9/24/06
VVAW met at 11 am on Sunday, 9/24/06, at the
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA in Charlottesville, VA.
In attendance:
Lillian Clancy
VVAW
Julie Cottrell
SNAP/FSPCA/Caring for Creatures
*Peyton Coyner
Nelson County SPCA
Paul Gregory
FSPCA
Dee Hawkins
Pet Rescue Foundation
*Cindy Ingram
Casey's
House
Ronnie Kahn
independent
*Kim Kincheloe
Kincheloe S/N Clinic/Lion Hearts
Susanne Kogut
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA
Anne Little Animal
Action Network
Donald Marro
VVAW
Margaret Marsh
Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA
*Mollie McCurdy
independent
Jessica Stovall
independent
Betty Weakland
NNVVAW and Volunteer, Richmond & Westmoreland
shelters
*Pat Weakland
Volunteer, Richmond & Westmoreland county
shelters
and Chair, NNVVAW
Samantha Whitesides
independent
* before name denotes Board
Member, Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare and Board Member, Virginians for
Animal Welfare
All in attendance identified
themselves and gave their affiliation.
Various printouts were
handed out. Each person
received:
1. meeting
agenda
2. copy of the Diana Puckett gas
chamber ad
3. s/n plan
4. gas chamber
backgrounder
5. summary of funds collected in
Spay/Neuter fund (tax refund checkoff plan)
6. 2007 proposed VVAW
legislation
7. “Virginia Has Too May Pets”
article by Don Marro
8. VAW membership form
9. VVAW membership
form
The meeting was called to
order at 11:05 am on 9/24/06.
1. In regard to handout #5, the funds
from the Virginia tax refund checkoff plan were directed to Peggy Allen as head
of Virginia Federation of Humane Societies. Michelle Welch/VFHS legislative liaison
has indicated those interested in the funds can apply for them. It is not known if any funds have yet
been distributed.
2. It is understood that there may be
a new spay/neuter venture headed by Teresa Dockery, formerly of Spay Virginia
and VFHS. The new group is
reportedly called Spay Virginia Today.
3. Peyton Coyner said money from
animal friendly license plates goes to the jurisdiction from which it was
collected. Susanne Kogut said her
Charlottesville SPCA gets such funds, and Julie Cottrell indicated SNAP does as
well.
Those present indicated an
interest in more complete information about what happens to the money from this
fund. VVAW will follow
up.
4. Don spoke briefly about the
independent s/n groups that could serve as models for a VVAW s/n program,
offering a different format than Spay VA/Humane Alliance provide. The question is how to expand the
existing successful independent programs and how to fund
them.
5. There was some discussion of the
numbers which appear on the website of the State Vet regarding “animal records”
and the totals of animals euthanized annually.
Don suggested that
skepticism was in order when looking at such figures because not all
jurisdictions and groups report, including some large ones, and the reporting is
not uniform. In addition, Don said
one might well be skeptical of state-developed information and referred to the
inspection done by the State Vet of the Dickenson County gas chamber. The State Vet certified that this
chamber was satisfactory for operation when Dickenson County had no gas
chamber.
6. The ad from Diana
Puckett/Bland-Wythe Animal League promoting elimination of gas chambers was
discussed and applauded.
7. Don noted that Lee and Scott
counties have the same person certifying that the chambers in both Lee and Scott
counties are adequately operated.
That person uses a device that cannot measure lethal concentrations of
gas but certified proper lethality anyway.
8. Don talked of the goal of privatizing inspections and animal reporting, now done by VDACS. VVAW is working with VDACS on this proposal.
Paul Gregory asked what the
justification was for asking for privatization. Don responded by saying there is a type
of corruption within government when local government is not penalized
for breaking the law. Civil fines
were enacted so local government could be held accountable for the improper
operation of public pounds. That
has never happened despite egregious violations and repeated noncompliance. Not a single fine has ever been levied
on a non-compliant facility.
Further, there is no penalty
for not submitting accurate and timely animal records to the state. In the same way, there is little
follow-up when inspections demonstrate the failings of pounds and shelters. With
privatization, there would be no reluctance to impose civil fines because the
inspecting agency would be private, those operating in violation of the law
would be penalized as a matter of course, and the program would pay for
itself.
Don said, short of
privatization, a possible outcome could be internal improvement of the process
by VDACS.
9. Anne Little suggested that
pre-written letters be available so that support can be demonstrated to
legislators in 30 seconds for various bills. She also suggested that anything being
asked of volunteers be very short and simple, and certainly not to exceed a
single page. She advocates making
it very simple for volunteers to volunteer.
Don reacted by saying he is
wary of legislator reaction to form letters, prefers to rely on the intellectual
and creative faculties of our supporters, and regards the thought of spoon
feeding as inconsistent with our role as catalyst and change
agent.
10. Jessica Stovall said she would
consider the bold step of going to places still using gas and protesting in
person there. She would find it
easier to protest than to deal with delegates.
Anne Little said she would
do so as well.
Cindy Ingram said VVAW could
announce the protest once provided with details.
The Board will await further
action by the exponents of this plan before formulating an official
policy.
11. Samantha Whitesides feels the VVAW
goals need to be more widely disseminated, and those involved need to know what
they can do to better serve those goals.
12. Susanne Kogut suggested developing
successful local models rather than doing things on a statewide level. Included in such local models would be
raising license fees, mandatory spay/neuter, and
tethering.
She suggested enabling
legislation so that mandatory s/n could be required locally if so desired, and
being able to demonstrate then that such a program works.
She felt that it might not
be necessary to do a tethering bill statewide since she believes so many places
already have such ordinances locally.
Don responded that too many
places do nothing locally, are unlikely to ever do anything locally, and there
is no vector to install successful local programs in localities having no
programs. Enabling legislation
statewide is advisable but mandatory legislative mandates predicated on
successful local programs are also.
13. Susanne questioned the wisdom of
requiring the reporting of dog fighting, thinking that owners of injured
fighting dogs would not take them to the vet if they might be
reported.
14. Susanne noted that more people
might become involved with VVAW if there wasn’t the perspective that VVAW
“bashes” those with different opinions.
Don promptly “bashed” this characterization and stated that defense of
one’s position isn’t “bashing” and reporting facts isn’t either. It is unfortunate if those with whom we
disagree on policy perceive our articulated commitment as “bashing”, for that is
not our intent.
Kim Kincheloe said VVAW
didn’t need to win a popularity contest and collaboration doesn’t always
work. Common ground is not always
possible and in addition, one can support some initiatives without being
required to support them all.
15. Susanne questioned the need for
establishing a class 6 felony for abuse prosecutions, saying some localities
already do this.
Julie Cottrell asked about
such a change resulting in the removal of judicial discretion.
In response, it was noted
that far too many other jurisdictions do nothing, that too often misdemeanors
are knocked down by plea bargaining and eliminating judicial (and prosecutorial)
discretion is precisely the point.
Don and Kim pointed out that
if a class 1 misdemeanor is used to prosecute, that knocking it down further
results in an almost meaningless prosecution.
Susanne feels the VVAW
legislation regarding abuse penalties will not pass if it is a Class 6 and
suggested asking Michelle Welch for her opinion from her experience in animal
cruelty prosecution.
16. Anne Little prefers to determine
which bill is most important and make it pass.
Don said that pet
overpopulation problems will not be eliminated with the passage of a single
bill, but that responsible government, responsible breeding, and responsible
ownership must each be addressed by VVAW bills. He would like a patron for each bill,
and to let the patron plan how to make the bill pass. Don noted that if the patron doesn’t
push, we can help that patron push.
Don asked Anne to contact
Del. Bill Howell for a meeting to get VVAW bills heard by the Republican
caucus. A strategy might be to ask
Del. Howell to choose the bills to introduce and support, pulling the
remainder. This could be done in
the form of an Animal Welfare Caucus.
17. Susanne Kogut suggested changing
the releasing agency bill so it encompasses only s/n with the provison that local
jurisdictions can make exceptions.
She says eliminating breeder definitions will help the bill to
pass.
The same reservations
regarding the “do nothing” situation in many local jurisdictions were again
made.
18. A general discussion followed
about which bills were considered most important. Gas chambers and license fee cap
increase were at the top of the list.
Dealer permits and releasing agencies bills were close
behind.
19. It was noted that neither
individual legislators nor sometimes the patrons themselves fully comprehend the
contents of all their bills given the volume of legislation they must
consider. It is for this reason
that getting caucus endorsement is viewed as critical.
20. Dee Hawkins suggested that local
meetings have some local focus.
21. Susanne Kogut feels that a $3
rabies surcharge will result in people not giving their animals rabies shots,
particularly if owners have a sizeable animal population. She suggested the surcharge be done by
local option.
She believes the additional
$3 will prevent someone from getting the stray cat inoculated against
rabies.
It was discussed and decided
that low cost rabies clinics and rescues providing rabies should be exempt from
such a surcharge.
Julie Cottrell wants pounds
also exempt from the $3 rabies surcharge.
Anne Little suggested
getting the equivalent of that money another way.
Kim Kincheloe asked if the
$3 surcharge done in Delaware has demonstrated that the number of rabies shots
are not reduced.
Peyton Coyner feels the same
amount of funding can be realized by increasing the amount charged for a dog or
cat license, although there are many more who pay for rabies shots than there
are who buy pet licenses. He says
having the ACO fine a few who break the law will increase license purchase
quickly.
Don suggested that local
jurisdictions could waive the $3 surcharge if there was sufficient local money
for s/n.
Peyton noted that rabies is
not just an issue to protect dogs, but for humans. It is a public health issue, and should
be viewed as such.
22. Anne Little suggests avoiding the
term “puppy mill” as it appears in the initiative regarding releasing agencies,
saying it is a red flag.
Susanne Kogut asked if there
is an accepted definition of “puppy mill”.
In response, it was pointed
out that calling a spade a spade is hardly a bad thing, and “puppy mill” is a
term generally understood.
23. As some were leaving at 1pm, a
hurried question was posed about making the group who attended the
Charlottesville meeting a sub-group of VVAW as had been done with the Roanoke
area meeting group.
There were several who said
to do so, and no one opposed.
Meeting was adjourned
shortly before 2 pm.