ohmidog!

 A law requiring dog breeders to provide fresh food and water, daily exercise, veterinary care and sanitary shelter was passed by the North Carolina House Thursday, with help from the governor’s wife.

Ann McCrory, who normally leaves the politics to her husband, released a statement Wednesday supporting House Bill 930.

“… Passing legislation to establish basic standards of care for large commercial dog breeding facilities is a very important issue to me, and to people across our state,” she wrote.

“ … I hope you and other members of the General Assembly will continue to advocate for this bill, and other legislation establishing higher standards for commercial breeders. These policies increase our quality of life in North Carolina and ensure better care for dogs across the state…”

The bill sets basic standards of care for operations that use more than 10 females for breeding.

Many say it is a watered-down version of previous attempts to pass a puppy mill law, but add that the compromise is better than nothing in a state some breeding operations have been relocating to in an attempt to avoid regulation.

“North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without puppy mill laws,” explained Caleb Scott, President of North Carolina Voters for Animal Welfare told Fox 8 News. “We are a puppy mill destination in North Carolina because we have no laws on the books. Puppy millers gravitate to our state.”

The minimum standards required by the bill, as it has been amended, would notapply to breeders of hunting dogs, sporting dogs, field dogs, or show dogs.

It now heads to the Senate.

WRAL described Ann McCrory’s letter as her “first foray into public advocacy” since her husband took office.

The McCrory’s have a Labrador Retriever named Mo.

(Photo: Erin Hull / The Daily Tar Heel)

A dog park next to a church? Heaven forbid!

The leaders of  New Hope Baptist Church say a dog park that has been proposed across the street would disrupt their services and pose a safety hazard to parishioners.

“It upsets the dignity of our worship services,” the Rev. Rodrick Green told the Ann Arbor Park Advisory Commission last month. “It’s going to be a noise problem because we’re conducting our services at the time when people are going to be bringing their dogs, and dogs make noise. You can’t control dog noise.”

Green and church trustee Thomas Miree have both spoken out against the city’s proposal to establish a small off-leash dog park at the Chapin Street entrance to West Park, directly across the street from the church.

The city council will take the matter up at its next meeting, on Jan. 22, according to AnnArbor.com.

The park commission is recommending approval of the dog park — it would become the third in the city — under the condition that it be reviewed one year after it opens.

City park officials said the proposed dog park is a response to public demand that one be located close to downtown.  Ann Arbor’s existing dog parks are located at Swift Run in the southeast part of the city, and at Olson Park in the northeast part of the city.

But church leaders at New Hope Baptist are still hoping the city will rethink the location.

“We have a situation where children, who are sometimes afraid of dogs, are put at risk, and maybe now they have a disincentive to use the park because of the dogs,” Rev. Green said. “There are so many reasons for them not to do it, and only a couple of reasons in favor of it.”

City Council Member Christopher Taylor says the dog park would be fenced, with a double-gated entry system.

“As for the noise and so forth … dog parks … are not particularly disruptive — certainly less disruptive than unsupervised dog play,” Taylor said.

Green says the church would have no complaints if the dog park would be located farther back on the piece of property.

“West Park is a large park,” he said. “There’s no reason why it has to be placed in an area that’s going to be offensive to us as a people and as a church, and right now it’s offensive.”

(Photos: New Hope Baptist Church and the proposed location of a dog park, across the street; by Ryan J. Stanton / AnnArbor.com)

Gov. Chris Christie says if the New Jersey legislature passes a bill requiring dogs and cats to wear seat-belt like restraints in cars he won’t sign it.

Christie termed the proposal ”stupid,” Bloomberg reports.

He also said the proposed law was an example of how Democrats, who control the state Senate and General Assembly, are wasting time with trivial issues when there are bigger ones to be solved.

“This will tell you everything you need to know about how New Jersey runs under the Democrats,” Christie said in his monthly “Ask the Governor” broadcast on Ewing-based WKXW-FM radio. “They’re actually spending their time on this.”

If the bill makes it through the legislature for him to sign into law, Christie said, he wouldn’t put his name “near something that stupid.”

Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer,  a Newark Democrat who owns a Pomeranian , introduced the bill to require harnesses for animals not being transported in cages. Violators would be fined $25.

Dog breeders who avoid animal welfare laws and regulations by selling puppies over the Internet would face tighter scrutiny under a rule change proposed last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Under the change, dog owners who breed more than four females and sell the puppies electronically, by mail or over the phone, would be subject to the same oversight faced by wholesale dealers as part of the Animal Welfare Act.

The proposal is aimed at closing the loophole created when the Internet became a new venue for puppy sales. The thousands of large-scale breeders who advertise there have not been subject to oversight or inspection.

Under the changes, sellers either must open their doors to the public so buyers can see the animals before they purchase them, or obtain a license and be subject to inspections by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, according to the Associated Press.

The Animal Welfare Act, written in 1966, set standards of care for animals bred for commercial sale and research. Retail sales were exempt from inspections since those customers aren’t buying dogs sight unseen.

“We feel this is certainly a much-needed change to an outdated system,” said Rebecca Blue, deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs. Blue said it’s designed to ensure that dogs sold and shipped to buyers are healthy, treated well and genetically sound.

“This is a very significant proposed federal action, since thousands of large-scale breeders take advantage of a loophole that allows them to escape any federal inspections,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Dogs in puppy mills often live in small, overcrowded cages, living in filth and denied veterinary care.  We need more eyes on these operations, and this rule will help.”

The change does not affect backyard breeders who sell puppies from their homes or other physical locations.

In terms of the highway carnage it leads to, driving with a dog in your lap may not be up there with drinking and driving, or texting and driving.

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)

Maryland consumers could save cash and avoid heartache with the passage of a bill that gives purchasers of puppies some basic information about where they came from.

House Bill 131 requires pet stores to disclose information about the origin of the puppies they sell, and provides remedies for people who purchase a sick puppy from a pet store.

Both Best Friends and Maryland Votes for Animals are backing the bill, and they’re urging Marylanders to do the same by letting legislators know that the time for a puppy lemon law is now.

Most puppies sold at pet stores come from puppy mills, and oftentimes have diseases or congenital disorders that end up costing the new owner thousands of dollars in vet bills – not to mention the heartbreak of having purchased a sick dog, according to Maryland Votes for Animals.

“…Unsuspecting customers who fall in love with cute puppies in the store often end up getting more than they bargained for,” says Best Friends. “Maryland desperately needs a puppy lemon law, and now is the time to do it.”

“All too often, excited families bring home a new pet store puppy only to watch him or her come down with an illness. In many cases, puppies end up at an emergency clinic fighting for their lives — at an expense that often outweighs the purchase price.”

HB 131 would require pet stores that sell dogs to conspicuously post on each dog’s cage the state in which the breeder or dealer of the dog is located, as well as that breeder’s license number. Stores would have to maintain a written health record that contains specific information about each dog in the store. They’d also have to provide a written statement that the dog is healthy, and a warranty that allows for a full refund, exchange, or coverage of veterinary bills in cases of puppies who become ill.

HB 131 has already passed the House and its fate now rests with the Senate Finance Committee, which will hold a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday, March 27).

Pet stores would be held accountable for the health of the animals they sell, and animal abusers could be forced to pay for the care their victims require under bills proposed in Maryland.

Republican Del. Nicholaus Kipke, of Anne Arundel County, is the lead sponsor of House Bill 131, which would require pet stores to post information on cages about where the animals were born.

In addition,the law would require pet stores to provide a warranty for consumers who buy puppies who become ill. A pet store could be required to reimburse veterinary fees up to three times the purchase price of the dog.

Some pet store owners say that could put them out of business. Some animal advocates wish the proposed law was stronger — and would ban pet stores from selling dogs from breeders entirely.

“A lot of the the pet shops say they only buy from registered USDA breeders, but it doesn’t take anything to become a registered breeder,”  Jen Swanson, the Baltimore Humane Society’s executive director, told Patch.com. “The rules set forth by USDA are not enforced.”

The only way to stop the “cycle of abuse” is to shun pet stores that sell animals from breeders, she said.

“Quality pet stores and quality breeders are the norm, and not the exception,” said Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, which represents pet retailers. “They abhor the substandard breeders as much as anyone else; it gives them a bad name. We want these bad folks out of business.”

Maddox said his organization supports the concept of the proposed bill, and said many pet stores already post information about animals they’re selling.

Senate Bill 203, meanwhile, will allow judges to order people convicted of animal cruelty to pay the costs of caring for the animals during the trial. 

Animal welfare advocates say shelters are often stuck with the bill — both when it comes to veterinary care and for housing the pet until the trial takes place.

If you’re interested in learning more about the bills, Maryland Votes for Animals, along with the HSUS and ASPCA , are sponsoring a 2012 Maryland Humane Lobby Day in Annapolis. It’s Thursday, February 23, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., in Room 142 of the House of Delegates Office Building, 6 Bladen Street.

Animal dealers who round up dogs and cats and sell them for use in experiments would be put out of business for good under a bill introduced in Congress.

The Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2011 was introduced by Reps. Mike Doyle, D-Pa. and Chris Smith, R-N.J.

The legislation would amend the Animal Welfare Act to make it illegal for Class B Dealers to sell random source dogs and cats to research institutions.

“Rounding up pets and funneling them into laboratories has been demonstrated time and again to result in substantial animal suffering,” said Andrew Rowan, Ph.D, chief scientific officer for The Humane Society of the United States. “This dwindling practice has no place in 21st century society and results in bad science. We commend Representatives Doyle and Smith for working to prevent America’s beloved family pets from ending up in research labs.”

Class B dealers are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sell animals to research facilities.

Unlike Class A dealers, who breed animals for research, Class B dealers purchase or acquire the animals from “random sources,” such as auctions, flea markets or “bunchers” – unlicensed individuals who acquire dogs and cats by theft, misrepresentation or other questionable means, such as rounding up strays and responding to ads for animals that are “free to a good home.”

It is impossible for the USDA to enforce regulations regarding the true source of each animal sold by Class B dealers, the HSUS says.

The vast majority of research laboratories have stopped using Class B dealers, and only eight of them are currently operating — five of whom are under investigation by the USDA, the HSUS says.

That’s far fewer than the 1960s, when Life magazine ran an expose on animal dealers called, “Concentration Camp for Dogs.”

Earlier this year, the operators of the last Class B random source dealer in Pennsylvania — an outfit doing business as Chestnut Grove Kennel — were indicted on federal charges for the “alleged unlawful procurement of hundreds of random sourced dogs” and “the subsequent resale of those dogs to medical research facilities.” If convicted, they face a jail sentence of up to 50 years and a fine of up to $1 million.

“Class B dealers have racked up an atrocious record of illegal activity and cruelty to animals,” said Rep. Doyle. “Allowing this failed program to continue is simply unacceptable. That’s why we’re re-introducing the Pet Safety and Protection Act — to shut down the Class B dealer disaster once and for all.”

You can learn more about the issue on the HSUS website, and on the website of the American Anti-Vivisection Society.

The American Kennel Club says a Michigan bill aimed at banning pit bulls will not make it through committee.

According to a statement on the AKC website, the club said it has been informed by the chairman of the Michigan House Regulatory Reform Committee that House Bill 4714 will not get a hearing.

The bill would have, over the course of ten years, banned ownership of  what it described as the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and any “dog displaying the majority of physical traits” of those breeds.

The bill was introduced Tuesday by Rep. Timothy Bledsoe

A Facebook page called “Say NO to the Pit Bull Ban” was established Thursday morning.

The AKC statement thanks Rep. Hugh Crawford, chairman of the committee, for “listening to the concerns of responsible Michigan dog owners and agreeing to not proceed with this legislation.”

Let’s hear it for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

By a 10 to 1 vote, supervisors went on record opposing a federal proposal to restrict dogs in parts of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

The National Park Service earlier this year proposed to “completely or significantly reduce” the off-leash areas in the recreation area to “strike a balance between park landscape, native wildlife and the 16 million visitors.”

The park service is considering mandating leashes in open spaces where dogs currently roam free and banning them entirely in some popular dog-walking areas.

Dog lovers responded to the proposal swiftly, labeling it “extreme environmentalism,” and even considered suing the federal government if the proposal passed, according to the website Curbed.

In early April, Supervisor Scott Weiner introduced a resolution in opposition to the proposed dog policies. This week, all but one of the supervisors voted for it — in part out of concern that restricting dogs on the federal park land could overburden city parks.

The National Park Service has proposed restricting dogs from San Francisco’s Crissy Field, Ocean Beach and Fort Funston, which are among the most popular places to take dogs in the city.