Legislative Forum

forum

This is a forum for the discussion of the proposed Shambala Bill and other legislative issues concerning animal ownership.  Please keep your debates civil,  and do not post material which is knowingly inaccurate. Anti private ownership entities monitor this BB, so be careful about posting personal information.  Known offenders or trolls will not be allowed to post here.
 * If your post consists of only the subject line, place "n/m" (no message) in 
the message box, or your post will not appear on the board.
 

 

Forwarded on "Confiscated" animals

by Christine

Christine, DeHaven is the USDA honcho that appeard at the HSUS annual meeting with the USDA "Position" paper opposing big cats as pet - doesn't define what big cat is.

Shirl
-------------Forwarded Message----------------- From: INTERNET:Phoenix_Exotics
To: [unknown], INTERNET:Phoenix_Exotics
Date: 04/03/2000 3:22 PM
Re: [Phoenix_Exotics] Digest Number 159

USDA adopted a new policy within the last year allowing them to place animals confiscated from licensees into UNlicensed humane societies/shelters. In a recent meeting attended by many AZA members, Ron DeHaven talked about his innovative plan to redirect fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act AWAY from the U.S. Treasury and into the hands of these unlicensed societies/shelters.

If all this doesn't form a neat little picture, we're blind as a bat. As for USDA claiming ignorance of the Shambala bill, I don't believe it for a minute. The whole world knew about it; how could USDA not have?

Polly

<<The USDA doesn't have to have any $$$ to confiscate & take over our animals
- so don't think this is a deterrent to this bill.
Shambala makes it mandatory that you keep liability insurance AND a surety bond - this is a performance bond, the amount to be set by the Secretary in an amount that would care for the animal for it's lifetime - you can bet it will be hefty.

IF for any reason you run afoul of USDA - they simply confiscate your animal, call in the surety bond, give the $$$ to the sanctuary that says they'll take the cat. FURTHER, it requires you to pay for the capture, care & transportation of the animal pending any hearings, appeals, or whatever.
Remember too folks that under USDA - all animals even an iguana on your property could be covered once you have a permit for another animal ........... SO some one determines you've abused the iguana, and here they come after your cat/wolf/monkey - there are so many nightmare scenarios here.

I was what iffing - in the post ZB refers to - wouldn't it be nice IF we could trust our Government to do the right thing - we can all dream occassionally, sorry.

Shirl >>

Posted on Apr 3, 2000, 3:45 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Press Release from Melanie Griffith

by Christine

ROAR FOUNDATION/ SHAMBALA PRESERVE


As some of you may already know, my mother, Tippi Hedren, has an organization called The Roar Foundation/Shambala Preserve.

The Roar Foundation is deeply concerned with a serious problem in the United States: the private ownership of wild exotic animals.

We all know that lions, tigers, and leopards are cute and cuddly at birth, but they grow up to become unmanageable wild animals.

As a result of making wild animals their private pets, owners frequently find themselves in life-threatening situations.

I will accompany my mother on a trip to Washington D.C. on the 29th of March in an effort to promote legislation that will BAN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF WILD ANIMALS."


Posted on Apr 3, 2000, 12:42 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

HSUS Guidelines for Responsible Adoption Programs

by Christine

http://www.hsus.org/programs/companion/shelter_library/adopt.html

HSUS Guidelines for Responsible Adoption Programs

<snip>

Hybrids

Wolf hybrids and other hybrids of wild and domestic canines or felines should not be placed for adoption because of their special physical, psychological, and veterinary requirements and their frequently unpredictable and unstable nature. Hybrids should be euthanized or placed with appropriate sanctuaries.

Exotic Animals

Although sold as pets, native and non-native wild animals, such as reptiles, primates, large cats, and some small mammals (e.g., hedgehogs and sugar gliders) are not appropriate companion animals because of the care they require and the risk they may pose to public safety. A few individuals may be able to care for such animals properly, but you must use extreme caution in determining if an individual is truly qualified. The HSUS discourages placing them as pets and recommends they be placed with appropriate wildlife sanctuaries or euthanized.

<snip>

Posted on Apr 2, 2000, 12:31 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

A thought.........

by gloria

Guys and Gals; I have been fighting a wolf dog ban in Michigan, along with many others, for too many years. Not only is this tiring and puts stress on all family members, but at time seems to be an uphill battle.

Last year we became a 501(c)3 because I could not do this alone.

Having said that, I want to make it clear WE have no thought of giving up. I am SO sick and tired of the lies propagated by the Michigan Humane Society (you know, the lobbyist herself owns a wolf dog and she is tell the legislature that they will "turn" on you) and HSUS, Patti Nickerson's bull sh*t, and the garbage that comes out of Beth Duman's mouth.

I work with wolf dogs, but I do not see a problem with people who know what they are doing, owing tigers or primates.....never mind the long list of other animals (aren't emu's onthis list?).

I would rather my daughter and her friends see a tiger the way they did a few weeks ago, brought to us by a wonderful group, than to see a tiger at the Detroit Zoo, reeking of gangrene. DZ was just slapped with a hefty fine for improper care.

Oh boy, I have babbled more than I wanted too.

My thought (finally, says all) is this: since this stupid bill, which by all press reports, would have gone nowhere, for it not for the 'actresses and a frog' DID get attention, can we not fight fire with fire?

My point is to get celebrities, or well known personalities (hey, let' do a bit better than those guys...let's get some GOOD actors....hmmmmm) involved.

Not all in Hollywood are PETA wanna be's. Seems the only Hollywood support Tippi could pull up was her own daughter and an actress (cough-cough) that has not worked in years.

If this issue is going to pushed through 'wannabe star power', perhaps that is exactly what is necessary to stop it.

Just a thought,
gloria
Michigan Wolf Dog Rescue
http://www.bignet.net/~zadymka/index.htm

Posted on Apr 1, 2000, 5:28 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

I don't get it

by

I don't understand why an actress or actresses that obviously know nothing about wolfdogs can have more impact than the people that are living with them. I have two very large very beautiful wolfdogs. I not only love them I adore them, but I also respect them. I know them for what they are and care for them accordingly. I find them to be the sweetest most loving creatures god has created and am proud they allow me to be a part of their lives. All those that live with these special animals should be the ones to make the decisions on who can own and care for them. Educating wannabe owners is the most important thing we can do. I have dissuaded many people from owning a wolfdog simply by explaining the care they require. Unlike some well-known people I don't feel the need to prove to others that being just like me is the only way to heaven. I'll leave the power plays to those that need it.

Posted on Sep 20, 2002, 8:20 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Further comments from Shirley

by Christine

First & foremost this is FEDERAL law and supersedes state law. If Shambala is passed permits would be required for wolfdogs in every state - this law could allow them to confiscate your animals. You would be required to carry insurance & a surety bond at your cost for your animal's lifetime in an amount determined by the USDA >.

The Animal Welfare act (and all federal law) has to be passed by Congress. Usually, they say something like (real loose language here folks) - we need to regulate exotics cause they're a danger to humans and are abused in captivity.- so this law proposes...blah, blah. The bill passes and Congress directs some Dept. (in this it's US Dept. of Agriculture) to write rules & regs to make it so. The rules & regs are the AWA (animal welfare act) which already exists & has for some time. Anyone dealing in exotic or wild animals MUST have permit to breed, sell or exhibit these animals. They inspect you annually and have rules as to cage size, what food you can feed, how it's stored, prepared, etc. They dictate that you must have a perimeter fence (a 8 ft tall fence) outside your primary cage to prevent contact with the animal............ all of this is in place if you use your animal in commerce.

Until now they had no jurisdiction over private animals (nor hybrids - crossbreeds such as wolfdogs). The Shambala bill would now let the USDA include pet animals in the AWA. We Assume thesame standards would apply, cage sizes etc. if this bill is passed. If you violated the act they could confiscate your animal! You must post a surety bond which is like the bond you post if you're accused of a crime ensuring you'll return for trial. Only in this case, you pay for this bond for the life of your animal and it must be of an amount that would cover the cost of caring for your animal IF they confiscated it. The animal would be given to a sanctuary along with the money to care for it - money you pay annually for the bond - this will probably cost several hundred $ a year. Until the bill is passed, we have no way of knowing exactly what rules or regs will apply, how much permits will cost etc. Once the USDA is given the power under this bill, they pretty much can do what they want & you can't argue with them.

Most dealers/breeders etc. plead no contest, & pay whatever fine is imposed (most are pretty hefty) as when you fight them they keep you tied up in court for years (quite pricey) and suspend your license (putting you out of business) in the meanwhile. Since pet owners aren't "in business" they've come up with the confiscation rule (at your expense).

LIOC has a bulletin board, but it's for members only. There's a lot of chatter on some of the open cat lists, but it's not always reliable.

I don't mind answering any questions for ya'll and will forward to Christine anything I feel would be helpful. The bill has not been filed as of yet, when it does there will probably be hearings, and we'll need to bombard our individual congressmen & Senators asking them to vote against this. Some in the zoo community feel the USDA can't and won't want to get involved with "pets"......that it would be impossible unless their budget were doubled. They feel some sort of "dangerous" animal law might come down instead. They've had meetings trying to define "dangerous" animals for the purpose of such legislation. However, wolves would be included to be sure. Remind your congress man that 2/3 of the states currently have some law already in place requiring permits of exotic animals (don't mention hybrids or wolfdogs to them - few states govern hybrids specifically) The Endangered Species act already requires permits for Wolves as endangered species.

I have some stats on other "hazardous" activities - I'll forward later. Hope this helps.

Shirley

Posted on Apr 1, 2000, 1:17 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Another forwarded "look" at the Shambala Bill

by Christine

This is another "Cat" person's view.

From: "Lynn Culver"
Subject: Re: FEL-L: Problems With Shambala Bill

My take on the Shambala bill is that it mandates that all wild felines in captivity be regulated by the USDA.

Already we have class A, B, & C licenses, for breeders, brokers and exhibitors, and if the Shambala bill is passed, we will have a new category for non-commercial possession - the P Class.

So, to exempt the zoos and sanctuaries from this Shambala bill , is kind of meaningless, since they are already required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. Except I guess they don't have to ask permission to breed their offspring.

But this bill, if passed, would require that those have a USDA license to breed AND are granted permission by the USDA to breed their animals can only sell offspring into non-commercial situations (as companion animals) to people who have applied for a USDA P license (whatever they call it). And those people would have to apply for a license, have a cage, a health plan, a pre-license inspection, etc before getting their pet serval, bobcat, bengal hybrid, lion, whatever.

Kind of like what people have been doing for years, to legally possess a wild feline in states that mandated that only federally licensed exhibitors could have these animals.

And so the USDA, who just came out with their official possession statement against personal ownership of large and wild felines, is being asked by Tippi Hedren to create a new category of licensee, the "pet owner" and create a set of rules and policies for them to follow.

And we already know the prior experience requirement for pet ownership - - it's "licensed, trained professionals". So, this will be very interesting, to have the USDA asked to license and regulate people who are not engaged in commercial activity with their animals.

The part about asking permission to breed - are we going to add that requirement to ALL Class A USDA licensed animal farms? The domestic cat and dog breeds - shouldn't they have to ask permission from the USDA to breed their stock also? Maybe we have too many Dalmatians, or pit bulls, being bred by USDA licensed puppy mills, filling up the Humane Society animal shelters. Maybe they should have to ask the government permission to breed also. Lets face it, dogs, of any breed, ARE not an endangered or threatened species. Cats, of every species, other than the domestic cat, are either endangered or threatened in the wild.

USDA is set up to regulate animals in cages. Pets may or may not be in homes, with furniture, and items unrelated to the animal, with carpet unable to be sterilized. It will be interesting to see how USDA deals with this reality. USDA would really have to go back to the drawing board to decide how to regulate this - or else, mandate the same rules of animal husbandry - cages, ability to sterilize, separate from people. Hardly the life of a pet.

Lynn



Posted on Apr 1, 2000, 1:00 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

USDA Comment period

by Christine

Forwarded to me.

Date: 03/31/2000 3:30 AM

RE:[Phoenix_Exotics] Reminder: exotic handling input-USDA


<<Consideration will be given to comments received on or before April 18.>>


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/press/2000/02/exotican.txt

Jim Rogers (301)734-8563
jim.d.rogers@usda.gov

Jerry Redding (202)720-6959
jerry.redding@usda.gov


USDA SEEKS COMMENT ON DRAFT EXOTIC ANIMAL HANDLING
POLICY

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2000--The U.S. Department of Agriculture seeks comments on a new draft policy regarding the training and handling of potentially dangerous animals.

"We believe this draft policy addresses the concerns of the industry and the public," said Michael V. Dunn, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "It reflects accepted professional standards for the safe and humane training and handling of bears, elephants, lions, and other potentially dangerous animals."

The draft policy is divided into three sections:
personnel, training and handling techniques and procedures, and contingency plans. It describes what levels of knowledge and experience handlers, trainers, and other personnel should have, what handling techniques and procedures are unacceptable or inadvisable under the regulations, and guidance on preparing contingency plans in the event that an animal becomes aggressive.

This notice and the draft policy is scheduled for publication in the Feb. 18 Federal Register. APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information, including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS rules, are available on the Internet at

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

Consideration will be given to comments received on or before April 18. To comment on the draft policy, send an original and three copies of comments to Docket No. 97-001-4, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, USDA, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238.

The draft policy and comments received are available for public review at USDA, Room 1141 South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing access to this room are requested to call in advance at (202) 690-2817.

For more information on the draft policy contact Barbara Kohn, senior staff veterinarian, AC, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, Md. 20737, (301) 734-7833.

#

NOTE: USDA news releases, program announcements, and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the APHIS Home Page by pointing your web browser to
http://www.aphis.usda.gov and clicking on "APHIS Press Releases." Also, anyone with an e-mail address can sign up to receive APHIS press releases automatically. Send an e-mail message to majordomo@info.aphis.usda.gov and leave the subject blank. In the message, type subscribe press_releases

Posted on Apr 1, 2000, 12:48 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Broader picture

by Christine

Sent by Shirley Wagner of LIOC.

Christine, your folks might like to see a broader picture.

Earlier this month, Ron DeHaven - one of the USDA big shots, appeared at the HSUS convention and unveiled a "policy" on big cats (this is on the USDA website) Miscellaneous Publication #1560 - please go look at it. It only applies to cats for the moment. Currently the USDA has NO authority over pet animals. Please remember this.

USDA is coming out with new guide lines requiring 2 years experience before you can get a permit under the Animal Welfare act.

DeHaven stated to us that this is a "trial balloon" and if not opposed they'd expand to other species. (wolves & wolfdogs, bears, etc.)

HSUS as you know has been opposed to exotic ownership for years.

Shambala bill is presented putting pets under the USDA.

Now, under this bill, if someone wants a wolfdog as a pet, how are they going to get 2 years "experience"? USDA has already stated certain animals (right now it's cats) should only be possessed by "trained professionals". What are the chances do you think, of the USDA, under the Shambala Bill of giving a new owner a permit?

So here's basically the scenario under the Shambala bill.

IF you want an animal you have to get a permit. To get a permit you have to be "experienced". Post a surety bond, etc. Have liability insurance and so forth.

If you violate the law, (they don't say if this is only for minor or major infractions) the bond is called in, the animal is confiscated. The animal and the bond proceeds go to some sanctuary. If the owner doesn't have a bond, to provide for the animal for it's lifetime, it can be euthanized.

To breed your animal you have to have a permit, to sell it, you must comply with ALL USDA requirements, anyone you sell to must have a permit and 2 years experience................. without experience they can't get a permit, you can't sell your animals, so why breed? They are cleverly managing exotics into extinction in the private sector.

Pretty picture, huh?

Shirl


Posted on Apr 1, 2000, 9:58 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

AOL Survey -- Now this ought to bar-b-q your bunns

by Christine

Thanks for alerting us to this, Gudrun.

AOL ran a pets poll today, here are the questions and results (still going):

Do you think the government has the right to require licenses for exotic pets?
Yes 197 74.6%
No 40 15.2%
Not sure 27 10.2%
Total votes: 264
-----------
Which of these exotics would be the most unhappy as pets?
Large cats 82 31.4%
Bears 77 29.5%
Apes 28 10.7%
Wolves 31 11.9%
Pygmy hedgehogs 8 3.1%
Wild birds 35 13.4%
Total votes: 261
-----------
Do you think that exotic pet owners without licenses deserve to go to jail or pay fines?
Yes 184 69.4%
No 48 18.1%
Not sure 33 12.5%
Total votes: 265
-----------

Celebrities Push Exotic Animal Bill

By G. STEPHEN BIERMAN
.c The Associated Press

There is an article attached to this but is copyrighted and I guess I better not publish that, dang it. It said it couldn't be without written permission.

Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 11:20 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

P.S.

by Christine

This ought to be a wake up call, too. Folks, this just MAY happen. We have got to get organized or we may loose it.

Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 11:22 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Link to the AP article

by Gudrun

Hopefully this'll work for y'all:

http://my.aol.com/news/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=01&id=0003290445323547

"Celebrities Push Exotic Animal Bill"

The Associated Press
Mar 29 2000 4:44PM ET

Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 11:39 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

test

by Anonymous

test

Posted on Sep 7, 2000, 4:28 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Another article

by Gudrun

Here's another article, from the 'entertainment' section:

http://my.aol.com/entertainment/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=03&id=0003290207316815

"Mauled by Lions, Movie Stars Seek New Laws"

Reuters
Mar 29 2000 2:07PM ET

Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 11:42 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

L.A. Times article

by Gudrun

Yet another article:

http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nation/20000330/t000030007.html

"Stars Shine Spotlight on Animal Bill"

By FAYE FIORE, Times Staff Writer

Thursday, March 30, 2000



Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 11:51 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Relocation of "Protected Wild Animal" by Trappers, etc.

by

This bill prohibits the posession of any protected animal without a permit.

Many trappers, hunters, etc. will relocate foxes and bobcats here in Alabama and other states, I would imagine.

My own grandfather used to pay my kids to live trap foxes to be released up on Sand Mountain because they were almost non-existant up there.

Russell's dad used to ask Russell to bring any he happened to catch to an area down in Butler Co.

Under this bill, this would be an illegal "possession" the way I read it. Anybody else see it any different?

Posted on Mar 30, 2000, 9:28 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Your Government page

by Christine

You can go to:

http://www.searchgov.com/directory/
and find links to most all the government pages

You can go to:
http://www.house.gov/
and enter a search for bills using key words such as: exotic animal and come up with bills pertaining to such.

Posted on Mar 27, 2000, 11:11 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Untitled

by Anonymous

test

Posted on Jul 20, 2001, 12:08 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Seeking Companion

by Christine

Jeff,

You should check out the laws and local regulations in PA at the site below before continuing your search. I think there might be some problems there.

http://www.cia-g.com/~werfwolf/st_regs.htm

Posted on Dec 30, 1999, 8:48 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

"Dump Wolves"

by Judy

What are "Dump Wolves"?

Posted on Sep 12, 1999, 11:00 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Answer to "Sciwolf"

by Suzanne

(Sciwolf's Question) Have you ever changed registration papers to protect anyone???

(Answer) I assume that I am replying to Nick Federoff since the IP is the same. No, I have not changed registration papers to protect anyone, have YOU????? On occasion, I have corrected registration papers with regard to lineage or percentage with supporting documentation.

Now for the record, Nick. Due to your past conduct here and on other forums, I will not converse with you. I will not answer your "hard" questions, your "easy" questions, or even your questions about the weather. Just because I did not approve of your NADA breeding program, does not justify your name calling, harassment, and lies. I see that your personal "insults" are starting up again, oh well, if that's what it takes for you to feel like a big man ..................

Posted on Sep 10, 1999, 10:27 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Yes, wds are a cross between wolves and dogs, so...

by G. Annwn

they can inherit eye color from a wolf or a dog. Blue eyes would be inherited from the dog's side.

Posted on Sep 9, 1999, 11:56 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Hi George

by Moderator

Welcome to the BB, George. Please refer to the posting rules at the top of the Board as to the use of profane language, thanks.

Posted on Sep 9, 1999, 5:36 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

It appears Sciwolf, that you are throwing stones.....be careful you might have some windows to repla

by Mike

n/m

Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 10:58 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Sciwolf, are you throwing stones from your glass house again? n/m

by Mike

n/m

Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 10:56 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Out of curiosity

by Terry

why are you asking this question on a open forum?
I am assuming that no one will respond to this because you are violating confidentialities here and could leave someone open to a valid lawsuit.


Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 10:46 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Nick,

by Christine

I have heard that a female I sold some years ago did bite someone who was there to look at her pups, however Nick, with the anti wolfdog sentiment that is circulating around the country these days, this is all I intend to say on this matter in a public forum. You have my email address, if you wish to discuss it further.

Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 9:46 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

not a good example!

by

I just reread this post-this guy got this animal when it was 9 months old! It does not surprise me that he had problems. Animals placed at this late age can have difficulties bonding with a new owner and apparently the owner also had difficulties relating to the animal.
I would not judge a bloodline based on one animal that was rehomed as an older puppy and apparently in a home that could not effectively deal with the animal.
Apparently, the guy also may not have effectively communicated his difficulties with the animal to Suzanne-I see in a later post that rather than contacting the breeder, "he figured it was his problem".

Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 6:49 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

No

by

I am disappointed you see only what you immagine. I never made lies up here about you. You can you can go on and on and it won't solve the problems you have.

Again and again, several people knew who those animals owner was without me noticing the posts and they told me about it. I don't know why you and your buddy keep saying noone knew. How do you know my life so well every minute I am awake as though you are me, read my personal email, know when I sneeze, know when I poop? Are you a window peeper?

That "Reputable" organization? NOT! They destroyed their own reputation by themselves, they are dead.

I am sure the real authors of those posts appreciated me finally letting them know who was behind the traitorous deed I witnessed by posting it here. If they wanted to stay in the dark and never know who turned them in, they can complain about it being posted.

BTW, That forwarded email was sent to me without the authors permission on a private list by Christine.

I have nothing to gain but enemies, but I now have lifted the burdon of keeping this secret I had for those 2 years off my shoulders. I feel much better. You don't know what is like to live in fear of loosing your own animals by keeping the truth from the wd comunity from the threat/action of what happened to these innocent animals. I had to move to do it. I am in contact with others privately who will continue the "educational process". The truth has already come out.It has revealed itself.

You call the TRUTH a "vendetta ahead of the overall welfare of the WD community" I wonder if there is one Lupeaware victim of that gathering who will agree with you.

I straightened out that matter with that deranged puppy buyer 2 years ago. It was none of yours or Christines business to bring up old fairy tales here and spew more ridiculous accusations when I settled the matter long ago. That was vindictiveness, an attack, and being disgruntled.


Posted on Sep 8, 1999, 12:26 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Ann's recitals of Suzane Smith's buyers tales of woe

by Christine

<<Testimony from Bob Furmanski regarding aggressive wolf hybrid
by Ann Dresselhaus>>

Well, well, Ann. First we get the “Karen Evans” tale concerning a pup purchased by Karen in 1990. You had been calling around the country and dishing that out naming Suzanne as the breeder. Seems you even had one of your “buddies” post to another BB in the middle of the night, though the owner of that BB pulled it from public view shortly after it was posted. When you are told S. S. wasn’t the breeder, then you say she was co-owner.

After months of “Ann’s” recital of that story, suddenly “Karen Evans” puts in an appearance on this BB under “a friend’s” AOL account.

The true breeder of that animal appears with the true facts and “Karen Evans” vanishes.

Now, here comes an even older tale. This one is posted by Ann, herself, for a buyer named Bob Furmanski. In the post, Ann claims, “I am posting this for Bob, since he is BB ‘challenged’”. Again, we have an unverifiable AOL account to “respond” to the allegations.

Seems Bob can’t even remember what year he bought the pup nor how old it was when it died but it was 9 months to a year old when he got it and he kept it approximately 4 years before having a vet euthanize him.

Well, my, my!! Apparently he never received the corrected % statement since “he” claims the pup was 87%. Those were sent out in the fall of 1988 to the owners who had living offspring from the parents of the pup in question, after Gordon Smith confessed to the years of deception. As the pup was born in 1987, somehow the math just don’t add up here, Ann.


Posted on Sep 6, 1999, 11:22 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

This has got to be one of the b*tchiest...

by G. Annwn

things I have seen you do. Rather than contact Suzanne to find out if there is any merit to Bob's claims, you post this to the BB. If, as Suzanne stated below, this is unfounded, then you my dear could be sued for libel, malicious mischief, and willful intent to harm. If it is founded, I find your actions petty given that your intent here is not to help others but to slam Suzanne for your own personal, catty reasons.

Disgusted,
GA

Posted on Sep 6, 1999, 12:39 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

*ANN'S* Testimony

by Suzanne

Ann, by your own admission ("since all I know is what he has told me"), you are telling yet another tale without any supporting evidence. Yes, in 1987 I sold a male wolf dog (nicknamed Jim) to Bob Furmanski for $200. This animal was bred from Brandy & Thor who were purchased from and bred by Gordon K. Smith in 1982. The GKS line (also sometimes referred to today as the NADA line) is a well-known wolf dog line started by Mr. Smith in the 1960's.

The male was sold to Mr.Furmanski around four months of age and at that time his front legs were perfectly normal and he was not timid! If these charges of Ann's were actually true, I would never have sold the animal in the first place. This happened over 12 years ago and I did not use a breeder's contract at that time. I did give the pup some Dramamine before they left to prevent car sickness. Mr.Furmanski contacted me by phone on one occasion about the pup being "nippy" and I advised him as to how to handle the problem. Sometime later, Bob contacted me by phone and inquired about buying another puppy but I did not breed that year. When I asked him about the male pup that I had sold him, he told me that animal was dead. He admitted that the animal had dug out of his pen on several occasions and the last time the animal was hit by a car and killed. I remember at the time of this phone call that this animal would have been less than 2 years old when he died. I have checked the records and have NOT found any evidence that this animal was Iowolfer registered, however Bob did register a female animal from another breeder with the Iowolfer registry. I would be very interested in seeing a copy of the so-called registration for this male. I have never had any confrontation with this man and was certainly never made aware that he was unhappy with this pup. At no time did Mr.Furmanski ever ask me for a refund on this pup or tell me that the animal was genetically defective!

I have no intention of contacting Mr.Furmanski at the AOl address "YOU" have given as I have no way of knowing if it is "HIS" address or a screen name for your own account, Ann. I have no intention of allowing you to embelish, lie, or change any e-mail that I would send to this account. This morning, I called information for a phone listing for Mr. Furmanski and conveniently the phone number is unlisted. I think that if Bob really does have an AOL account and can navigate the internet, that he would have no problem posting his own story to this BB without the convenient aid of Ann Dresselhaas.

Here is my proposal, Ann. Since you seem to be so friendly with Bob, give him my phone number and ask him to call me. I will be glad to come to Cedar Rapids and meet with him to discuss "your story". I would also like confirmation and proof from his veterinarian about the euthanization of this animal that "you" describe and proof that this animal was indeed the pup that I sold to him. When I am given positive proof that this is the correct "story", then I will be more than happy to refund the purchase price of the pup to Mr.Furmanski.

Suzanne Smith

Posted on Sep 5, 1999, 1:34 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Is this a Good Breeder?

by Donna

Not in my mind's eye (gee now where have I hear this before?)

A pup with obvious genetic defects AND such a bad temperament of biting(nipping dogs and people in its early years) should have been given away as a rescue to special people or destroyed, but not "sold" to an average person. I heard there was no return for refund offered with this pup from this breeder too.

I would like to hear Suzanne's explaination why this pup was "sold" to this person.











Posted on Sep 4, 1999, 4:59 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Hmmm.....

by SiberD

"It's front legs were 'cowed', a genetic flaw and extremely timid. When taking it home, the animal had to be sedated to put it in a carrying kennel."

Why in the h*ll did he buy this animal in the first place?


Posted on Sep 4, 1999, 4:45 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Your in a rut, Ann.

by greg.

You finally made a statement that sums up your true position....."since all I know is what he has told me". You have a knack for believing what you hear and spreading this "information" from your pulpit. Another sad attempt at becoming someone.

Greg.

Posted on Sep 4, 1999, 8:55 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

text of message

by Anonymous

In response to recent events, Wolf Park is restating its position in regard to wolves and hybrids as pets.
by Dr. Erich Klinghammer, Director, Wolf Park


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to erroneous views held by some wolf hybrid organizations as well as hybrid owners, our foundation does not oppose ownership of these animals. As our policy posted on our web site (http://www.wolfpark.org) shows, we are for the responsible ownership of these animals. In a nutshell, this means that we believe wolves should be kept with other wolves in large, secure enclosures to protect the animals as well as people - especially children - and fed appropriate food, and that suitable provisions for the future of the animals should be made in case of the owner's death or illness.

Many people think that if you raise wolves or wolf x dog hybrids as dogs, they will behave like dogs. Much is made of the so-called percentage of wolf vs. dog genes in an individual animal. The more an animal looks like a wolf, they say, the more it will behave like a wolf - whatever that means.

From the point of view of safety for the general public, as well as the owners, social aggression in hybrids tends to be less of a problem than one would think. An animal may challenge and even bite an owner or familiar person, but the consequences are rarely serious. Predatory behavior is another matter. A socially friendly animal - and pet wolves and wolf x dog hybrids are generally friendly if properly socialized to humans - may nevertheless launch a predatory attack under certain circumstances. If a person runs away, trips or falls, struggles, cries or screams, such behavior is similar to that of prey, and is very likely to result in a predatory attack. Since children are small, they are less intimidating to a wolf or hybrid, and the chance of an attack is increased. Couple this with the propensity - primarily of small boys - to tease such animals if they are behind a fence or on a chain, and the stage is set for disaster. Many children have been attacked. The lucky ones escaped with injuries. Many have died. All these deaths were avoidable. While it is true that the same comments apply to many dogs - who are considered to be the same species - the probability that a pet wolf or hybrid will attack a child is much greater.

Whenever such an attack occurs, it is often national news. A concerned public cries out for laws to outlaw such animals, while the hybrid owners rise up to defend the keeping of these animals - pointing out how friendly they are. Parents are accused of poor supervision - not of the animals, but of the children who are the victims of such attacks. In many instances the owners have been warned beforehand, but such warnings are usually dismissed or ignored. When a child is dead or disfigured for life, one hears: "Gee, I am sorry; I did not know; the animal has never done that before; it is so friendly; it loves children; it is afraid of people; etc." The list of excuses is endless.

There are many responsible hybrid owners who have secure enclosures, have people to help care for the animals, and who inform themselves of the dangers. Unfortunately, we never hear much from them. When legislation to control hybrids is introduced, it is responsible owners who would suffer if the legislation were to become law. There is no mechanism in place by which the hybrid-owning community can police itself - even if it were willing. Legislation across the country varies - and there are places where there is no control, like Indiana. Furthermore, many people are still preoccupied with the percentage of wolf vs dog in an individual animal. No hard data is available, but people who have seen many wolves, hybrids and dogs generally agree that the physical appearance of an animal is not linked necessarily with readiness to attack a potential prey. In other words, a very dog-like hybrid might attack as readily as a pet wolf.

Years ago we at Wolf Park decided to do something about this problem. We decided that education was the best way to go. We hope that the information we have disseminated in our seminars and publications has saved some lives. We will never know.

Monty Sloan, our staff photographer, can be considered a hybrid "expert". He knows wolves well, and has probably seen and photographed more wolves and hybrids than anyone in the world. He has talked to countless owners, seen their facilities, and lectured across the country on wolf x dog hybrids. Monty's style of lecturing is very low key and no one gets upset with Monty.

In Michigan, Beth Duman, a biology teacher, who lectures on wolves and the need to preserve them in the wild, has represented Wolf Park for many years. Beth has been a strong advocate for legislation to control these animals, as are all of us at Wolf Park. We are for responsible ownership of these animals, taking their unique characteristics into account.

In her endeavor to warn people of the potential danger which these animals pose, and to safeguard the animals as well, Beth made some unfortunate remarks some years ago at the AVMA meeting in Los Angeles. These remarks were in jest but were misunderstood by those who were not present but merely read the transcripts. This what the hybrid owners and some of their associations seize upon to discredit her. Beth has since apologized for her remarks on numerous occasions, yet the virulent attacks, misrepresentations of her position, and outright distortions continue to surface from time to time. We have received phone calls, letters and e-mails demanding that Wolf Park fire her.

Instead of attacking Beth, her critics should care about the safety of the children that are endangered by hybrids kept "as if they were dogs". Beth Duman is passionate about the protection of wolves in the wild. Beth learned the hard way about the danger a pet wolf can pose: she had one herself, but gave it to Wolf Park when the animal bit her husband. Beth has our full support for her educational work in Michigan. We receive many letters and calls praising her efforts. She deserves the support of everyone who cares about wolves, hybrids and the safety of children. Sooner or later an animal gets out and does damage. Guess who pays the price? The animal who should not have been in a position to chase or attack a child.

Just a few weeks ago, I testified in a case involving a hybrid attack on a small boy in Texas. After my testimony, the case was settled out of court. The animal got out of a wooden enclosure from which it had escaped once before. The owner was told by the breeder - whom I know personally, and who has since given up raising hybrids because people would not listen to him - how to care for the hybrid. The owner pleaded ignorance of the danger this animal posed. In his opinion, it "loved children". He knew better.

So, guess what? A third child - a four year old boy - was killed on August 21 by a hybrid in Michigan. It was the hybrid owner's child. The child was unattended for just a few minutes. The animal was in the backyard on a chain. The boy had apparently been choked to death and bitten through the trachea. It was identified as a hybrid by the owner. I saw a photo of it, and while I could see some "wolf characteristics" it looked mostly like a dog to me. Beth Duman also had that impression.

Who paid the price for human ignorance? The innocent boy who is dead, and the animal who couldn't help his nature and had no business being where he was in the first place - and who was killed for his deed. Yet hybrid lovers choose to attack Beth Duman as if she were responsible for the animal getting killed. In fact, it was the father who had it killed. Hybrid breeders and owners should take care of the own, not attack those who have warned for years of the dangers.

Since legislation is spotty across the nation, I think insurance companies should exclude coverage for hybrids in their homeowner's policies - UNLESS they are kept properly. We would be happy to provide them with standards which were worked out some years ago at a seminar held at Wolf Park. Participants included hybrid breeders, owners, wolf researchers, a veterinarian and our Regional USDA inspector. We forwarded these recommendations to the State of Michigan when they were considering a law controlling hybrids. To this day no such law exists in Michigan. Why not? That is another story. How many more children have to die in Michigan? Is three not more than enough?

Wolf Park staff, visiting students, and scholars do behavior research at the Park. We share our information with the general public through lectures at the park and elsewhere. We also hold wolf and wolf x dog behavior seminars, offer internships, ethology practica and volunteer opportunities. Our aim is to inform people - especially school children - about wolves, wolf x dog hybrids, and wildlife conservation. Although we have no objective measure of the success of our educational efforts, the fact that former visiting students, who are now teachers and parents, bring their own children and students to the park shows that their early experiences had a lasting effect on them. We like to think that as voters, when wildlife issues are up for a vote, they will support candidates and policies of benefit to the environment in general, and wolves in particular.

Beth Duman's response to the current situation
regarding the death of a child in Michigan.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Posted on Sep 1, 1999, 8:49 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

LOL

by Terry

This is great. Tops off the day.
My mothers family is all in Boston and I can remember how we would get razed everytime we went ome because we sounded like 'rebels' to them.
They have funny expressions too that I still laugh about. Like calling the water fountain a bubbler;
or calling sodas 'tonic'.
Of course, you know they always have problems with the letter 'R'
barbed wire becomes babbed whya
parks become packs
cars become caas
It really was a different language!

Posted on Aug 31, 1999, 11:31 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Text from News Station

by Christine

Subject: Re: Child's death from python in IL
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 22:46:02 -0500
From: WSFA News <news@wsfa.com>
To: Christine

A FAMILY PET HAS KILLED A YOUNG CHILD IN ILLINOIS. BY THE TIME MELISSA ALTOM FOUND HER 3 YEAR OLD SON...IT WAS TOO LATE. THE FAMILY PET, A 7 FOOT
AFRICAN ROCK PYTHON, HAD KILLED HIM. pOLICE SAY THE PYTHON HAD ESCAPED SUNDAY MORNING FROM A POORLY CONSTRUCTED CAGE WHILE THREE ADULTS AND JESSE SLEPT ON THE FLOOR. OF THEIR HOME.
(soundbite from herpetologist: the way the constrictor operates, it will seize the prey in it's mouth and then throw the body around it to basically asphyxiate or suffocate the prey item, it keeps it from beathing."

(soundbite from mother: "Get rid of your snake or you might lose your child like I did.")
POLICE HAVE NOT RULED OUT CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THIS
CASE...BUT IN ILLINOIS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO KEEP A PYTHON AS A PET.

Posted on Aug 31, 1999, 10:56 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Online Auctions

by Christine

I'm not familiar with how other online auctions handle things but eBay will snatch a listing in a heartbeat if it is brought to their attention that a live animal is being auctioned off. Can't remember for sure but I think it is even mentioned in their "rules" that you can't auction off live animals.

Posted on Aug 31, 1999, 10:02 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

You're right Deb

by Sciwolf

I AM LMAO!! I agree with you re:"Put all this energy into something more productive and your life will surely be happier!"

Posted on Aug 30, 1999, 6:32 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Photo .......

by Suzanne



Posted on Aug 24, 1999, 11:14 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Another article........

by Suzanne



Monday, August 23, 1999

By Terry Judd
CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER


A wolf-German Shepherd mix dog that killed its owner's 4-year-old son Saturday came from a litter in which two other mates had displayed
aggressive behavior, according to a report from the Michigan State Police Grand Haven Post.

Investigating officers Sunday were contacted by the animal's previous owner, who said two other wolf-dogs from the litter and the animal's father
had to be killed because they could not be controlled. The dog's previous owner gave a dog to Smokey and Heather Warner, 4588 Laketon, and said that animal had not shown aggression.

According to the report, the previous owner did alert the family that two other of the litter mates and the father had shown aggression and had to be killed.

The animal, described in the report as a wolf with "5 percent Shepherd,"was to be killed today. Its body was to be taken to Michigan State
University, where doctors will attempt to identify the percentage of wolf mix.

The victim, identified by police as Cody Tyler Fairfield but called Cody Warner by the family, was killed when he was attacked by the family pet at around 8 p.m. Saturday.

According to reports, the boy was left unattended by his father for about five minutes. The animal was chained behind a barn. Heather Warner was at
her Circuit City job at the time.

When the father returned to the area, Cody was discovered unresponsive on the ground next to the dog. The father immediately called Muskegon Central Dispatch and was given instructions over the telephone on how to administer
cardiopulmonary resuscitation. CPR efforts were continued by responding crews from the Egelston Township Fire Department.

The boy was taken to Hackley Hospital. He was pronounced dead at 9:28 p.m.

According to the medical examiner's report, the boy had numerous injuries to most areas of his body, including a large laceration on the head,
bruised forearms, numerous bite marks on the body, puncture wounds to the neck and arms, and puncture wounds and scratches on the front and back of
the body from the dog's toenails.

The cause of death was listed as strangulation and bleeding caused by the manual compression of the neck. The head and neck also suffered blunt
trauma.

Family members were not at home Sunday and could not be reached for comment Sunday or today.

The father said to police while en route to the hospital, "I told him not to go near the dog." The father also said Cody and the dog had played
together a number of times and the animal never had shown aggressive tendencies.

Michigan State Police Detective Gary Cuperus called the situation "horrible, absolutely horrible."

Cuperus said A major focus of the investigation will be whether the dog had displayed aggression on prior occasions.

While it is not against the law to own a wolf-dog mix, Cuperus said residents are not allowed to own vicious and dangerous animals. The investigation today was to include interviews with neighbors and family members.

But according to Barbara Lynn Jones of Holland, the animal came from a three-dog litter sired by a male that had shown aggression. Jones, who read
about the death, called the state police Sunday and said the litter came from a Muskegon County resident who breeds dog-wolf mixes.

She bought one of the dogs, Nanook, for $150 but later was warned by the breeder that the animal's father was "causing problems." She bought the
other two pups from the litter for an additional $300.

She told officers she was having trouble maintaining all of the animals so she gave one to a truck driver, who wanted a dog for protection. That dog had to be "put down" because of aggression problems, she said.

The other dog, Nanook, had to be destroyed after it attacked the family cat. The third dog, Tanner, which had not shown aggression, was given to
the Warners. Jones told officers her own children had played with Tanner and never experienced an aggression. Jones described the dog as mostly wolf
with "5 percent Shepherd."

Terri Shunk, who lives at 4581 E. Laketon, next to the house where the attack occurred, said that as far as she knew neighbors had not encountered
any previous problems or had any concerns about the dog.

The house at 4588 E. Laketon is situated between a long row of well-kept homes which closely border each other on the north side of Laketon Avenue.

Residents of the middle-income neighborhood, which is within walking distance of Carr Elementary School, jogged, rode bikes and strolled
comfortably along the roadside early Sunday evening.

Shunk on Sunday evening said she was too upset to discuss the incident.

"I think it was a terrible tragedy," said Shunk. "I just want people to know that ... it was just a tragedy."

Muskegon County Animal Control Director Alvin D. Pearson said the dog appeared to be a wolf hybrid. "He does show some signs of wolf," Pearson
said.

However, to be certain, a wolf expert from Howell was called in and was expected to examine the animal today, Pearson said Sunday. The dog was
lodged at the county animal shelter.

Pearson said he expected the dog would be destroyed after the state police complete their investigation.

Pearson also said the animal appeared to be underfed. "It's awfully
skinny," he said.

Funeral arrangements for the boy were being handled by Clock Muskegon.



Posted on Aug 24, 1999, 9:08 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Anybody else have experience?

by Kay

What have others seen as far as the social development of upper content pups? Bold going through shy periods? Shy going through bold periods? Smooth sailing all the way through?

I'm wondering because I am raising 3 pups with very different personalities and responses to the world. I am also watching some people raising young working Border Collies who are going through some pretty intense skittish periods (for d dogs) which is fairly normal for that particular breed.

Posted on Aug 23, 1999, 8:41 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

:-Þ Phhhhhbbbbttt again!.........nm

by nonny mouse

nm

Posted on Aug 22, 1999, 11:57 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

It seems to me Suzanne

by Grace

that you yourself ignore the rules of this board as well. It is easy to forbid people who don't agree with you from posting but what is the point of a board if everyone agrees on everything. Soon it will turn boring.

I have looked up and down the board and see that you have something personal against the alleged felon. In honesty, it was your own ignorance at the time that put you in that situation. AND BTW, it is absolutely unbelievable that you could allow that malamute to become SO FAT!! Did the poor thing never leave it's cage to exercise? Did you hate it that much? It's not the dog's fault that he was not a wolf.

signing off in disgust,

Grace


Posted on Aug 20, 1999, 11:54 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Bottlefeeding

by Terry

I had experimented with pulling pups at different times and found a lot depends on the female. I swear, I believe moms can talk to their pups from the day they are born and the pups understand. For me, the higher the percentage, the earlier to pull. I would pull at 12 days for high contents and 15 - 17 days at any other percent. My pups were never returned to their mother. Once I brought them in the house, that was it. I had a really bad experience in returning pups. The mother literally bit her way through a 9 gauge fence, went through a window in the garage to get in the house with the puppies when I brought them back in. Since then, no mother ever sees me taking her pups and she doesn't see them again. I've had no experience with remorse or sorrow in the mothers. They will look around for one day and then it is business as usual. We fast them for 1 day to help dry up their milk.
I don't know of anyone tht raises pups separately. At that early an age they really need the warmth, smell, etc. of their littermates.
Feeding schedules? Wow That can be complicated.

We pulled pups at the evening feeding for the adults, say around 7:00 PM. We don't even try to feed them for 10 hours. Alot depends on their age when you pull them. Most pups need to be really hungry to accept a strange nipple. Otherwise, they'll balk the difference and feel threathened.
It is easier to start them the younger they are. For ones that already have their eyes open, let them get hungry first. By the time they are 3 weeks, they're eating mushed meat and dog food so they only get bottles to supplement their solid food. Their dietary needs change rapidly from 12 to 20 days so you need to keep up with it to avoid diarrhea, etc. If they were 12 days old, we would be feeding every 4 hours for about 2 days, After that we start increasing the time and ounces so within 5 days they would be on an 8 hour schedule.
Its different when they're oder because they are that much closer to solid food. We wean them off a bottle at 4 weeks. They may still get one in the evening but during the day they get solids and water.
I've know a number of people that have mid-range animals that do not pull them at all. Some of them, the pups are fine and easy to work with and others, the pups are all wired and obviously should have been pulled.
I wanted to add that for me, wolfdogs aren't the only pups that benefit from being separated from mothers. I pull all my little huskies at 4 weeks and bring them in the house. I know people that do this with other Nordic breeds and Livestock Guarding dogs, also.

Posted on Aug 20, 1999, 11:23 PM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

skittishness

by Shewolf

I have a f-1 intact male (2 years old) who has been very even tempered and seems to love everyone. He never has shown any skittishness, nor gone through any noticeable behavior changes.

I have noticed that since this spring he will no longer let his pack mates remove the food from his mouth though..LOL I guess he is finally standing up for himself.

Posted on Aug 20, 1999, 9:48 AM

Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home

Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement