sandgrubber

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/animal-rights-groups-that-paid-circus-15.7-million-file-suit-against-insurers-who-cancelled-them-in-2010/article/2550518 Animal rights groups that paid circus $15.7 million file suit against insurers who cancelled them in 2010 BY: Richard Pollock July 7, 2014 | 6:00 am 50COMMENTS 13 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's circus handler Joey Frisco speaks to an Asian elephant during an appearance in Boston's North End. (AP/Elise Amendola) WATCHDOG FOLLOW THE MONEY CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS ANIMALS HUMANE SOCIETY When leaders of the animal rights movement agreed May 15 to pay $15.7 million to America's most famous circus, it seemed to be the end of the 14-year-old case. After all, at the case's conclusion, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet G. Sullivan bluntly described the suit brought by the animal rights groups as “groundless and unreasonable from its inception.” Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus may have won back its good name, but a new issue has since arisen over who will pay the $15.7 million in attorney fees. The insurers advised the animal rights groups four years ago they would not provide coverage for the attorney fees. Today, the groups are suing their insurers. The fees were originally generated in Animal Welfare Institute v. Feld Entertainment lawsuit, which was filed in 2000. Feld owns the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, known to millions of Americans as "The Greatest Show on Earth." The circus, which criss-crosses the United States by train and truck, has been performing since the 19th Century. The circus was accused of abusing elephants by four animal rights groups and several individuals, including Tom Rider, who once worked for Ringling Bros. The suit generated hundreds of briefs, motions, depositions and hearings, requiring the services of 41 attorneys from all sides. When the settlement was announced, officials at the Humane Society of the U.S. and the Fund for Animals, which were responsible for paying the $15.7 million, defiantly claimed their insurance companies, not their donors, would pay the money to Feld. “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to the HSUS and the Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from the HSUS will go to Feld,” HSUS said in a statement released on the day of the settlement. What the animal rights groups failed to disclose to the public was that they'd been told four years before that their insurance companies would not provide coverage. The balking insurance companies included the National Union Fire Insurance Co., the Travelers and Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. Revelations of ethical misconduct that surfaced as the case progressed to its conclusion left huge question marks about the credibility of the animal rights groups. John Simpson, a law partner at the law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski and the lead attorney for Feld Entertainment, said the insurance issue continues a "pattern" of misinformation by the animal rights groups. "The entire lawsuit was based on either misleading or outright false statements of fact," Simpson told the Washington Examiner. The case began with allegations that circus workers mistreated the elephants. Rider, a former Ringling “barn man” who handled the elephants, charged that they were abused using bull hooks and chains. Rider initially appeared to be an insider whistleblower making highly credible charges. But those charges soon crumbled largely because of questions about Rider's honesty. Videos surfaced of Rider himself using bull hooks on elephants. He denounced another elephant handler as abusive toward the elephants, but then went to work for him. After leaving Ringling, he joined a European circus that openly used bull hooks and chains. Rider claimed he loved all of his “girls" and had become so emotionally attached to them that he could identify them on sight. During his depositions in 2006 and 2007, however, Rider "could not name the elephants with whom he allegedly had a personal and emotional attachment,” Sullivan wrote in his final ruling. And, when shown video clips of the elephants, “he could not identify them,” the judge said. The case blew up when it was revealed that attorney Katherine Meyer had secretly funneled $190,000 in payments from her own firm and from some of the animal rights groups to Rider. Meyer was the lead attorney for the groups. Neither Meyer nor the animal rights groups had informed Sullivan or Feld's attorneys about the payments. “The funds paid to Rider appeared to be paid in such a way to avoid ready detection,” said Sullivan, who sanctioned Meyer for "bad faith misconduct" with "deliberate intent to harm." Meyer has filed hundreds of animal rights and environmental cases on behalf of activists for those causes. But Sullivan said Meyer “sought to conceal the nature, extent and purpose of the payments” to Rider, including “affirmatively false interrogatory response [denying the payments] signed by Rider and prepared by Ms. Meyer, the same attorney who was paying him.” Rider's testimony was so weak Sullivan said Feld's attorneys "pulverized" the former circus employee while he was on the stand. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals separately settled with Feld in December 2012, paying $9.3 million in a lump sum. As the case crumbled, other animal rights groups also dropped out. When the ASPCA and the May 15 settlements are tallied, the animal rights movement has now paid Ringling Bros. a total of $25.2 million. Feld's attorneys claim it represents the largest verdict or settlement made by the ASPCA or the HSUS. The case also is the first time attorney fees were awarded to a private defendant under the 41-year history of the Endangered Species Act, according to Feld's attorneys. The Humane Society and the Fund for Animals were first informed of the denial of insurance coverage in May 2010 when Chartis, the administrator handling the National Union claims, advised the groups, “there is no coverage for this claim, based on the insured’s failure to provide notice during the policy period.” Both the Fund for Animals and the Humane Society failed to tell reporters on May 15 that they had an ongoing dispute with their insurance companies over compensation. The Fund for Animals admitted in court filings that the organization continued to communicate with National Union about the denial, saying they “exchanged further correspondence during 2010; however, National Union steadfastly maintained its denial of coverage.” Travelers also notified both groups they would refuse to provide coverage in a 2010 letter. The Fund for Animals sued all three of the insurance companies last September, claiming “breach of contract” in a lawsuit filed in the circuit court in Baltimore, Md. That case has been transferred to the circuit court in Montgomery County, Md. And only one week after the May 15 settlement, the Humane Society sued National Union in a case now in federal court. Simpson, the Feld attorney, charged that in the latest episode of the case, the animal rights groups are misleading the public once again as they had throughout the trial. “You have its head saying to the donating public that none of their donations are going to be used to fund this settlement, when I don’t see as a practical matter that could possibly be true," Simpson said. “At the time they made that payment, which indisputably happened in cash to our client by wire transfer, there was no insurance payment. So it had to come from the coffers of the Humane Society,” he said. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society's president and CEO, shrugged off the insurance companies' refusal to cover the settlement, saying in an interview, “denial of coverage is a standard posture within the industry.” Pacelle, who was previously the organization's chief lobbyist and spokesman, said they have a “commitment” from one carrier “to cover the bulk of what our responsibility is.” He said he hopes there can be settlements with the other two insurance carriers. Mediation talks are being held between the Fund for Animals and the Travelers and Charter Oak insurance companies, according to court documents. “What’s not covered by insurance is covered by the Fund of Animals,” Pacelle said. Pacelle's claim highlights another issue. The CEO insisted that the Fund for Animals is totally separate from the Humane Society, saying it has “its own board of directors and its own donors.” But the Humane Society's website describes the merger of HSUS and Fund for Animals as occurring in 2004: “In 2004, Wayne Pacelle and Michael Markarian (president of The Fund for Animals and now chief program and policy officer of the HSUS) helped engineer the corporate combination of the HSUS and The Fund for Animals,” the current website states. And the Humane Society's 2012 IRS Tax Form 990 describes the two organizations as legally "related" to each other. “Since insurance was going to cover the share we were going to commit to, we wanted to move on,” Pacelle said. Pacelle also insisted the lost lawsuit was based on a "sound case." He also offered a conspiracy theory about the circus: “This is a company that has infiltrated animal welfare groups, hired a former deputy director of the CIA to infiltrate animal welfare groups." Charity Navigator, a national consumer rating organization of public charities, published a “Donor Advisory” notice about the Humane Society and the Fund for Animals earlier this year in describing the Feld case settlement. Sandra Miniutti, a Charity Navigator vice president and spokesman, said donor advisories are issued “because donors may want to re-evaluate their donations.” She said the advisories indicated “extreme concern.” Only 160 public charities have been marked with a "Donor Advisory" out of the 1 million public charities reviewed by the organization, she said. Rider passed away in October 2013. UPDATE: Charity Navigator has issued updates to its donor advisories for Humane Society of the U.S. and Fund for Animals as a result of this story. CORRECTION: The animal rights groups discussed in this story agreed to pay a voluntary settlement and were not ordered by a court to pay, as an earlier version of the headline erroneously stated. The Washington Examiner regrets the error.

Thats Texas for you. I'm surprised they're not using shelter dogs for target practice.

Scum bag How lucky that the dog didn't consume any meatballs and was unharmed. My dogs would have gobbled them in a flash! I wonder how many times this creep has done this in the past and gotten away with it.

I'm absolutely convinced that there are healthy Pugs, Pekes and Frenchies who can make it at agility, etc. Also convinced that it should be possible to increase the health standards of this group of breeds. Also convinced that the multiple problems -- not just brachy face structure but also spinal problems, inability to whelp freely, eye problems, etc -- tend to go together. Result, breeds with high vet bills and generally short lifespans: also high price tags because these problems limit the number of people willing to breed and increase the costs of breeding. Seems to me the critical question is whether there are enough breeders making a serious effort to produce robust dogs in the troubled breeds. As Anne and others have noted, steniotic nares are still widespread in the show ring, and the less visible problems remain major problems even from breeders with good reputations. Can anyone name breeders who are doing well using the strategy of 'a little more nose' . . . and aiming to produce pups who may not fare well in the show ring, but have a high chance of living normal, healthy lives? If there are no such breeders, I don't see much hope for the affected breeds.

Four, not six. It's moveable and gets moved every three or four days. The chickens do scratch. Chickens are not dogs. If anyone decided they had too many dogs and ate a few to reduce their numbers, I think all of us would be shocked. This is routine with chooks.

Why do you want to show? If you want ribbons, get a good example of a rare breed.

Update: Six months later. Fencing off the chooks with electric fence worked fine. The dogs completely lost interest. Due to problems with my shop, I haven't been able to build a bigger run for the chooks yet, but have learned what weeds they love and make sure they get lots of them. Now getting 3 to 4 eggs a day. The chooks are Australorpes, a gentle breed, and have shown no inclination to harm one another, despite smallness of their enclosure.

I'm confused. Didn't the Kennel Club (UK) revise breed standards for many (most) brachy breeds to penalize extreme brachy conformation a few years back? Didn't Australia follow suit (while the US adamantly refused)? How's this going? Is change from within happening? ...or has my memory failed me (again)? p.s. I found a source http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/activities/dog-showing/breed-standards/about-breed-standards/ quoting from it In 2009, all of the breed standards were reviewed to ensure that no standard demands any feature which could prevent a dog from breathing, walking and seeing freely. Breed health and welfare is a driving force of the Kennel Club and so any feature described in a breed standard which might threaten the wellbeing and quality of life of a dog is eschewed. Above all, dogs of all breeds should be able to live healthy, comfortable lives. Most pedigree dogs are bred as family pets and companions so health and soundness must come first.

Seems like a constructive and realistic position from the VIC AVA, though it would be good to see the discussion paper it was written to address. This is more trait-specific than breed specific, and unlike the usual BS BSL, it addresses real health concerns. I wish breed clubs and the kennel clubs would take stronger stands to discourage extreme conformations with bad health implications, as opposed to titling flat faced dogs over those with some muzzle. If clubs and judges did more to curb breeding for fashion rather than function, there would be no call for legislative action.

Too little information in this story to form a judgement. A 10 yr old dog frothing at the mouth could mean lots of things . . . and one person's idea of fit is another person's idea of malnourished. I'd think more overt neglect would be needed to warrant a 10 yr ban and $5k fine. Lots of a##holes manage to get their dogs killed by neglect well before they reach 10 yrs.

The floors don't bother me so much. It's when they take a swim in their dip tank, roll in the sand, and then come in and relax on my bed that it gets to me.

On a Good Dog by Ogden Nash O, my little pup ten years ago was arrogant and spry, Her backbone was a bended bow for arrows in her eye. Her step was proud, her bark was loud, her nose was in the sky, But she was ten years younger then, And so, by God, was I. Small birds on stilts along the beach rose up with piping cry. And as they rose beyond her reach I thought to see her fly. If natural law refused her wings, that law she would defy, for she could do unheard-of things, and so, at times, could I. Ten years ago she split the air to seize what she could spy; Tonight she bumps against a chair, betrayed by milky eye! She seems to pant, Time up, time up! My little dog must die, And lie in dust with Hector's pup; So, presently, must I.

A curious, sensationalized bit of natural history . . . . relevant in reminding us that we don't understand Dermodex mange very well. http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5799992/these-mites-live-on-your-face-and-come-out-to-have-sex-at-night These mites live on your face and come out to have sex at night Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 11, 2014, 3:10 p.m. ET @josephstromberg [email protected] Demodex folliculorum, a type of mite that naturally lives on the human face. Meet Your Mites Right now, there are thousands of mites on your face. They're microscopic, but closely related to spiders and ticks. And despite your reaction to hearing this news, there's absolutely nothing wrong with you. "99.9 percent of humans carry them," says Ron Ochoa, a mite scientist at the US Department of Agriculture. They're most abundant on our faces, but live in the hair follicles all over our bodies, and a single person may harbor more than one million of them in total. 99.9 PERCENT OF HUMANS CARRY FACE MITES During the day, the animals stay hidden in your follicles, feeding on oils naturally secreted by your glands. At night, they use their stubby legs to climb to the surface to find mates. Perhaps the most startling fact about these mites: they were first identified in 1842, but scientists still know surprisingly little about them. "These are things that live on us — they're intimately associated with us — but they've not really been studied," says Holly Menninger, who's part of a North Carolina State project that's sampling the mites that live on hundreds of volunteers. "It's kind of crazy." Her team is among the few that trying to learn more. Here's what little we do know so far about the mites you carry everyday. ....article goes on . .. .

If and when you decide to go for Xrays, look for someone who does Penn hip. This involves a more exacting specification of placement.. . .and placement can greatly affect the way the hips appear on Xrays. The Penn hip crew claim to get accurate predictions of hip quality at 16 weeks. See http://info.antechimagingservices.com/pennhip/

This is very USA oriented, but good on the basic principals. It's worth following the links if you aren't convinced. http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2014/06/your-vet-has-heartworm-medication-secret.html note: in the US, heartworm meds require a prescription, and the vet won't give the script without the test; but you can buy Ivomectin cheaply off-label at any feed store (it's widely used on livestock) and a lot of dog owners treat off-label.

Wishing you avoid a bad draw on the puppy lotto. The OP was asking about a Frenchie, a relatively unhealthy breed . .. so they stand a good chance of ending up on the high end of the cost spectrum.

It's simpler to recommend that puppy buyers define their priorities and learn a little about the breed: then ask breeders what their breeding goals are and what they do to achieve them. If health is high on your objectives, as a puppy buyer, ask for evidence that the lines behind the pup are clear or largely clear of common possibly genetic problems (eg, epilepsy, HD/OCD, allergies and skin problems, serious early onset cancers, bloat . . . . as well as problems specific to the breed). If temperament is a big priority, look for stable temperament in the dam and evidence of stable temperament in the sire; look for breeders who temperament test. If you want to show, pay a lot of attention to breed standard. The stereotyped BYB, puppy mill, or commercial breeder will fail that test. Mentors are irrelevant. I would prefer someone who reads extensively and thinks critically than someone who follows faithfully in the footsteps of the old guard. People who live well away from urban centers are unlikely to be very active in formalized dog activities, unless they are dedicated showies. This doesn't detract from the quality of their dogs. They may be the best source for working dogs.

This. From what I recall, expiration dates on wormers are worked out by product efficacy following date of manufacture. For example, at 2 years, product X would be still 100% effective so expiration date is two years from DoM, even though at 3 years, product might still be 85% effective or 50% effectice in years years and so on. In the case of wormers, I'd be iffy about using them too far out of date (any longer than 3 months) because in my situation (foster dogs and five of my own dogs), I can't risk new dogs bringing worms in and spreading them around. Anywho.. just had a look at a few packets I have here (all purchased in 2013) and all expiration dates are 2014, including one shipped directly to me from Bayer. Brands were Paratak, Drontal, Canimax and Heartgard. So, I'd guess 12 months or 18 months from DoM. If you want to buy in bulk, perhaps it'd be a good idea to get together a few friends and buy a larger amount together? Chemical reactions and growth of organisms both go faster at higher temperatures. Keep it in the fridge and you'll at least double its lifetime. I don't know if you can by Pyrantel pamoate in Australia. It's a great wormer for everything but tapeworm and heartworm. Easy to administer to both pups and adults. quite safe. And you can buy enough to treat a larger rescue shelter for a year, or a multi dog household for several years, for <$50. I'l bet you can get it with a script, somewhere.

I think you need to think about puppy costs as a probability function. Say 90% of the time . . . depending on the breed, the breeder, and the circumstances . . . there will be no extraordinary costs, but you have to be prepared for a few grand in vet bills if you are in the unlucky 10%.

I don't like it much. Too establishment. Too stereotyped. Where do you fit on the spectrum if you improve the health of the breed and the dogs you produce by choosing healthy stock are going nowhere in the show ring? Or if you are breeding for a functional working dog, and have your own interpretation of the standard which emphasizes temerament and function. Many breeds are now in bad shape. I think the "Reputable Experienced Breeder" group has played a large role in increasing exaggerated "typey" breed features and decreasing the genetic diversity through offering popular studs. Clubs are often big on cliques, and if you have conflicts with the powers that be, you are likely to seek minimal involvement.

Well, I was reading it in total disbelief and composing my response in my head as I went. What a relief to find it is a hoax. But let's face it: governments do some pretty damned awful and weird things, so I can't feel I am entirely stupid to have not picked it as a hoax. LOL. If your moorings are in WA, you tend to believe every weird and dubious thing you hear about QLD :)

:D Ha ha! Joke's on me. :D

I thought this was a joke when I came across it . . .but conclude it's dead serious. Not sure which is worse for dogs. Looks like a very bad idea to me. http://www.burdekinherald.com/2014/01/23/government-to-introduce-22-000-black-mambas-to-help-eradicate-cane-toads/ Government to introduce 22 000 Black Mambas to help eradicate cane toads In an effort to help stop the spread of cane toads, the state government has partnered with the Burdekin Shire Council to introduce up to 22 000 Black Mambas into farms and urban backyards around the Burdekin. Burdekin Shire Council Animal Management Secretary William Matevellio said the highly venomous snakes will help reduce the population of the cane toad, a pest that causes millions of dollars of damage each year, “These cane toads cost farmers and businessman millions each year and they’re a huge annoyance to local residents because they’re weird looking and they’re just f***ing everywhere.” Premier Campbell Newman has stated that the introduction of the Black Mamba made ‘good business sense for Queensland’, “It’s a good decision, and a great example of how local government and state government can work together to deliver solutions to businesses and farmers.” The Black Mamba, a snake native to northern Africa is among the most venomous, fastest and aggressive in the world with a bite that can kill a human in 13 minutes. Mr Matevellio said the jury was still out on whether the Black Mamba will hunt the cane toads, “Currently, there is no evidence that these snakes hunt cane toads, so this is just a trial. I can’t make any promises that the toad population will be reduced. We’ll have to wait and see.” The introduction begins on the 29th of January and Council has told residents to be cautious when walking around their yards and homes. Council has also instructed residents to keep pets locked up inside until further notice.

It may help to work REALLY REALLY hard on sit/stay. Then have her sit when children arrive. Reward generously if she stays sitting, maybe also have the kids reward her when her bum is on the ground.

Absolutes generally point out the need for exceptions. I agree with 'breeders should take back as rescue dogs that they bred' as an ideal. But it is an ideal that can't always be lived up to. Breeders grow old, move into smaller houses, get dementia, become frail, change locations, etc., just like anyone else. I've returned to the US. I only had one or two dogs come back to me in my life as a breeder and had no trouble rehoming those (one was a pup and I was able to refund the person's money as well as find a good home for the dog). No one has contacted me about a dog needing a new home since I moved (in 2010), but if they did, I'd be hard put to help them. I tried to help Lab rescue in WA, but the group almost never had any dogs needing rescue.