Minnesota Responsible Animal Owners Alliance / Minnesota Council of Dog Clubs
News and Information
Home
Minnesota Legislation
National Legislation
How a Bill Becomes Law in Minnesota
News and Information
Responsibility
Tethering
Learn More
Events
Becoming a Member
Constitution and Bylaws
Contact Us
Links

Scroll down the page

Help craft St. Cloud’s animal control rule

Times staff report • July 12, 2008

St. Cloud is looking for residents interested in revising the city’s animal control ordinance.


 

An advisory task force is being formed to review the ordinance that sets standards for keeping and licensing animals within the city.

For information, contact Community Development Director Matt Glaesman by July 25 at 255-7218 or matt.glaes man@ci.stcloud.mn.us.

CONNECTICUT SPAY AND NEUTER Task Force a Study in Irony

 

House would prohibit dogs for owners whose animals attack

The Associated Press

ST. PAUL—The Minnesota House has voted to ban dog ownership for people who violate dangerous dog laws.

The bill won unanimous approval after discussion about dog attacks, including one that killed a Minneapolis boy.

The main provision would prohibit dog ownership for at least three years for those whose dogs hurt or kill someone or when the owners violate laws requiring restraints, microchips and other precautions. Representative Michael Paymar says there have been too many problems with dogs biting and sometimes killing children, adults and other pets.

The punishment would not be linked to the dog's breed.

 
House panel passes rules for pet breeders
Bill would require state license, operating standards

Large scale breeders of dogs and cats would be licensed by the state and face minimum operating standards under a bill that narrowly passed a House panel Tuesday.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, would require operators who have at least six breeding female animals to be state-licensed by 2010, to be inspected annually and to follow minimum care standards.

The measure is aimed at improving conditions for animals raised in so-called puppy mills, where they can receive widely varying care or training.

"It's really an attempt for the state to step in and not only address issues of humane treatment of animals, but consumer-protection measures,'' said Hornstein, who said those operations now fall under a patchwork of regulations.

But some veterinarians and care providers don't support the bill. In testimony, they said it would institutionalize lower standards, wouldn't affect the largest operators and would prompt more breeders to operate out of public view.

Later, Hornstein said he didn't understand some of those complaints.

"I don't think they are based on fact,'' he said. "What we are doing is quite the opposite.''

Some legislators objected to specific elements of the bill, such as unannounced inspections, saying constituents don't want inspectors just showing up on their doorsteps.

"They think this is an unfair, unconstitutional intrusion of government,'' said Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano.

With an estimated 500 breeders statewide, the Minnesota Board of Animal Health projected the licenses could cost $900 apiece.

The House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee approved the bill 8-7 and sent it to the Agriculture and Rural Economies and Veterans Affairs Committee.

Dennis Lien can be reached at dlien@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5588.

Puppy Mill Proposals are No Walk in the Park for Sportsmen
Sportsmen's vigilance key to protect your sports
October 12, 2007 (National)

Proposals aimed at so-called puppy mills are being offered in several states putting hunting with dogs in jeopardy.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance reports that the proposals, which have been introduced in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, are intended to target abusive, commercial dog breeders, but will also catch up law abiding sportsmen who breed and hunt with dogs. Such proposals have the support of animal rights groups that systematically attempt to whittle away at hunters’ rights with subtle attacks on specific hunting interests, including hunting with dogs.

“Sportsmen do not object to regulations that will bring abusive breeders to justice, but we are concerned that these proposals will drive law-abiding sporting kennels out of business in the process,” said Rick Story, USSA senior vice president. “In many cases, the proposals dictate requirements for thousands of sportsmen that are utterly unrealistic, will cost thousands of dollars and, unless followed to the letter, will turn them into criminals.”

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has proposed regulations that will make it nearly impossible to breed and raise packs of hounds and hunting dogs. Throughout 2007, sportsmen have been battling the excessive regulations, which mandate immediate repairs to rusty fences and cracked concrete; extensive daily record keeping; and daily exercise requirements that do not include hunting or field trialing. In October, senior officials from Gov. Ed Rendell’s office committed that the regulations intended for commercial breeders will not be the same as those for sporting dog kennels. Unfortunately, the government still believes that some additional regulations are needed. The USSA and Pennsylvania sportsmen are not convinced.

“They’re going to have to prove why sportsmen should be burdened with higher costs and more complicated regulations before we will agree,” said Story. “Breeders of hunting dogs do not deserve to be treated as habitual violators of the law.”

In Ohio, companion puppy mill bills are making their way through the General Assembly. The bills will establish the classification of a “regulated dog breeding kennel” based upon an arbitrary number of dogs, which the USSA believes to be extremely low. The measures include exemptions for hunting and show dogs, but fail to protect field trials. They will also force sportsmen to prove which dogs are bred to turn a profit as opposed to those bred for one’s own hunting or companionship.

Additionally, a Wisconsin state senator is preparing to introduce a bill to regulate commercial dog breeders. As has been seen in other states, the stated intent is to get after abusive commercial breeding operations, but law-abiding sporting dog kennels could find themselves subject to regulations designed for commercial operations. 

In all cases sportsmen must be engaged to ensure that distinctions are made between hunting dog breeders, whose goals are to create high-quality hunting dogs while maintaining breed standards, and abusive commercial operations that look to turn out as many puppies as possible.

Sportsmen nationwide should contact state legislators and ask them to keep legitimate sporting dog kennels and hobby breeders in mind when trying to rein in abusive commercial dog breeders. Ask them to make sure that law-abiding sportsmen are not regulated out of existence by one-size-fits-all policies on dog breeders. Use the Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org to contact your lawmaker today.

Courtesy of US Sportsmen's Alliance

 

MONTH: July-August 2007

Donations for animals rise

Donations to U.S. animal welfare charities have cumulatively increased 28% over the past three years, according to data released by the Boston direct marketing consulting firm Target Analysis Group. In the 12 months from April 2006 through March 2007, animal welfare charities achieved an 8.5% increase in revenue, a 10% increase in number of donors, and an 8% increase in the number of new donors.

Animal welfare charities were 5.6 times more successful than environmental charities. Reported by Holly Hall in the July 26, 2007 edition of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the findings came from an analysis of 68 million donations made by 38 million individuals, who cumulatively gave more than $1.7 billion in 2006-2007.

Animal People

MONTH: July-August 2007

 

U.S. shelter killing toll drops to 3.7 million dogs

U.S. animal shelters as of mid-2007 are killing fewer dogs and cats than at any time in at least the past 37 years, according to the 15th annual ANIMAL PEOPLE evaluation of the most recent available shelter data.

The rate of shelter killing per 1,000 Americans, now at 12.5, is the lowest since data collected by John Marbanks in 1947-1950 suggested a rate of about 13.5--at a time when animal control in much of the U.S. was still handled by private contractors, who often simply killed strays or sold them to laboratories instead of taking them to shelters, and unwanted puppies and kittens were frequently drowned.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection each year is based on compilations of the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the preceding three fiscal years is included. Using a three-year rolling projection tends to level out flukes that might result from including different cities, counties, and states each year, but has the disadvantage of sometimes not showing significant changes in trends until a year or two after they start. Thus the effects of the post-2001 slump in funding for dog and cat sterilization programs only became evident in 2004. Comparably, trends involving Internet-assisted adoption, adoption transport, feral cats and pit bull terriers that were just gathering momentum in 2004 are major influences on the 2007 findings.

As of 2004, about a third of all U.S. dog and cat adoptions were believed to be Internet-assisted, via web sites where animals' photographs and descriptions are posted. Anecdotally, at least two thirds of adoptions are Internet-assisted today, with dogs benefitting most, since dog adopters are more likely to be seeking a specific breed or mix, who may be readily found only through web-searching. Adoption transport also chiefly benefits dogs, since cats are still abundant in all parts of the U.S., but small dogs, puppies, and purebreds are relatively scarce in shelters along both coasts and in the northern Midwest. Soaring shelter receipts of pit bull terriers in 2001-2004 outraced progress in sterilizing feral cats, causing total shelter killing to soar by the end of 2004 to the highest level since 1997. For the first and only time since ANIMAL PEOPLE began quantifying shelter killing, more dogs were killed in 2004 than cats. The 1997 toll was 53% cats, 47% dogs, about the same balance as had prevailed since the mid-1980s, but the 2004 toll was reversed, at 47% cats, 53% dogs.

About half of the dogs who were killed in 2004 were pit bull terriers, ANIMAL PEOPLE confirmed by surveying shelter directors in 23 representative metropolitan areas. Salathia Bryant of the Houston Chronicle was shocked in February 2007 to discover that local shelter intakes of pit bulls had increased from 5% of all dogs in 2000 to 15% in 2002 and 27% in 2006. Actually this was right on the national norms found by ANIMAL PEOPLE nearly two years earlier. Los Angeles residents were shocked in June 2007 when Department of Animal Regulation chief Ed Boks lamented that 40% of the dogs who were killed in the city shelters during the preceding year were pit bulls. Yet as many as 70% of the dogs killed in some other major cities are pit bulls--who are reportedly 65% of the animal control dog intake in Milwaukee, and may account for more than two-thirds of the dog intake in Detroit and Philadelphia.

While pit bull intake has not slowed down since 2004, and appears to be still rising, the total canine death toll in U.S. shelters has fallen by more than 750,000 since 2004, with pit bulls the main beneficiaries. Increasing use of standardized temperament tests to determine whether dogs are safe for adoption appears to be driving the change. Traditionally, behavioral suitability for adoption tended to be judged from anecdotal assessments by animal control officers, kennel workers, and people who surrendered animals to shelters. Relatively few shelters ever categorically refused to adopt out pit bulls and other breeds of dog who are considered high-risk, though some did and still do, but the breeds of



dogs tended to weigh heavily, if not always consciously, in the judgments. When most shelters were killing a relatively high percentage of the dogs received, and no one breed predominated, this was not an issue. As pit bulls came to disproportionately fill shelters, however, concern about "breed discrimination" on the one hand and soaring liability insurance costs on the other caused shelter directors to seek ways to support their decisions. Standardized temperament tests offer shelters a way to explain in relatively objective terms why a particular dog may be unsuitable for adoption, and to adopt out some pit bulls with confidence that the adoptions will succeed. Whether temperament tests really prevent dog attacks and liability is still a matter of debate.

Animal People

 

“Our opinions are based on facts, some myths that we

think are facts, and our values. In public policy, it is

important that we sharpen our skills at separating facts,

myths, and value judgments.”        

Read More.......

Working with Legislators

 

Legislative Staff

Dont underestimate the importance of legislative staff members. Theyre often

the legislatorsmost trusted advisors and are usually more accessible than the

legislators themselves. Staff members can also provide information about

the district and how to organize effective grassroots help.

The problems of puppy mills, puppy brokers and irresponsible breeders are receiving more media coverage. The public is becoming more educated on the importance of buying a puppy/dog from ethical, responsible breeders in order to avoid both the physical and psychological problems associated with dogs from poor sources. Everyone selling puppies proclaims himself or herself to be a responsible breeder, even those selling puppies from puppy mills! It is up to the buyer to determine whether or not someone trying to sell them a puppy is a responsible breeder.

Top Puppy Mill States   (Fact)

There are seven states that are known as puppymill states because they have the majority of the puppymills in the country. They are: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

THE MYTH OF OVER POPULATION IN REGARD TO SHELTER ANIMALS


There are dogs, puppies, cats and kittens killed every week in this country’s animal shelters. These deaths are a sad and inexcusable fact.

To listen to the media reports, the number of animals in shelters is all the fault of dogs/cats being bred. If you breed, then more will be killed in shelters. If you buy a dog or cat then you are supporting breeders and one more will die in a shelter. The animal rights movement promotes that breeders are evil. To allow your dog/cat to reproduce makes you lower than dirt. Heaven forbid if you actually planned the event. Wanting to purchase a pet with a certain look, behavior and wanting it for a specific purpose makes you a bad person. According to the media and animal rights activists, over population (breeding) is the reason for all of the shelter deaths.

A large portion of the general public has been lead to believe these theories. These are only theories because reliable, credible statistics have not and are not being kept at an overwhelming majority of shelters as to why animals are being surrendered. There are some sections of this country that are importing dogs from foreign countries because of a lack of local dogs available for adoption. Large numbers in shelters seem to be regional not necessarily national.

Because of the media and animal rights movements there are numerous counties throughout this country that are requiring mandatory neutering or spaying of ALL dogs and cats in private homes as well as those in shelters. I do feel that all animals adopted from shelters should be neutered or spayed. The only way to be allowed to keep an intact animal (whether you breed or not) is to pay outrageous yearly breeding or kennel fees. This applies to Granny’s little poodle who is never allowed out without Granny, to breeders trying to improve their breed, to breeders striving to save a rare breed from extinction, to hunters and their hunting dogs. Some areas have already passed laws requiring mandatory neutering and spaying of all privately owned animals.

My main question has always been -- Why are there dogs and cats at animal shelters in the first place?

According to Chief Cathy Hartley, Granville County Animal Control, “The main reason for animals in our shelter is irresponsible pet owners. It doesn’t matter if it is a mix breed mutt or a high dollar purebred. It doesn’t matter if it belongs to a drug dealer on one street or a professional living on another. It’s irresponsible owners”. I completely agree with Officer Hartley.

If the owners of those animals surrendered at shelters would accept responsibility for those animals then the shelter would not have to deal with the numbers that have to be killed. Those numbers would not then be deceptively used to impact the lives of responsible animal owners through animal rights backed mandatory neuter spay and breed specific legislation. Breed specific legislation is another whole can of worms!

Just a quick note: there is a huge difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animals don’t have rights; people do, in my opinion. But, people do have responsibilities towards animals. Animal rights activists generally believe that humans should not use animals in any way. That includes having pets (slavery is their term), for food, research or any other use or association. There should be no domestic animals. Animal welfare is where people feel responsibility to care for, use and live with animals humanely. Please be sure of the agendas (often hidden) of those organizations you choose to support. Some of the animal rights groups have been determined to be domestic terrorists by the FBI. Other AR groups, while not actively participating in terrorist activities, financially support the groups that promote violent activities. You have to dig to find the answers. Make sure you are supporting what you think you are supporting.

If you choose to neuter or spay your animal then they will not reproduce. If you choose not to neuter or spay then keep your animal home and don’t allow it to roam. Many cities, communities and counties have leash laws currently on the books. These existing laws need to be enforced before new laws are written. If your animal isn't allowed to roam it will not be randomly breeding, bothering your neighbor, their property or livestock. Roaming dogs, whether in a pack or a single, can frighten people, fight with other dogs, kill livestock or other dogs or cats, injure people and destroy property. It isn’t the dogs or cats fault, they are just being who they are, but it is sure the fault of their owner. Ever wonder what happened to that dog or cat of yours that never came home? If lucky, it did end up at the shelter. Maybe it was smeared across a road somewhere or left to die in a ditch. Or perhaps someone initiated the three S’s – shoot, shovel and shut-up. Again, not the animals fault but definitely the fault of the owner.

Did your dog or cat have babies that you want to take to the shelter? Have you tried to find them homes? Run ads? Ask friends or neighbors if they want a new pet? Taking them to the shelter should be your last option not your first choice. The shelter has enough to do without irresponsible owners contributing to the problems. Is your pet sick or old? Does it cost too much to care for it? Did your kids grow up and now you just don’t want the thing? Did you take on more than you can handle? Did you make the wrong breed choice? Do you work 60 hours a week and don’t have time? Did the animal’s owner die and it ended up at a shelter? Does it have behavior problems? Did it pee on the floor; again? Did it jump on the kids? Or does it bark all night? Did it get too big? Turn out to be the wrong color or shed? Again, the animal didn’t cause the problem but, in most cases, the owner’s irresponsibility to solve the problem caused the animal to end up at a shelter.

These are but some of the reasons why animals end up being abandoned or surrendered to shelters. While some situations are legitimate reasons for surrender, they are the exception not the rule. A shelter should be the considered only after you have exhausted all other paths.

Most of the reasons for surrender seem to cluster around behavior/training issues, lack of animal care knowledge and owners not knowing what the resources are available that can help. Of course, you will still have a certain segment of people who just don’t give a dang.

For those people who are at a loss of which direction to turn, there are people out there that can help. This is where a call to your local shelter should be one of your first moves. Shelter staffs are often a wealth of information. Often they can offer suggestions that may solve the very problem you are having. They usually are aware of trainers or instructors who will be able to help you with your problems. Local humane societies can often point you in proper directions. Local training clubs and parks & recreation departments often have classes or trainers they can refer you to. Talk with your veterinarian. If you don’t have a vet then call around to the different offices. There are numerous rescue groups available to assist in one way or another. You have to ask for the assistance. No one is going to know what you need if you don’t ask. If you don’t accept the responsibility for seeking solutions to problems then you become just another irresponsible owner whose animal will, probably, eventually die an early death. Often at a shelter, often giving fuel to the myth that over population (breeding) is the sole reason for the numbers of animals in shelter.

Owner irresponsibility is far reaching. Not only does irresponsibility impact the animals themselves, but it also impacts neighbors, the community at large while at the same time overburdening shelters and rescue groups. Irresponsibility also impacts the rights of others to responsibly use and enjoy their own animals by giving fuel to the animal rights movement. Not only are you doing a disservice to yourself and your own animals, you have become a pawn in the animals rights agenda.


Linda Tilley
North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance
February 2006
copyright NCRAOA

Rural people's concerns terribly troubling
Some basic civil liberties at stake
Mesabi Daily News
Last updated: Saturday, March 24th, 2007 08:50:53 PM

Tuesday night’s meeting at the Wilbert Cafe in Cotton was grassroots citizenship at its best.

However, unfortunately, the issues raised, if fully substantiated, involve county government most definitely not at its best. In this case it’s law enforcement and the Humane Society out of Golden Valley, Minn., that St. Louis County contracts with to handle alleged animal abuse cases.

About 70 rural area residents attended a gathering with County Commissioners Keith Nelson and Dennis Fink on the issue. We applaud the two commissioners for responding to residents’ concerns and doing a lot of listening.

We believe this issue definitely warrants a full county hearing with all parties involved in attendance. That wasn’t the case Tuesday night as no one from the Sheriff’s Department or the Humane Society were there.

The stories told by residents raise serious concerns about possible improper and excessive action taken by a law enforcement officer and a Golden Valley Human Society representative.

The citizens’ claims include:

• Livestock and companion animals being taken for no reason.

• The integrity of homeowners being verbally questioned.

• The entering of homes and property without prior consent.

The major incident that triggered this meeting is particularly troubling.

Wade Hanson of the Golden Valley Humane Society traveled to Kelsey last Nov. 22 to investigate a report of animal neglect. However, he went to the wrong farm, which is owned by Mark and Loretta Bickford, entered the house and left a “Minnesota animal welfare statue compliance warning” in the entryway.

The Bickfords, who have horses, dogs and fowl, paid for a veterinarian to inspect all their animals. All were found to be healthy and well maintained.

Animal abuse is something that should outrage all caring and humane people. We have reported on it before, even broke a major story on it in the Kelsey area just a couple of years ago. And it sickens us.

But government abuse of people’s rights is also outrageous. We also find that to be terribly odorous.

If these claims are true — and we have heard no reason to believe otherwise — then the very sanctity of private property ownership and individual civil liberties was severely violated.

That cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. And that cannot be allowed to happen again in any similar form.

Animal care visits raise ire in county property rights dispute
Litman, Bickford sound off on investigations, incident
Charles Ramsay
Last updated: Sunday, April 22nd, 2007 10:09:49 PM

COTTON — A dispute on animal care and authorities’ visits to central St. Louis County rural properties the past several months has some residents squared off with authorities investigating any violation allegations.

The issue was brought to a head at a March 20 meeting in Cotton, when about 70 residents gathered regarding visits to properties by state humane investigator Wade Hanson and sheriff’s Sgt. Marleen Hall. The two have been following up on complaints received about care of animals at rural properties.

Sheriff Ross Litman in general defended his personnel and the visits, which are in response to specific allegations. Area resident Mark Bickford has said he has not been given a complaint on any treatment of his animals, and disputes both authorities’ contentions of how his animals are kept, and what he says was unauthorized entry into his home.

 

Several items Litman wanted to clear up in a recent phone discussion on the situation was that St. Louis County does not contract with any animal shelter or humane society in Minnesota in the animal care visits, and state humane investigator Wade Hanson is not a department member.

Hanson, from Golden Valley, works with the Minnesota Federated Humane Society, a group of human societies, is one of two such agents in the state, and does have statewide authority under Statute 343 like any Minnesota peace officer to respond to complaints on animal treatment. In most cases, he notifies local law enforcement before responding and takes a veterinarian along, and he has a good working relationship with his department’s personnel, Litman said.

“The man has got a high level of expertise,’’ he noted, adding that Hanson was a great resource statewide and in the county on such matters.

Hanson has the ability to place animals in shelters or with humane societies, upon voluntary surrender or else seizure, if animals’ well-being is at issue. The majority of complaints he investigates involve domestic animals, not livestock.

“He’s done a very good job of investigating these complaints in St. Louis County, and working in concert with local authorities,’’ Litman said.

There is a perception that authorities are showing up on rural properties doing pro-active investigations, but they are responding to specific complaints, the sheriff said. They receive dozens of animal cruelty or neglect complaints each year, but “very rarely are animals seized or voluntarily surrendered,’’ Litman added. “Our goal is to gain compliance.’’

Animals taken from a property are placed in shelters for better care, and over time may be adopted by an outside person for a fee to help cover costs like spaying and neutering.

Another perception out in the public is that authorities should receive permission or else be invited on to a property. But authorities are doing a criminal complaint investigation, and “we don’t always announce our presence,’’ he said.

Authorities responding to a complaint have to follow the law, and the state and federal constitutions; they typically do not enter homes or outbuildings such as barns or sheds, but do have the right to observe in plain view. If a homeowner is present and says they deny law enforcement access to the property, then the steps through the search warrant process are done. Only if a person’s life or well-being is in jeopardy or evidence may well be destroyed, do officers do otherwise, he explained.

“There’s been some serious allegations of illegal searches,” Litman noted, and in the cases that have been brought to his attention and that he’s reviewed, both Wade Hanson and staff of his office “acted appropriately.’’

In the case of a visit by authorities to the property of Mark and Loretta Bickford, it was claimed Hanson had the wrong address, and the wrong name was written on a card Hanson left, telling that he had been there. “He was at the correct address of the specific complaint that had been left,’’ Litman said.

When Hanson was done, he left the card between doors to the home on the porch, but did not enter the house, the sheriff said.

There can be some disagreement between residents and others what is considered proper food and water care for animals, and “people have great passion’’ for their creatures, he added. But, there have been cases where conditions were deplorable “and clearly a violation of the law.’’

 

Mark Bickford says no one was home Nov. 22 when Wade Hanson came to his property in Kelsey Township. An animal welfare compliance warning was left inside his back door, which is inside a porch, where there is an entryway to his basement as well.

The warning was not addressed to him, but to his neighbors, “Tim and Annette,’’ who are nearby neighbors. Law enforcement had supplied the address, regarding a complaint of 22 dogs running loose. The dogs don’t run loose,and belonged to the neighbors, he explained. Apparently some neighbors of the neighbors up from the Twin Cities for hunting season had complained of the dogs barking. “It was a false complaint,’’ Bickford said, “without foundation.’’

In the first November visit, the Bickfords were told they had illegal housing for dogs, horses and fowl, and two horses needed hoof trimming. Bickford contends that state statute said natural or manmade housing can be used. What they wanted was loafing sheds, for 24-hour, daily access to shelter. Hutches were to be built for rabbits, but the rabbits were for butchering and have been put in the freezer, he said. But Bickford says he has several draft horses, big animals that need to be in stalls, which he uses for farming. “My animals have always met at least minimum Minnesota state statute,’’ he said. He has put up an addition to his barn in the process, which he said they were planning to do beforehand. And, authorities did not tell them what they needed to have done regarding the barn.

They were told that ducks they have on hand to eat flies in summer needed water to swim in in winter, including a heated pool, Bickford asserted.

There were subsequent monthly visits to his property in December, January and February, and in the December visit, “they assumed we were Tim and Annette,’’ he added. At that point, “I said to them you were trespassing.’’

On a January visit, “they questioned Loretta why we had so many animals,’’ including peacocks, golden pheasants, draft horses, and other horses and dogs and other animals, he said.

He had two veterinarians come out to inspect his animals and property, one of whom said he found all animals healthy, well fed and content, and that the Bickfords take good care of their animals.

Bickford also had witnesses on hand at a called-for February meeting as well.

He has never been given a complaint, “nothing in writing saying I was doing anything wrong,’’ he said.

Bickford, asked if he felt he has been treated unfairly, answered, “Yes. Definitely.’’ He contends authorities are “really impressed with the power they have and enjoy using it.’’

He sent Litman a certified letter on all the incidents, and Litman has called him recently suggesting to meet with him, he said.

 

Litman said when animal complaints are investigated, authorities take proper precautions to stop the spread of any communicable diseases between properties, and they were properly responding to complaints.

While it may seem intimidating for authorities to come on to someone’s property, “the main thing is to bring people into compliance,’’ Litman said.

Could personnel have done a better job spreading the word about what they were trying to accomplish? “Probably so,’’ he conceded, but insisted authorities were “doing a really good job.’’

There is a system in place to lodge a complaint regarding whatever severity in animal well-being cases, and residents can call 911; or 218-749-6010 for north, or 218-727-8770 for south, he said.

 

Charles Ramsay can be reached at charles.ramsay@mx3.com. To read this story and comment on it online go to www.virginiamn.com.


"Now, we have initiated a 50-state strategy that aims to place HSUS staff in every state within the next few years. The state representatives will develop state-specific agendas to advance legislation and regulatory reforms, corporate campaigns, and other priorities of local or national concern".                            Wayne Pacelle HSUS's President and CEO  April 2007

                                                   Be a responsible animal owner!