Saturday, April 24, 2010
From The TVMA Concerning The State Rabies Tax
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Another FEE Planned for Rabies Vaccinations in TN!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
OPPOSE SB 3367 Holding Period for Animals
I'd like to call your attention to another bill we've been
following. This is SB 3367. This bill originally had the stated
purpose of extending the holding period for animals in private
shelters from 72 hours to 120 hours. However, the House has added a
very troubling amendment that would allow shelter or humane society
officers to destroy seized animals for the purposes of "population
control." This could mean that animals seized in animal cruelty
cases (such as breeders' animals) could be destroyed while the
defendant is waiting for trial. Not only is that a problem, but
extending the required holding period for animals from 72 hours to
120 hours is itself a problem. No one seems to have considered who
is going to pay for the extra two days of care for these animals or
where they are going to be kept when the shelters are full.
Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary committee below
and ask them to OPPOSE SB 3367. This bill is on the calendar now.
Below is my letter to Sen. Beavers, the chairman of the committee,
which I copied to all of the committee members.
Carlotta
sen.mae.beavers@capitol.tn.gov, sen.doug.jackson@capitol.tn.gov,
sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.diane.black@capitol.tn.gov,
sen.dewayne.bunch@capitol.tn.gov, sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov,
sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jim.kyle@capitol.tn.gov,
sen.beverly.marrero@capitol.tn.gov
Dear Senator Beavers,
I'm writing you as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee about
Senate Bill 3367, the bill that would extend the holding period for
animals from 72 hours to 120 hours. This bill was already
problematic from the start but the amendments added to it in the
House make it genuinely alarming.
I realize that it sounds very appealing and compassionate to extend
the holding time for animals at a shelter/humane society from 72
hours to 120 hours but a couple of important questions need to be
asked. How are shelters going to pay to house and care for these
animals during this additional time? And, where are they going to
house the animals when the shelters become over-crowded? The fiscal
note for this bill says there will be no impact to state government.
However, it's impossible to believe that local shelters will not need
a great deal of additional funding from some source to care for these
animals for longer periods of time. This needs to be carefully
considered before this bill is voted on.
In regard to the amendments added by the House, Amendment 1 would
have very serious consequences. It states that agents or officers of
a shelter or humane society may destroy seized animals for purposes
of "population control." Not only is "population control" a vague
concept which could mean over-crowding in the shelter or population
control on a national level, but these actions could lead to
destroying animals being held in court cases before a trial. This
would deny a defendant due process of law or the possibility of
having his/her animals returned at a later date should they be found
innocent. This amendment quite obviously goes too far and would
trample on someone's personal property rights. Animals with known
owners which have been seized should not be destroyed at the whim of
a shelter or humane society.
I hope you will give consideration to these points when you are
considering this bill. It's my belief that this bill began with good
intentions and has now been side-tracked. I don't think the
consequences to animal shelters in terms of costs and space
requirements have ever been thought all the way through.
Sincerely,
Carlotta Cooper
Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance — Tennessee
Tennessee Pet-Law
Monday, April 12, 2010
OPPOSE SB 3850 — TN TAX on Pet Vaccinations
To voice your opposition to this state-added fee on vaccination certificates, please contact the following committee members by Tuesday morning (4/13/10). Be polite but tell them that this is a public safety issue. If they add additional fees to pet vaccinations there will be people who will not vaccinate their pets. That means an increase in the odds that someone in Tennessee will get rabies. You can ask them if it will happen in their district. How are they going to explain a case of rabies to their constituents or to the media?
House Health and Human Resources Committee
Rep. Joe Armstrong, Chair
D-Knoxville
Phone (865) 357-1524
nashville office Phone (615) 741-0768
Fax (615) 253-0316
rep.joe.armstrong@capitol.tn.gov
Rep. Joey Hensley, vice chair
Phone (615) 741-7476
rep.joey.hensley@capitol.tn.gov
Members
Note: all phone numbers below are area code 615
Charles Curtiss rep.charles.curtiss@capitol.tn.gov
741-1963
Vince Dean rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov 741-1934
John DeBerry rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov 741-2239
Lois DeBerry rep.lois.deberry@capitol.tn.gov 741-3830
Vance Dennis rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov 741-2190
Joshua Evans rep.joshua.evans@capitol.tn.gov 741-2860
Dennis Ferguson rep.dennis.ferguson@capitol.tn.gov
741-7658
Henry Fincher rep.henry.fincher@capitol.tn.gov 741-1875
Dale Ford rep.dale.ford@capitol.tn.gov 741-1717
Curtis Halford rep.curtis.halford@capitol.tn.gov 741-7478
Michael Harrison rep.mike.harrison@capitol.tn.gov
741-7480
Sherry Jones rep.sherry.jones@capitol.tn.gov 741-2035
Debra Maggart rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov 741-3893
Jason Mumpower rep.jason.mumpower@capitol.tn.gov
741-2050
Gary Odom rep.gary.odom@capitol.tn.gov 741-4410
Mary Pruitt rep.mary.pruitt@capitol.tn.gov 741-3853
Bob Ramsey rep.bob.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov 741-3560
Barrett Rich rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov 741-6890
Jeanne Richardson rep.jeanne.richardson@capitol.tn.gov
741-2010
David Shepard rep.david.shepard@capitol.tn.gov 741-3513
Tony Shipley rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov 741-2886
Mike Turner rep.mike.turner@capitol.tn.gov 741-3229
Mark White rep.mark.white@capitol.tn.gov 741-4415
Tennessee TAX on Pet Vaccinations
Here is the latest information on SB 3850/HB 3834 in the Tennessee legislature. This bill has taken on a life of its own. Right now we don't know how much the state of Tennessee could end up tacking on to the cost of a rabies vaccination. The bill is still in committee so it hasn't passed yet.
From a friend with some inside information:
This started as a bill to increase from three days to five days, the amount of time an owner has to legally claim a dog or cat that is not wearing a vaccination tag or other identification, before the dog or cat may be adopted or destroyed.
The original bill has an unfavorable fiscal note (and little to no chance of passage), but an amendment has been filed that substitutes and replaces the original bill. This amendment has morphed the bill into something completely different.
If the bill passes, they will be raising the cost of rabies certificates in order to fund the state's rabies licensing program through fees rather than using money from the state's general fund. According to the revised fiscal note, this plan is already reflected in the Governor’s FY10-11 Recommended Budget, and the added fee will amount to $1 per registration.
According to an outside source, there is some pressure to add a further 25 to 50 cents onto the fee to pay for spay neuter programs.
The TVMA is OPPOSED to the bill (as amended), but momentum appears to be on the side of the amended bill passing. Why wouldn't it pass: it is projected to increase state revenue by $1 million and decrease state expenditures (from the general fund) by $1 million.
permission to forward
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Animal rights lawyers: A three-ring circus
What do Ponzi schemes, corrupt cops and organized-crime families have in common? They’ve all been taken down under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This is a law that can result in enhanced criminal and civil penalties for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.
But the latest RICO defendants aren’t wiseguys from a real-life Club Ba-Da-Bing. They’re a handful of animal rights groups, their lawyers and a pay-for-play federal court witness.
Last month the owners of the popular Ringling Brothers circus filed a federal RICO lawsuit against the Humane Society of the United States, two of its lawyers, a Washington, D.C. law firm, and several other animal rights groups. The defendants are accused of committing bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice and money laundering, all in a nine-year scheme to prosecute a bogus elephant-abuse lawsuit against the circus.
These are pachyderm-sized charges. But the evidence is compelling. In December, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed the activists’ 2000 elephant suit, ruling that the plaintiffs paid more than $190,000 to a former Ringling elephant “barn helper” in exchange for his completely unreliable testimony.
The judge wrote that the animal rights groups, including the anti-circus Fund for Animals (which is now part of HSUS), cleverly disguised their payola through a nonprofit “wildlife advocacy” charity founded and operated by their lawyers. (These lawyers now have to find their own defense attorneys to deal with the RICO lawsuit.)
The primary purpose of these payments, says Judge Sullivan, was “to keep [the witness] involved with the litigation.” Judges tend to frown on paying witnesses what amounts to a secret retainer.
Anyone who’s seen a PETA protest up close will find it utterly unremarkable that animal activists would knowingly fudge the truth. But it’s telling that these groups would do just about anything — including buying themselves a federal court witness — to get their way.
The Ringling case (and its swift-justice RICO fallout) is just one piece of a disturbing trend of animal rights groups replacing public persuasion with courtroom strong-arm tactics.
Since the vegan firebrand Wayne Pacelle took the reins at HSUS in 2004, for instance, that organization has beefed-up its legal department ten-fold, from three lawyers to 30.
Full story at link:
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Seized Dogs Returned To Owners
POSTED: 6:28 pm CST March 3, 2010
LAWRENCEBURG, Tenn. -- No charges will be filed against a husband and wife accused of animal abuse. In fact, the district attorney said the animal rescue group involved broke the law.
Last month, the Lawrence County Animal Welfare League took about 40 dogs belonging to Rex and Jennifer Parrott. The league claimed the dogs were malnourished and suffered from skin ailments.
But the district attorney announced Wednesday there is no proof of neglect and he won't be prosecuting the Parrotts.
He also said the league went on private property without a search warrant and some of their volunteers wore badges falsely representing themselves as law enforcement.
All of the dogs will be returned to the owners, who told the district attorney's office they don't want to operate a kennel anymore. The dogs will be adopted out in cooperation with the Lawrence County Humane Society.
WSMV.com