As well as this legislative session started, not much positive happened for animals this year. Here’s a rundown of what the General Assembly did this year:
HB 95 (Bear Hound Training): Even though bear hound training was already allowed during most times of the day, this bill extended the hours of training bear hounds to include 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM. The Senate stopped this bill in its tracks last year, but it sailed through the House and the Senate this year and was signed into law by the Governor.
HB 158 (Prohibiting Devocalization): This is the second time Virginia missed an opportunity to put a stop to the inhumane practice of devocalization. This bill was pushed off until 2013 when it was continued by voice vote in the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee.
HB 363 (Companion Animals in Protective Orders): This bill would have clarified that judges have the ability to include companion animals in protective orders, but it was left in the House Appropriations Committee.
HB 537/SB 305 (Dangerous Dog Registry): This bill made its way up to the Governor and was signed into law. It shifts more responsibility to local animal control officers to regulate dangerous dogs, and changed the time to comply with registration from 10 days to 45 days.
HB 650 (Notice of Euthanasia for Companion Animals): This bill would require shelters or pounds to give notice to rescues in the position to help out before euthanizing healthy, adoptable companion animals. This is yet another example of a bill that got stuck in the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee.
HB 695/SB 202 (Prohibiting Fox and Coyote Penning): This bill would have outlawed the cruel blood sport of fox and coyote penning. I’m very disappointed to say that this bill, like many others, did not make it out of the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee.
HB 888 (Allowing Local Anti-Tethering Ordinances): This bill would have clarified that localities can pass their own anti-tethering ordinances. No surprises here — yet another bill stuck in the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee.
HB 1242/SB 477 (Prohibiting Exotic Animals): This bill was in response to the tragedy last year in Zanesville, Ohio involving the deaths of numerous exotic animals. The House continued this bill in the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee by voice vote to the 2013 session. The Senate kicked it to the Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.
SB 359 (TNR): This bill would declare TNR to be a legal and acceptable practice to control feral cat populations. It passed the Senate, but got stuck in the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee.
SB 610 (Agricultural Animals): This bill got lots of traction, but fortunately did not become law. It is still kicking around the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee. This bill seeks to exclude hunting, working and show dogs from the definition of companion animals, and would throw a great deal more on the shoulders of the State Vet instead of localities and animal control officers.
There’s much work ahead of us to prepare for the 2013 legislative session! We could especially use help from those of you with delegates in the House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee. If you’re not sure who your delegate is, or whether they are members of that committee, take a look now with the Virginia General Assembly “Who’s My Legislator” site.
HB 158 (Prohibiting Devocalization): A great bill designed to end an inhumane practice. Virginia missed the opportunity to pass this last year, but will hopefully come through this session.
HB 363 (Companion Animals in Protective Orders): This bill clarifies that judges have the ability to include companion animals in protective orders.
HB 650 (Notice of Euthanasia for Companion Animals): This bill provides that shelters or pounds give notice to rescues in the position to help out before euthanizing healthy, adoptable companion animals.
HB 695/SB 202 (Prohibiting Fox and Coyote Penning): Like dog fighting, which is now outlawed in all fifty states, fox penning is an inhumane “sport” that amounts to cruelty.
HB 888 (Allowing Local Anti-Tethering Ordinances): This merely clarifies that localities have the ability to pass their own anti-tethering ordinances.
HB 1242/SB 477 (Prohibiting Exotic Animals): A necessary response to the tragedy last year in Ohio.
SB 359 (TNR): This bill clarifies that TNR is a legal and acceptable practice to control feral cat populations that should not be hindered by current abandonment laws.
HB 537/SB 305 (Dangerous Dog Registry): This bill makes good changes to shift more responsibility to local animal control officers, but the 45-day window to comply with the registration certification procedures is too long. When there has been an issue such as obtaining insurance that has taken longer than the current 10-day window, animal control officers are more than willing to work with registrants. A 15-day window would probably be sufficient.
STRONGLY OPPOSE:
HB 95 (Bear Hound Training): Training is already allowed during most times of the day, and there is no reason to extend training into the late hours of the night and early hours of the morning.
SB 610 (Agricultural Animals): This bill is a huge setback, as it tries to peel off hunting, working and show dogs from the definition of companion animals and puts all authority in the hands of the State Vet instead of localities and animal control officers.
Please reach out to your state representatives to ask for support regarding these vital companion animal issues. If you are unsure of who your representatives are, or how to contact them, visit the Virginia General Assembly website.
As promised, here is more information about a few of the bills in this legislative session:
HB 1242/SB 477 would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor (punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2500 fine) to possess, sell or breed exotic animals. This bill is in response to the tragedy last year in Ohio resulting in the death of almost fifty animals after the owner released the animals and killed himself.
SB 359 will officially legalize Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) programs. This bill clarifies that anyone engaged in TNR is not an “owner” who could be deemed to be “abandoning” the cats.
Last but not least is HJ 143, which would establish February 28 as Spay Day.
Now the bad news. As is often the case, a devastating bill will sneak into the legislation when no one is looking. And so it is with SB 610. This bill would prohibit localities and animal control officers from regulating agricultural animals, placing all authority over agricultural animals in the hands of the State Vet. This bill would also expand the definition of agricultural animals to include hunting, working and show dogs. Needless to say, this bill would be a tremendous set back to animal welfare by placing a huge burden on the State Vet’s office, and taking the power to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty and neglect out of the hands of localities and animal control officers who are in the best position to take action.
Stay posted later this week for an overview of the good, the bad and the ugly in the bills geared towards companion animals in this legislative session.
Here is the gist of proposed amendment to Alexandria’s ordinance from the definitions section in Section 5-7-31 (j), with new language in bold and italics:
(j) Run or running at large. Roaming or running off the premises of its owner not under the control of its owner or a responsible person capable of physical restraining the dog and not secured by a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint, which leash, lead or other means of physical restraint is not harmful or injurious to the dog and which is held by a responsible person capable of physically restraining the dog. An electronic collar or other similar electronic device does not qualify as a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint.
The second ordinance addresses locking animals in hot cars. The proposed law would make it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine for confining an animal in a car if the outside temperature is 70 degrees or hotter and the car is not properly air conditioned. The law would also make it a crime punishable by a fine and up to twelve months in jail for leaving an animal unattended if the animal suffers heat stress.
Here is the full language of proposed Section 5-7-58:
Sec. 5-7-58 Confinement of animals in vehicles prohibited.
(a) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended, enclosed vehicle where the outside temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit or greater, and the interior of the vehicle is not provided with conditioned air to maintain an internal temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or less, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended, enclosed vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress as diagnosed by a licensed veterinarian, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The Animal Control Officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.
(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
In July, Happy the min-pin escaped from his yard in Riverside, California. His owners searched for him for two weeks, but never found him. They were so convinced that he was lost for good that they even adopted a new dog.
But just last week, two good Samaritans found Happy in a park in Palm Springs, and took him to the local animal shelter. Fortunately, Happy has a microchip, and it was easy to reunite him with his owners.
Sitting on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk for signature is Senate Bill 702, the country’s first legislation that would mandate microchips for pets as of January 1, 2012. The bill requires animal control agencies, shelters and rescues to microchip dogs and cats before being adopted or — if not already chipped like Happy — before being claimed if picked up as a stray.
Christian Science Monitor reports that California shelters impound more than one million dogs and cats a year, and euthanize over half of those animals. The cost to house and euthanize those animals is $300 million each year. This bill seeks to reduce the euthanasia rate and costs by increasing the chance that the animal and owner can be reunited.
Microchips are an inexpensive and easy way to make sure that your companion animals can be identified and that you can be notified quickly and easily. With last week’s earthquake and hurricane in this region, there is no time like the present to get your animals microchipped if they are not already. As pointed out by the Examiner, this is just the one step to careful emergency preparedness.
One word of warning. Even if your dogs and cats are microchipped, state law may still require collars and identification tags. For an example, take a look at Virginia Code Section 3.2-6531.
When Welsh legislators were first considering the ban, animal welfare groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organizations, including the Kennel Club, came out in support of the ban. These organizations called shock collars “cruel and unnecessary,” and pointed to shock collars’ potential to harm animals.
Others opposed the ban, claiming that the evidence and science did not demonstrate that shock collars harm animals, and arguing that shock collars are effective tools to protect and train animals.
In March 2010, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously passed legislation banning the use of any collar emitting an electronic shock for dogs and cats. A violation of the law is punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.
After the law came into effect, Petsafe, Ltd, a pet product manufacturer, and the Electronic Collar Manufacturer Association challenged the law. But the High Court in Wales rejected their challenge and upheld the legislation in November 2010.
This week, a Welsh court convicted the first person of violating the shock collar ban. Phillip Pook owns a border collie who is a notorious fence climber and escape artist. Six months before the ban took effect, Pook bought a collar designed to emit an electronic shock if his dog approached a wall on his property. Pook claimed he did not know the law had changed, but the prosecution introduced evidence that Pook was warned about the new law. The court convicted Pook and sentenced him to a fine of £2000 (about $3200).
Data provided by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (VDACS) demonstrate how vital rescues are to animal welfare. In Virginia in 2010, rescues accounted for 10,816 stray, seized, transferred and surrendered animals. These Virginia rescues adopted 4,886 and transferred another 1,846 of those animals. The rescues euthanized only 427 of those animals. This is an adoption rate of 45%, and euthanasia rate of only 4%.
The overall 2010 figures, including data for shelters, pounds, humane societies and rescues, show a different picture. Of an overall number of 185,948 stray, seized, transferred and surrendered animals, 54,425 were adopted, another 24,137 were transferred and 72,403 were euthanized. This is an adoption rate of 29%, and euthanasia rate of 39%.
With their high adoption rates and low euthanasia rates, rescues are a very attractive option for someone looking to adopt a companion animal. However, not all rescues are created equally.
On more than one occasion, I have gotten a phone call from a person who adopted an animal from a “rescue,” only to discover that the rescue was hardly a benevolent non-profit. The “rescue” instead was in the business of selling animals that are unhealthy or not the size or breed that was promised. And even when rescues have their heart in the right place, more and more rescues act as venues for animal hoarders, like we’ve seen recently with Annette Thompson in Goochland County and Janet Hollins in Prince William County.
In light of all this, there are several things that you can do to make sure that the rescue you are considering is legitimate.
First, if the rescue claims to be a 501(c)(3), you can double check this using the Guidestar website. Guidestar can show you vital information such as the non-profit’s mission statement and recent 990 tax filings. The rescue’s 990 will show you even more information, such as how the organization is funded and how much the organization spends on administration and fundraising versus costs directly related to the animals’ care.
Second, a rescue claiming to be a non-profit may have additional state regulations and obligations. For instance, all Virginia non-profits must register with VDACS’s Department of Consumer Affairs to solicit as a charitable organization. You can check whether the rescue is registered to solicit using the Department of Consumer Affairs’ website.
Third, check to see if the rescue is complying with its state registration or reporting obligations. In Virginia, rescues must register and report data annually to VDACS and the Office of the State Veterinarian. VDACS maintains an online database that tells you which rescues are reporting, and gives data for each rescue for how many animals they take in per year, the source of those animals, and the disposition of the animals.
Fourth, the rescue should have a written adoption contract that complies with all legal obligations. For instance, Virginia rescues must comply with Virginia Code Section 3.2-6574, which requires a written contract between the rescue and adopter in which the adopter agrees to neuter an intact dog or cat within 30 days of adoption or the date that the animal reaches six months of age. Any decent rescue will likely also have a contractual provision that requires the adopter to return the animal to the rescue if the adopter can no longer care for the animal.
If you are checking out a rescue, here are some red flags to watch out for:
The “rescue” claims to be a 501(c)(3), but you can find no information using Guidestar and state regulatory sites.
The rescue uses a high percentage of funds for administrative costs, rather than costs directly related to care of the animals, such as veterinary care, food, training and boarding.
The “rescue” does not have a contract. Or it has a contract, but the contract lacks key provisions, such as requiring the adopter to spay or neuter the animal, or return the animal to the rescue if the adopter can no longer care for the animal.
The “rescue” cannot produce identifying information and veterinary records for their companion animals.
The “rescue” charges high “adoption fees,” and has a website promising to sell you the perfect purebred or designer breed puppies or kittens. Take a look at the ASPCA’s website for more information on internet scams.
As with any company, don’t just rely on the rescue’s website. You should be able to call the rescue and speak with a live person. When you see a particular companion animal you are interested in, you should be able to meet the animal and the foster, and review the animal’s veterinary records, before you decide if the animal is right for you. If you already have a dog and you are looking to adopt a second dog, ask to set up a meet and greet for the dogs. If the rescue is hesitant with any of these requests, think again before you adopt from them!
First, Saginaw will add a leash law and prohibit tethering in most circumstances. Owners would be required to keep dogs on leash. Dogs could not be chained or tethered outside of the dogs’ “kennel, pen or fenced yard,” unless someone has physical control of a leash. An inanimate object such as a tree, post or building will not cut it. The requirement of physical control indicates that shock collars will not count in Saginaw. This is a great step – with the caveat that the law should be clarified to state that a dog cannot be chained or tethered even if the dog is on the owner’s property.
Second, all dogs would need to be securely confined indoors or in adequately lighted and ventilated kennels. If a dog is confined indoors, the dog would not be able to exit on the dog’s own volition. Presumably, that means no more doggie doors in Saginaw. And, thankfully, no more dogs left outside unattended.
Third, Saginaw residents would be limited to three dogs per household. This three-dog limit would not apply to animal care and control organizations, rescues, registered foster homes, and certain service dog and hunting dog breeders. Commercial breeders and brokers would be required to register with the City Clerk and obtain a business license.
Officials in Saginaw did not stop at overhauling Section 94.04. They are proposing a second ordinance targeting “dangerous dogs.” Unfortunately, this ordinance completely misses the mark and has virtually nothing to do with owner responsibility.
This ordinance will require the owners of “dangerous dogs” to register the dogs, and adhere to leash and confinement standards. The owners will also have to pay a $20 registration fee and obtain and display signs indicating the presence of a dangerous dog on their property. Failure to comply with the ordinance would result in civil fines.
The heart of problem is the proposed definition of a “dangerous dog” as any dog:
with a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of” people or companion animals; or
that attacks, attempts to attack or that, by its actions, gives indication that it is liable to attack a human being or other domestic animal one or more times without provocation; or
of a breed that appears consistently in the top five (5) of the breeds on credible, analytical listings of “Most Dangerous Dogs” as verified and supplemented by local data and records for Saginaw County, including mixes.
The simple truth is that focusing on breed will not decrease the number of dog bites. According to a comprehensive 2009 study by the National Canine Research Council, the three predominant factors with dog bites are whether the dog:
is a resident dog (kept primarily outdoors, used for guarding, protection, fighting or breeding, rather than a pet/family dog);
is intact; and
has a reckless, irresponsible owner.
Notice that breed is not one of these factors. With its recent overhaul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) agrees that the focus should be on the individual dog and not breed. The ADA already condones the refusal to provide access to a service dog if an individual dog shows specific signs of aggression. But the DOJ unequivocally refuses to bow to jurisdictions with breed bans. This is leading to a nasty battle in Denver, where officials are refusing to exempt service dogs in Denver’s breed ban. At least Saginaw was not so stubborn, exempting service dogs from its dangerous dog ordinance.
Although Virginia’s dangerous dog statute isn’t perfect, it does focus on individual dogs and specific aggressive behavior. To be classified as a dangerous dog, Virginia requires an actual bite. Last year, the General Assembly considered expanding the dangerous dog designation to dogs who “attempt to bite.” Fortunately this bill died quickly in committee. Additionally, Virginia refuses to bow to breed stereotypes, with the following language right in the dangerous dog statute:
No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.
With Saginaw’s proposed leash, confinement and supervision requirements and a limit on the number of dogs a household can have, Saginaw will accomplish a great deal to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of resident dogs. If Saginaw wants more effective laws, research shows that focus on the spay/neuter issue rather than breed will go further to reduce the number of dog bites.
Laws requiring leashes and spay/neuter programs are not the only way to get at owner responsibility. Education is also necessary. The more we learn about animal behavior, the better. At last Friday’s Mid-Atlantic Animal Law Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland, one participate raised the issue of humane education in schools. If we could emphasize just three areas, we could do a great deal to better the bond between dogs and owners, and thereby decrease the number of dog bites:
Never leave dogs unsupervised with children. So many dog bites are to children. Simple supervision, teaching a child not to approach a dog unless the child asks the owner for permission, and showing the child how to pet the dog appropriate would go far to decrease the number of dog bites. Dogs & Storks has wonderful information about how to prepare the family dog for a new baby, and lots of other helpful information regarding dogs and children.
The Saginaw City Council will introduce its proposed ordinances on April 18, and the ordinances are slated to be enacted May 9 and become effective May 19. If Saginaw’s real purpose is to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of dog bites, I encourage the Council to adopt the ordinance expanding Section 94.04, but ditch its dangerous dog ordinance.
You let Fido out in your fenced-in back yard while you go grocery shopping one day. Little do you know, the gate latch is coming undone, and a gust of wind blows the gate open. Fido gets out and has a fun romp through the neighborhood. A friendly animal control officer captures Fido, fortunately without incident. The officer leaves you a voicemail message that Fido is fine, but that she’s taking him to the pound because Fido is not licensed and registered.
You don’t understand why Fido had to go to the pound. He was wearing his tags with your contact information and proof of his rabies vaccination. On the way to the pound, you ask yourself whether the animal control officer had the right to impound Fido.
In fact, the animal control officer had no choice but to impound Fido. Of course you can reclaim Fido, but the pound can and will require you to license and register your dog and pay any connected license and impoundment fees before you can take Fido home.
Virginia Code Section 3.2-6562 requires officers to capture and confine “any companion animal of unknown ownership running at large on which the license fee has not been paid.” The pound must comply with the holding period required by Section 3.2-6546. That holding period requires the pound to hold an animal for five days while it attempts to locate the owner. If the pound can ascertain who the rightful owner is, it must hold the animal an additional five days to give the owner time to claim the animal. The law gives the pound the right to require the owner to pay the license fee and all impoundment costs before returning the animal to its owner.
If the rightful owner doesn’t step up, the animal is deemed “abandoned” and becomes the property of the pound. The pound may arrange for adoption or release to a rescue or shelter, or may euthanize if it follows specific procedures in the statutes. The law also gives the animal control officer the ability to euthanize if the animal is injured, disabled or diseased “past recovery” or to the point that a reasonable owner would euthanize.
If your dog is picked up as a stray, there are several things you can do to get your dog back as safely and quickly as possible:
NEVER LEAVE YOUR DOG OUTSIDE UNATTENDED! Even if you have a fully fenced yard, you should let your dogs out only when you are home and able to supervise them.
Make an identification tag for your dog, and keep all contact information on the tag current.
Keep your dog’s rabies vaccination up to date. Make sure you have a tag and several copies of a certificate indicating accurate information for your dog’s most recent rabies vaccination.
Register your dog in the locality in which you live. Keep your dog’s license and corresponding tags up to date, and keep several copies of a certificate showing that your dog is properly licensed and registered.
Securely fasten the identification, rabies, and license and registration tags to your dog’s collar. Make sure your dog is wearing her collar and tags any time you go out with her.
Don’t count on tags alone. Have your dog microchipped, and have several backup contacts linked to the microchip, including your dog’s veterinarian information and other emergency contacts. Get a tag that says your dog is microchipped, along with the contact information of the microchip company, just in case the microchip malfunctions.
If your dog has any special medical needs or allergies, make sure to have a very visible separate tag to alert people to these needs. Include this information on the microchip and in your dog’s registration.
Don’t hesitate to create other tags and add other microchip information if appropriate. For instance, good rescues (like A Forever Home where I got Sophie) will give you a tag to put on your rescue’s collar, will ask you to include them in the information you provide to the microchip company, and won’t hesitate to step in and claim your dog if you are unable to do so for some reason.
Excuse the silence for the last couple of weeks, but I am back and rejuvenated from a wonderful vacation in Costa Rica. We flew into Liberia — a town in the northwestern province of Guanacaste with a more laid back airport than San Juan. We stayed in Playa del Coco, a beach on Papagayo Bay on the Pacific side of Costa Rica. Playa del Coco is aptly named due to the dark brown, cocoa colored sands. If I had to do it all over again, I would not have stayed in this town, but we did have a lovely view from the balcony of the condo we stayed in.
We managed to walk over to a nearby, quaint little beach called Playa Ocotal. I fear development is moving so quickly that this beach will also be overrun with tourists soon, but for now, it is quiet and pleasant. I also met my favorite canine pal in this town. The dogs don’t generally live inside houses, and the ones I saw wandering around fortunately appeared healthy and generally happy. This guy came right up to me and put his head in my lap for a good ear rub. Then he laid down under this table for a nap.
Playa Tamarindo is a gorgeous beach. There were lots of tourists in this town, and lots of people who came to visit and just ended up never leaving. This beautiful calico joined us for lunch one day.
Tamarindo had lots of canine beach bums — some strays, some owned by locals and some owned by foreigners.
The highlight of the trip was traveling to the cloud forest in Monteverde. Here are some shots of the gorgeous countryside on the way from Playa del Coco to Monteverde.
Once we got to Monteverde, we spent the day in Selvatura Park. We started with a canopy tour of the rain forest. Had I known more about “canopy tours” and “zip lines,” I’m not sure I would have worked up the nerve to participate, but once I was up there, I was glad I did! After lunch, we walked through the hummingbird garden. What beautiful, graceful creatures! We ended the day with a walk on suspended bridges. Unfortunately, we really didn’t see a lot of wildlife. It seems that all the work to put in cable lines and suspended bridges, and all of the foot traffic, manages to scare the animals away. So much for pure ecotourism.
On the way back from Monteverde, we stopped in a town where some folks kept Macaws and other animals — including puppies! They were kind enough to let us into their yard to take some pictures.
On my last couple of mornings in Playa del Coco, I made sure to spend some time with some local animals, including the cat who frequented our breakfast hangout every day.
It is apparently not all rosy for companion animals in Costa Rica. But towns and vets are making efforts to spay and neuter the strays. In fact, Playa del Coco had an adoption and sterilization program. Although I didn’t want to see animals without homes, I was glad to see strays who seemed to be in decent health, and some even well off enough that they had time and energy to play. I didn’t have my camera handy one day, but one little canine beach bum in Playa del Coco took it upon himself to “adopt” many of the tourists and play in the sand with anything he could find!
As wonderful as Costa Rica was, and as friendly as the Costa Rican people were, we were glad to get back to Boomer and Sophie. Much thanks to our dog walker and dog sitter from Fur-Get Me Not! We could tell how spoiled the dogs were while we were away, because instead of going crazy when we got home, they just took it all in stride!
As well as this legislative session started, not much positive happened for animals this year. Here’s a rundown of what the General Assembly did this year:
Companion Animal Law Blog 
