The American Kennel Club announced that Al W. Stinson, DVM, and the Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs have been named the Second Quarter 2011 recipient of the Walter Bebout Memorial Award for Leadership in Canine Legislation.

Dr. Christopher Brown, MRCVS, DVM, Dean of Michigan State University, College of Veterinary Medicine (left), presents an award for “Service and Dedication to Advancing Canine Research” to MAPBD Director of Legislation Dr. Al Stinson.

Named for the late Director of the AKC Government Relations Department, the “Bebout Award” recognizes those federations and owner/breeder organizations that have been actively involved in educating legislators about responsible dog ownership issues and have worked to preserve the rights of responsible owners and breeders. Winners of the Bebout award are announced quarterly and the organization receives a $1,000 donation to help offset the costs associated with their legislative efforts.

The Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs (MAPBD) is a volunteer organization that has promoted responsible dog ownership in Michigan for more than 45 years. Its membership includes 151 dog clubs, as well as individual members.

“MAPBD would like to single out the 30+ years of contributions and leadership in the area of canine legislation by Dr. Al Stinson. There is no finer example of effective, consistent, tireless volunteer advocacy leadership for animal welfare in general, and purebred dogs in particular,” said Jim Irvine, MAPBD’s former president and director.

Among his many accomplishments, Dr Stinson:

• Has served as the MAPBD Director of Legislative Affairs for more than 30 years.
• Worked to defeat numerous bills that would have restricted the rights of responsible dog owners.
• Meets regularly with State Senators and Representatives and is frequently asked his opinion on bills before each chamber.
• Regularly attends and frequently testifies at Michigan Senate and House Agriculture, Tourism and Outdoor Recreation, and Judiciary Committee hearings.
• Tracks and monitors Michigan legislation on the topics of dogs, dog ownership, and hunting with dogs; prepares MAPBD position papers on key bills; and presents legislative updates at MAPBD meetings.
• Serves on the Michigan Veterinary Association Legislative Advisory Committee.
• Co-founded and served as the first Executive Director of the Michigan State University (MSU) Purebred Dog Endowment Fund, which is now funded with more than $1.5 million for canine health research.
• Served on the MSU Pavilion Design Committee, which serves as a premier Michigan show site for AKC events.
• Bred and exhibited Labrador Retrievers and donated many of his dogs to the Leader Dog School for the Blind in Rochester, MI for both service dogs and breeding stock.
• Co-founded the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation.
• Served on the Michigan Department of Agriculture Companion Animal Advisory Committee.
• Hosted public seminars on canine legislation.

“Because of Dr. Stinson’s veterinary background and encyclopedic knowledge of Michigan animal laws, many of our legislators specifically seek him out for advice,” Irvine said. “Our legislators consider Dr. Stinson’s advice to be invaluable. His willingness to give them accurate information on various topics fosters a level of cooperation that helps MAPBD keep Michigan a dog-friendly state.”

In addition to Dr. Stinson’s activities, MAPBD members:

• Maintain ongoing contact with local and state government officials and provide reports at MAPBD meetings.
• Provide support and resources to local dog owners who oppose restrictive dog laws in Michigan communities.
• Host information booths at a minimum of six dog shows per year.
• Participate in and host a booth at “Sportsmen’s Day at the Capitol.”
• Hold monthly meetings that are open the public. The Annual Meeting features a speaker or expert panel on legislative topics.
• Produce and distribute free educational brochures and maintain an informative federation website.
• Serve as speakers for various community service organizations and dog clubs.

Please make reservations at http://www.scottishterrierclubofmichigan.com/2011annualmeetingdinner.cfm.  Raffle Tickets are also available at this site.  Or contact the club at Lcerka@msn.com

At the recent New York Fashion week, instead of their usual tactics of paint and picketing, PETA threw a party for people in the fashion industry. The party included a video about rabbit and fox slaughter narrated by Chief Creative Officer of Liz Claiborne, Inc and “Project Runway” personality Tim Gunn

Gunn said that the party “was like a big group hug.” We’re sure it was.
3/17/11. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance

Many communities have vicious-dog ordinances that focus on the behavior of the dog, not the breed. That’s the kind of policy that makes sense. Raising dogs is a little like raising children. How they turn out depends a lot on the adults in their lives. One can’t judge by breeding alone. The responsibility lies with pet owners.

Breed bans unduly punish those good dog owners who happen to own a pit bull or Rottweiler, but who put in the time and effort to train their dogs to behave appropriately. If there is a specific animal that is dangerous, officials should address the situation. This issue is best dealt with on a case-by-case — or dog-by-dog — basis.  Telegraph Herald Editorial.

Before Southern Pines Animal Shelter reopened its doors, the facility had to euthanize more than 100 animals to ensure community safety, officials said.

The shelter had been temporarily shut down for nearly a month due to an outbreak of canine distemper, which board members said may have been introduced through a surrendered dog. That dog was among those put down.
Read more in the 3/5/11 Hattiesburg American

§ 36.104 Definitions.
Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

There is one exception for miniature horses to be used as service animals, but the caveat here is that they can be removed (as can dogs) if not housebroken, actually trained for the service to be performed, 0r n0t under control.The Justice Department received considerable comment on these issues and the commentary makes for extremely interesting reading for those who wish to read through the section-by-section analysis to comments. Of particular importance was the discussion on breed-specific limitations for service dogs.  Read complete analysis.

Conversely, if an individual uses a breed of dog that is perceived to be aggressive because of breed reputation, stereotype, or the history or experience the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog is under the control of the individual with a disability and does not exhibit aggressive behavior, the public accommodation cannot exclude the individual or the animal from the place of public accommodation. The animal can only be removed if it engages in the behaviors mentioned in § 36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if the presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental alteration to the nature of the goods, services, facilities, and activities of the place of public accommodation.” (emphasis added)

and the following on breed-specific limitations:

Breed limitations. A few commenters suggested that certain breeds of dogs should not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commenters opposed breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist in all breeds.

The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that, while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking an express breed ban. In addition, deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards in the individual´s home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other jurisdictions. Public accommodations have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal´s actual behavior or history–not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave. This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety. (emphasis added)

In other words, those communities that ban any breed of dog cannot prohibit these breeds from being used as service animals, require additional licensing fees, or impose any other restrictions that inhibit the rights of the disabled person to travel freely and have open access to public accommodations.  Read ADA complete revised guidelines.