transparency

Monday, March 31st, 2003

Return from Nunavut.

Filed under: dogs,Notes from Nunavut — alison @ 08:17

My father arrived back from Nunavut on Friday bearing the following images.

***
Skidoo-driving mothers trailing kamatiks – [dog]sleds – ferry their children back and forth from school. Open vehicles like skidoos are much more popular than warrm, wind-sheltering ones like trucks.

Skidoos are used to hunt caribou. Dogs are used to hunt seals because they can sniff out breathing holes in the ice. By law, dogs must also be used when guides take southern white hunters to bag a polar bear.

***
Northerners don’t think much of southern white hunters. They skin their bear then have the pelt stretched so that a six-foot bear becomes a nine-foot trophy.

***
One of the ministry of education administrators, a southern white woman my father was consulting for, was recently widowed. Her husband was a prominent inuit hunter who died while stranded in a storm so severe that helicopters couldn’t go out to search for him for four days.

His brother explained that if he hadn’t become separated from his kamatik and his dogs, he would have been able to survive two weeks. As it was he was only able to hang on three days.

Only two of his five dogs survived the storm.

***
A northern dog will stand on top of its doghouse in minus forty weather and high winds simply for the sake of being top dog. (“What is a northern doghouse?” “I haven’t been inside one so I can’t really say, but from the outside it would appear to be a packing crate.”)

***
When leaving Arviat for Yellowknife he realised that Yellowknife was a southern city after all: it has trees.

[originally transmitted by e-mail March 31, 2003]

Sunday, March 23rd, 2003

First dedicated dog-walk of the season

Filed under: dogs — alison @ 17:37

The weather’s been warmish and drizzly lately so I experimented with taking the dogs on their first walk to the park this year. I’ve taken Poupoune on short excursions to the fabric store from time to time, but not anywhere she was just allowed to run; and Pepe has been entirely confined since October.

Pepe’s experience was mixed. While he was happy to be able to play his favourite game (pee-on-it*) with more scope than the usual kitchen chairs, the excitement and stimulation of all those sights, smells and breezes gave him diarrhea. And he was less than thrilled with the falling-through-wet-snow and plodding-through-slush aspects of the walk; even less so with the occasional swimming-through-snow-melt aspects, and had to be carried most of the way.

Poupoune being generally hardier, with longer legs that allow her to traverse difficult terrain without dragging her belly through it and a larger brain case that allows her to walk around puddles instead of through them, was happily unambivalent. She took full advantage of the opportunity to freely express her landmark-sniffing, stick-carrying, territory-inspecting canine nature.

We walked through one park over a crust of wet and icy snow. The next park had a large lake in the middle. Earlier in the year the snow was deep enough to cover the benches by the path; now the runoff is deep enough to cover them up to the seats. We took the sidewalk around one side but were able to pick a way back through the other side.

The dogs are now peacefully flaked out, and I am full of that warm fuzzy feeling that comes from having made someone happy.

*Pee-on-it is played thusly: approach an object. Lift your leg and pee. It’s not a very complicated game, but Pepe is not a very complicated dog.

[originally transmitted by e-mail March 23, 2003]

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2002

pissed [off]

Filed under: dogs — alison @ 22:29

Prepared to go to bed. Discovered why there was no dog pee in the kitchen: it was all in the bedclothes. The duvet, duvet cover, bottom sheet, flannel mattress blankets, padded contour mattress cover and mattress all damp and stinky.

I have just stripped the bed, filled the washing machine and sprayed the mattress with Febreeze. During these proceedings the dogs hid. Not because I was screeching or anything: just the reproachful clucking of a disappointed parent. But they *knew.*

We are off to sleep on the couch… oh, in Dennis’ bed! with the spare duvet.

Vy oh vy oh vy oh vy… .

[originally transmitted by e-mail October 2, 2002]

Monday, September 2nd, 2002

Emailing: 5534

Filed under: animal rescue — alison @ 17:29

Neat: a whole website dedicated to preventing community standards from being applied to animal rescue organisations! Just think: right now any marginal person with limited ability to function with other humans can – and does – collect hundreds of animals, usually stray cats, warehouse them in their basement or an unheated barn, call themselves an Animal Rescue Organisation and collect money for their cause! Under this new law they would be required to make themselves available to inspection by vets and provide adequate care for the animals. But we all know how unreasonable it is to expect this standard of behaviour from the mentally impaired: caring for hundreds of animals is extremely difficult even for those with the most impeccable mental hygeine.

Stop the harassment and oppression of the marginal human! Go to the website below and show your opposition to this *very bad law!*

[dead link]
Help us rescind a bad law – long text and link msg

Posted by Mcat on September 02, 2002 at 09:27:16:

What the Law Requires

Walt Hutchens
Lexington

The new animal law that took effect in Virginia on July 1, 2002, requires these things:

1. If you take in more than six companion animals per year, or three and three unweaned litters then after January 1, 2003, you must register with the State Veterinarian (SV) as a ‘Companion Animal Rescue Agency’ (CARA). If a CARA uses foster homes, those foster homes must also be registered with the SV unless they take only two or fewer dogs per year.

2. A pound or shelter may turn an animal over to a CARA just as it could adopt it out, transfer it to another shelter, etc. This does not mean that it has to or will — in fact some shelters are now saying they will only transfer to CARAs, even though registration is not possible until January 1, 2003 and rescues taking six or fewer animals per year do not have to register at all.

3. No member of a CARA or resident of a foster home or adopter may be a person who has been convicted of an animal welfare law violation such as neglect, cruelty, abandonment etc. This is a ‘feel good’ provision that leaves out the possibility that someone could learn from a neglect citation and the law does not say what you have to do. Is it enough to ask an adopter? Should you make him sign a statement that he has no conviction? Should you run some kind of background check?

4. The State Veterinarian will have the addresses and other information for all CARAs and foster homes; it will be possible to get the list by Freedom Of Information Act request.

5. The name, address, and telephone number of a CARA must be posted in pounds that are in its service area. ‘Service area’ is not defined and could mean different things. Is it the county where the CARA is located? All areas from which a CARA gets animals? All areas to which a CARA adopts animals? Since the area could be thousands of square miles, how will you find all the pounds?

6. Because of the availability of information about CARA’s required in 4 and 5 (above), nutcase activist groups as well as individuals with a grudge or dog to dump will be able to find CARAs … meaning in nearly all cases our private homes.

6. CARAs must be open to the public during ‘reasonable hours.’ Since this is similar to the wording used for pounds, (‘reasonable hours during the week’) this looks like a requirement for a schedule of hours when the private home is open to walk-in visitors. Does this mean that private home owners are expected to open their homes to unscreened strangers during business hours? Only by appointment? Does it mean you can’t say ‘No’ if someone nasty wants to come?

7. A CARA must have its name, telephone number and address
listed in the telephone book. It looks like an incorporated rescue will have to have a business line at a cost in the range of $75/month to get this listing; unincorporated rescuers may be able to get an additional listing on their home phone number for a smaller fee. The rules may vary from one service provider to another.

8. A CARA is subject to unannounced inspection by the State Veterinarian or his representative ‘during reasonable hours’ for the purpose of determining if a violation of law has occurred, in other words a completely open-ended fishing expedition. A foster home may be inspected with ‘proper cause’ or a specific complaint from any authority with animal law enforcement powers.

The police have to get a warrant to enter your house if they believe you are dealing drugs or planning a terrorist attack but the State Vet or his representative can enter the home of someone operating a CARA or foster home without a warrant.

9. A CARA must file several annual reports in a format prescribed by the State Vet and must retain records of all dogs it receives for a period of five years. All records must be made available to both authorities and the general public at reasonable times during business hours or at other mutually agreeable times. Identifying information of prior owner, finder, and adopter may be deleted when sharing records with the public.

10. A CARA that violates any animal law or maybe even just makes a mistake in record keeping is subject to loss of registration and a class 4 misdemeanor — fine up to $250. There is no indication in the law of how serious a violation would cause this penalty.

11. CARAs must inspect their foster homes and file a report with the SV before placing an animal in them.

12. The State Vet’s Office has stated that it may take them up to three years to write regulations spelling out the details. Until then, the law will mean whatever they say it means.

[originally transmitted by e-mail September 2, 2002. Link sent to me by Suzanne]

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress