A meeting regarding the pet overpopulation study started at 11:00 am at the Hampton Inn in Charlottesville on Sunday, 10/3/04.

Attendees:

Mary Birkholz/Caring for Creatures

Jeanne Brown/Fluvanna SPCA

Lillian Clancy

Peyton Coyner/Nelson County Humane Society

Ginny DeForge/independent

Bette Grahame/Nelson County Humane Society

Paul Gregory, MD/Fluvanna SPCA

Catherine Harold/independent

Dee Hawkins/Fluvanna SPCA

Cynthia Mantalos/Paws to Adopt

Donald Marro

Mollie McCurdy/independent

Jackie Meyers, PhD/Fluvanna County

Renee O’Leary/Louisa County Humane Society

Donna Pinnix/PetFix Coalition

Karin Straley/Animal Connections

unable to attend:

Sandra Everson-Jones/County Humane Society

Introductions

Attendees introduced themselves and spoke briefly of the group with which they are affiliated

or otherwise described their reasons for attending.

Agenda

1.         The proposed name of our organization, Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare was discussed.  There appearing to be no opposition, we record this group to be in favor.

2.         A potential presentation by Dr. Michael McDonald about doing low cost/high volume s/n at a profit was discussed.  The goal here is to get a demonstration model to encourage vets to do low cost s/n.  Dee Hawkins mentioned her local vet does low cost s/n; was asked to send along more information about this.

3.         Because a recent CBS radio show gushed over designer dogs, the recommendation was made to contact CBS about the show and ask for an opportunity to rebut.  In addition, it was suggested that major news networks be contacted about mixed breed “designer dogs” in every one of Virginia’s pounds and shelters.

            Who will follow up?

            Later it was suggested that “60 Minutes” be contacted about any of these topics, ideally having the suggestion flow from the local affiliate.  Who will follow up?

4.         Lillian Clancy and Don Marro met last week for several hours with Teresa Dockery in an effort to see how various groups could work together.  The meeting was cordial and productive.  The common interest in s/n suggests this as an area in which there might be an opportunity for joint effort.

Other groups will also be approached to see if common ground on one or more issues might be identified.  Groups include veterinarians, VACA, the office of the State Veterinarian, breeders, and AKC.

5.         The preliminary study was discussed.

            From this discussion it surfaced that:

animal records should be revised to include breed of dog entering the system, and breed of dog being euthanized; will someone volunteer to contact the state vet?

the number of purebred dogs in public pounds/shelters may, in urban areas, well exceed the commonly accepted number of 30% - 35%

areas in which more work might be done include a survey of where leash laws exists, and a relationship between leash laws and compliance with rabies inoculations; anyone volunteer to do this?

the financial dimensions of the sale of dogs via newspaper ads was discussed; attendees were encouraged to check local papers for such sales; few ads discussed responsible ownership or took ongoing responsibility for care of the pets; income and sales tax and business license revenues do not appear to be flowing into the government coffers

6.         The interim conclusions were discussed.

there was opposition raised to charging for relinquishing an animal which would likely work to cause more strays and abandonment

            licensing breeders was seen as positive

working with anyone’s s/n program will help, whether the Humane Alliance model from NC, Dr. McDonald’s method, or that of others

raising fines is important

limited discussion of a civilian review board to ensure compliance and enforcement

7.         responsible ownership, responsible breeding, and responsible governance (funding and enforcement) appear to be agreed on as the three pillars of our effort

as audiences for these programs, we have owners/custodians, pet shops, breeders, vets, VDACS, ACOs, sheriffs, judges, churches, elected officials, media and the opinion leaders which need to be reached on ownership, breeding or governance issues

8.         Funding and enforcement were discussed.

enforcement of the current requirement for licenses would bring in substantial money which could be used for a s/n fund; it was pointed out that collecting license fees for all companion animals would cover all shelter costs; further increasing license fees to something in the $25 range would pay for s/n of every companion animal in Virginia 

While the mantra appears to be that there are too few involved people employed in animal control, the job may be made more difficult by not wanting to be the “bad guy” and so being reluctant to enforce.  ACOs have to live with these people; how do we help?

the possibility of vet techs doing s/n was raised; any programs anywhere? will someone follow up?

show hunters that intact dogs, both males and females, tend to wander off, and their loss could have significant financial impact to the hunter; that there is “no connection between the nose and the tail” was offered as a slogan; “neuter my dog, neuter me” is another totem to be displaced; facetiously suggested to show that sperm counts increase for custodians who neuter; serious suggestions on benefits of dog being neutered and testimonials that neutered dogs do indeed hunt are needed

it was noted that the Fluvanna animal control budget was cut by 8% last year, and there was no one to protest that or advocate otherwise; following the budget approval process needs to be part of the VVAW process

massive campaign to s/n companion animals is needed

reach out to retired people for help with transport to get animals to s/n sites

9.         cultural issues and how to change outlook was discussed at length; several suggestions about programs that both worked and failed in schools were brought up

newspapers are willing to do stories if offered positive spin and otherwise given reason to do so; could be/should be allies in trying to make cultural change

the effect churches have on culture was touched on; it is thought some churches are not interested in animal welfare issues, but it seemed to be unanimous that these same churches are promoting “right to life”

people new to an area can provide impetus for change when there is cultural opposition and a desire to keep the status quo; many new people, having worked with animals in their previous home, want to help and should be encouraged to do so

10.       “Shelter Animals Dream of Homes”, a creative program conducted by Cynthia Mantalos caused considerable excitement; ideas discussed about how to repeat, how to extend, and how to take advantage of the wonderfully successful effort

            might we be able to get this art to Richmond for the next legislative session in January?

11.       Attendees were asked to:

            spread the word about what is being done

decide how they will work to effect the “outreach” program, especially to elected officials locally and those in the General Assembly

if legislation is to be introduced in the January 2005 session of Virginia’s General Assembly, we must have our programs and objectives set by early November

attendees were asked to voice their interests in what they can do and to help us confirm what next steps are necessary

12.       Meetings on the same topics discussed in Charlottesville will be held on Saturday, 10/9, in Richmond, and on Sunday, 10/10 in Roanoke.  There will also be a meeting on Saturday, 10/16 in Falls Church.  All are invited to attend as many meetings as they are interested in attending.

13.       It is clear that meetings like this are a productive clearing house for getting to hear and meet others, and exchange ideas. 

 The meeting adjourned at 1:00 pm.