my afterlife recipe — mix one part Ace with two parts John in a large Folgers Coffee can. Shake well.
After that it would be sent along to my designated spreader, to be named at a later date.
(I was joking about Folgers, any brand will do.)
When we leave the coffee can, we would like for it to be somewhere scenic and not too noisy.
Somewhere with a view of the sunset would be nice.
Someplace where I’m not in a neat row among other rows.
And somewhere free — in both meanings of the word.
Ace and I were thrifty in our travels, and our travels were all about feeling free and liberated as opposed to crated, coffined or cubicled.
I want our ashes to have that same freedom, together.
(Photos: Top and bottom, spreading Ace’s ashes in an unspecified ocean on the east coast, by Seth Effron and Glenn Edens; middle, more of Ace’s ashes being spread along a creek in Bethania, N.C., by Joe Woestendiek)
Posted by John Woestendiek October 19th, 2016 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, ashes, burials, cemeteries, cremains, death, dog, dogs, eternity, funeral directors, funerals, laws, leona helmsley, new york, oceans, pets, regulations, remains, rules, spread, spreading, spreading ashes, together, virginia
Pit bulls could end up being banned from all of Quebec — as they are from all of Ontario.
Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said Thursday the province will probably follow Ontario’s lead in outlawing pit bulls and other “dangerous dogs.”
Public Security Minister Martin Coiteux said officials will “definitely do something significant” by fall, after more research into what other breeds of dogs should be included in any ban.
Ontario’s pit bull ban was enacted in 2005 after several highly publicized cases of people being badly injured in pit bull attacks.
The legislation banned ownership of new pit bulls, placed restrictions on existing pit bulls, and toughened the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.
In Quebec, at least four local governments around Montreal have announced pit bull bans — all in the two weeks after the death of Christiane Vadnais, a 55-year-old woman who was found dead in her own backyard after a suspected pit bull attack.
Montreal Mayor Dennis Coderre announced Saturday morning that the city plans to amend its animal control bylaws to ban acquisition of new pit bull dogs in Montreal. All existing pit bulls would have to be sterilized and wear muzzles when they are in public.
In Quebec City, Mayor Regis Labeaume announced that, starting Jan. 1, 2017, pit bulls will be prohibited and anyone caught with one will be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 for a first offense.
Candiac, which just lifted its pit bull ban two months ago, will stop licensing pit bulls in August, while waiting to see what action the province takes.
Brossard will vote on a proposed ban next month. Brossard Mayor Paul Leduc says the city has been looking at a ban since an eight-year-old was bitten in the face by a pit bull at a park last summer.
The head of Montreal’s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals described Montreal’s ban as “knee jerk.”
“If we are trying to find a way to reduce the number of animal bites in a community by starting with how the animal may look, we are starting down the wrong path,” said SPCA executive director Nicholas Gilman.
“It is a rabbit hole that doesn’t lead to effective results. Instead, let’s focus on how animals become aggressive in the first place and work from there.”
(Photo: CBC News)
Posted by John Woestendiek June 20th, 2016 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, bans, breed, brossard, canada, candiac, cities, dogs, laws, montreal, muzzles, ontario, pets, pit bull, pit bull bans, pit bulls, pitbull, pitbulls, provinces, quebec, quebec city, restrictions, specific, sterilization, towns
Johnny Depp’s wife totally out-acted her more famous husband, or at least came across as more sincere, in this video apologizing to the Australian government for sneaking their two Yorkshire terriers into the country without declaring them.
In what more than a few think looks like a hostage video, the couple talks about the importance of Australia’s strict biosecurity laws — aimed at preserving the islands diverse plant and animal life.
“When you disrespect Australian law, they will tell you firmly,” Depp somberly — almost sleepily — intones.
“I am truly sorry that Pistol and Boo were not declared,” says his wife, Amber Heard.
Clearly, this recorded apology was part of a deal reached between the couple’s lawyers and the Australian government. Heard was initially charged with smuggling, conviction of which can carry a 10-year prison sentence, but she pleaded guilty yesterday only to knowingly producing a false or misleading document.
In exchange for that, and the apology, she got little more than a slap on the wrist. She received a one-month “good-behavior bond,” which means she would be fined ($1,000 Australian dollars) only if she broke that bond.
The apology was posted to Facebook by Australia Minister of Agriculture Barnaby Joyce, who, after the charges were first filed, suggested that the dogs, if they weren’t “buggered off back to the United States,” might otherwise face being euthanized.
After that, during an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Depp called Joyce a “weird, sweaty-pated gut man who decided two five- or six-inch teacup terriers would harm the country in some way.”
Quite a contrast with the apology video, yes?
Depp and Heard failed to filed the proper paperwork when they arrived by private jet last year in Australia, where Depp was filming “Pirates of the Caribbean 5.” Normally, arriving dogs face a quarantine period.
After photos of Depp’s dogs going to a groomer in Australia went public, the government began an investigation into how they entered the country.
Joyce told ABC News that he hopes the recorded apology serves as a warning to future travelers to Australia.
“The more widely viewed it is the more we have people who might be unaware of our biosecurity requirements and, as they come into this nation, they say this is one thing that the Australians are red hot about, biosecurity.”
Posted by John Woestendiek April 19th, 2016 under Muttsblog, videos.
Tags: amber heard, apologize, apology, australia, Barnaby Joyce, biosecurity, boo, case, court, deal, depp, dogs, facebook, heard, johnny depp, laws, minister of agriculture, outcome, paperwork, pistol, quarantine, regulations, sentence, smuggled, yorkshire terriers
When the Humane Society of Tampa Bay sent a Weimaraner home with a new adoptive family, it didn’t realize it was giving away somebody’s service dog.
And now that Delilah has been rehomed, the agency says, it’s too late for an autistic boy’s family — who relied on the dog for six years to help detect eight-year-old Zack’s oncoming seizures — to get him back.
“He lost his best friend,” Zack’s mother, Michele Carlisle, told WTSP. “He doesn’t understand and he asks me for her all the time.”
Carlisle and her three sons moved from Alabama to Brandon, Florida, last August — and within days of the move Delilah ran off.
The family posted flyers, searched the streets, and checked the shelter closest to them every weekend, but found no signs of Delilah — not until November when they spotted her on the Humane Society’s adoption page.
Carlisle called the agency — only to learn the dog she recognized as Delilah had been adopted back in August, apparently within a week of her arrival at the shelter.
According to the Humane Society, Delilah was turned into the shelter (she had no tags nor a microchip) on Aug. 11 by someone who found her on the street; and she was placed with a new family on Aug. 15.
“If a dog has no identification then it’s not legally their property after three days. That’s what the county has put into play,” said Dr. Nicole Cornett, the veterinarian for the Humane Society of Tampa Bay. “We ideally want them to go to the home that they came from, but if we can’t find that home we’re lucky enough to find another home, someone who will love them and take care of them.”
The Humane Society says it contacted Delilah’s new owners and explained the situation, but they did not want to give the dog back.
Carlisle wants to plead her case to them, but the Humane Society won’t share details about the new owner.
She said Delilah was trained to detect Zack’s oncoming seizures.
“She would pace and would go crazy and start making noises and circling him and I knew that Zack was in trouble. They had this bond almost like she was his mom,” she said.
“I just want them to be reunited, even one time,” she added. “I think if (the new owner) saw the bond between Delilah and Zack she would change her mind.”
(UPDATE: That owner did change her mind. Details here.)
(Photos courtesy of Michelle Carlisle)
Posted by John Woestendiek March 31st, 2016 under Muttsblog.
Tags: adopted, adoption, animals, assistance, autism, autistic, delilah, detecting, dog, dogs, found, humane society, humane society of tampa bay, laws, lost, michele carlisle, ownership, pets, rehomed, seizure, service, shelter, surrender, waiting period, weimaraner, zack
Depp, who is in the country filming the latest “Pirates of the Caribbean” film, had been accused of failing to declare his two dogs to customs officials — a violation of Australia’s strict quarantine laws — when he flew them into Queensland last month on his private jet.
After photos of the dogs in Australia were posted online, Australian Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce gave the actor 50 hours to transport the pups back to the U.S., and said they would be euthanized if they remained.
The actor had brought the dogs into the country last month after he returned to California for surgery on a hand he injured during filming of the fifth installment of the movie. The Australian government provided a $20 million tax incentive to producers of the film, entitled “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.”
After receiving the ultimatum, Depp notified the Australian government Friday afternoon the he was shipping the dogs back to the U.S.
The Department of Agriculture in Australia says Depp could still face fines as high as $340,000 for violating the quarantine procedures.
The Daily Telegraph reported that transporting the dogs back to Los Angeles could cost as much as $400,000.
(Photo: Pistol, in a photo posted to Twitter by Depp’s wife, Amber Heard)
Posted by John Woestendiek May 17th, 2015 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, australia, boo, depp, depp dogs, dogs, filming, johnny depp, johnny depp's dogs, laws, pets, pirates of the carribbean, pistol, quarantine, smuggled, yorkies, yorkshire terries
Our forefathers may have overlooked listing it in the Constitution, but I’d rank it up there with free speech, religious freedom and the right to bear arms… maybe even above the right to bear arms:
It’s the right to get a beer at a bar with your dog — one of life’s true pleasures, assuming you love beer and love dogs (and assuming it’s cool with the bar owner).
Local health departments, often, don’t see it that way, as was recently the case in New York City, where The Gate, a tavern in Park Slope, was told it can no longer allow patrons to come in with their dogs.
The city Department of Health based their order on a law prohibiting any live animal from being in a food service establishment.
The Gate is not a restaurant, but, under the law, beer, wine, booze and ice are considered foods.
Unconstitutional? Should be, I say, tongue not entirely in cheek.
All 50 states allow residents to carry concealed guns outside their homes. Tennessee, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, and Ohio have laws specifically allowing guns in bars. Bar patrons in South Carolina and North Carolina also aren’t required to disarm when entering a bar.
Twenty states, including New York and New Jersey, do not address the question of guns in bars at all.
It makes me uncomfortable, living in a world (and a state) where guns have more rights, privileges and protections than dogs.
And it gives me pause (not paws, for that would be a pun), that local health departments can get so worked up about a hound sleeping on a bar floor when Ebola is at our doorstep. Don’t they have more important things to do?
But back to The Gate.
After the health department laid down the law at the corner of 5th Avenue and 3rd Street, management posted a sign on the door of the tavern, saying, “with apologies to our furry friends,” dogs could no longer be allowed.
Meanwhile, Brooklyn pet owners have started a petition on the website Park Slope for Pets (see the upper right corner of that page) asking the Health Department to “allow dogs at The Gate” and reclassify bars that don’t serve food. As of this morning, nearly 600 signatures had been collected.
“We support The Gate’s dog-friendly status in the neighborhood as well as all other non-food drinking establishments that welcome dogs,” the petition’s sponsors say. “We are not looking for an exception for The Gate but rather a revision to the statute with regard to all non-food drinking establishments.”
I hold an even more radical stance. I’m for letting well-behaved dogs into places that do serve food, and even inside, as opposed to the patio (given it’s OK with the owner).
I’m more concerned with what’s going on unseen in the kitchen than the possibility of evil germs hopping off a dog and onto my plate of mozzarella sticks.
If its OK for service dogs to go inside restaurants, it should be OK for all well-socialized dogs — because all dogs, in a way, are service dogs.
My dog Ace, a one-time therapy dog who now counsels only me (and at a very reasonable fee) grew up spending some time (but not an inordinate amount of time) at a neighborhood bar in Baltimore I patronized.
I like to think he added to the bar’s character, and warmth, and friendliness, and vice versa. Admittedly, he also served as a social crutch for me, making conversations easier to start, making me more comfortable, keeping me from getting too tongue tied.
Just as dogs need to be socialized, so do we. And dogs and bars — independently and especially in combination — can help those of us who have difficulty in that area achieve that.
Dogs in bars lead to more social dogs, and more social people. (With the exception of those humans who are aghast by the prospect of a dog in a bar or restaurant and feel the need to file an official complaint, as opposed to just avoiding the establishment.)
“One of my favorite parts about going to The Gate was that I could enjoy a quiet night out without the lingering guilt of knowing my dog was waiting for me at home,” one dog owner told Park Slope Stoop. “… It’s disappointing that they are losing part of their character because of the DOH’s overreach in enforcing the Health Law.”
The Gate’s owner, Bobby Gagnon, reportedly plans to fight the health department edict when he appears before the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings on Nov. 18 — not so much to be granted an exception as to clarify the law.
Dog owners need to push back from time to time, as opposed to just letting themselves be pushed around. I think that happens because dog owners are generally calm, easy-going, reasonable, level-headed people (thanks, at least in part, to their dogs), and because they realize having a dog — whether it’s a right or not — is truly a privilege.
Maybe if dog owners got political, played dirty, sported bumper stickers and insisted on exercising the right to have a Bud with their bud, we could resolve the problem, short of a Constitutional amendment.
Maybe if dog owners could be as strident and overbearing as gun lobbyists, they could enjoy more freedoms with their dogs.
Maybe, when authorities come to take our dogs out of a bar in which he or she is otherwise welcome, we should say, “Sure, you can take my dog out of this establishment … when you pry the leash out of my cold dead fingers.”
Maybe someday the Supreme Court will address the burning questions: Is ice food? And even if so, do we have a right to walk into a bar with our dog?
I’m sure critics will say it’s frivolous of me to compare taking your terrier to a tavern with our right to tote firearms, or our Constitutionally granted freedoms of religion and speech.
But are they really that different?
My dog protects me, like a gun. My dog nourishes and consoles me, like a religion. And he frees up my speech better than the First Amendment ever did.
(Photos: Ace and his friend Stringer at a Recreation Billiards, a dog friendly bar in Winston-Salem, Ace at The Dog Bar in Charlotte, and a Great Dane at The Dog Bar, by John Woestendiek / ohmidog!; sign outside The Gate in New York, from Park Slope Stoop)
Posted by John Woestendiek November 10th, 2014 under Muttsblog.
Tags: ace, animals, constitution, dining, dog bars, dog friendly, dog owners, dogs, dogs in bars, establishments, firearms, food, free speech, freedoms, guns, health department, ice, laws, new york, pets, priviliges, public health, questions, recreation billiards, religion, religious, restaurants, rights, rules, service dogs, supreme court, taverns, the dog bar, the gate