AR-News: ANIMAL RELATIONS PROGRAM

[סמדר]

From: The Council (CLAW)
thecouncilclaw at shaw.ca

ANIMAL RELATIONS PROGRAM - PART 2 OF 2 - FOCUS UPON INFRASTRUCTURE TO STOP
NEGLECT, ABUSE & KILLING HEALTHY ADOPTABLE COMPANION ANIMALS - DISTRIBUTION
ANIMAL GROUPSGVRD


Dear Friends, Colleagues & Animal Lovers

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) provided you and most Mayors &
Councillors across Canada, with our comprehensive "Animal Relations Program"
some time ago but to remind all of contents and urgency for Mayors &
Councillors  to commence adopting various important components, we divided
the program into two parts.  We forwarded Part One to selected recipients on
January 23 or February 23 (dealing with mandatory spay & neuter,
identification & breeder permits, suggested fines & penalties, cost-sharing
schemes, and to proclaim ALL shelters as "no-kill" facilities) and hereby
describe Part two below.

BCSPCA - First, we applaud the kind and compassionate gesture of the BCSPCA
to originally have declared a moratorium on "killing healthy and adoptable
Animals" but while admirable and morally right, it was announced without
proper infrastructure in place and the resulting serious overcrowding was
obvious - but to add insult to injury they "recinded the moratorium",
replacing with words like "maximum adoption" which conjures up various
thoughts.  Then, this was exacerbated, in part, by a remark by Craig
Daniell, CEO, in his Vancouver Sun article, "SPCA urges an end to backbiting
among animal activists" when he remarks, "virtually no adoptable animals
euthanized in urban centres", that while maybe innocent enough on the
surface, one must wonder about "rural" areas and yes, with an alltime low
credability, choice of words and perceptions, failure by the BCSPCA to
itself be responsive to all "Animal Groups", is hypocritical and brings back
memories of a troubled recent history and alienation.

Thus, to get all efforts on the right track The Council Animal Advocacy
(CLAW) developed the comprehensive "Animal Relations Program" and hence,
accepting our premise "the infrastructure needs to be in place", we
coincidentally renewed our call for "no kill shelters" everywhere - period!

NEW YORK CITY TAKES A LEADING ROLE - At the outset, we digress and wish to
share some encouraging developments with you, insofar as New York City has
announced an ambitious and compassionate "new vision" with a slogan "No kill
in NYC by 2008".  NYC feel a 5 year span may be needed to achieve their "no
kill goals" but just think, if back in 1995 when we first asked MAYORS to
adopt our bylaws and program, they had entertained a "new philosophy" called
for by us, literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Cats & to a
lesser number Dogs, would be alive today enjoying loving and caring homes.
The parallels in NYC are so close to what we have been advocating they are
worth highlighting  (refer to
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20040202/200/856
for the complete published story).  To explain further and recognize the
similarities, "underlying all this was a leadership philosophy that accepted
this killing as sad but necessary" - explaining why, such as the BCSPCA
killed thousands of healthy & adoptable Pets, that NYC killed Pets.  NYC
have taken a courageous and compassionate leadership role and they say, "If
we do it in New York, we will rob every other community in the United States
of their excuses" - why don't MAYORS do this is Canada? We have repeatedly
asked MAYORS to follow the teachings of Gandhi, when he said, "the way you
can judge a community is by how they treat their animals" but like we have
said numerous times and NYC seem to share our viewpoint saying, "how we
treat our Animals is a cause of tremendous shame"; we requested all
Parliaments & Municipal Councils to form an "Animal Welfare Committee" and
we recently remarked, "If a MAYOR says "we will afford respect and dignity
to Companion Animals and observe compassionate Animal Welfare approaches our
communities will reflect an environment of kindness" whereas in NYC they
formed a "Mayors Alliance for NYC Animals"; the article goes on explaining
various "programs, low-cost, licencing, looking at micro-chips,
trap-neuter-return colony management - "TNR" (we support TNR, in part, but
prefer to quickly move away from "return to streets" aspect, as we dislike
placing Cats "in harm's way", by rather having Animals adoped instead);  a
34 year Veterinarian reflects our position when he says, "Veterinarians
could be helping more, low-cost spaying/neutering is essential, to "turn off
the faucet" (just as we have claimed over and over, stop births, stop
unwanted litters, stop overcrowding, stop killing"").  IN AKRON, OHIO THE
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL propose initially implanting 1000 Cats with a micro-chip,
a $10 penalty for Guardians whose Cats are found and returned; the City plan
to charge $10.00 per micro-chip (normal cost ranged from $50-$110) they also
planned to offer four free or low-cost spay and neuter clinics throughout
the year.  The Ohio Mayor said, "he felt plans would ensure that animal
guardians, regardless of their financial situation, would not lose their
animals - we think we're fulfilling our obligation" and a Councillors
remarked, "she introduced the amendment to make sure the animal kingdom is
well-represented and protected by the City Council".  Very interesting stuff
and we share with you & Mayors in the vein, it may impress upon Mayors more
that  colleagues in very large cities can do pro-active, progressive and
compassionate things when leadership adopts a "different caring & informed
philosophy" and that a "new vision" for the future, working in-concert with
Animal Advocates is needed (NYC now have 50 groups working with the Mayors
Alliance) and treating Animals with respect, affording dignity, is good
business - kindness can be everyone's to give, just as the Mayors in New
York City and Akron, Ohio are demonstrating.

AS AN ASIDE WE WROTE TO CVMA & BCVMA to gain their understanding,
cooperation and support toward moving toward vaccinations every 2 years
outdoor cats and 3 years indoor cats. As well, getting access to
micro-chips, from Suppliers and/or via Veterinarians at a low-cost, such as
$10-$15 (ironically as in Ohio at $10) but again we advocated a different
philosophy, one of "doing a public service by creating an infrastructure
including low-cost micro-chip" to permit mandatory Bylaws to emerge versus a
possible "cash cow" revenue, for "Vets" and available only to the wealthy
and the result, in part like tattoos now, an ineffective partial
identification program.  Unfortunately, the Veterinarian Associations are
remiss in cooperating and responding promptly, if at all, hence a major
aspect of lacking results accordingly.

Second, other major platforms of the Animal Relations Program deal with
"Care & Handling of Animals" from provision of proper food, water, shelter,
to areas of confinement.  We need regulatory measures for Breeders, Trainers
& Guardians".  Such as, to not be tethered more than 8 hours in a 24 hour
period, secure and safe runs, no tolerance to "dogs roaming";  mandatory
"socializing" & training of Dogs.  We set forth provisions that any Dog
breed over 40 pounds and certain "breed Specific" species be deemed
"either/or potentially dangerous, aggressive, unpredictable and/or vicious
nature", with special licencing and severe fine structure for violations
(refer to our program Fines & Penalty at
www.thecouncilclaw.ca/finesandpenalty.htm
for recommendations). Let me hasten to add, "we are not strong advocates of
'breed specific' legislation (BSL) but we similarly do not condone the
gibberish of some "strong opponents" per se.  Rather, we are concerned about
"public health & safety" of both the Human & Domestic Animal or Cat and the
actual Dog in question (in sad cases of mauling, deaths, the Dog is
summarily killed, thus we advocate both a more effective 'preventative
program' and similalry 'very severe fine/penalty' against Guardians).  Thus,
we request that Municipalities "prohibit the training of Dogs that include
perceived inhumane aspects, such as, but not limited to "hitting, kicking,
isolation, sleep or food deprivation, shock, cattle prods, collars with
spikes inside" and/or produce a vicious and unsocialized Dog, such as "Guard
Dog class", that all training be according to reasonably accepted methods of
professional Dog obedience and/or as provided to Police Dogs.  For
additional information and "links" to informative web.sites pro and con, we
refer you to the W-FIVE Story "BRED TO BITE" at www.ctv.ca/wfive


We also remind you our Animal Relations Program calls for; "unfettered"
exercise, designated "off-leash" areas, maximum number of Dogs under the
care of a handler is three, plus more for consideration.  Municipal Councils
are requested to "please use the ANIMAL RELATIONS PROGRAM contents as a
"checklist" to check off Bylaw components, as adopted and as a "guide" to
ensure most components are addressed carefully.  Let me hasten to add, as
alluded to in our NEW YEARS MESSAGE NEWSLETTER, we, the collective persons
representing Animal Interests, are sometimes 'our own worst enemies' that
while each of us has objectives, goals & beliefs, sometimes not entirely
supportive on one another, we nonetheless are seeking your understanding &
support to our comprehensive ANIMAL RELATIONS PROGRAM insofar, as we
encourage you to pursue your own goals but where compatible & mutually
advantageous "for the Animals" please consider publicing our "program" in
addition.  Simply, if we all support the concept of an ANIMAL RELATION
PROGRAM, we will reflect a focus upon most causes, unity and strength in
numbers that will demonstrate to Municipal Councils we are a serious body
worth listening to, organized, co-ordinated and acting upon our collective
proposals which we altruistically make for all Animal species - we hope you
understand & agree?

In closing, we wish to strongly impress upon law makers and in particular
Municipal Councils, that a serious need exists for each to adopt components
of our ANIMAL RELATIONS PROGRAM and similalry commence steps we propose to
encourage more Veterinarian understanding and involvement, constructive
steps to ensure a Bylaw exists that is effective and thus enforceable, that
responsivenss is exercised by all authorities in a progressive and
meaningful fashion, that fines & penalties acheive stated goals of
prevention, education and when needed penalty.

Indeed, if clearly stated conditions of Animal Guardianship, care &
responsibility are clearly enumerated, greater chance to educate will exist,
greater success in reducing and eliminating unwanted litters and subsequent
stated need, by some, to kill healthy & adoptable animals, an act we find
morally repugnant but until Municipal Councils take constructive action
that, like New York City new vision and philosophy, we are otherwise going
to witness moribund Councils, indifferent Councils and continued problems.
Remember, once Municipalities adopt Bylaw components of our Animal Relations
Program, it is necessary to make public announcements and periodically
remind the public of laws, enforcement and penalties, plus expect diligent
enforcement by all Authorities.  Accordingly, a crucial aspect of effective
efforts to get Bylaws adopted, seek public in-put, educate the public and so
forth is dependant upon an informed and responsible Media, to impart
information to the Public, otherwise we shall continue to witness a lack of
progress, in part, as a result of an "indifferent & uninformed media" and
this is sad.

We refer you to our web.site at
www.thecouncilclaw.ca/ourpositiononissues.htm
for more details, in particular sections 16 and 31 which describe our ANIMAL
RELATIONS PROGRAM.  This ends our two-part summary and reemphasizing of the
need for ALL MUNICIPALITIES to adopt our Animal Relations Program.

COMING NEXT; We encourage all Municipal Councils to prohibit the breeding,
exhibition, possession, ownership, sale, trade of wild or exotic pets.